UKC

http://www.explore-mag.com/Gadds_Truth_An_Honest_Look_at_Athletic_Sponsorsh...

"Today at Outdoor Retailer, the big question is not, “What have you climbed?” but “What’s your Instagram and Snapchat handle?” Your followers directly equal your worth to a potential sponsor. There are athletes getting serious sponsorship dollars based not on their performance, but simply on their social media clout. Social media isn’t about chronicling performance for sponsors; it is, itself, performance. It’s now not necessarily what you have done as an athlete, but how many people care enough about what you’re doing to follow you. Which brings up some interesting questions about what we put into our feeds, and what the public and sponsors ultimately want to see..... I suspect I won’t ever be able to compete with a climber-girl in a tank top on a summer day."

In reply to Damo:

True in some cases but not by all means all or probably even he majority.

In reply to Mr Gadd

true.

for earlier successful efforts think public school girls and boys and everest

In reply to Damo: I think he's chosen the wrong people to slate to be honest. By talking about girls he exposes his own sexism somewhat. The reality is girls find it harder to be sponsored for their achievements alone precisely because of the Kim kardasian click world we live in. He could equally have pointed the finger at the debacle over honold etc being dropped because their content was too rad... Guys get the lions share of sponsorship, and so it's harder for women to get noticed. And some have figured out that them looking good will get them where they need/want. Don't blame them, blame the companies who ignored them in the first place.

The reality is that the outdoor industry isn't the warm cuddly place we like to think it is. Maybe 30 years ago, but go around ISPO or outdoor and you can smell the money. And you can tell where that money is by the size of the stands. The big ones are clothes stands. So fashion is what is driving this. The same fashion that you see on catwalks only a bit more pastel and block colours. And it's is the discerning public which is driving that because we follow the clickbait.

In reply to Damo:

This seems to be something that's in the media in the U.S. At the mo, this was on TGR:

http://www.tetongravity.com/story/adventure/is-this-real-life-outdoor-women...

Avoiding the "pretty girls get it easy line", the issue Gads starts with was epitomised by Five Ten UK by dropping a lot of their climbers for not having a regular blog/Instagram/tumblr, despite the fact they were some of the best performers.

In reply to Damo:

I haven't read the article, merely the quote you have highlighted. It does raise some interesting points. I think the climber-girl comment is a nod to click bait, rather than any inherent sexism, but again I should read the whole article I suppose. Nothing to stop him becoming click bait for those preferring the male torso, although topless ice climbing would be particularly niche - logo tattoos anyone.

Isn't this a great opportunity for the bumbler, levelling the playing field and allowing potentially anyone regardless of climbing ability to become sponsored by displaying talent in other areas (writing, photography, videography, marketing).

Not sure how you attract sponsors by complaining about the situation, but hat's off to Will Gadd and other top climbers, they now and probably for some time I suspect, not only have the discipline to be brilliant climbers but the whole package in terms of the social media spectrum required to sell the goods.

In reply to galpinos:

That's because judging by 5tens recent products, they are producing fashion items, not those best suited to outdoor use.

In reply to Damo:

Like it or not, this is how the world works. It's the same in many other industries too. Take publishing, for example; many publishers these days demand new authors to have a proven track record of social media success. If they can't sell themselves online then the quality of their work often counts for little.

There's no point blaming any particular individuals or groups for this. It's a huge and complicated web of issues.

In reply to Damo:

Unfortunately it's the very nature of sponsorship. It's a commercial relationship where someone is paid to make someone else's brand prominent. It's not simply a reward for being good at climbing.

In reply to Only a hill:


That last sentence doesn't necessarily follow. Can't publishers read someone's work and decide whether it's any good by themselves? So sometimes they may have to take a punt. But then it may pay off.

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Whether a book is any good isn't the point commercially, it's whether it will sell. And an author with an established consumer base, better still, one that the author rather than the publisher has worked to develop, is a better bet for securing a return on their investment.

In reply to Damo:
Smacks a bit of plain and simple social media envy. Willing to bet that the guys at the top of their game are still commanding bigger sponsorship packages than women at the same level, Gadd included.

That said, he makes good general points about social media and expectations on athletes to sell themselves. I honestly think he can't complain too much as he's someone who has been very much at the forefront of blogging and self promotion. Where he has led, others have followed.

I also took the time to read the Teton Gravity link- I dislike the way that the outdoor industry perpetuates unattainable images of women, to sell products- just like the fashion and beauty industry- its a con, only more so, as nobody looks that good after a few days in the hills. The women's outdoor market is relatively young and growing- there is an opportunity to break the mould. I personally am more inspired and interested in real, gritty images and blogs, rather than soft focus pictures of long hair in meadows.

In reply to Snoweider:

You're damn right it's a con. It's depressing how marketing led companies are rather than product led. If a product is good and people get to know it's good it will sell without the help of glossy images IMO. When the colour of a product is more important that the performance then you know there's something wrong with the way companies are thinking... I often try and think of a truely innovative game changing product in the industry and I struggle. The vast majority of things which are given industry awards are some minor tweak. Lots of self congratulatory back patting but not much real content...

