This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
![[Is Sponsorship a Sin?, 2 kb]](http://img.ukclimbing.com/t/129462.jpg "[Is Sponsorship a Sin?, 2 kb]")
Scott Semple recently wrote a blog entry titled Is Sponsorship a Sin? in which he states his case that the wrong people are often sponsored and this is a bad thing:
"Many of the athletes you often see in climbing magazines are phenomenal at self-promotion, but range from average to crap at actually climbing."
In this video he raises his points at a slideshow:
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=50476
In reply to UKC News: I'm pretty sure that sponsored climbers have no influence on what I buy. I buy gear by brands I have heard of and know have a long track record. I buy gear that fits/does the job. Finally I am more likely to buy gear if it is on offer. The only time I came close to buying something based on it's use by a famous climer was when I tried some Anasazis(?) on because Johnny Dawes wore them on lots of his gritstone ascents. I assumed that he wouldn't wear them on dangerous climbs unless they were good. But then I tried them on and they didn't fit, so I bought something else.
In reply to UKC News:
most boring and unentertaining video for a loooong time
most boring and unentertaining video for a loooong time
In reply to UKC News:
I think the point about sponsorship is to get wider coverage of the brand amongst the key demographic that one wishes to target. Well promoted climbers get airtime based upon their promotion and so gain sponsorship in lieu of that.
I think it is more poignant to note that people who buy product based upon whether Joe Fantastic Climber uses it are just fools. It is the same consideration as people buying inappropriate kit because it looks better than the right stuff.
If anyone is to be admonished then it is the companies who promote their brands in this cheap (in every sense of the word) fashion. It is cheap because it devalues the ethics that climbing (and so necessarily their business) is built upon. It is also cheap because the climbers allegedly do the self promotion and the sponsors just give them some free, relatively inexpensive, kit. In that latter sense the climbers should not be looked up to as they are just media whores, but lets face it Britney Spears does good trade and she cannot sing to save anyone's life ( http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/11ed201165/britney-spears-live-from-that-h... )
I think the point about sponsorship is to get wider coverage of the brand amongst the key demographic that one wishes to target. Well promoted climbers get airtime based upon their promotion and so gain sponsorship in lieu of that.
I think it is more poignant to note that people who buy product based upon whether Joe Fantastic Climber uses it are just fools. It is the same consideration as people buying inappropriate kit because it looks better than the right stuff.
If anyone is to be admonished then it is the companies who promote their brands in this cheap (in every sense of the word) fashion. It is cheap because it devalues the ethics that climbing (and so necessarily their business) is built upon. It is also cheap because the climbers allegedly do the self promotion and the sponsors just give them some free, relatively inexpensive, kit. In that latter sense the climbers should not be looked up to as they are just media whores, but lets face it Britney Spears does good trade and she cannot sing to save anyone's life ( http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/11ed201165/britney-spears-live-from-that-h... )
In reply to UKC News: Of course. You can climb the hardest routes, but if no one hears about it, why would anyone want to pay to be associated with you.
It's about creating an image, I have a few things in mind.
It's about creating an image, I have a few things in mind.
In reply to Ackbar:
Barf!
There is more to sponsorship that "i want to be that person".
> I'm pretty sure that sponsored climbers have no influence on what I buy. I buy gear by brands I have heard of
Barf!
There is more to sponsorship that "i want to be that person".
In reply to UKC News:
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your post and the link to my article. You raise some good points.
Here are a few more posts that may shed some light on a couple points that have been raised here and elsewhere:
Sponsorship Myths: http://www.scottsemple.com/sponsorship-myths/
"It's up to the company": http://www.massivemouse.com/its-up-to-the-company/
Pretenders: http://www.massivemouse.com/why-pretenders-hurt-your-brand/
Cheers,
Scott
Hi Jack,
Thanks for your post and the link to my article. You raise some good points.
