UKC

NEWS: Honnold, Potter, and Others Fired by Clif Bar for Soloing

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC News 08 Nov 2014
Alex Honnold soloing Mount Watkins on his solo ascent of 'The Triple', 4 kbThe sports-bar company Clif Bar has dropped five of its 20 sponsored climbers. Missing from its roster are Alex Honnold, Dean Potter, Steph Davis, Cedar Wright and Timmy O'Neill.

According to a source who requested anonymity, he received a call and was told that “Clif Bar was firing most every climber they sponsor who was featured in Valley Uprising.

Their explanation, 'Clif Bar is terminating support to anybody who freesolo climbs, BASE jumps or slacklines.'"

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=69292

In reply to UKC News:

Always considered clif bar to be an overpriced triumph of marketing above substance. Which just shows how well they managed to promote their core values.

I suspect it'll all get litigious.

Martin
 Jonny2vests 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

> I suspect it'll all get litigious.

No it won't.

Firing is an emotive word, I'd be willing to bet it didn't go down like that.

 timjones 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:


> I suspect it'll all get litigious.


Why?

Surely a company has every right to choose which athletes it sponsors?


In reply to UKC News:

Disappointing that they (Clif) take that stance, but it is their money.
 Michael Gordon 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

What's the big deal? Companies can sponsor who they like. If they don't think someone represents their interests well, they'll drop them. They took on new folk and drop others the whole time.
 goose299 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Ha laughable! Really don't understand they're reasoning behind this
 full stottie 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Should I be bothered?
 Steve Woollard 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Clif bars taste like shit, so no loss
 zigzag 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

If I owned a company selling on climbing gear and climbers I sponsored weren't using my product because they preferred to climb without then I would have fired them, because they're not doing what they are getting paid for simple as that.
 The Pylon King 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Brilliant!!

Bollox sponsorships.
 PPP 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

I think I have figured it out. Sponsored free soloers can't eat a Clif bar at a belay stance or in a portaledge!
 FactorXXX 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Bit cynical of them to remove sponsorship from the climbers that feature in a new film sponsored by them. A film in which, those climbers are doing the very same activities that they no longer endorse.
Sounds like they've ticked the 'extreme' end of the spectrum to add to their CV, breathed a huge sigh of relief that no one died in a film sponsored by themselves and have now decided to play it safe by dropping people who might die and somehow tarnish their brand.
In reply to Jonny2vests and timjones:

Sponsorship isn't some kind of cuddly philanthropy where an athlete gets a treat for doing something pleasing; it's a business relationship, bound by contract.

There seems to be a sub-story here where the company financed a video documenting the left-field attitude of its athletes and then terminated their contracts, apparently because of, er, their left-field attitude. As this will involve financial loss on their part, and as the company will have sought to make money off the back of the video, much hilarity is unlikely to follow.

Mark my words, there'll be tears.

I don't think I've ever actually eaten a clif bar to be fair: I never really saw the point.

Martin
 pec 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Does anybody really eat Clif Bars because they sponser Alex Honnold anyway? What a bizarre world.
 kwoods 08 Nov 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:
> Sounds like they've ticked the 'extreme' end of the spectrum to add to their CV, breathed a huge sigh of relief that no one died in a film sponsored by themselves and have now decided to play it safe by dropping people who might die and somehow tarnish their brand.

Gotta agree with you on this one
Post edited at 11:57
abseil 08 Nov 2014
In reply to pec:

> Does anybody really eat Clif Bars because they sponser Alex Honnold anyway? What a bizarre world.

Put like that, it seems bizarre, but companies [not just thinking about Clif Bars, but the big spenders, Coca Cola, Expedia, etc.] spend millions/ billions on advertising - why? Because it works. I think advertising often works subluminally/ subconsciously or whatever the term is.
 PPP 08 Nov 2014
In reply to pec:

In addition, would you not eat a bar because the company ceased the sponsorship on certain athletes?
 LeeWood 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:
I look at the ingedients before buying, not heroes

are clif bars available in UK? I like nakd bars - raw energy !
Post edited at 12:04
 timjones 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Sponsorship isn't some kind of cuddly philanthropy where an athlete gets a treat for doing something pleasing; it's a business relationship, bound by contract.