In reply to Michael Gordon:

Yes, this is of course true. But it can't be denied that nowadays proven social media skills are becoming more and more important for publishers. Sadly, taking a punt on unproven talent is much rarer these days. I'm sure the same is true for climbers seeking sponsorship.

In reply to beardy mike:


But is your opinion backed up by the balance sheets of profitable outdoor companies? I don't know and I'm glad that, say, DMM still seem to be doing well with close up pictures of krabs or cams as adverts, but there are lots of companies going the other way.

To their credit, big mainstream clothing brands don't go in that much for the scantily clad girls thing do they? Attractive 20 or 30 something women, yes, but men as well and all dressed up in numerous layers of goretex and fleece, while skiing on snow the likes of which I rarely get to see!

In reply to TobyA:
The trouble with hardware is that its low margin. Clothes on the other hand comparitively they rake it in. Maybe not quite like real fashion brands but they do well out of it in general. That's why nearly all the hardware companies (with the obvious exception of DMM) now have clothing lines. Even there though, DMM seem to have other more profitable revenue streams - their industrial line. They've done this because they can't remain profitable by just producing crabs.

But putting all that to one side for one moment it would seem to me that there are only two real markets to be in in general. Either low cost high volume or high cost low volume. Talking to friends the middle ground doesn't really do much it would seem. Low cost high volume will sell because people will buy it anyway - they care less because they're not spending much on the item. High cost, well that's where marketing comes in. But when you really look at the product side by side, is there really that much to distinguish between it all? If you take top end Petzl crab and put it next to a top end BD or DMM or WC is there much to seperate them? Not really. To the really expert eye yes, but to the average joe no. So all they have left is convincing you that their product is better by putting it on harnesses of people who theoir customers find aspirational - and whether they are hugely talented or not is irrelevant. We are driven by visual stimulae and what catches our eye makes us buy.

Which leads us back to sponsored heros and pretty girls (who incidentally climb far better than any of us ever will). The notion that a sponsored climber has to perform at top level to sell well is incorrect. They have to be aspirational. In athletics that is a much more cut and dried affair - you run the 100m like Usain Bolt and you don't need to do much to sell some Nike's. With climbing its harder because the interest in competition is not as prolific. Instead picture of people in places we want to go is appealing. 90% of climbers know in their heart of hearts they don't really want to climb E9 or VIII. They want to go places to have adventures and that's what sells. And that's what companies use to their benefit.

So back to my premise. If you have no real product advantage then you have to rely on marketing to sell stuff. DMM is a prime example of a company who has excellent product which sells well because it's good. All you hve to do is pick it up in a shop to know that it's good. BD is a company who sells well because they have a massive maketing strategy. Is their product as good or as innovative as DMM's? Not a chance. They rely on buying power and their image to make sure they pull the punters in. Sure their product is good. But their cams are really not that different to 10 years ago, their crabs are pretty standard, their packs aren't great, their skis are way overpriced... just look at their stock prices which have suffered badly over the last 2 years and you'll see a different story to the one they present up front. And in the mean time they have brought out clothes to bouy them up... to my mind its pretty much the case where product is really good, they don't need clothes... Petzl, Metolius, DMM - I could go on, but not for that long...

In reply to BnB:


Which is why the market is the enemy of art.

In reply to Damo:

I totally understand how more of a social media following is more important than how hard you're climbing.

Does anyone really believe Ondra or whoever climbs as hard as they do because of the shoes they're wearing? Nope. It's because they are genetic freaks who work incredibly hard.

Surely it makes sense a climbing brand would want to be more associated with interesting people do adventurous things than simply whoever is climbing the hardest number?

In reply to Kemics:


But are people who do adventurous and interesting things the best at playing the social media game to the satisfaction of businesses? More likely, brands want to be associated with people who play the game and are good at it, with no regard at all to whether they're interesting or adventurous. I would say that climbing the hardest number is, from the sponsor's POV, a pretty good asset, compared to being interesting.

In reply to beardy mike:

So, what you're saying Mike is that WC have had to release a clothing line because their new double axle cam are going to be rubbish.....?

In reply to Kemics:

They used to sponsor the people climbing the hardest as they were the people who featured in "the mags". Now, with all the online media outlets people can create their own hype regardless of ability or achievement which has skewed the playing field.

In reply to galpinos:
Haha - what I'm saying is that climbing gear isn't profitable. Clothes are. Am I proud of what I did? Mostly - there are things I'd have changed given the opportunity. Are WC struggling? All you got to do is look on Duedil and compare that to International Safety (ISC - Denney Moorhouses industrial company) or DMM International, Excalibur and DMM Engineering...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Or look at it another way and the market and art can live happily side by side. The problem with commerce taking an interest in art is that commercial drivers seek control, which compromises the creative process. A truly creative uncommercial process can proceed unhindered and unfettered, its purity shines through.

The recently departed Colin Welland said exactly that about the making of Chariots of Fire. The budget was so low that no one outside the creative team paid any attention to what they were doing, no great sums of money being at stake. The result was a thing of beauty.

