UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => news => Topic started by: Robsons on February 06, 2014, 01:10:17 pm
-
Potentially a bit of hearsay but I have been reading from many sources that FiveTen have dropped a lot of their UK athletes.
Does anyone know why this is?
It seems to be unexpected from the athletes' perspectives?
Some of these guys are the UK's best trad and sport climbers - perhaps not commercial enough?
-
You must follow
Grimer ClimbingRumours (https://twitter.com/ClimbingRumours/status/430329951556890624) on Twatter.
-
Yeah, they've dropped loads of people. Not sure why, someone told me Big Stone were having issues but no idea if that's true or not.
-
perhaps rather than spreading themselves thin giving a few pairs of free boots to lots of people they're thinking they will concentrate their efforts on one or two and allow those to travel etc?
-
Perhaps not Ben. The four athletes they've kept are two couples. Is this the future for sponsorship?
-
They've sponsored Mcclures wife???? :-\
-
Perhaps not Ben. The four athletes they've kept are two couples. Is this the future for sponsorship?
forward thinking innit, wad + wad x :lets_do_it_wild: = super wad born into anasazis
I think it's a shame they appear to have moved away from trad climbing but that might just be a coincidence and I have a tinfoil hat.....
-
If they are only sponsoring couples, maybe Dense and Dobbin could hook up for mutual
pleasure benefit? ;)
-
Sorry I always forget McClure's sponsored by 5.10 since he imports, reps or whatever it's called these days, for la sportiva.
Anyway you know what I meant. They've dropped a climber whose done E10, 9A and bouldered ok this year. I find this fascinating
-
I heard Caff left in a show of solidarity with Robins and Pasquill.
-
Good man
-
Yeah, they've dropped loads of people. Not sure why, someone told me Big Stone were having issues but no idea if that's true or not.
Big Stone don't exist anymore, they are now Arcteryx UK.
5.10 is being dealt with by a new agency headed by Mo Overfield ex-Big Stone
-
I heard Caff left in a show of solidarity with Robins and Pasquill.
Oh yeah? ;)
-
Out of interest who is still sponsored by 5.10?
According to their website (http://fiveten.com/athletes/athlete-search/search-results/order:rdate/cat:9_10/query:all/jr_sport:Climbing/jr_region:Europe/) it is only Pete and Ste Mc
-
Yes could we have a list of the sponsored athletes up since everyone I bump into seems to claim to be sponsored by 5.10. Imagine looking at the results from the foundry comp then cross referencing them with 8a.sponsor and finding everyone's sponsored but no one is, excepting the king and queen of the wave
-
The four athletes they've kept are two couples.
Dave and Mina, Tom and Pete?
-
Ok the 12 athletes they seem to have kept includes 2 couples
-
I mist admit I didn't realise fiveten sponsored any athletes. If they could get Mo Farrah and Jess Ennis on the team that'd be a right publicity coup.
-
Sorry I always forget McClure's sponsored by 5.10 since he imports, reps or whatever it's called these days, for la sportiva.
What are you on about?
-
Ste organises the 'athletes' sponsored by Lyon Equipment doesn't he? Presumably that's what he means?
Anyway, as to Five Ten 'dropping' athletes, it's not Five Ten is it. The brand has a new distributor so it's not really accurate to say "they've decided to keep so and so, but not so and so". New distributor, new marketing budget and new look at who is putting out tweets, video etc and therefore has the potential to give them the biggest exposure for least cost.
-
right nice one, better get tweeting about what you've had for dinner or how well training went if you want some free shoes kids.
obviously it's just business, fuck business.
-
obviously it's just business, fuck business.
[/quote]
Did anyone honestly believe that any companies sponsor people to help them get better. Its just not the case and never was. Companies give people stuff in return for exposure and return on the investment made. Its business.
Therefore those with the highest profiles get the best deals. This can be the best climbers but often isn't, just as likely to be the ones who are in the mags/blogs/internet the most as this is where the buying public see them. Most climbers dont know the difference between E8-E10, 9a -9b, 8A-8B they are all just dreams that they are unlikely ever to attain, so to them anyone climbing those grades are amazing. So they are influenced by who they see and read about.
If you want a good sponsor deal you have to give the person paying you a return, and if that means prostituting your self then get on with it or just buy your own stuff. They are not rewarding you for being good they are rewarding you for advertising there product.