Exactly, and there are no rules saying that contracts have to be renewed. I'm betting that Clif have checked out the contracts pretty thoroughly and that there will be no room for litigation.
In reply to UKC News:

I guess they had a talk with their lawyers and got told it was not good business for a company with $500M in sales to sponsor folk to do stuff that could get them killed.

Scenarios like one of their athletes getting filmed falling to their death and it being all over the news with their name mentioned or a kid dying free soloing and the parents suing the company because they were trying to copy something they saw in a movie come to mind .
 westaway 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Climbing was "invented in the late 1800's" Amazing!
 Mark Collins 08 Nov 2014
In reply to LeeWood:

Yeah I like those nakd bars also. I think I had a free sample of a Clif Bar once at the Kendal Mountain Festival or similar, can't remember whether I thought they were any good or not and definitely haven't had any since.
 Gambit 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

I think its entirely right for a company to make their commercial decisions and as a consumer it is entirely right for me to make my own decisions. I think this seriously tarnishes the brand of Clif Bars and I will not be buying their product anymore. I will of course continue to solo, its the source man.
 Jim Brooke 08 Nov 2014
In reply to pec:

> Does anybody really eat Clif Bars because they sponser Alex Honnold anyway?

Yes, obviously. Not directly, but I bet it's the biggest single reason why so many climbers have heard of Clif bar in the first place. Now that much bigger markets than climbers have heard of Clif bar, they can afford to drop what is a rather niche market. No big loss though. I tried one once - it was foul.
 Howard J 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

It seems odd that a company which markets its product using images of climbing suddenly decides it doesn't want to be associated with actual climbers.

I can understand their objection to BASE jumping, which is somewhat illegal, but what have they got against slacklining?
 JJL 08 Nov 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Sounds like they've ticked the 'extreme' end of the spectrum to add to their CV, breathed a huge sigh of relief that no one died in a film sponsored by themselves and have now decided to play it safe by dropping people who might die and somehow tarnish their brand.

Yes - although it might also be that they have become ware of the growing concern that sponsor expectations are starting to distort the risk assessment made by these athletes... and decided that they don't want to be part of a circus that seems likely to eventually contribute to a high profile fatality. I agree that the film is a pretty big anomaly in that context, but wonder how much knowledge of actual content they had? I suspect their sponsored athletes wanted to make a relatively low budget film and they said "fine"... and later found out that it wasn't wholly on message for the brand.
In reply to JJL:

> I agree that the film is a pretty big anomaly in that context, but wonder how much knowledge of actual content they had? I suspect their sponsored athletes wanted to make a relatively low budget film and they said "fine"... and later found out that it wasn't wholly on message for the brand.

Ah, plausible deniability They'd still have to sign off on distribution, though.

I think a lot of people are still working on the assumption of a traditional British model of sponsorship - a new rope here and there, a few pairs of boots for testing.

Clif bar are a BIG company, and these sponsorships - collectively at least - will be worth six figures. I don't buy an entirely amicable separation, even if it's just sabre rattling from the no-longer-sponsored climbers.

Imagine the backlash if Honnold et al started to talk about the situation? I think the only ways unpleasantness will be avoided is with a gagging clause and/or golden goodbye.

Martin
 Steve nevers 08 Nov 2014
In reply to Jim Brooke:
> (In reply to pec)
>
> [...]
>
> Yes, obviously. Not directly, but I bet it's the biggest single reason why so many climbers have heard of Clif bar in the first place.

Can't speak for others but personally until this article came out i had sod all idea that this company sponsored climbers and slackliners. My only experience of Clif Bars is seeing them in TCA and thinking "That looks shite, and its over £2. Feck that."

All this sponsorship is bollocks anyway, If your happy to send £2 on a crap energy bar aimed at climbers or think spending over £100 on trousers will help you rockover better then please stop it! All this marketing toss is just turning climbing into the new skateboarding, and the side effect is companies thinking they can inflate prices to make a higher profit margin. End of the day the only gear worth shelling out for is kit with essential functionality the rest is just bells and whistles.
Post edited at 15:44
 wbo 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie: what backlash? What's he going to say - they didn't renew my contract? So what - happens with sponsorship a lot - you may or may not agree or have control over the reason, but it is never good form to bad mouth former sponsors.

