This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
James McHaffie reflects on the changing status of sponsorship and professional climbing, as the social media obsession leaks into the microcosm of the climbing scene
"I realised at this point more than ever that sponsorship is not about performance but more concerning social media salesmanship...of oneself."
Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=7037
8
In reply to UKC Articles:
Well said James.I often wonder if ground up on sight rock climbing is fast becoming something well in the past .. Always thought the true climbing adventure was a FA ground up on sight... regardless of grade.The now common practice of approaching climbs from the top downwards was pretty rare in the early days ,when done it was frowned upon.However it certainly makes life much easier having top rope practice ,pre- chalked holds and pre-placed protection .. The traverse of the Patagonia hills by Caldwell for example I feel was a far greater achievement than his exploits on the Dawn Wall sport climb.
Well said James.I often wonder if ground up on sight rock climbing is fast becoming something well in the past .. Always thought the true climbing adventure was a FA ground up on sight... regardless of grade.The now common practice of approaching climbs from the top downwards was pretty rare in the early days ,when done it was frowned upon.However it certainly makes life much easier having top rope practice ,pre- chalked holds and pre-placed protection .. The traverse of the Patagonia hills by Caldwell for example I feel was a far greater achievement than his exploits on the Dawn Wall sport climb.
6
4
In reply to UKC Articles:
Not so glamorous being a pro but you do get to do what you like, as opposed to sitting in an office all day (though sitting in an office is just fine when the weather is crap!).
Always thought Nick Bullock was the ultimate British climbing bum, cranking out ballsy routes while living out of a small van and the CC huts. Something to aspire to?!
Good call on Boothy, he's got it sorted: four days on, four days off seems like an acceptable work/life balance.
Not so glamorous being a pro but you do get to do what you like, as opposed to sitting in an office all day (though sitting in an office is just fine when the weather is crap!).
Always thought Nick Bullock was the ultimate British climbing bum, cranking out ballsy routes while living out of a small van and the CC huts. Something to aspire to?!
Good call on Boothy, he's got it sorted: four days on, four days off seems like an acceptable work/life balance.
In reply to UKC Articles:
http://eveningsends.com/climbing/athlete-models-sierra-blair-coyle/
This article also raises some interesting points about pro climbers, and sponsorship deals. I'm not really sure how I feel about it to be honest. I personally would rather the climbers that are pushing the limits are the ones getting the money, not the ones pushing the "like" buttons.
http://eveningsends.com/climbing/athlete-models-sierra-blair-coyle/
This article also raises some interesting points about pro climbers, and sponsorship deals. I'm not really sure how I feel about it to be honest. I personally would rather the climbers that are pushing the limits are the ones getting the money, not the ones pushing the "like" buttons.
1
In reply to jayrenegade:
What about Tommy and Kevin? Definitely media aware. Apparently they've been pushing it a bit too...
What about Tommy and Kevin? Definitely media aware. Apparently they've been pushing it a bit too...
In reply to UKC Articles:
>
This is sad but unfortunately that's the way it is. Dave MacLeod wrote an article a while back, noting that people shouldn't view sponsorship as simply a reward for being good at climbing. A potential sponsors' main concern has always been and will always be how well you can help sell their product.
>
> "I realised at this point more than ever that sponsorship is not about performance but more concerning social media salesmanship...of oneself."
>
>
This is sad but unfortunately that's the way it is. Dave MacLeod wrote an article a while back, noting that people shouldn't view sponsorship as simply a reward for being good at climbing. A potential sponsors' main concern has always been and will always be how well you can help sell their product.
4
In reply to UKC Articles:
Interesting stuff. Does this article count for James' tally - or is that all a bit meta? It's all gotten so confusing
Interesting stuff. Does this article count for James' tally - or is that all a bit meta? It's all gotten so confusing
2
In reply to UKC Articles:
Good article.
I especially like Ste Mac's analysis of this issue in one of his chapters from his autobiography. He discusses the differences climbing professional, sponsored climber and full-time climber neatly.
For the mathematically minded or if you like algebra, it is all distilled down to a few basic but insightful equations. You only need to optimise your personal parameters within those constraints to maximise your lifetime climbing well-being. Simple!
Good article.
I especially like Ste Mac's analysis of this issue in one of his chapters from his autobiography. He discusses the differences climbing professional, sponsored climber and full-time climber neatly.
For the mathematically minded or if you like algebra, it is all distilled down to a few basic but insightful equations. You only need to optimise your personal parameters within those constraints to maximise your lifetime climbing well-being. Simple!