-
Doesn't matter if you climb 9a, one blog every 6 months isn't going to cut it!
-
Not sure about that "sponsor people to help them get better" statement.
There has to be a trade off, of exposure, for sure; but the two things go hand in hand.
(I just spent a load on helping with traveling costs etc for one of our sponsored climbers to head off to Spain and took on another young climber (we currently sponsor 4 and part sponsor another)).
For us, that means giving them free access to facilities and the cost of some vests and hoodies. A couple of them do some coaching for us in return (those smart enough to realise their climbing career might be limited and it could be an idea to think about later too).
These things cost (including lost revenue) more than a reasonable ad spot on local radio; which would reach far more "newbies" than a hundred UKC, 8a articles and therefore have a greater return.
This is going to be true for gear manufacturers too. The majority of their income/sales will be their entry level products, surely? Things not associated with "stars" only known within rather select circles? So there has to be some desire to further the sport on which they depend, no?
-
Companies give people stuff in return for exposure and return on the investment made. Its business.
Sure. But in this case they seem to have made a fairly grave error in judgement by rewarding quantity over quality, or assuming punters cannot discern between the two. Given a choice between wearing the same boots as the only guy to have on sighted several E8s, or some guy who blogs regularly about his girlfriend, who would you choose?
-
So who have they kept?
-
This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s) (http://climbing.ilooove.it/user/voros-tomi-50121) :clown:
-
This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s) (http://climbing.ilooove.it/user/voros-tomi-50121) :clown:
Why didn't someone find that site whilst DFBWGC was still running
-
This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s) (http://climbing.ilooove.it/user/voros-tomi-50121) :clown:
Someone give that man a pair shoes
-
This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s) (http://climbing.ilooove.it/user/voros-tomi-50121) :clown:
Why didn't someone find that site whilst DFBWGC was still running
Thought the same thing, then started exploring, and there's actually some good stuff buried in there.
-
So who have they kept?
Yeah come on Dense, I know you love to let people know that you know more then them, who are the 12? I didn't think they sponsored that many people in the UK to start with!
-
Companies give people stuff in return for exposure and return on the investment made. Its business.
Sure. But in this case they seem to have made a fairly grave error in judgement by rewarding quantity over quality, or assuming punters cannot discern between the two. Given a choice between wearing the same boots as the only guy to have on sighted several E8s, or some guy who blogs regularly about his girlfriend, who would you choose?
Of course it has to be the correct type of exposure. Didn't think I had to say that. Loads of very good climbers were/are crap at the media game. Other good but not the best climbers were great at the game and did better out of it. It's true in all sports not just climbing.
-
Companies give people stuff in return for exposure and return on the investment made. Its business.
Sure. But in this case they seem to have made a fairly grave error in judgement by rewarding quantity over quality, or assuming punters cannot discern between the two. Given a choice between wearing the same boots as the only guy to have on sighted several E8s, or some guy who blogs regularly about his girlfriend, who would you choose?
I think I have to disagree here, it's about brand exposure right? For all his exploits Ryan rarely makes it into the news in any big way, and I bet a lot of folk wouldn't be able to tell you which shoes he wears.
-
Really? Putting in as little effort as possible:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/search.html?cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&cx=012320157739014986830%3Azyxmlwsazli&q=Ryan+Pasquill+&sa.x=18&sa.y=4
(http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/search.html?cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&cx=012320157739014986830%3Azyxmlwsazli&q=Ryan+Pasquill+&sa.x=18&sa.y=4)
-
12 was an arbitrary number Stubbs, and I don't find it necessary to let people know I know more than them, what rot!
-
:lol:
Sounds like it's less than 12
-
Cool so some news articles on UKC with a few thousand views (probably mainly spiders and robots), and 2(?) videos, hardly a new media portfolio for an aspiring athlete/ambassador is it?!
For what it's worth I agree with you and there are few climbers in the UK more worthy of sponsorship based on ability, but I'm trying to see through the a cynical advertising filter.
-
I wonder what the 'sponsorship' involved for many? If it's a case of dishing out a few pairs of shoes and t-shirts to a handful of climbers you wouldn't think it'd break the bank, so bankrolling the footwear of some high-profile climbers seems sensible - a good return for minimal investment.
-
3 pairs of shoes per year.
-
Fuckin' hell, they weren't generous then! Seems nuts that they don't think the advertising they get from someone like Ryan or Katy is worth all of about £150 quid per year??
