[galpinos]

So who have they kept?

[slackline]

This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s)

[GraemeA]

This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s)

Why didn't someone find that site whilst DFBWGC was still running

[Lopez]

This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s)

Someone give that man a pair shoes

[Sasquatch]

This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s)

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.

[Stubbs]

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!

[gme]

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.

[Stubbs]

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. 

[Johnny Brown]

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

[a dense loner]

12 was an arbitrary number Stubbs, and I don't find it necessary to let people know I know more than them, what rot!

[Doylo]

 

Sounds like it's less than 12

[Stubbs]

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.

[mikester]

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.

[Paul B]

3 pairs of shoes per year.

[abarro81]

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??

[petejh]

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... )

[Stubbs]

Likewise with Messi today.

good timing! 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.

[abarro81]

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).

[Danny]

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?         

[Danny]

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.

[rodma]

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

[Danny]

  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.

[slackline]

This guy for blogging about his girlfriend(s)

Why didn't someone find that site whilst DFBWGC was still running

If you're missing DFBWGC then there is a sub-Reddit that may be of interest.

[Wood FT]

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?

[Johnny Brown]

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?