In reply to Michael Gordon:
It would seem James McHaffie's mind is a bit slower than Dave McLeod's.
Could it be because he's working five day week and his focus is distracted by the benefit of a reasonable salary and pension?
It would seem James McHaffie's mind is a bit slower than Dave McLeod's.
Could it be because he's working five day week and his focus is distracted by the benefit of a reasonable salary and pension?
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
I'm appalled by the bit about Pete Robbins and Five-Ten dropping him because he doesn't use social media. To me that's very much a plus point. They expect climbers to promote themselves in all these different ways and all for a few paltry few pairs of cheap to produce shoes. How tight and what about the impetus that it might actually be good for the sport for a wealthy company to help out talented climbers? That is surely what 'sponsorship' really means.
Good climbers will naturally get exposure because of their achievements, and as described Pete Robbins has certainly done that. If Five-Ten want his achievements more in the media why don't they do the promoting themselves? They're the ones raking in the cash and doubtless hire a team of paid staff to do just that.
Maybe Five-Ten should start sponsoring people like Sierra Blair-Coyle, whose talents in marketing surpass their abilities as climbers.
Stuff like this though can only hurt their image. When I see Five-Ten products from now on a light in my head will go off that spells out 'AVOID'.
I'm appalled by the bit about Pete Robbins and Five-Ten dropping him because he doesn't use social media. To me that's very much a plus point. They expect climbers to promote themselves in all these different ways and all for a few paltry few pairs of cheap to produce shoes. How tight and what about the impetus that it might actually be good for the sport for a wealthy company to help out talented climbers? That is surely what 'sponsorship' really means.
Good climbers will naturally get exposure because of their achievements, and as described Pete Robbins has certainly done that. If Five-Ten want his achievements more in the media why don't they do the promoting themselves? They're the ones raking in the cash and doubtless hire a team of paid staff to do just that.
Maybe Five-Ten should start sponsoring people like Sierra Blair-Coyle, whose talents in marketing surpass their abilities as climbers.
Stuff like this though can only hurt their image. When I see Five-Ten products from now on a light in my head will go off that spells out 'AVOID'.
4
In reply to stp:
That being said - 5.10 still make a good product. I'd like to think that I can 'think' to a greater or lesser degree for myself. It should not be based on which 'pro' athlete is sponsored by who.
5.10/addidas can sponsor who the like and for what ever reasons they like.
I like the shoes, they fit me well.
Will I take the moral high ground because they have bumped an exceptional climber who doesn't have a facebook? Have the put Pete on the breadline as a result?
I would have though that Robbins standing in the UK community would have stood for something though - he appears in loads of videos etc.
That being said - 5.10 still make a good product. I'd like to think that I can 'think' to a greater or lesser degree for myself. It should not be based on which 'pro' athlete is sponsored by who.
5.10/addidas can sponsor who the like and for what ever reasons they like.
I like the shoes, they fit me well.
Will I take the moral high ground because they have bumped an exceptional climber who doesn't have a facebook? Have the put Pete on the breadline as a result?
I would have though that Robbins standing in the UK community would have stood for something though - he appears in loads of videos etc.
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
Came across this article and Friday Night Video from 2008, ties in with this discussion and interesting to see a similar debate from 7 years ago.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=50476
Came across this article and Friday Night Video from 2008, ties in with this discussion and interesting to see a similar debate from 7 years ago.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/item.php?id=50476
2
In reply to stp:
Agreed. We can all put back to climbing as individuals, whether time (e.g. cleaning overgrown routes, clearing litter), money (e.g. bolt funds), or expertise (e.g. re-equipping, giving people sensible advice - rather than bollox - on here). And companies can put back too. Fair enough, if it's a fledgling company, two guys in a portakabin watching every penny. But you can still put back, somehow, some way. And, with a big company, why not help guys like Pete Robbins? Would think such help would be tax-deductible, therefore effectively subsidised (and maybe a better use of the fabled tax dollar).
Mick
> How tight and what about the impetus that it might actually be good for the sport for a wealthy company to help out talented climbers?
Agreed. We can all put back to climbing as individuals, whether time (e.g. cleaning overgrown routes, clearing litter), money (e.g. bolt funds), or expertise (e.g. re-equipping, giving people sensible advice - rather than bollox - on here). And companies can put back too. Fair enough, if it's a fledgling company, two guys in a portakabin watching every penny. But you can still put back, somehow, some way. And, with a big company, why not help guys like Pete Robbins? Would think such help would be tax-deductible, therefore effectively subsidised (and maybe a better use of the fabled tax dollar).