If they've decided to drop their sponsored athletes re. Participation in illegal activities that is barely a surprise. If they've decided their target audience is triathletes, mamils and wall climbers and these guys don't fit then that's life.

I also very much doubt these are six figure contracts. I got free stuff from power bar in the 90's, which wasn't much more than a few boxes of bars and some t shirts. Even from nike et al the numbers for most people are not great

 Dave Garnett 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:
> (In reply to Jonny2vests and timjones)
>
>
> I don't think I've ever actually eaten a clif bar to be fair: I never really saw the point.
>

I'd never heard of them. I was assuming it was some supposedly cool apres ski establishment.
 henwardian 08 Nov 2014
In reply to wbo:

> it is never good form to bad mouth former sponsors.

This. If a big part of your budget balancing comes from sponsorship, you make very sure to leave quietly when dumped, whatever you might feel personally about it. The reason being that you will need to replace that sponsor with a new sponsor and if you get a rep for bad mouthing former sponsors, I would imagine potential sponsors will dry up.

> If they've decided to drop their sponsored athletes re. Participation in illegal activities that is barely a surprise.

That was exactly what I thought after watching the trailer for Valley Uprising a few minutes ago (full disclosure: I've not seen the whole film so I could be wrong about the emphasis). The film is portrayed as being about taking illegal drugs, breaking other federal laws and generally living an anarchistically based philosophy.
I'm pretty sure sponsors routinely turn a blind eye to aspects of their athletes which don't fit the product image and much to the benefit of both. But. When the athelete is out there specifically promoting values that are directly at odds with the big business views of a company as large as Clif, there are going to be consequences.

> I also very much doubt these are six figure contracts. I got free stuff from power bar in the 90's, which wasn't much more than a few boxes of bars and some t shirts. Even from nike et al the numbers for most people are not great

Yeah, I doubt it's 6 figures but things have moved on a lot from the 90s. Climbing is a mainstream sport (as in; the stream is tears and they come from the traditionalists who just caught me classifying their pursuit as a "sport") and the value of sponsorship is likely to have increased exponentially in line with the popularity of climbing.
 TobyA 08 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

In the spirits of the times:

> ...says Potter. “Shouldn’t we question when the leaders of our community try to manipulate our culture into a monocrop?”

#Parklife!



Thank you... thank you very much.
In reply to wbo:

> what backlash? What's he going to say - they didn't renew my contract? So what - happens with sponsorship a lot - you may or may not agree or have control over the reason, but it is never good form to bad mouth former sponsors.

Quite. I'm not suggesting Honnold is going to overtly bad mouth them, but at some point his version of events is going to come across, and I think the company will suffer a net loss as a result. It might not alter their bottom line much overall - we're still a minority sport (yes, we are) - but their placement in climbing will drop.

Equally, Honnold's recent activities have been more extreme, which suggests that his desire for conformity may be somewhat limited. I doubt if he's going to be frightened to speak his mind, particularly if it's in a way which suggests that Clif Bar are a bit lame (or whatever it is the kids say) compared to brand X; brand X may be happy to get some of that credibility, on which to build a sales platform and eventually become rich enough to sell out, offload its edgier athletes and go mainstream. Apparently, that happens.

> If they've decided to drop their sponsored athletes re. Participation in illegal activities that is barely a surprise.

No, it isn't a surprise. Is that the word on this? I've looked at the trailer and, whilst it mentions historic substance abuse (in the historical context of the hippy years), it doesn't necessarily imply that that's still going on.

Has anyone seen the film?

Martin

In reply to henwardian:

> I'm pretty sure sponsors routinely turn a blind eye to aspects of their athletes which don't fit the product image and much to the benefit of both. But. When the athelete is out there specifically promoting values that are directly at odds with the big business views of a company as large as Clif, there are going to be consequences.

To be fair, though, it would appear that Clif Bar have changed their views, rather than the sponsored athletes; you can almost imagine the company saying, 'Yeah, Alex, that's some good solo right there' and then the PR and legal bods panicking about risk exposure.