Here are a few more posts that may shed some light on a couple points that have been raised here and elsewhere:
Sponsorship Myths: http://www.scottsemple.com/sponsorship-myths/
"It's up to the company": http://www.massivemouse.com/its-up-to-the-company/
Pretenders: http://www.massivemouse.com/why-pretenders-hurt-your-brand/
Cheers,
Scott
In reply to Alun: Ok, but I did not say that.
In reply to UKC News:
Scott makes some good points. Interesting stuff.
I think sponsors should concentrate on two groups - a small group of established top performers who add kudos and exposure to the brand, whilst also helping cultivate new talent.
The perennial problem is how to choose the up-and-coming youths. This is the group who stands to benefit most from sponsorship, and are the future of the sport, yet are usually pretty naive as to how the industry works. Its easy for the loud, not-so-good ones to get a load of sponsorship whilst the shy talent drops out.
I think there's also room for sponsoring climbers who aren't neccessarily the best but who are great communicators and motivators.
I don't get inspired by some top athletes whose careers are a string of carefully planned ascents calculated to get great media exposure, but don't do much 'real' climbing - just going out and performing well on whatever they try.
On the other hand you've got guys like Unclesomebody, who knows he'll never be the best but is totally focussed on seeing how far he can take his own journey, and writes very well about it. If I was a boot company, in this day and age I'd definitely be looking to align myself with guys like him.
Web 2.0 seems to have sorted out the bullsh*t issue though. I can't see a climber staying sponsored very long nowadays without providing any photos or video footage.
Scott makes some good points. Interesting stuff.
I think sponsors should concentrate on two groups - a small group of established top performers who add kudos and exposure to the brand, whilst also helping cultivate new talent.
The perennial problem is how to choose the up-and-coming youths. This is the group who stands to benefit most from sponsorship, and are the future of the sport, yet are usually pretty naive as to how the industry works. Its easy for the loud, not-so-good ones to get a load of sponsorship whilst the shy talent drops out.
I think there's also room for sponsoring climbers who aren't neccessarily the best but who are great communicators and motivators.
I don't get inspired by some top athletes whose careers are a string of carefully planned ascents calculated to get great media exposure, but don't do much 'real' climbing - just going out and performing well on whatever they try.
On the other hand you've got guys like Unclesomebody, who knows he'll never be the best but is totally focussed on seeing how far he can take his own journey, and writes very well about it. If I was a boot company, in this day and age I'd definitely be looking to align myself with guys like him.
Web 2.0 seems to have sorted out the bullsh*t issue though. I can't see a climber staying sponsored very long nowadays without providing any photos or video footage.
In reply to UKC News: Interesting stuff.
According to Scott's 3 point test, I am certainly in the "sponsored but not worthy" corner of his matrix: I have done nothing in the past year that is important in the evolution of the sport, or that is applauded by the elite in any discipline.
But I have tried and failed to do things in the past year that might have met this criteria (first ascent of a big unclimbed face in Patagonia, and first 24 hour winter Ramsay Round). On neither of these attempts do I regret making the decisions I made - the face in Patagonia was too objectively dangerous, and the unique conditions needed to do the Ramsay Round on skis rapidly dissapeared 8 hours into my attempt and descended into weather that made simply getting out of the mountains challenging enough.
Scott shrugs off the suggestion that athletes are under pressure from their sponsors to do dangerous things, and I'd agree with this. However, if I was to take his points seriously I would feel under pressure to do something "impressive" (and possibly dangerous) quick smart before I fell off his matrix altogether. Perhaps I should be on high alert for the first hints of winter in Scotland, racing up there and strapping myself to some grade IX horrorshow in order to restore the legitimacy of my sponsorship. But I have the rest of my life to lead, and at the moment I only get a few shots each year to do something that might push me into the "worthy" category. This year I've failed both times.