Mick
1
In reply to Mick Ward:
Most companies (including my miserably small one) have more than one avenue of sponsorship. Support for the sport in general so for a company like Adidas that´s sponsoring film festivals and stuff. And athlete support which means the company expect a level of commitment to promote their product commensurate with the level of spnsorship, if I provided a climber with 1/3rd of his annual income I would expect them to devote 1/3rd of their time promoting my image/product. There are a lot of hungry climbers out there and only a few worthwhile deals available so the sponsors can call the tune. Adidas´s main sponsored athletes (the Huber Bros) appear regularly on t.v. and clearly promote their sponsors products, with all respect to Pete Robbins (who I´ve climbed with) I doubt his exposure per dollar makes him as attractive an investment.
Most companies (including my miserably small one) have more than one avenue of sponsorship. Support for the sport in general so for a company like Adidas that´s sponsoring film festivals and stuff. And athlete support which means the company expect a level of commitment to promote their product commensurate with the level of spnsorship, if I provided a climber with 1/3rd of his annual income I would expect them to devote 1/3rd of their time promoting my image/product. There are a lot of hungry climbers out there and only a few worthwhile deals available so the sponsors can call the tune. Adidas´s main sponsored athletes (the Huber Bros) appear regularly on t.v. and clearly promote their sponsors products, with all respect to Pete Robbins (who I´ve climbed with) I doubt his exposure per dollar makes him as attractive an investment.
1
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
Wow, I'm impressed you knew of that thread's existence. Interesting read though the Scott Semple web site seems to have gone apart from one photograph.
Wow, I'm impressed you knew of that thread's existence. Interesting read though the Scott Semple web site seems to have gone apart from one photograph.
In reply to stp:
I searched for images related to sponsorship whilst working on this and found it - my knowledge of the UKC articles database isn't that encyclopaedic unfortunately! Would have been impressive though...
I searched for images related to sponsorship whilst working on this and found it - my knowledge of the UKC articles database isn't that encyclopaedic unfortunately! Would have been impressive though...
In reply to jimtitt:
Jim, I totally accept the Return on Investment criterion for a small company. But, if I was CEO of a big company, I'd like to encourage guys like Pete Robbins (who are out doing the business) as well as festivals.
Just my view.
Mick
Jim, I totally accept the Return on Investment criterion for a small company. But, if I was CEO of a big company, I'd like to encourage guys like Pete Robbins (who are out doing the business) as well as festivals.
Just my view.
Mick
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
I think expecting large companies to sponsor people or events simply to 'put something back in the climbing community' is naïve. There may be an element of that but their main reason for sponsoring anything or anyone will be to get exposure for their brand/products.
I think expecting large companies to sponsor people or events simply to 'put something back in the climbing community' is naïve. There may be an element of that but their main reason for sponsoring anything or anyone will be to get exposure for their brand/products.
2
In reply to Mick Ward:
May be one reason you aren't a CEO of a large company (to be clear, this is a reflection on large companies, not on you!)
May be one reason you aren't a CEO of a large company (to be clear, this is a reflection on large companies, not on you!)
2
1
In reply to Misha:
No offence taken! Oddly enough, (in the dim, distant past) I had considerable experience of both small and big companies. Big companies waste shed loads of money. I'd rather 'waste' some money on guys out there doing the business.
As an example of 'heart versus head' in business, supposedly Chouinard and Frost decimated their product range (pegs) for (then unproven) nuts because they didn't want further peg scarring in places such as Yosemite. If that's true, it's bloody impressive.
Obviously you need a well screwed on 'head' in business - else there's no business. But it's good to have a heart as well (as long as you can afford it.) As I gather Jim does.
Mick
No offence taken! Oddly enough, (in the dim, distant past) I had considerable experience of both small and big companies. Big companies waste shed loads of money. I'd rather 'waste' some money on guys out there doing the business.
As an example of 'heart versus head' in business, supposedly Chouinard and Frost decimated their product range (pegs) for (then unproven) nuts because they didn't want further peg scarring in places such as Yosemite. If that's true, it's bloody impressive.
Obviously you need a well screwed on 'head' in business - else there's no business. But it's good to have a heart as well (as long as you can afford it.) As I gather Jim does.