I'd be astounded if the company didn't have some editing power over the video, so would presume it went out in a format with which they were happy. So what then changed? For me, it's not that sponsored athletes have been dropped by an evolving and re-directing company, but that there's something fishy with this specific situation.

The company can sponsor who it likes. But there are obvious consequences for BOTH parties if the contract is broken off and so Clif Bar may be sending us a message that we're no longer needed for its business model, as it can now afford to p*ss climbers off. I can feel a Marathon moment coming on - will they rebrand as Tri Bar or some such?

Martin
 1poundSOCKS 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Has anyone seen the film?

Yes, saw the premier (I think) in the cinema in Yosemite. But I'd had a few beers, which leaves me with a very bad memory. However...

Alex Honnold comes across as a very nice chap who's happy to follow the rules, and seems to appreciate the freedom this gives him. I don't think he base jumps in the park.

Dean Potter doesn't come across so well.

I thought the film generally had an anti-ranger, anti-authority vibe.
 Robert Durran 08 Nov 2014
In reply to Howard J:
> (In reply to UKC News)
> .......but what have they got against slacklining?

What is there not to have against slacklining? Anyone know where I can buy a Clif bar?

 Robert Durran 08 Nov 2014
In reply to henwardian:

> The film is portrayed as being about taking illegal drugs, breaking other federal laws and generally living an anarchistically based philosophy.

From which we can probably conclude that real climbers do not constitute a significant part of the Clif Bar target market.
Post edited at 20:23
In reply to UKC News:

Did Clif bar only just realise Honnold solos? What's he famous for again?
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Curiouser and curiouser.

Martin
 1poundSOCKS 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

It was strange watching it with a few rangers in the audience, mixed in with some over exuberant, drunken climbers . Afterwards some of the rangers kindly volunteered to minibus the climbers back to the campsites. Times have changed.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

But changed in an anodyne Clif Bar way: peace, inclusiveness and a designated driver
 1poundSOCKS 08 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

If the park service were like Clif bar, they'd have put free beer on, and ticketed all the drunks on the way home.
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:



Martin
Wiley Coyote2 09 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

If Clif have a turnover of $508m they have moved well away from climbers into the more mainstream sports like cycling etc but inertia/habit may kept them sponsoring climbers to the extent that their list of sponsored athlete has got out of step with their sales mix to the various groups. I suspect someone has finally got round to looking at that and asked 'Why are we sponsoring so many climbers when climbers repesents a small part of our market these days and we should have more cyclists because they spend loadsamoney on this crap?'
Having decided to cull the climbers which ones do they keep? The ones least likely to end up in jail or dead, neither of which is good for their brand association.
All supposition of course but in the past when I've been involved in deciding whether to sponsor events we've always asked ouselves 1) is this a brand asociation we want? 2) will it raise our profile in the areas we either sell or want to keep selling? 3) what do we get out of it? 4) is there any potential downside?
 Offwidth 09 Nov 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

They also kindly pulled over those who ignored the free lifts and drove anyhow. Facelift evenings are joyful but rather odd at times with a mix of hardcore climbers with a smattering of superstars, rangers of various types including the climbing rangers, the regular climbing volunteers organising and running the event and whooping kids out for a party. It's all free, the beer is cheap and helping keep Yosemite clean is a good thing and the atmosphere is way better than Kendal.
Ackbar 09 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

So did they get "fired" i.e. dropped because of a breach of their contract, or was it that their contracts were not renewed? Big difference.
 JLS 09 Nov 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

>"Anyone know where I can buy a Clif bar?"

Tiso in Ratho.

I actually like them. They seem to do a good fuelling job for after work climbing. A lot of calories in a small volume which seem to release at a steady rate and don't do the sugar rush thing.
 1poundSOCKS 09 Nov 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

Were you there? I thought I was the only punter on Camp 4.
 Timmd 10 Nov 2014
In reply to zigzag:
> If I owned a company selling on climbing gear and climbers I sponsored weren't using my product because they preferred to climb without then I would have fired them, because they're not doing what they are getting paid for simple as that.

Cliff Bars are a kind of food.


