UKC

On the 11th of Feb we reported that Daniel Woods had completed a long standing project in Boulder Canyon, Colorado, now called The Game (V16 / Font 8C+).

Here is a video from Cedar Wright of Daniel climbing the problem:

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=51923

In reply to UKC News:

Would that have had any connection to North Face by any chance? I couldn't quite tell because of all the North Face product placements.

In reply to UKC News:

I watched that only for it not to show him doing the damn thing. I feel cheated and used.

In reply to UKC News:

Yeah. Maybe UKC should have a disclaimer on the news article saying something like "coming soon.... north face will present the real video of daniel woods sending the worlds hardest boulder problem, including even more closups of exclusive north face products"

In reply to owensum: not a fan of tnf then?

In reply to UKC News:

One of the most psyched and down to earth climbers climbs one of the worlds hardest bits of rock and typical UKC tw*tt*ry moans about his sponsors getting there name on the video???

In reply to owensum:

How do you expect Cedar Wright to keep on producing his excellent videos?

Are you going to pay him? No you won't. Someone has to.

vimeo.com/cedar

http://verticalcarnival.blogspot.com/

In reply to catt:

That would be some who post on UKC who don't understand how these things work.

Expectations for free videos are high.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Actually Mick, I have no issue with the sponsorship, and I have no issue with the video just being a teaser - I get it, I get the economics of it, I get the whole basis of how it works.

My comments about TNF were that their logo seemed to be in every single shot and it felt a bit overkill.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:


Yes, they are.

And so so they should be. Those watching them are investing a valuable commodity - their time - in the brand, the celebrity and the producer. The fact that it's "free" doesn't entitle it to be crap, manipulative or dishonest. If those investing in it feel it hasn't delieverd enough to warrant the outlay, that's a problem.

I'm sure you know this better than almost anyone - this web site is "free", but we're all spending, and that means spending as in a customer-supplier relationship, our time and effort here as part of a very successful business relationship which both you and we benefit from.

The past is littered with brands which died because their product cost to much and delivered too little.

In reply to niggle:

Nice theory Niggle.

In reply to Rampikino:


Poor lad, are you OK. imagine seeing the TNF logo 6 times, I'll make you a nice cuppa tea, it'll be right..........hobnob or bourbon?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I think the problem is one of mis-selling.

"Here is a video from Cedar Wright of Daniel climbing the problem".

No it's not. It's a video from Cedar Wright of Daniel TRYING the problem.

I enjoyed the vid the by the way

In reply to niggle: I didn't find the video to be either crap, manipulative or dishonest. It's well shot and gives a good idea of the climbing, therefore not crap. I haven't run out a bought a load of TNF kit, therefore not manipulative (although I did wonder whether it was a genuine New Era cap, but that's just me). As for dishonest, perhaps it should say preview in the title or something to be 100% truthful. Watching it a few times was a lot better use of my valuable comodity than reading your post or replying.

As for the sponsorship, if I could get paid to climb simply for making sure I was wearing my sponsors brand when I was on camera, i'd be happy to do so. I've never really understood why such an id2ea rankles people.

In reply to TimS:


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was, I was simply making a point about "free" videos. Clearly some people here feel that it doesn't deliver enough for what it costs, so if I had made that video (and just so you know, i actually art direct and edit quite a lot of web video as part of my job, so please understand that I know very well how much effort has gone into it) I'd be a little disappointed.

Branding agencies actually measure company value versus what they call brand capital, which is the value of the brand as distinct from the products it represents. Videos like this improve brand capital by increasing product recognition and associations with celebrities. It's not this that rankles with people, I think, more that they just feel they got a little less than they paid for, which seems fair doesn't it?

In reply to niggle:

Can we hire you as a consultant niggle? I've spent the last two years trying to get UK outdoor companies to use more video. They are getting there. Putting value on them and transferring budget are the main stumbling blocks.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Might help to see a back of fag packet cost comparison between a typical magazine ad and a web video short.

Vids are certainly a lot more engaging than a magazine advert that you look at for two seconds. I would have thought video, if produced in right way, can deliver a much higher ROI for outdoor companies.

In reply to niggle: indeed that seems fair, and perhaps the fact that people mention the prod placement before the climbing means they missed the mark on that front. Pure for example contains a lot of sportiva product placement, but it's done very well, as it is in most of the BD videos on their vimeo site.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:




We're seeing video as this year's must-have. The main problem for most customers is cost - historically it's been difficult to find production companies who will get out of bed for the kind of budget smaller businesses have.

Luckily that's changing. Desktop editing systems are quite capable of handling the low-res video the web demands and mid-range cameras can produce perfectly decent results. So the production cost comes way down which makes it accessible.

We've got enough video already booked for this year to make it worth my while buying a second hand XL2 with trimmings and I'm getting the same chat fromother companies.

In reply to Removed User:

One difference is that you can quantify how many times a video has been watched, with a print advert you don't know how many people have seen or noticed it.

Even homemade videos can garner a huge audience dpending on the content

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Not only that, I presume we're not far away from UKC and its sponsors being able to monitor how many watch the vid, click the link and buy the [insert climbing related product].

In reply to Removed User:

All views are logged on videos hosted at UKC, and of course Vimeo and YouTube and who the referrers are.

Seeing sponsors logo's plastered all over the place is hardly a hardship.

What would you prefer no videos of all this stuff being climbed appearing on the internet soon after the ascents or, put up with a few logos sprawled over the vid?

I know what i would prefer!

In reply to Adam Lincoln: Totally agree, if it wasn't TNF it would an other brand that might not be supporting a cutting edge climber, just having their logo on his clothing.

Branding is everywhere, just look the premireship.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Starting the thing off with "Here is a video from Cedar Wright of Daniel climbing the problem" is almost trolling isn't it? I think Mick should be banned.

In reply to UKC News:

Wish there wasn't so much fake DoF/Gaussian blur applied to the whole thing.

In reply to UKC News:

It may be the world's hardest boulder problem but it's also the worlds dullest video (bar most on Yorkshiregrit.com to be fair)

In reply to gallam1:

I agree. It IS NOT 'a video from Cedar Wright of Daniel climbing the problem'