Mick
In reply to jimtitt:
Well if the investment is simply free shoes he shouldn't need very much exposure. How much would it cost to get a one page ad in a magazine for instance? Considerably more than a few pairs of boots as well as being more effective: because much of the time we skim over ads but will take interest in genuine news.
But it surely does not work like that. If you see it in that way then I'd question whether 'sponsorship' is the right word. Sounds more like a part time marketing job.
Sponsorship solely for getting your products promoted will always be a bit of a gamble. Maybe one or more of your sponsored climbers will do something amazing this year and their photo will appear in magazines, on web sites and even a video. But then again maybe not. If all your doing is giving them free gear then you really shouldn't expect too much at all. Just having a top climber wearing your stuff should be pretty worthwhile itself.
The way Five-Ten is trying to do it seems to be that climbers should be promoting themselves regardless of what they do. That seems like a recipe for wannabe climbers (see the thead on Sierra Blair Coyle) rather than genuine talent. An honest climber, who knows he/she hasn't done anything particularly amazing, won't want to spray about themselves. Really it should be up to the magazine and web site editors to pick up on stories that are worthwhile.
> Pete Robbins (who I´ve climbed with) I doubt his exposure per dollar makes him as attractive an investment.
Well if the investment is simply free shoes he shouldn't need very much exposure. How much would it cost to get a one page ad in a magazine for instance? Considerably more than a few pairs of boots as well as being more effective: because much of the time we skim over ads but will take interest in genuine news.
> if I provided a climber with 1/3rd of his annual income I would expect them to devote 1/3rd of their time promoting my image/product
But it surely does not work like that. If you see it in that way then I'd question whether 'sponsorship' is the right word. Sounds more like a part time marketing job.
Sponsorship solely for getting your products promoted will always be a bit of a gamble. Maybe one or more of your sponsored climbers will do something amazing this year and their photo will appear in magazines, on web sites and even a video. But then again maybe not. If all your doing is giving them free gear then you really shouldn't expect too much at all. Just having a top climber wearing your stuff should be pretty worthwhile itself.
The way Five-Ten is trying to do it seems to be that climbers should be promoting themselves regardless of what they do. That seems like a recipe for wannabe climbers (see the thead on Sierra Blair Coyle) rather than genuine talent. An honest climber, who knows he/she hasn't done anything particularly amazing, won't want to spray about themselves. Really it should be up to the magazine and web site editors to pick up on stories that are worthwhile.
3
In reply to stp and Mick Ward:
So which UK climber that 5:10 currently sponsor would you stop sponsoring to reinstate Pete Robbins? Shauna Coxsey? Steve McClure? Mina? Ethan Walker? Pete Whittaker?
So which UK climber that 5:10 currently sponsor would you stop sponsoring to reinstate Pete Robbins? Shauna Coxsey? Steve McClure? Mina? Ethan Walker? Pete Whittaker?
1
In reply to Natalie Berry - UKC:
Just watched the Scott Semple slideshow. It's really good, amusing but nails the problems really well. Thanks.
Just watched the Scott Semple slideshow. It's really good, amusing but nails the problems really well. Thanks.
In reply to Tyler:
If all Five-Ten are doing is giving out free shoes they don't need to stop anyone to reinstate Pete Robins because their expenditure is absolutely minuscule compared to their income.
It's the fact that they insist on climbers using social media to get free shoes I don't like. I'm pretty sure Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra and Alex Megos don't have blogs to promote themselves. They're achievements are of such significance that they guaranteed to be seen by a lot of people. If desperate wannabes are promoting themselves and getting in magazines etc. then there is naturally less space for those who are actually achieving more, but perhaps not bragging about it as much. So the effect of companies like Five-Ten will be is to corrupt, to some degree, the climbing media news stories. Instead of sponsoring the wannabes they good just sponsor the genuinely good climbers instead - those who make the news because they're genuinely good rather than because they are good at bragging about themselves.
If all Five-Ten are doing is giving out free shoes they don't need to stop anyone to reinstate Pete Robins because their expenditure is absolutely minuscule compared to their income.
It's the fact that they insist on climbers using social media to get free shoes I don't like. I'm pretty sure Chris Sharma, Adam Ondra and Alex Megos don't have blogs to promote themselves. They're achievements are of such significance that they guaranteed to be seen by a lot of people. If desperate wannabes are promoting themselves and getting in magazines etc. then there is naturally less space for those who are actually achieving more, but perhaps not bragging about it as much. So the effect of companies like Five-Ten will be is to corrupt, to some degree, the climbing media news stories. Instead of sponsoring the wannabes they good just sponsor the genuinely good climbers instead - those who make the news because they're genuinely good rather than because they are good at bragging about themselves.