Post edited at 00:27
 Offwidth 10 Nov 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Missed this Sept; last Sept was in the volunteer camp at Yellow Pines. Moff and I are there at least every other year. One year, maybe next year, we hope to be one of the most punterish big wall successes ever.
 1poundSOCKS 10 Nov 2014
In reply to Offwidth:

Cool. I love Yosemite, I'm sure we'll bump into each other over there sometime.
 Swig 10 Nov 2014
In reply to Robert Durran:

> ... Anyone know where I can buy a Clif bar?

Eighteen, the bike shop in Hope (Derbyshire) sell them. They taste ok, are expensive and it's a long way for you to come.
 Bob 11 Nov 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Interesting to see that the film has won the grand prize at this year's Banff film festival
 1poundSOCKS 11 Nov 2014
In reply to Bob:

It's a really good film, but I'm not sure film awards mean all that much. Just look at the Oscars.
 pebbles 13 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

as a stunt to intrigue us all into watching the film it would be a very effective one...will be looking out for it
 John H Bull 13 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:
Clif bar? Never bought one, and now I'm even less likely to. That's how badly they've screwed up this time...
 GrahamD 13 Nov 2014
In reply to bullybones:

> Clif bar? Never bought one, and now I'm even less likely to. That's how badly they've screwed up this time...

Er you mean they've lost a non existent customer ?really that bad ?
 John H Bull 13 Nov 2014
In reply to GrahamD:
Yep - their sales are flatlining around these parts...
 GrahamD 13 Nov 2014
In reply to bullybones:

I don't tend to buy them on the basis they taste more like a hamster treat than food !
 John H Bull 13 Nov 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

I've never tasted one - they look inedible. Can you roll them into amusing turd shapes like you can with malt loaf?
 GrahamD 13 Nov 2014
In reply to bullybones:

> Can you roll them into amusing turd shapes like you can with malt loaf?

That's what they look like anyway
 FactorXXX 14 Nov 2014
In reply to LeeWood:

Official reaction:

http://www.clifbar.com/text/a-letter-to-the-climbing-community


We’re drawing a line for ourselves. We understand that this is a grey area, but we felt a need to start somewhere and start now.


Yes, straight after they had sponsored a film with those same climbers, doing those very activities. Exquisite timing...
 GrahamD 14 Nov 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

Seems like an odd reaction on here to this. Cliff Bar seem to be getting a slating for removing sponsorship from a few climbers because they have decided the climbers don't really project the image they want to project. There isn't any moral or legal obligation to be handing out money to climbers but they have done in the past.

Why not save the moral outrage for companies who have never put sponsorship money into climbing but who nevertheless build their business on the lifestyle ?
 pebbles 14 Nov 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

after reading the clif statement i dont think its cut and dried. you could put an argument that they are concerned about the commercial pressures on professional athletes coming to include the pursuit of increasing risk?
 JuneBob 14 Nov 2014
In reply to GrahamD:
I don't really see a problem with this either. Companies change focus all the time, people are made redundant all the time, this isn't any different.
 FactorXXX 14 Nov 2014
In reply to GrahamD:

Cliff Bar seem to be getting a slating for removing sponsorship from a few climbers because they have decided the climbers don't really project the image they want to project.

It's the timing that comes across as being a bit cynical.
Sponsor a film featuring those climbers one minute and pull the plug once it's done. If they were that concerned about the image portrayed about that aspect of climbing, why sponsor the film/climbers in the first place?
 FactorXXX 14 Nov 2014
In reply to Rob Parsons:

I've been climbing for about 35 years now.
What's a 'Clif Bar'?


I believe it's some sort of energy food. So, if you've been climbing for 35 years, you might well be in need of one!!!

 Rob Parsons 14 Nov 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

Thanks. I take a break occasionally.
 eltankos 14 Nov 2014
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Are you sponsored by Kit-Kat?
 TobyA 14 Nov 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

The timing could be entirely coincidental. Their statement seems pretty reasonable, it can be both an ethical and a business decision. Honnold's movies are incredible, he is an incredible climber, but I've argued before here (as have many others) that I feel a bit uncomfortable watching them because he's taking a risk to entertain us.
 1poundSOCKS 14 Nov 2014
In reply to TobyA:

> it can be both an ethical and a business decision

I wonder how much percentage ethical, and how much percentage business!
 Doghouse 14 Nov 2014
In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

> I wonder how much percentage ethical, and how much percentage business!

