UKC

Is Sponsorship a Sin?Fri Night Vid/editorial

© UKC News
Marketing. Advertising. Sales.

Outdoor companies need to advertise their products and one way they do this is by sponsoring climbers.

Well known, high profile climbers can be a financially viable way of gaining media exposure for your products and every climbing and mountaineering brand has a 'team' of climbers and athletes that it supports.

This can be a very symbiotic relationship; helping top climbers do more climbing and generally be very unobtrusive and innocent. In the UK this is certainly the norm.

However there are certain climbers who view any commercial aspect of our sport as a bad thing. There are also those who think that sponsorship in particular has a negative impact on the media's representation of climbing.

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."

Where I disagree with Scot is in his assertion that sponsorship is about supporting the best climbers and significant achievements.

Scott does go on to comment that:

"The type of sponsorship which I think is worthwhile for both brands and sponsorees is when guides are sponsored. It makes sense. Trained guides are a valuable resource for brands to get their product in front of the target market (clients). It also works for guides, because it helps them out with reduced gear expenses."

Which is something that I agree with, but I feel it is important to note that any sponsorship deal is just that: a 'deal'. A business deal. If a company thinks they will get a good financial return in terms of media exposure from a person they either pay (rare in the UK) or give free equipment to (more common in the UK), then that is good business sense. It matters not whether that person is the absolute best performer, and also, that is impossible to judge.

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."

However I do think that Scott brings some interesting points to the table and I congratulate him on a superb blog and great slideshow.

VIDEO: Scott Semple Slideshow: Is Sponsorship a Sin?


This post has been read 7,450 times

Return to Latest News


20 Nov, 2009
most boring and unentertaining video for a loooong time
20 Nov, 2009
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-happened )
20 Nov, 2009
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.
20 Nov, 2009
Barf! There is more to sponsorship that "i want to be that person".
21 Nov, 2009
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.
More Comments
Loading Notifications...
Facebook Twitter Copy Email