1
In reply to UKC Articles:
what you have to do depends on what you get. But if a sponsor is doling out cash and says this is what i expect in return, then you choose to do it, or the money goes. For most comparies sponsorship is a bit charity and a lot promotion, and thats how it is.
I'm amazed the amount of money Given out is as high as it is. This is only possible now climbing is a lifestyle activity rather than something done by tightfisted dirtbags.
NB - my perspective is from someone who has been sponsorer and knows a lot of people who were/are sponsorer and sponsors
Also Adam Ondra has a Twitter feed, Alexander Megos Facebook - it's a job!
what you have to do depends on what you get. But if a sponsor is doling out cash and says this is what i expect in return, then you choose to do it, or the money goes. For most comparies sponsorship is a bit charity and a lot promotion, and thats how it is.
I'm amazed the amount of money Given out is as high as it is. This is only possible now climbing is a lifestyle activity rather than something done by tightfisted dirtbags.
NB - my perspective is from someone who has been sponsorer and knows a lot of people who were/are sponsorer and sponsors
Also Adam Ondra has a Twitter feed, Alexander Megos Facebook - it's a job!
Post edited at 23:19
In reply to Tyler:
Steve's given a much better reply than I ever could. And I'm sure he understands this much better than I do (especially as his best mate will see this from both sides of the fence!)
'It's the fact that they insist on climbers using social media to get free shoes I don't like.' That's what makes me really uneasy. The insistence seems dictatorial and I don't want dictators in climbing. (And for free shoes, FFS!) Remember when some corporate got its hands on that American climbing mag. It was all VP this and VP that on the editorial 'team'. Where were the bloody climbers? As a litmus test of credibility, Tami Knight got binned straight away (obviously too subversive) and just as promptly reinstated when the original owner got the mag back again. (Go Tami, go!)
On a classic corporate model, Chouinard and Frost should have been committed for decimating their product range for conservation (if that's what they did and I think it is what they did). Alex Megos should have been carpeted for not getting on social media the minute he landed back on the ground after being the first person in history to onsight F9a. The naughty lad didn't even mention it to anyone. Shocking!
(Ironically) I'm boringly loyal to climbing brands, I really am (OK, more fool me!) But if they become corporate dictators, f*ck 'em.
You must remember the early 1990s when the word got out that, "hey, there's money in this climbing lark" and suits sat in climbing cafes, trying to scope it out. "Where's the money? Where's the money?" Most of them buggered off. But The Edge opened as a Yuppie climbers emporium which no-one wanted and, ironically, Pete's dad saved for a very long time.
Rant over (well, for now). Better wander out and do some work as, sadly, I'm not a sponsored climber!
Mick
Steve's given a much better reply than I ever could. And I'm sure he understands this much better than I do (especially as his best mate will see this from both sides of the fence!)
'It's the fact that they insist on climbers using social media to get free shoes I don't like.' That's what makes me really uneasy. The insistence seems dictatorial and I don't want dictators in climbing. (And for free shoes, FFS!) Remember when some corporate got its hands on that American climbing mag. It was all VP this and VP that on the editorial 'team'. Where were the bloody climbers? As a litmus test of credibility, Tami Knight got binned straight away (obviously too subversive) and just as promptly reinstated when the original owner got the mag back again. (Go Tami, go!)
On a classic corporate model, Chouinard and Frost should have been committed for decimating their product range for conservation (if that's what they did and I think it is what they did). Alex Megos should have been carpeted for not getting on social media the minute he landed back on the ground after being the first person in history to onsight F9a. The naughty lad didn't even mention it to anyone. Shocking!
(Ironically) I'm boringly loyal to climbing brands, I really am (OK, more fool me!) But if they become corporate dictators, f*ck 'em.
You must remember the early 1990s when the word got out that, "hey, there's money in this climbing lark" and suits sat in climbing cafes, trying to scope it out. "Where's the money? Where's the money?" Most of them buggered off. But The Edge opened as a Yuppie climbers emporium which no-one wanted and, ironically, Pete's dad saved for a very long time.
Rant over (well, for now). Better wander out and do some work as, sadly, I'm not a sponsored climber!
Mick
1
In reply to Mick Ward:
I still wonder whether Ron Fawcett liked those incredibly comfy looking red+yellow Hanwag shoes with the rounded toe ??