Does it matter?
 1poundSOCKS 14 Nov 2014
In reply to Doghouse:

You sound grumpy.
 John2 14 Nov 2014
In reply to TobyA:

'he's taking a risk to entertain us'

Do you really think so? He's taking a risk because it's what he wants to do.
 GrahamD 14 Nov 2014
In reply to FactorXXX:

I don't think the timing is cynical - it might just be they have a new head of marketing or some such.
 stp 14 Nov 2014
In reply to John2:

> He's taking a risk because it's what he wants to do.

Or is it because he's being paid to do job? Once you start getting paid to do something one's motivations are bound to get somewhat blurred I think. To me that's a key point with paying, or even hero-worshipping in the media, the art of soloing.

 ryan_d 15 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

I'm sure Honnold isn't too worried. Clif were hardly his biggest sponsor.....that would be North Face, so hardly a problem. He's also (from what I can assume about him from listening to him) that he is hardly the kind of person to jump up and down over this, and as someone else posted, you don't bad mouth sponsors, current or former. Not when you are totally reliant on them for your business.

Whether there is something else at play, or its dubious timing, in the grand scheme of things its hardly a big deal. Clif are hardly a major player....they are just one of many doing ok (again I assume) in a minority sport. Be interesting to see if they change the logo though.

Ryan
 Jonny2vests 18 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

> Imagine the backlash if Honnold et al started to talk about the situation? I think the only ways unpleasantness will be avoided is with a gagging clause and/or golden goodbye.

“I think it’s completely fair for them to draw a line... It’s a very personal decision.”

Alex Honnold

Clif Bar Gate seems to be some way off.
In reply to Jonny2vests:

I'll see your magnanimous Honnold and raise you an embittered Potter. An excerpt from a NY Times article a few days ago:

Speaking of Clif Bar, Potter said: “It’s understandable if they say, ‘We shouldn’t have supported the film and we’re not aligned with you guys.’ I would have understood, and said, ‘Yeah, I know we’re pretty out there.’ But what they did was a filthy business move. They still support the film, but not the athletes? It seemed sleazy that Clif Bar would use some of my best climbs, and Alex’s best climbs, as a marketing tool on one hand, but then fire us on the other.”

Martin
 galpinos 18 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

Dean Potter always comes across as a bit of a tit whenever he opens his mouth though.
In reply to galpinos:

Well, that's often how these things kick off - both sides seem to be cheesing the other off.

But what Potter's saying is essentially what I was referring to previously: from what I see, the company haven't stopped associating themselves with the film, so are probably happy to get exposure and associated sales from views of it.

Martin
 GrahamD 18 Nov 2014
In reply to maisie:

>They still support the film, but not the athletes? It seemed sleazy that Clif Bar would use some of my best climbs, and Alex’s best climbs, as a marketing tool on one hand, but then fire us on the other.”

Fired ? they weren't employees were they ?

In reply to GrahamD:

> >They still support the film, but not the athletes? It seemed sleazy that Clif Bar would use some of my best climbs, and Alex’s best climbs, as a marketing tool on one hand, but then fire us on the other.”

> Fired ? they weren't employees were they ?

I have no clue: it wasn't me who said it. Potter and Honnold would know more about all that.

Martin
 jon 20 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:
Honnold seems moved to write this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/opinion/the-calculus-of-climbing-at-the-e...
Post edited at 16:52
 kwoods 20 Nov 2014
In reply to jon:

Excellent article, Honnold is extremely impressive.
 Fat Bumbly2 21 Nov 2014
I have now heard of a Clif Barr, so from and ad PoV a partial result. Sadly for them I have also spotted a few reviews.

Sponsorship is intersting. Vauxhall stopped sponsoring the fifth division years ago, but got years of free exposure from "Vauxhall Conference" and Cornhill's exposure outlived their test match sponsorship too.

I wonder if there is some hamsterwheel effect for the big corporations? Say Coca Cola withdrew entirely - the effect on their ID and reputation of being "invisible" may be harmful, so they have to keep going.

 jezb1 21 Nov 2014
In reply to UKC News:

Whatever you do, don't start reading the comments at the bottom of his reply, they're depressing.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...