-
I find it an interesting subject. There seems to be a lot of mudiness surrounding how the most talented and accomplished climbers are recognised and rewarded (I'm using the term loosely). I believe the most talented/accomplished climbers should receive more recognition/reward than the mid-table also-rans (the so-called 'professional climbers'); but then I'm a hopeless case of believing in meritocracy.
I think of Paul Scholes when thinking about this (how the scum must miss his sort now). Every British football fan recognised Scholes as one of the best midfielders of his generation. He hardly ever (never?) appeared in any publicity other than appearing on the field for each game. He didn't have to, the side he played for was on mainstream tv every weekend and therefore it was impossible not to notice this talented but retiring athlete who virtually never spoke to the media. But if for some reason coverage of football matches had dropped out of mainstream media between 1998 and 2012, and the only footballers seen/heard in the media were those that chose to push themselves forward outside of the actual matches, then a lot of football fans would be forgiven for believing Robbie Savage was a better midfield player than Paul Scholes!
Likewise with Messi today. (I'm not saying Scholes = Messi!).
Climbing must contain plenty of Paul Scholes's... it's a matter of numbers. Except they don't get recognised by the climbing public because climbing's media can't watch as intently or widely as in a sport such as football, and the active part of climbing doesn't lend itself to broadcasting other than by individual climbers with their own agendas. So 'the quiet ones' won't get picked up.
Unfortunately that means lots of climbing's true talents, who don't push themselves publicly, are under-recognised by climbing's media and therefore climbing's wider audience. And relatively average talents, who are keen to publicise, get recognition beyond their relative accomplishments. It seems to be an activity which 'rewards' (if you believe recognition to be a form of reward) being a narcissistic personality. It would be entirely plausible for one of the country's most talented and accomplished climbers not to have sponsorship due to not wanting it, and barely get any mention in the climbing media if they chose not to make any comment when asked. Like a climbing version of Paul Scholes - but in climbing's case they could be almost unknown by the wider climbing public.
For someone who believes in talent-based meritocracy this always seems odd.
Meritocracy doesn't seem to operate in how climbing media recognises climbing talent, but then it seems like it's an impossibility for it to do so given the practicalities (no wide independent coverage, reporting reliant on self-reportage etc.).
(I can hear you laughing from here Doylo... ;D )
-
Likewise with Messi today.
good timing! http://news.pg.com/press-release/pg-corporate-announcements/gillette-announces-lionel-messi-new-global-ambassador (http://news.pg.com/press-release/pg-corporate-announcements/gillette-announces-lionel-messi-new-global-ambassador)
I would say that there are some better counter examples in football than Savage, even with my limited knowledge, someone like Anelka perhaps?
I think climbing versions of Scholes generally get outed as people like discussing them, perhaps Micky Page would be a good example here? He seemed to spend a lot of years trying to avoid media coverage, but after a while people notice when you've done so many hard problems!
Personally I don't really see this as a problem, I assume these people are happy not courting the media/sponsors and just getting on with their climbing. The magic of grades and style of ascent makes it easy to judge who the best climbers are (those having the most fun, obviously) and therefore afford them more personal respect. Likewise you can ignore climbers with a lot of media fluff, but not the ascents to back it up.
-
because climbing's media can't watch as intently or widely as in a sport such as football,
It's more than that too. Sure, there are the slightly underground sends that go unreported because they're tricky to find out about and easy to miss, but also the climbing media - in my experience - want to be spoon fed everything. It's not just that they can't find out about newsworthy things, it's that they can't be bothered to try to find out about them. Certain outlets will however, happily publish 'news' articles on things which aren't at all newsworthy if you spoon feed them a picture and some words.
I naively used to think that anyone running a climbing media outlet would want the most noteworthy news on their news feed, because that's what I'd want if I were running it, but in my experience that's not quite how it works (something which, to an extent, I've benefited from myself).
-
Interesting stuff. For what its worth, I probably admire Ryan as a climber more than most five tenners - for his ground up grit CV and for being living proof that very lanky people can climb hard sport.
That doesn't necessarily mean I'd sponsor him if I was selecting for a manufacturer's team thingy, as some have already noted. The world is clearly, clearly a very far cry from meritocratic - did you know that, on average, juries give better looking criminals shorter prison sentences for a given crime?