I still wonder whether Ron Fawcett liked those incredibly comfy looking red+yellow Hanwag shoes with the rounded toe ??
In reply to Mick Ward:
I guess this is where we differ, if I was sponsoring someone I would want them to do something in return, i.e. do something to promote the brand, that doesn't seem unreasonable other wise why sponsor anyone, why not just give boots to someone you like, or someone you've seen down the wall who is really strong etc? Assuming you agree that sponsorship is about brand promotion then how else would you do that other than through social media. The every move of Ondra, Sharma et al is reported all over the world so they don't have to promote, but they are doing their bit for their sponsors just by wearing them (although they both star in films which get seen across the world; social media isnt just Facebook). If your ascents aren't big enough to automatically make waves in the world's climbing media then you have to do something to promote them, I'm sure none of these companies are so prescriptive that they would insist on a Twitter account if you had a professional film crew following you around and releasing films that are in demand.
I'm talking generally, we may be talking more than that but whatever the value of the sponsorship the same equation will apply:
Value of sponsorship = profile x achievement
so you can see what happens of one of these is 0
This is just rambling nonsense although I always found Tami Knight pretty unamusing, maybe I'm a bit too corporate to get it.
It's probably why he has to climb in Tenya shoes
Eh?
> 'It's the fact that they insist on climbers using social media to get free shoes I don't like.' That's what makes me really uneasy. The insistence seems dictatorial and I don't want dictators in climbing.
I guess this is where we differ, if I was sponsoring someone I would want them to do something in return, i.e. do something to promote the brand, that doesn't seem unreasonable other wise why sponsor anyone, why not just give boots to someone you like, or someone you've seen down the wall who is really strong etc? Assuming you agree that sponsorship is about brand promotion then how else would you do that other than through social media. The every move of Ondra, Sharma et al is reported all over the world so they don't have to promote, but they are doing their bit for their sponsors just by wearing them (although they both star in films which get seen across the world; social media isnt just Facebook). If your ascents aren't big enough to automatically make waves in the world's climbing media then you have to do something to promote them, I'm sure none of these companies are so prescriptive that they would insist on a Twitter account if you had a professional film crew following you around and releasing films that are in demand.
> (And for free shoes, FFS!)
I'm talking generally, we may be talking more than that but whatever the value of the sponsorship the same equation will apply:
Value of sponsorship = profile x achievement
so you can see what happens of one of these is 0
> Remember when some corporate got its hands on that American climbing mag. It was all VP this and VP that on the editorial 'team'. Where were the bloody climbers? As a litmus test of credibility, Tami Knight got binned straight away (obviously too subversive) and just as promptly reinstated when the original owner got the mag back again. (Go Tami, go!)
This is just rambling nonsense although I always found Tami Knight pretty unamusing, maybe I'm a bit too corporate to get it.
> Alex Megos should have been carpeted for not getting on social media the minute he landed back on the ground after being the first person in history to onsight F9a. The naughty lad didn't even mention it to anyone. Shocking!
It's probably why he has to climb in Tenya shoes
> You must remember the early 1990s when the word got out that, "hey, there's money in this climbing lark" and suits sat in climbing cafes, trying to scope it out. "Where's the money? Where's the money?" Most of them buggered off. But The Edge opened as a Yuppie climbers emporium which no-one wanted and, ironically, Pete's dad saved for a very long time.
Eh?
Post edited at 13:33
1
In reply to LeeWood:
They were probably a joy to wear after those baggy Clog ones he promoted for a while
> I still wonder whether Ron Fawcett liked those incredibly comfy looking red+yellow Hanwag shoes with the rounded toe ??
They were probably a joy to wear after those baggy Clog ones he promoted for a while
In reply to Tyler:
I suspect we differ too much about this to have any more meaningful discussion. I'll stick with my rambling nonsense.
Good luck and bye.
Mick
I suspect we differ too much about this to have any more meaningful discussion. I'll stick with my rambling nonsense.
Good luck and bye.
Mick
In reply to Tyler:
>
Obviously the 'achievement' bit must be very significant (this should go without saying) but a big enough achievement requires little in the way of self promotion as the publicity is more or less guaranteed.
A sponsor's main criteria should be that a climber performs well whilst using their product. Any top climber will want to push boundaries so the performance part takes care of itself - that is what they are there to do. And a good performance means publicity. So the main thing that's required is that the climber wears the gear/clothing in question (presumably if they didn't rate it they wouldn't use it) and that they are filmed/photographed at the time.