So should I phone my sponsors up, 'fess up to my inadequacies and tell them they should sponsor Tony Stone instead, cos he's much better than me but too shy to ask? Perhaps I should, but I don't think it's a decision that should be mine to make; I have little knowledge about exactly what makes a person worth sponsoring, and for all I know trying and failing to do impressive things is also worthwhile for the "brand image". I think that this is a decision that is best left to those doing the sponsoring to make.
There is also a huge problem about being objective about your own achievements. Depending on how strict a definition of "important in the evolution of the sport" you apply, perhaps I've never been in the "worthy but sponsored" corner. But again, I don't think this is a decision it is fair to impose upon me. I try to do things that I find inspiring, and that push my own personal limits, it is surely up to marketting people to decide if these achievements also merit sponsorship? There's no way I can be objective enough about myself to work out exactly where on the Will-Gadd-to-punter-continuum I currently reside.
I'm not sure any responsability should rest with the sponsored (or wishing to be sponsored) "athlete" other than a requirement to be honest about what they do. After that it should be up to those doing the sponsoring to hire and fire as they see fit.
According to Scott's 3 point test, I am certainly in the "sponsored but not worthy" corner of his matrix: I have done nothing in the past year that is important in the evolution of the sport, or that is applauded by the elite in any discipline.
But I have tried and failed to do things in the past year that might have met this criteria (first ascent of a big unclimbed face in Patagonia, and first 24 hour winter Ramsay Round). On neither of these attempts do I regret making the decisions I made - the face in Patagonia was too objectively dangerous, and the unique conditions needed to do the Ramsay Round on skis rapidly dissapeared 8 hours into my attempt and descended into weather that made simply getting out of the mountains challenging enough.
Scott shrugs off the suggestion that athletes are under pressure from their sponsors to do dangerous things, and I'd agree with this. However, if I was to take his points seriously I would feel under pressure to do something "impressive" (and possibly dangerous) quick smart before I fell off his matrix altogether. Perhaps I should be on high alert for the first hints of winter in Scotland, racing up there and strapping myself to some grade IX horrorshow in order to restore the legitimacy of my sponsorship. But I have the rest of my life to lead, and at the moment I only get a few shots each year to do something that might push me into the "worthy" category. This year I've failed both times.
So should I phone my sponsors up, 'fess up to my inadequacies and tell them they should sponsor Tony Stone instead, cos he's much better than me but too shy to ask? Perhaps I should, but I don't think it's a decision that should be mine to make; I have little knowledge about exactly what makes a person worth sponsoring, and for all I know trying and failing to do impressive things is also worthwhile for the "brand image". I think that this is a decision that is best left to those doing the sponsoring to make.
There is also a huge problem about being objective about your own achievements. Depending on how strict a definition of "important in the evolution of the sport" you apply, perhaps I've never been in the "worthy but sponsored" corner. But again, I don't think this is a decision it is fair to impose upon me. I try to do things that I find inspiring, and that push my own personal limits, it is surely up to marketting people to decide if these achievements also merit sponsorship? There's no way I can be objective enough about myself to work out exactly where on the Will-Gadd-to-punter-continuum I currently reside.
I'm not sure any responsability should rest with the sponsored (or wishing to be sponsored) "athlete" other than a requirement to be honest about what they do. After that it should be up to those doing the sponsoring to hire and fire as they see fit.
In reply to UKC News:
Jack Gerald-
Scott says:
"Truth is, many climbers are sponsored for what they say, or how well they're known, rather than for what they've done."
I say:
"Truth is, many climbers are sponsored because the companies that sponsor them think it will help sell more products."
Jack, do you not think that your truth is overly simplistic? Of course at a very elementary level that's why sponsorship exists but what Scott is examining is how does sponsorship result in higher sales, suggesting it is their marketing ability rather than their climbing ability.
Jack Gerald-
Scott says:
"Truth is, many climbers are sponsored for what they say, or how well they're known, rather than for what they've done."
