[SA Chris]

You mean he isn't an adolescent any more?

If you're 21 then you're a man in my book, boy. Unless you're a woman, or something else.

Guess he must be about that, still looks about 16, so do most oungsters these days. Time for my milky tea anyway.

[Paul B]

I read Jerry's Revelations a couple of weeks ago, and came away with a new level of understanding and respect for what hard work and dedication are really all about. A few folks here should read Jerry's chapter about how a sponsorship is supposed to be a mutually beneficial business deal, how to create commercial value for one's sponsor, and how to make the value one is creating visible and measurable.

The problem with this last bit as what's seen as value (I'm speaking of online and social media) actually turns into a 'content farm' of utter rubbish, often regurgitated crap. Its prevalent in a lot of sections of the internet and it'd be refreshing if one company could realise this and stop clambering all over itself and instead release, high value, targeted (media) outputs.

I'd imagine they'd have better reach and impact than tweets and blog-posts that in the end sum up to little more than noise.

[Wood FT]

well said

[Danny]

I largely agree, but your observation that tweets etc are:

...little more than noise.

Pretty much sums up Twitter nicely. I don't imagine the creators ever envisaged that it would be anything more, if the name is anything to go by.

I don't imagine sponsors are under any illusions to the contrary. Real value is manifest in the likes of organising events, symposia, workshops, writing books, getting mainstream media coverage. Many of these things have reach and impact beyond the highly specific climbing population, and many are targeted at said climbers. Both have potential value to sponsors.

[slackline]

I guess a lot of people never move beyond that stage to where they really understand what's pretty hard, and what's hard hard la dura dura.

 

I don't envy anyone trying to divvy up a modest marketing budget that will reward the right people as well as raising the profile of a brand and ultimately make sales.

The right people from a companies perspective is surely those who raise the profile of a brand and ultimately make sales.  Regardless of whatever anyone here thinks qualifies as deserving.

[gme]

Whilst i agree with your comment Paul i dont think that the blame lies just with the companies. The athletes write the blogs, articles, and content not the companies and i agree with you that a lot of it is crap, and often shows that they are just writing it because they have to. It should be the athletes responsibility to do the writing.

The same problem used to exist when we only had hard media, i always used to get wound up seeing pictures of sponsored climbers in articles such as "classic stanage V.S.s, fully bedecked in there sponsors gear. Compares to the throwaway shite you see on twitter and facebook all the time.

I must admit that i can see why people cant be bothered selling themselves for a few pairs of boots, i imagine its a lot off effort to do what the likes of Neil and Tim do and if you only get £1000.00 of kit for doing it you might as well just get a labouring job for a few weeks.

[T_B]

I think that most of the videos (shorts) that BD put out on-line are high quality. They use social media to make you aware of them. They also do Digital catalogues that a pretty slick e.g. http://catalog.blackdiamondequipment.com/climbing2013/en_us/index.html

[tomtom]

Its all about 'profile'

Being the best and ticking the hardest routes, putting up the hardest lines/problems pushes you close to the top. But you may still be a lesser climber, but have a bigger profile or visible presence because you: (any combo of the below)

Write a good blog

Tweet a lot (have loads of followers), instagram, faceache blah blah..

Get magazine exposure

Get online exposure

Wider audience exposure (TV etc... we might think Bear 'george foreman' Grylls is a tool - but I bet North Face would give him loads of free kit for his latest tv adventure if he wanted it..)

[Paul B]

Whilst i agree with your comment Paul i dont think that the blame lies just with the companies. The athletes write the blogs, articles, and content not the companies and i agree with you that a lot of it is crap, and often shows that they are just writing it because they have to. It should be the athletes responsibility to do the writing.

Yeah of course it should, that's the return you're talking about  and which I agree with (I wouldn't suggest it was anyone else's job etc. ) but my point is that what happens is that people chuck out content in terms of volume rather than quality and what this thread has already suggested is that's what is seen as 'value' by the sponsors (Johnnys posts). Whereas a few 'high impact' blogs etc. about something truly significant should be valued more (and nurtured i.e. if you could persuade someone like Ryan to write up his most impressive ascents at the time / give an interview).

Edit2: If  a sponsor could accept lower volume but higher quality / significance then I think it'd be a good thing as a whole for climbing media / brands. At some point the public WILL get bored of endless poor quality media thrown at them relentlessly (I find myself watching and reading less and less, especially if it comes looking or targeted for/at me).

Twitter was a bad example but you shouldn't think of it all as noise... it isn't, just most of my rantings (f*cking Paul Daniels). It's now used very well for customer service and also for group discussion. A large photo blog I follow has used it as a comments system which is working well (even though I don't like it).

BD do churn out much more polished media, yes. That'll be to do with their much higher budget I'd imagine? I was being UK-centric as has been pointed out above, real salaries and real budgets make the US a different game (and thus an unfair comparison).

[Oldmanmatt]

Hmmm... Should sponsorship only be available to the very best?

Surely there are more manufacturers etc than top climbers?


If someone is brilliant, but unsponsored, is this because they have been denied, or not sought it?

Frankly, sponsorship is a great, positive, way of marketing. Something that gives someone the opportunity to pursue their passion, has got to be "better" than something that simply keeps TV ad Execs and Mag Marketers in a Mercedes Coupe...

[SA Chris]

I was just perusing their site to see their official list of sonsored "athletes" and came across my favourite name ever

http://fiveten.com/athletes/athlete-detail/7281-shon-bollock

I hope his first name is pronounced like Shaun.

[Baron]

Climber's climbers. Other climbers.

[Nibile]

Hmmm... Should sponsorship only be available to the very best?

Exactly.

arro sponsored by Nibile, on Flickr

[mindfull]

This is a broad debate, but one of the athletes who seem to have a good balance in this sponsorship thing is the lovely Hazel Findlay. 

[Johnny Brown]

Who was moaning only this week about how poor she is and had to stay in a tent in Patagonia whilst everyone else was in a hostel...

[mindfull]

Source JB?

[a dense loner]

At a push I'd say hazel

[mindfull]

Not heard her moaning lately, though she isn't getting rich from the climbing. She got to travel a lot though. South Africa, Yosemite, ...
Last I heard her she was quite happy (Enormocast) with being a sponsored climber.

[a dense loner]

I don't think jb meant she was unhappy with being sponsored, more she was unhappy that she stayed in a tent
What does enormocast mean?

[Paul B]

It's a climbing radioshow/podcast called enormocast. That episode was actually well worth a listen.

[a dense loner]

Think I'll pass

[Somebody's Fool]

I heard she was very happy staying in a tent and the only moaning which took place in said conversation was centred around childcare's adverse affect on showboating.

Hazel says hi btw.

[a dense loner]

That rings truer. Knew you wouldn't be far behind when hazels name was mentioned