And the football thing is hardly a decent analogy - if you play in the premier league you can afford to be retiring and still make a pile of cash - it is in many ways a more meritocratic game. Fergie never said to Scholes "There you go, son, take these three pairs of boots and do me proud. Would be great to see a decent blog post this month too."
Climbing is a very different game - if you want to actually make a living you have to put yourself out there a bit. This doesn't have to mean that you're a grade A narcissist either, nor tip top of the ability pile, but both can help. Take the likes of Shauna (I'd be shocked if they dropped her), not just a crusher, but also up for the charity calendars and willing to put together a women's symposium. Take MacLeod, books, lectures, an excellent coaching blog.
The world is changing fast - it's clearly not enough to churn out the odd half arsed blog and get yer "face in the mags" anymore. I don't see any obvious problem with this situation. Those that aren't up for that whole bag will just carry on with their climbing, because who really gives a shit about a couple of free pairs of rock shoes anyway?
-
It would be pretty funny if they dropped Shauna. I can't quite remember (or never knew in the first place) whether I've seen her wearing Sportivas, they seem to be almost ubiquitous amongst top end boulderers.
Brainfart.
-
The world is clearly, clearly a very far cry from meritocratic - did you know that, on average, juries give better looking criminals shorter prison sentences for a given crime?
Well, you learn something new every day. I didn't know that juries got to decide anything about sentencing
-
:slap: brain fart #2...late night bad wording. You may be able to work out what I mean though, and the point I'm making.
Juries make bad calls, so do judges, the net result of which is better looking people do shorter stretches. Off topic.
-
This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s) (http://climbing.ilooove.it/user/voros-tomi-50121) :clown:
Why didn't someone find that site whilst DFBWGC was still running
If you're missing DFBWGC then there is a sub-Reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Climberchicks/) that may be of interest.
-
:slap: brain fart #2...late night bad wording. You may be able to work out what I mean though, and the point I'm making.
so you're saying Ryan's ugly?
-
Cool so some news articles on UKC with a few thousand views (probably mainly spiders and robots), and 2(?) videos, hardly a new media portfolio for an aspiring athlete/ambassador is it?!
Find me a similar search page for anyone else! There's amazing stuff on there I'd forgotten he'd done, there's so much of it.
For what it's worth I agree with you and there are few climbers in the UK more worthy of sponsorship based on ability, but I'm trying to see through the a cynical advertising filter.
I don't think there are any cynical bean counters operating here. Having worked a bit in both the industry what you have is a) ex-climbers running the businesses who don't even keep up with climbing news, let alone climb, and b) a media who don't have the resources to do any investigative stuff, but will publish almost anything they are sent that looks nice. Sum total is cluelessness, so if someone dances in front of them crying 'me me me me', they go with it.
And yet you have a British climbing public who seem very cynical and are very quick to kick anyone seen grandstanding. If we did have some savvy advertising peeps they'd realise the perfect ambassador is the climber who is not only the best but also modest and laidback.
PS Surely a true meritocracy would take account of good lookers?
-
Pasquills fit as fuck
-
My point exactly.
-
If we did have some savvy advertising peeps they'd realise the perfect ambassador is the climber who is not only the best but also modest and laidback.
There's modest and laidback (Sharma) and there's just plain shy. Check out the top names in the world (Nalle, P-Rob, Dave G, Honnold etc) on Instagram - they're putting stuff out every day. If you're not willing to push every ascent through social media, you're not worth a few pairs of boots. The short clip of Honnold soloing that thing in Mexico was everywhere on social media within a few days.
A couple of the most heavily 'marketed' British climbers of the past 15 years or so would be Emmett and Gresham. I doubt either would consider themselves to have ever been 'the best' or whatever, but their personalities and ability to communicate is their value:
Gresham on the sofa at the BBC - probably the best bit of explanation of rock climbing to the masses that I've seen on mainstream TV Neil Gresham on BBC News, talking about his DWS- 'The Olympiad' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3E__ooSnXk#ws)
-
I just watched that and imagined Ryan being interviewed on BBC news. Pissing myself!!! :lol: :lol:
-
And relatively average talents, who are keen to publicise, get recognition beyond their relative accomplishments.
I read this and just thought 'isn't this how life works?'
Can think of many examples at work where people who are good at networking, promoting what they do, and 'managing up' get a lot more recognition than people who are actually much better at their jobs.
Think about books you see on the shelves at Tesco. A lot of them are badly-written trash. But I bet the author is excellent at promoting themselves, and has pitched their product to a clearly defined market etc. They'll also be a lot richer than a lot of 'better' writers.