I say:
"Truth is, many climbers are sponsored because the companies that sponsor them think it will help sell more products."
Jack, do you not think that your truth is overly simplistic? Of course at a very elementary level that's why sponsorship exists but what Scott is examining is how does sponsorship result in higher sales, suggesting it is their marketing ability rather than their climbing ability.
In reply to UKC News: I guess it is difficult to assess if any of this is true without some examples of unworthy sponsored climbers ;-D
In reply to Es Tresidder:
An honest post and very interesting, thankyou.
In reply Adam L re. UncleSomebody
Too damn right - I felt that his recent film 'In Between The Trees' would have even better had he been less unselfish and focused more on his efforts and goals. Only in the last 10 minutes does he focus more on himself, and his version of the trip that the film documents. I felt it deserved more - despite the "numbers" being less impressive than Tyler's (not much less, mind you!)
An honest post and very interesting, thankyou.
In reply Adam L re. UncleSomebody
Too damn right - I felt that his recent film 'In Between The Trees' would have even better had he been less unselfish and focused more on his efforts and goals. Only in the last 10 minutes does he focus more on himself, and his version of the trip that the film documents. I felt it deserved more - despite the "numbers" being less impressive than Tyler's (not much less, mind you!)
In reply to UKC News:
I think this is a very interesting topic, I've taken some stick on here for being sponsored and having 'not done much' but in reality I believe it comes down to three parts.
1. You are a known climber/mountaineer etc so will improve sales
2. You have potential to become a known climber/mountaineer so will then eventually fall into part 1
3. The company likes you/thinks you’re a nice guy/has sympathy/you just caught them on a good day so decide to help you out.
I am pretty sure I’m in part 3 and yes people that climb harder/do more, should be sponsored over me but is this just not life?
I think this is a very interesting topic, I've taken some stick on here for being sponsored and having 'not done much' but in reality I believe it comes down to three parts.
1. You are a known climber/mountaineer etc so will improve sales
2. You have potential to become a known climber/mountaineer so will then eventually fall into part 1
3. The company likes you/thinks you’re a nice guy/has sympathy/you just caught them on a good day so decide to help you out.
I am pretty sure I’m in part 3 and yes people that climb harder/do more, should be sponsored over me but is this just not life?
In reply to IanC:
It's Geldard.
Yes, Ian, you're right it was a very simplistic point I was making, purposefully so, as the FRI NIGHT VID slot is a short one.
I stand by it as a basic principle though, however I think the topic is obviously a very complex one. My main point is that sponsorship is not a reward for being a good climber.
Jack
> (In reply to UKC News)
>
> Jack Gerald-
>
> Jack Gerald-
It's Geldard.
> Jack, do you not think that your truth is overly simplistic? Of course at a very elementary level that's why sponsorship exists but what Scott is examining is how does sponsorship result in higher sales, suggesting it is their marketing ability rather than their climbing ability.
Yes, Ian, you're right it was a very simplistic point I was making, purposefully so, as the FRI NIGHT VID slot is a short one.
I stand by it as a basic principle though, however I think the topic is obviously a very complex one. My main point is that sponsorship is not a reward for being a good climber.
Jack
In reply to UKC News:
I find it interesting to note that in the replies to this thread each of the sponsored climbers/mountaineers come across as feeling slightly guilty for being a sponsored individual!!! Why should that be? On what ever level, be it your talents, adventures or personality you've achieved manufacturer recognition. Good on you I say!
I fully support the "simplistic" point, "Truth is, many climbers are sponsored because the companies that sponsor them think it will help sell more products."
I think it's indicative of the climbing world that any form of commercial gain is frowned upon, this is a sport, or way of life, that has grown through personal hardship and tales of poverty and suffering throughout it's history. Being potless, suffering and scraping by is trendy! Fact is it is though it is now 2010. The comapnies that give out sponsorship are multi million pound global brands and I'm willing to wager that the commercial and marketting brains behind them constantly think in terms of Sales and exposure and not who we as climbers think are worthy!