>
> Value of sponsorship = profile x achievement
> so you can see what happens of one of these is 0
>
>
Obviously the 'achievement' bit must be very significant (this should go without saying) but a big enough achievement requires little in the way of self promotion as the publicity is more or less guaranteed.
A sponsor's main criteria should be that a climber performs well whilst using their product. Any top climber will want to push boundaries so the performance part takes care of itself - that is what they are there to do. And a good performance means publicity. So the main thing that's required is that the climber wears the gear/clothing in question (presumably if they didn't rate it they wouldn't use it) and that they are filmed/photographed at the time.
1
In reply to stp:
http://instagram.com/AlexanderMegos
don't have blogs to promote themselves.
Blogs are so 2000's
If companies only sponsored those who completed truly notable ascents, there'd only be about 20 sponsored heroes world wide.
> I'm pretty sure Chris Sharma
http://instagram.com/chris_sharma/> Adam Ondra
https://vimeo.com/user918903/videos> Alex Megos
https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderMegosSportlerhttp://instagram.com/AlexanderMegos
don't have blogs to promote themselves.
Blogs are so 2000's
If companies only sponsored those who completed truly notable ascents, there'd only be about 20 sponsored heroes world wide.
1
In reply to Mick Ward:
Jeez, you write some claptrap!
He climbed it on 24th March and it made it to Desnivel, UKC and DPM climbing on the 25th amongst others and his blog was posted on DMM climbing on the 26th. Feel free to check his facebook history yourself
> Alex Megos should have been carpeted for not getting on social media the minute he landed back on the ground after being the first person in history to onsight F9a. The naughty lad didn't even mention it to anyone. Shocking!
Jeez, you write some claptrap!
He climbed it on 24th March and it made it to Desnivel, UKC and DPM climbing on the 25th amongst others and his blog was posted on DMM climbing on the 26th. Feel free to check his facebook history yourself
In reply to Arms Cliff:
The trick is obviously to make not so notable ascents 'sound' like truly notable ascents.
> If companies only sponsored those who completed truly notable ascents, there'd only be about 20 sponsored heroes world wide.
The trick is obviously to make not so notable ascents 'sound' like truly notable ascents.
In reply to UKC Articles:
Social media management is dead easy if you use apps like Hootsuite.You can usually get a small marketing company to do everything for you for about £100-250 a month. So in all honesty in this day and age its pretty easy to do...for anybody.
I bet on the Dawn Wall project somebody else was managing it all for them whilst they got on with the climbing..........................
Social media management is dead easy if you use apps like Hootsuite.You can usually get a small marketing company to do everything for you for about £100-250 a month. So in all honesty in this day and age its pretty easy to do...for anybody.
I bet on the Dawn Wall project somebody else was managing it all for them whilst they got on with the climbing..........................
In reply to jimtitt:
http://www.epictv.com/player/metro-player/601195
Transcript, 3.30 - 3.45...
"So what happened? Did you put a picture on social media, or..."
"No, actually I didn't do anything. That was the funny part... I didn't even tell anybody. It just happened that some people saw me..."
Mick
http://www.epictv.com/player/metro-player/601195
Transcript, 3.30 - 3.45...
"So what happened? Did you put a picture on social media, or..."
"No, actually I didn't do anything. That was the funny part... I didn't even tell anybody. It just happened that some people saw me..."
Mick
1
In reply to Mick Ward:
DMM Blog, 26th March 2013;- "Alex sent us an email from Spain with some background to his ascent:"
DMM Blog, 26th March 2013;- "Alex sent us an email from Spain with some background to his ascent:"
In reply to jimtitt:
Jim, I wrote:
'Alex Megos should have been carpeted for not getting on social media the minute he landed back on the ground after being the first person in history to onsight F9a.'
True. He didn't get straight on social media. And good on him.
'The naughty lad didn't even mention it to anyone.'
Also true. (Assuming you believe him - which I do.)
You, in your wisdom, kindly wrote, 'Claptrap.'
He didn't mention it to anyone. It was only when people started quizzing him that it hit the media. Naturally he had to respond - two days later.
Can you imagine winning a gold medal and carrying on running with your mates and not telling anybody about it (until it got out anyway)? Except that it's far, far more than a gold medal - it's arguably the greatest prize in climbing history.
Now I don't know whether you're being deliberately pedantically obtuse or simply wriggling. I find the former hard to believe yet would not like to believe the latter. Either way, you're in the wrong. And you owe me an apology. And I'd like it.