In reply to beardy mike:

WC seem like they have been off the pace and dropping behind the others but with the superlights (if they can sort the tooling/supply issue), the superlights offsets and the new cams (which look excellent) they are getting back up there as one of the front runners. Whether that will be the same financially though I don't know......

In reply to Damo:

Thinking about the achievements of the climber is missing the point. They are not sponsored as athletes, they are billboards so the more exposure they have the more valuable they are. Just as a billboard on a prime site by the traffic lights on a busy road costs more than one up a side street or a prime time TV ad spot costs more than one in daytime graveyard. Don't blame the companies, who are only following the numbers, don't blame the climbers for being successful at marketing themselves. It's other climbers who decide via their viewing habits who has the higher profile and who should be sponsored (and it will be climbers, I suppose, since if all you want is exposed flesh to drool over other sites are available - er.... at least so I'm told)

In reply to beardy mike:


Now summer is over, I'll be wearing my DMM hoody down to the ClimbingWorks and expect to see lots of their hoodies and tshirts and soft goods like Boulder buckets and chalk bags, certainly metolius hoodies, Sportiva jackets - I could go on, but not for that long.....

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

A case in point is spotting the Arcteryx sponsored climbers in the New Peak Limestone North guide. That little logo is on the cover and other photos which are the billboard of our times.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

That logo is on the clothing of our second best boulderer and accomplished route climber. That's not quite the point that was being made.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Yeah sure. So they do some hoodies etc. But thats not exactly the bulk of their product or not what they're reknowned for is it. BD for example have thrust their product in a totally different direction to the one they started with - having started with hardware they now have an enormous clothing range, skis, bindings, boots, etc which constitute the vast majority of their product.

This:
http://www.metoliusclimbing.com/clothing.html
and this:
http://dmmclimbing.com/products/clothing/

don't compare to this:
http://blackdiamondequipment.com/en/apparel
and this:
http://blackdiamondequipment.com/en/womens-apparel

In reply to beardy mike:
Hi Mike
Absolutely take your point, but it depends what game you play. In bouldering, DMM is all about hoodies, chalk bags and rucksacks. Add alpha sport carabiners and you've covered sport climbing. Got to admit it is backed up by excellent engineering.

In reply to galpinos:


Quite right, sorry, I was addressing Wiley Coyote's post about billboards etc. No suggestion that Mina etc are featured for anything but merit. That aside, it is beautifully photographed product placement, and I'm sure it would make it into the annual product report on media exposure. Or I'm just cynical. Or both ;-(

In reply to Damo:

Interesting read but largely wrong I think. If it were true then who are these people getting sponsorship by blogging rather than climbing hard? I can't think of any. Look in the news section, climbers are there largely for their achievements, not getting their kit off.

The only one was that American woman who had studied marketing last year, and I can't even remember her name now. And it turned out she wasn't completely hopeless anyway, she competed in bouldering WCs and did OK.

The internet is full of highly attractive girls wearing very little so you don't need to follow someone on Twitter to find such photos. Doesn't make sense.

In reply to galpinos:


Being a sponsored athlete is a job, the job description being to assist the sponsor's marketing efforts. Part of that is being very good at the actual climbing, but it's only part of it. Read the chapter on sponsorship in Jerry's autobiography: he understood what the job was and applied the same drive and professionalism to making himself valuable to his sponsors that he did to everything else.

You wouldn't have much chance of staying in any job if you were stellar at one aspect of the job description and crap at / deliberately ignored the rest.

In reply to Damo: & thread in general really.

I gather that this person is a climber many people may be thinking about when it comes to people marketing thier image/style over being a top rate climber.

http://eveningsends.com/climbing/athlete-models-sierra-blair-coyle/

In reply to Timmd: again. But the fact remains she is a decent climber , better than most posting here, so how good should you be to deserve sponsorship?

There is a fundamental question a company needs to ask when sponsoring - are you paying someone to climb as an act of charity, or are you expecting them to give you something (media coverage) in return?

As an artist would you sell your work , or would you , when finished, put it in a cupboard and never show it to anyone?

In reply to wbo:
During the 90's and when I was growing up and getting into climbing it always seemed to be that the people getting sponsorship were at the cutting edge, or were doing other things which were remarkable, & it seems like there's been a shift slightly.

It always seemed like companies sponsored the climbers who were doing the hardest things, or doing something very adventurous.

If I was an artist I would sell it, but it would be my ability (via my art) which I'd be selling, rather than my ability to look photogenic and to appear to be having a desirable life style.

(An uncle is an artist & art teacher, and we can have picture shop owners asking how to buy his work if we take his pictures in to be framed.)

In reply to AlanLittle:

But he probably couldn't have done that in the way he did if he wasn't climbing what were amongst the hardest routes at the time.


Probably true.

In reply to timmd: I guess it has changed, but now you're not limited to a small number of magazines - blame the Internet, and many more ways to generate exposure.

I would also assume the total amount of money being paid in sponsorship is a lot larger than it was 20 years ago.

In reply to wbo:


Good enough that you can hang around whilst looking good. She isn't sponsored for her climbing ability.

In reply to wbo:

There's a been a loss of integrity, dammit.