Case in point is the one about sponsoring guides! Fantastic idea to us but I'll stick my marketting head on for a minute! So I sponsor a guide, he works 10 months a year and see's maybe 2 - 50 people per week depending on role and location etc! Now do I plough my money into him or into the young gun pushing E11, who with just 1 magazine editorial will hit more people with my product than that guide will in a year! There you go then!!!!
It's big business now folks, just look at the High Street.
I find it interesting to note that in the replies to this thread each of the sponsored climbers/mountaineers come across as feeling slightly guilty for being a sponsored individual!!! Why should that be? On what ever level, be it your talents, adventures or personality you've achieved manufacturer recognition. Good on you I say!
I fully support the "simplistic" point, "Truth is, many climbers are sponsored because the companies that sponsor them think it will help sell more products."
I think it's indicative of the climbing world that any form of commercial gain is frowned upon, this is a sport, or way of life, that has grown through personal hardship and tales of poverty and suffering throughout it's history. Being potless, suffering and scraping by is trendy! Fact is it is though it is now 2010. The comapnies that give out sponsorship are multi million pound global brands and I'm willing to wager that the commercial and marketting brains behind them constantly think in terms of Sales and exposure and not who we as climbers think are worthy!
Case in point is the one about sponsoring guides! Fantastic idea to us but I'll stick my marketting head on for a minute! So I sponsor a guide, he works 10 months a year and see's maybe 2 - 50 people per week depending on role and location etc! Now do I plough my money into him or into the young gun pushing E11, who with just 1 magazine editorial will hit more people with my product than that guide will in a year! There you go then!!!!
It's big business now folks, just look at the High Street.
In reply to Jack Geldard - Editor - UKC:
Applogies Mr Geldard, Perhaps I need to get the basics right.
I Agree, sponsorship is a business decision, a climber that is unkown & unwilling to publise is not a great sposorship target however good they climb.
A question that is worth examining is who responcibility is it to promote the climber? the climber or the sponsor? I would guess different compainies have different approaches to this.
> (In reply to IanC)
. My main point is that sponsorship is not a reward for being a good climber.>
> Jack
> Jack
Applogies Mr Geldard, Perhaps I need to get the basics right.
I Agree, sponsorship is a business decision, a climber that is unkown & unwilling to publise is not a great sposorship target however good they climb.
A question that is worth examining is who responcibility is it to promote the climber? the climber or the sponsor? I would guess different compainies have different approaches to this.
In reply to UKC News:
IMO Sponsorship is just another form of advertising. The companies hope that because climber x get in the news and gets photos in glossy mags or on’t internet, then their brand will be seen and seep into the buying publics mind. It’s insidious, but unfortunately all pervading and a major feature of the extreme capitalist track the Western world has chosen (thanks Margerate and Ronald!). Basically, sponsored climbers are just glorified advertising boards. In fact, anybody who wears a garment with a brand name on it is simply doing the company a favour – free advertising!
Whether sponsorship is a sin depends on whether you think advertising is a sin…
IMO Sponsorship is just another form of advertising. The companies hope that because climber x get in the news and gets photos in glossy mags or on’t internet, then their brand will be seen and seep into the buying publics mind. It’s insidious, but unfortunately all pervading and a major feature of the extreme capitalist track the Western world has chosen (thanks Margerate and Ronald!). Basically, sponsored climbers are just glorified advertising boards. In fact, anybody who wears a garment with a brand name on it is simply doing the company a favour – free advertising!
Whether sponsorship is a sin depends on whether you think advertising is a sin…
In reply to UKC News:
Just remembered something my good friend Todd Skinner RIP used to say about some sponsored climbers. I quote: 'I've seen him and he's not that good'
Just remembered something my good friend Todd Skinner RIP used to say about some sponsored climbers. I quote: 'I've seen him and he's not that good'
In reply to Frankie1992:
Who are you sponsored by?