Mick
Jim, I wrote:
'Alex Megos should have been carpeted for not getting on social media the minute he landed back on the ground after being the first person in history to onsight F9a.'
True. He didn't get straight on social media. And good on him.
'The naughty lad didn't even mention it to anyone.'
Also true. (Assuming you believe him - which I do.)
You, in your wisdom, kindly wrote, 'Claptrap.'
He didn't mention it to anyone. It was only when people started quizzing him that it hit the media. Naturally he had to respond - two days later.
Can you imagine winning a gold medal and carrying on running with your mates and not telling anybody about it (until it got out anyway)? Except that it's far, far more than a gold medal - it's arguably the greatest prize in climbing history.
Now I don't know whether you're being deliberately pedantically obtuse or simply wriggling. I find the former hard to believe yet would not like to believe the latter. Either way, you're in the wrong. And you owe me an apology. And I'd like it.
Mick
In reply to Mick Ward:
Jim has sometimes given me sharp retort or glib replies.
Sometimes I have felt like asking him how many glasses of wine he has just consumed.
Having said that internet forums are noted for upsetting folk needlessly and without intent.
Jim has sometimes given me sharp retort or glib replies.
Sometimes I have felt like asking him how many glasses of wine he has just consumed.
Having said that internet forums are noted for upsetting folk needlessly and without intent.
In reply to UKC Articles: i thought we had the greatest price in climbing (down wall) last week?
Seriously you see seem to struggle with the Notion that sponsorship should go to anyone except the cutting edge. And this here cutting edge doesn't need to do too much in return, and so basically the sponsorship is more akin to charity. I am pretty certain that the amount of money available to give to climbers is a lot greater if it can be used for marketing as well as charity . I'm in favour of the pool of money being as big as possible.
Climbing is now a 'lifestyle' sport - the train left red woolly sock land about 20 years ago, and you can't turn the clock back. climbing's media image reflects that. 'Pro climbers' are just a part of the picture
Seriously you see seem to struggle with the Notion that sponsorship should go to anyone except the cutting edge. And this here cutting edge doesn't need to do too much in return, and so basically the sponsorship is more akin to charity. I am pretty certain that the amount of money available to give to climbers is a lot greater if it can be used for marketing as well as charity . I'm in favour of the pool of money being as big as possible.
Climbing is now a 'lifestyle' sport - the train left red woolly sock land about 20 years ago, and you can't turn the clock back. climbing's media image reflects that. 'Pro climbers' are just a part of the picture
1
In reply to Rick Graham:
Maybe we need to go back to the Sally... and all those Hell's Angels.
Life was so much simpler then!
Best wishes,
Mick
Maybe we need to go back to the Sally... and all those Hell's Angels.
Life was so much simpler then!
Best wishes,
Mick
In reply to UKC Articles: it's moved from being a niche activity practiced by a relatively few enthusiasts and with a reputation for being 'different' to being a fairly mainstream sport practiced by lots of people as a healthy outdoor activity similar to mountain biking, surfing or trail running. You can call this sanitisation, or a lack of autenticity, but thats whats happened. Climbing isn't what it is 25 years ago
But you knew all that FFS. It's hardly news.
But you knew all that FFS. It's hardly news.
2
In reply to wbo:
So more a lifestyle accessory rather than an actual lifestyle.
> (In reply to UKC Articles) it's moved from being a niche activity practiced by a relatively few enthusiasts and with a reputation for being 'different' to being a fairly mainstream sport practiced by lots of people as a healthy outdoor activity similar to mountain biking, surfing or trail running.
So more a lifestyle accessory rather than an actual lifestyle.
In reply to neilh:
Yes easy to manage and 'do'. Incredibly difficult to do well, and even harder to 'reach' your audience without spending a fortune.
There are ways of building a relevant audience and reaching them once they are there, but it is a very dark art.
> Social media management is dead easy...So in all honesty in this day and age its pretty easy to do...for anybody.
Yes easy to manage and 'do'. Incredibly difficult to do well, and even harder to 'reach' your audience without spending a fortune.
There are ways of building a relevant audience and reaching them once they are there, but it is a very dark art.
1
In reply to Michael Ryan:
Ah Mick, what might you know of dark arts?
("Why they speak of little else in Cononley...")
Only joshing. Keep yer pecker up!
Mick
Ah Mick, what might you know of dark arts?
("Why they speak of little else in Cononley...")
Only joshing. Keep yer pecker up!
Mick
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...