Same must hold true for sponsorship - if you make it easy for the sponsor to see your accomplishments and how they'll get a benefit from sponsoring you, you'll get the gig over someone who's better at climbing/whatever activity but can't sell their 'brand'.
-
I just watched that and imagined Ryan being interviewed on BBC news. Pissing myself!!! :lol: :lol:
Which is exactly my point...maybe badly made by an oblique crime factoid. Even Ondra (who is probably so good as to be a special case) isn't exactly a sponsors wet dream in terms of looks, but beyond immediate ability is actually well spoken and very engaging.
-
A couple of the most heavily 'marketed' British climbers of the past 15 years or so would be Emmett and Gresham. I doubt either would consider themselves to have ever been 'the best' or whatever...
A great example. Tim and Neil's posed, logo plastered ascents were all over the mags when I was young and impressionable. I, and many of my contemporaries, found them a massive turn-off and consciously avoided the 'cheesy' brands they promoted. As I said, I don't think British climbers are vapid fanbois for whom this kind of marketing has much appeal.
Comparisons with american sponsored climbers aren't particularly valid because they actually get paid proper salaries worth doing some work for. I'm sure if you offered Ryan £30k a year he might manage to tweet occasionally.
-
A couple of the most heavily 'marketed' British climbers of the past 15 years or so would be Emmett and Gresham. I doubt either would consider themselves to have ever been 'the best' or whatever...
A great example. Tim and Neil's posed, logo plastered ascents were all over the mags when I was young and impressionable. I, and many of my contemporaries, found them a massive turn-off and consciously avoided the 'cheesy' brands they promoted. As I said, I don't think British climbers are vapid fanbois for whom this kind of marketing has much appeal.
I really believe that you are in a minority, most of us have fallen for marketing of this type before. Plus the marketing people get around this by the promotion of the Johnny Dawes type anti hero to get to people turned off by the "cheesy" stuff, but we still all fall for it.
As you get older you kind of see through it all a bit but by then your not the target market anymore so dont really count.
Neil is the perfect example of the type of climber we are talking about, he was never the best by a decent margin but has gone on to make a successful career out of climbing by giving the companies that sponsor him a good return and raising his profile to there and his benefit. I would hazard a guess that he would appear on a lot more punters "best climber in Britain" list than some of the people dropped by 5.10 would.
-
I'm not sure what the problem is here, and/or some people seem to be operating on a remarkably narrow definition of "merit".
Let's assume there are climbers who are very good at actual climbing, not much interested in the commercial/self-promotion aspect of being a professional climber, and quietly go about enjoying their climbing. No problem there as far as I can see.
Then let's suppose there are climbers who very good at actual climbing, are interested in the commercial/self-promotion aspect of being a professional climber, and have applied their undoubted work ethic and self-discipline to that side of things too. Successfully. No problem there either.
Perhaps there are climbers who very good at actual climbing, passionately want somebody to pay them to be professional climbers, but haven't put the effort in to getting good at the commercial/self-promotion aspect yet. We already know these people are capable of a high level of hard work and self-discipline, otherwise they wouldn't have become good climbers. They need to focus some of that that hard work and self-discipline in the direction of learning how to self-promote and offer commercial value to sponsors. These are learnable skills.
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.
A while back I also read Messner's autobiography. (He comes across as a thoroughly miserable git, but ...) Again, he makes it plain that he was working his ass off at various aspects of his job *all the time*, whether it was doing desperately hard and dangerous things, training his ass off for desperately hard and dangerous things, or writing numerous books and doing exhausting lecture tours.
Nobody has any right to expect other people to pay them just for doing their hobby / going on holiday.
-
A great example. Tim and Neil's posed, logo plastered ascents were all over the mags when I was young and impressionable. I, and many of my contemporaries, found them a massive turn-off and consciously avoided the 'cheesy' brands they promoted. As I said, I don't think British climbers are vapid fanbois for whom this kind of marketing has much appeal.
This is just you and your friends though innit, you don't exactly represent the mainstream, i bet you were wearing a Levellers t shirt at the time to show how anti establishment you were ;) Try talking to an average wall user in London or Bristol, they think of those guys as total legends.
-
This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s) (http://climbing.ilooove.it/user/voros-tomi-50121) :clown:
There is something about that blog that got me a little distracted...