> (In reply to UKC News)
> I think this is a very interesting topic, I've taken some stick on here for being sponsored and having 'not done much' but in reality I believe it comes down to three parts.
> I think this is a very interesting topic, I've taken some stick on here for being sponsored and having 'not done much' but in reality I believe it comes down to three parts.
Who are you sponsored by?
In reply to UKC News: I know of at least one climber that got quite a lot of free kit by lying about his achivements, and good stuff too: not just shoes.
And after having seen one very well known and a few totally un-known US crack-climbers up close it became quite clear how little ability has to do with recognition and sponsorship.
And after having seen one very well known and a few totally un-known US crack-climbers up close it became quite clear how little ability has to do with recognition and sponsorship.
In reply to the cassin ridge:
He probably isn't.
> (In reply to Frankie1992)
> [...]
>
> Who are you sponsored by?
> [...]
>
> Who are you sponsored by?
He probably isn't.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I am currently sponsored by Aku, Silent Disco London and The Next Challenge. I have previously been sponsored by The North Face and Craghoppers. You'r welcome to dismiss however I know im not really sponsor worthy and have never claimed to be.
In reply to Frankie1992:
How do they sponsor you?
A piece of kit? Money? Do you represent them?
Lots of climbers claim sponsorship, and put a logo on their blog, but getting a piece of kit isn't sponsorship. You have to have a signed contract and actually have a relationship with the company.
How do they sponsor you?
A piece of kit? Money? Do you represent them?
Lots of climbers claim sponsorship, and put a logo on their blog, but getting a piece of kit isn't sponsorship. You have to have a signed contract and actually have a relationship with the company.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I get kit from 'outdoor sponsors' and yes i have signed a contract with one of them, agreeing what gear i get and what i send in return (photos reports and journals).
In reply to Frankie1992:
How did you manage that at 17 years old?
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) I get kit from 'outdoor sponsors' and yes i have signed a contract with one of them, agreeing what gear i get and what i send in return (photos reports and journals).
How did you manage that at 17 years old?
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Had a personal story behind me, set a (fairly impossible at the time) aim and followed it through. As previously said I am in what I call class 3.
In reply to UKC News:
Seems more like the wrong people have blogs and give slideshows - and this is a bad thing.
I hope that DBPP* slideshow was free-entry, cos I'd be pissed off to pay to hear such a woeful speaker. I got halfway through but was distracted by some paint drying nearby.
An interesting debate, but so much wider and more complicated than the unbelievably narrow, smug and subjective argument put across by Scott. There's clearly some personal issues at play here, manifesting themselves in a psuedo-philantropic sermon. Blah ...
Of course we're all against lies, bullshit and unjustified hype, and god knows there's plenty of it in the expedition world (and always has been). But judging so narrowly who "deserves" sponsorship? It's not for Semple or any climber to say. It's a business deal and made according to business principles.
As well put above, sponsorship is not a reward for being a good climber.
D
*Death By PowerPoint
> he states his case that the wrong people are often sponsored and this is a bad thing:
>
>
Seems more like the wrong people have blogs and give slideshows - and this is a bad thing.
I hope that DBPP* slideshow was free-entry, cos I'd be pissed off to pay to hear such a woeful speaker. I got halfway through but was distracted by some paint drying nearby.
An interesting debate, but so much wider and more complicated than the unbelievably narrow, smug and subjective argument put across by Scott. There's clearly some personal issues at play here, manifesting themselves in a psuedo-philantropic sermon. Blah ...
Of course we're all against lies, bullshit and unjustified hype, and god knows there's plenty of it in the expedition world (and always has been). But judging so narrowly who "deserves" sponsorship? It's not for Semple or any climber to say. It's a business deal and made according to business principles.
As well put above, sponsorship is not a reward for being a good climber.
D
*Death By PowerPoint
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...