The same e-bike is bought by three completely different routes, and each of those routes needs a different video. That is the verdict, and it explains why campaigns in this category often look good measured by reach and poor measured by conversion.
Anyone who plays only one route addresses part of the market and leaves the rest without an answer to the question actually on their mind.
The three routes
They differ not in the product but in who decides and who pays. That changes what the footage has to do.
| Route | Who decides | What the video has to deliver |
|---|---|---|
| Direct purchase | the person themselves | comparison, spec, test ride, nearby workshop |
| Provision by the employer | employer and employee together | how to raise the subject at work |
| Salary conversion within a leasing scheme | the person, within their employer's offer | what the process at work looks like and what it means |
The direct purchase
The classic case and the only one where the usual arguments bite: range, motor, weight, frame size, accessories, service.
Here the winning video shows a real test ride rather than a staged one, and answers the workshop question, because an e-bike without reachable service becomes an expensive problem.
The direct purchase is also the only route on which price plays a role in the video. On the other two routes the buyer never sees the total price but a monthly figure, and a video arguing from the shop price talks past their perception.
The route through the employer
Here the buying person cannot decide alone. They need an offer from their employer, and if there is none, their next step is not the shopping cart but a conversation with HR.
A video playing this route therefore has an unusual call to action: not buy, but ask. It also addresses two audiences at once, the employees and the companies, and that can be separated cleanly into different cuts.
Why the two workplace routes are not the same thing
Marketing likes to treat them as one offer and they are two constructions with different consequences.
With provision on top of salary the company gives the bike as an addition. Nothing changes in the employee's pay, and the decision sits almost entirely with the employer.
With salary conversion the employee gives up part of their gross pay. The other way round, the decision sits with them, within what their company offers, and they weigh a monthly cost against a benefit.
For communication that means: one video convinces a company to introduce a scheme, the other convinces a person to use a scheme that exists. Packing both into one piece of footage produces a video that says nothing to either group.
What the tax rule actually says
This gets shortened regularly, and the shortcut is expensive, because it creates an expectation the employer cannot meet.
Section 3 no. 37 of the German Income Tax Act exempts benefits granted in addition to the salary already owed by the employer for the provision of a company bicycle, provided that bicycle is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of section 6(1) no. 4 sentence 2.
Two conditions, and both get skipped.
In addition to salary. The provision describes the bike the company adds on top. A model in which employees give up pay is by its construction something else, and pulling both into one sentence promises a tax exemption that does not apply to the second variant in that form.
Not a motor vehicle. Faster pedelecs fall out of this category. For a range that includes such models, the blanket statement is simply wrong.
From that follows a simple rule: the tax treatment is not explained in the video. It is named, with a pointer to the place that can answer it for the specific employer.
That is not caution for its own sake. A person who walks into HR with a false expectation formed by a video, and gets a different answer there, does not buy later. They do not buy at all.
The objection from sales
"That is too complicated for a video." The objection comes every time, and what it really means is: we want one piece of footage for all three routes.
The short answer is that the three routes have different calls to action and one video can only carry one. The longer answer is that the workplace route needs no explanation at all: it needs one sentence and a pointer. It only becomes complicated when you try to give advice inside the video.
The range you cannot promise
The most asked question in the category, and the least answerable. Actual range depends on the weight of rider and luggage, the profile of the route, the assistance level chosen, tyre pressure and temperature.
A figure in the audio track is therefore a claim about somebody else's ride. What works is naming the conditions together with the result: this person, this weight, this route, this level, this outcome. That is checkable and therefore believed.
The side effect is pleasant: a ride told that way is a better video than a number, because it shows a route.
What gets filmed
Four shots carry this category, and three of them are missing from most campaigns.
The climb. The moment an e-bike is bought for. Uncut, with an audible motor, with a person speaking while riding.
The rain. Not as drama but as everyday life. Shooting only in sunshine means shooting past the commute.
The battery. Removing, carrying, charging, putting it back. A hand movement that makes the difference between a fourth-floor flat and an underground garage.
Parking it. The lock, the weight when lifting, the space needed in a cellar or a hallway. The least glamorous shot of the day and the one that most often answers the final question.
The four together cost half a shooting day and answer most of what this category's customer service answers daily. Shoot a slow-motion sequence on a country road instead and you get a nice video and the same questions as before.
Who stands in front of the camera
For the direct purchase, the shot is carried by whoever actually uses the bike, with the luggage they really carry, on the route they really ride. A person with a child seat and shopping is more convincing than any sporting staging, because it shows the reason for buying.
For the two workplace routes, the most credible voice is often somebody from a company that has already introduced the scheme, rather than the brand itself. That person can say what the company had to do, and that is exactly what the HR department on the other side wants to know.
What belongs in the brief
Five decisions, without which a shoot in this category delivers unusable material.
- The route this footage is for, and only that one.
- The call to action matching the route: cart, conversation at work, or the existing portal.
- The conditions of any range figure, in writing from the company, not estimated on set.
- The model class, because faster pedelecs are treated differently in tax and in law.
- No explanation of tax law in the audio track, but a pointer.
Sources
- Section 3 no. 37 of the German Income Tax Act, exemption for the provision of a company bicycle
- Section 6 of the German Income Tax Act, valuation
Checked on 10 September 2026. This guide is not tax advice. The treatment in an individual case depends on the model and on how the scheme is set up at the employer.