-
This is all conjecture, none of those actually affected by this have posted on their blogs/twatter/farcebook that they've a grievance. :clown:
-
I took the missus to a Gresham and Kenton Cool talk. I thought she'd enjoy the Everest bit and I'd enjoy the climbing bit. As it turned outm, we both really enjoyed Grasham and found Kenton very dull. Gresham spoke really well and on a level that engaged a none climber with a slight distain for the sport, my wife, and a pretty keen climber at the same time.
I'd assume that this, combined with the amount of effort he makes to "get himself out there" in the media, is why companies sponser him.
I'm assuming you're still on the 5.10 team JB? ;)
-
Even Ondra (who is probably so good as to be a special case) isn't exactly a sponsors wet dream in terms of looks, but beyond immediate ability is actually well spoken and very engaging.
I think he's done a bit of work on this with a coach or something, he's definitely getting a lot better at it, used to be terrible.
-
I'm assuming you're still on the 5.10 team JB?
I have never been sponsored, but I have been influenced by what gear very good climbers use.
Plus the marketing people get around this by the promotion of the Johnny Dawes type anti hero to get to people turned off by the "cheesy" stuff, but we still all fall for it
No they don't. 'Marketing' people in the outdoor world are simply not operating on this level. Give me an example?
I'm not saying accomplished self-promoters like Tim and Neil don't deserve sponsorship; they do. But alongside the greatest talents, not instead of.
-
A great example. Tim and Neil's posed, logo plastered ascents were all over the mags when I was young and impressionable. I, and many of my contemporaries, found them a massive turn-off and consciously avoided the 'cheesy' brands they promoted. As I said, I don't think British climbers are vapid fanbois for whom this kind of marketing has much appeal.
But the Johnny Brown of 20 years ago is not who 5.10 (or their importers) are trying to appeal to. Climbing is no longer about holey jumpers, smoking rollies and sticking it to the man. I obviously don't know but I'd be prepared to wager that more expensive rock shoes are sold down south than up north, these people area scuffing up £125 rock shoes four time a week down the wall while the rest of us old tight wads are using resoles or whatever we got on offer. The 'down south market' are people who climb indoors and go on regular trips abroad, as such they are more likely to be influenced by Jakob Schubert or Sean McColl than they are by some talented loafer who nonchalantly repeats scary climbs.
On a tangential note I think Neil Gresham is a climbing hero, he's achieved what he has through hard work, he's maintained a high performance for 20 years and he's maintained enthusiasm for climbing while the rest if us have dipped in and out or had periods where we've fallen out of love with climbing. He's a climber to the core, who works hard and is personable. Who is more deserving of earning (and I'm sure he earns every penny) a living from climbing?
-
Don't forget 5.10 got taken over by Adidas in early 2012. Maybe their sponsorship needs to go in a certain direction:
http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/what-does-the-adidas-five-ten-buyout-mean-for-climbers.html (http://www.outsideonline.com/blog/what-does-the-adidas-five-ten-buyout-mean-for-climbers.html)
-
On a tangential note I think Neil Gresham is a climbing hero, he's achieved what he has through hard work, he's maintained a high performance for 20 years and he's maintained enthusiasm for climbing while the rest if us have dipped in and out or had periods where we've fallen out of love with climbing. He's a climber to the core, who works hard and is personable. Who is more deserving of earning (and I'm sure he earns every penny) a living from climbing?
:agree:
Mr Gresham may not have been the greatest climber of his generation, but he seems to have a solid track record of substantial achievements, non?
-
JB -It might not be the case in climbing but it is very much the case in other "lifestyle" type sports. Could be down to the climbing companies not being very good at marketing.
Most surf brands latched onto the soul surfer idea, pretty much equivilent to the climbing group I perceive you belong, and seem to be pretty good at selling stuff to hippys proclaiming not to need stuff. And do a great job of branding the anti brands brigade. (Volcom).
-
Even Ondra (who is probably so good as to be a special case) isn't exactly a sponsors wet dream in terms of looks, but beyond immediate ability is actually well spoken and very engaging.
I think he's done a bit of work on this with a coach or something, he's definitely getting a lot better at it, used to be terrible.
I disagree, bearing in mind that you're largely talking about how he engaged as an adolescent. Rare drama extrovert types aside, how many 15-18 year olds do you know who could speak with a similar degree of restraint, maturity and confidence?
