I really, really hate that term "overreacting." This implies that things fit into three easy boxes: i) overreaction, ii) underreaction," or iii) an appropriate reaction. Often an "underreaction" is the "cool" thing to do, especially when it comes to women. Women are seen as "chill" if they have an underreaction and "crazy" if they have a so-called overreaction.
If it viscerally pisses you off, figure out why. Articulate that argument, and put it in a framework that others can understand and perhaps realize they feel that way too. Or, you can play devil's advocate and present your case cautiously, with the caveats that most certainly come with any strong position on something.
For what it's worth, I saw that and rolled my eyes. So, no. You are not "overreacting" because frankly I don't believe that's a thing. You had a reaction, and any reaction is valid, especially if you can articulate why you had the reaction you did.
Every part of this is worth repeating:)
Great points too by JenSW and Duckie.
And +1 to this being a tired, unoriginal logo idea. Everything a logo should do this doesn't. Why would they want to piggyback their business recognition on trucker's mudflaps and show a woman in a non active position that says, "Look at my flowing hair under my helmet while I'm sitting on the ground (weird) on my ass"? Yeah, they've lost me. I don't identify with that at all.
ABarnes, I think the experiment you did in your shop was smart. Unlike most of us responding, you have to think about more than if you personally like a product or not--you have to think about your customer base. When you run/own a store, you have to think about your "brand" and how you're perceived. It sounds like you knew right away that this logo would be a problem. The company dropping the logo just underscores that you were thinking
--not overreacting. Smart business move on your part and on theirs.
If I liked two local cycling shops equally and one started carrying a brand that I thought was in any way lame, especially to women, I'd be less likely to go there. Further, if one carried top notch gear and tried to have great women's stuff, I would go out of my way to be loyal to them. I do not think I am unique in this regard among female cyclists and triathletes. We work hard, we want our shit to work, and, we want to be taken seriously when we come in. (Btw, no, we do not want to hear about your last fucking cylcocross race in minute detail wrenchdude.)
OTOH, there's another group of women who seek out things that they think are "sexy" or "girlie" in cycling/tris as a criteria over, or on par with, performance. So maybe this company was trying to appeal to this group? This might be a smart marketing decision in that there are women who want to be perceived this way and want gear that reflects that. A lot of these same women seem to spend a lot of money on their kit and accessories too, more so than performance based items. It's not always
an either/or, but if you are trying to appeal to serious athletes, I don't blame you for not wanting to be the shop that sells the (lesser quality) "girlie" gear or a product that might be perceived as objectifying women.
I'm guessing in the end this company decided the logo was too polarizing and they'd risk losing business. It certainly seems that your in-store poll showed that might be true.