Ondra has always struck me as intelligent and well spoken, especially compared to others who's first language is English. D. Woods, for example, seems like a nice bloke, but comes across like a vacuous air-head.
-
You mean he isn't an adolescent any more? :)
I've noticed a dramatic change over the last 6 months or so, I have no doubt an improved command of English may help. Maybe it's just becuse I've paid more attention.
-
I would hazard a guess that he would appear on a lot more punters "best climber in Britain" list than some of the people dropped by 5.10 would.
I think this is what ends up rubbing people up the wrong way, even if it shouldn't matter. It seems even on here that some people seem to think that Gresham's achievements are even in the same league as e.g. Ryan's. I'd respectfully say that they're not. I recently saw a picture of Emmett on Dreamcatcher. My instant response was that, unless something has changed since I last heard about his rock climbing exploits, it's pretty disingenuous of him to trade off his high profile as a 'pro climber' to pretend to those who don't know otherwise that he's in the same league as a rock climber as those like Sharma and McColl who've done it, or even those with less of a profile like Mike Foley who've failed to do it (and who I would never have heard of if I'd not met him in RRG last year, but is pretty damn handy, certainly a world better on rock than anything I've heard of Emmett doing). That's not to say TE doesn't deserve the sponsorship he gets, his infectious enthusiasm and ability to self-promote is exactly what sponsors want, but it does mean that punters and newbies basically have no clue about who is good at climbing. E.g. when I started out TE was a hero of mine - he gave a talk at my school and I thought he was the most badass mofo out there. I had no clue that, whilst a long way from being shit, he was miles off the pace when it came to actually climbing HARD on rock. Why would I even question that he's one of the best - he's a pro climber so of course he's one of the best! 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. Thinking about it this is what rubs me up the wrong way - it's not that everyone knows x climbs 9a but y climbs 8c and publicises better so gets more sponsorship, it's that the publicising of y climbing 8c feels like them claiming to be top dog, when they know that they're not, i.e. it seems a bit false. It shouldn't wind anyone up, but it can. I really wonder about how my mind works sometimes - I think I need therapy.
-
What winds me up is when some cunt who isn't that good at climbing in the grand scheme of things, gets hooked up by an acquaintance with a rep for a company rep re some sponsorship and promises this acquaintance a free pair of shoes if anything comes of it. This cunt then gets a ton of free shoes, clothes etc (we're not talking three pairs a year), and does not make good on his promise. That's a lot worse than pretending to be better than you are to get some sponsorship.
-
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.
-
Anecdotes from the small part of The Castle that I frequent, from the last few weeks.
A guy is confused when the Patch unit burns off his mate Britain's Best Climber Neil Gresham on the wave board.
I have to explain to a guy who Ryan is. I look at him confused, 'he's Britains most naturally talented climber'. Bloke looks at me like i'm talking about Si O'connor. I qualify my statement. Still nothing. (This bloke thinks and talks about climbing all the time, works in a shop watching climbing dvds all day.)
Different guy; I ask, what are those shoes?
'They're like a Scarpa version of the sportivas'. (turns out he means Solution). 'Yeah Gaz Parry was tweeting about them he reckons they're amazing'
Me: 'Isn't Gaz sponsored by Scarpa?'
etc. I am regularly astounded by what the small number of climbers I come into contact with think. We, the contributors to this thread and even this forum, are a minority. Also I'd guess the distributors and equipment moguls are from the same pool.
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.
Where is the market research? What are the demographics?
-
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.
-
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.
-
well said
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://catalog.blackdiamondequipment.com/climbing2013/en_us/index.html)
-
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..)
-
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).
-
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...
-
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 (http://fiveten.com/athletes/athlete-detail/7281-shon-bollock)
I hope his first name is pronounced like Shaun.
-
Climber's climbers. Other climbers.
-
Hmmm... Should sponsorship only be available to the very best?
Exactly.
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3676/12537439253_f5b3f35624.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/70381658@N00/12537439253/)
arro sponsored (http://www.flickr.com/photos/70381658@N00/12537439253/#) by Nibile (http://www.flickr.com/people/70381658@N00/), on Flickr
-
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. :punk:
-
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...
-
Source JB?
-
At a push I'd say hazel
-
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.
-
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?
-
It's a climbing radioshow/podcast called enormocast. That episode was actually well worth a listen.
-
Think I'll pass
-
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.
-
That rings truer. Knew you wouldn't be far behind when hazels name was mentioned