Tanner Hall Cut From Oakley After 20 Years

Joshdann14 · Oct 18, 2018

JoshWong said:
I can relate. Major bummer

Yo you coming back to rmr parks this winter?

Skibumsmith · Oct 18, 2018

codizzle said:
Not gonna lie - that's fukken lame of Oakley. Sorry, but guys like ABM are way less marketable than T Hall.

not true

Andrew_M · Oct 18, 2018

codizzle said:
Not gonna lie - that's fukken lame of Oakley. Sorry, but guys like ABM are way less marketable than T Hall.

Not to disagree that it sucks they cut T Hall, a big mistake for sure to all of us... but ABM is more marketable than T Hall by a pretty decent factor. He's on the world stage at the olympics, competing in all the events, he's younger which means his shelf life is longer than T Hall's, and he appeals to a wider range of people because he is seen as more of an "athlete" to average people that follow snow sports in general. I don't agree with that thinking and I fucking love ABM, no hate at all, but on paper I'm sure thats justifiable to Oakley. To a company like that things have to make business sense which is whack, especially because T Hall is an absolute legend. All of us will hate them for it but in the grand scheme of things when was the last time you forked over $150 for new goggles? Maybe every three seasons? When's the last time you bought ski gear for full price? Oakley started making motocross grips and other shit and then sunglasses and then moved to goggles, they didn't start in the ski industry, in fact most eyewear brands are split across multiple sports. The reality is that to a big brand like Oakley, the freeski market isn't big enough for them to profit and they have to look elsewhere for consumers, which turns into cutting people you thought they never would. It sucks and it's bullshit and the love that Oakley has for skiing is profit oriented, that's just the way it is. Simply saying thats whack and fuck Oakley doesn't help or make brands want to invest more into free skiing though, it only makes it worse. We should be aware of the realities and the ways businesses work, and use your power as a consumer to reflect your opinion. They're not going to have T Hall riding for them because they love skiing, or because he's a legend, those things don't always return monetarily, even though the impact is much greater to the culture of skiing. The goal of a business like that is to profit, so if they can use those resources for someone like ABM instead in their heads they see more return. Not agreeing, just stating the reality. That being said I'm sorry T Hall, that has to be so shitty and you deserve to support and be supported by brands that back you for the love of skiing first and your marketability second, and wherever you end up I hope they will treat you that way.

fries · Oct 18, 2018

gapersarefriends said:
DAMN THAT SHIT IS BANANAS

B-A-N-A-N-A-S

hi_vis360 · Oct 18, 2018

chris.goodhue said:
I imagine Tanner is not the easiest person to do business with. Yeah his skiing is dope rn but I’m sure his don’t give a fuck attitude makes cutting deals tough and I doubt dropping him will affect Oakley at all. My guess is there’s two very different sides to this story

If Oakley actually cared about our sport they would be willing to put up with the attitude.

gravel · Oct 19, 2018

Andrew_M said:
Not to disagree that it sucks they cut T Hall, a big mistake for sure to all of us... but ABM is more marketable than T Hall by a pretty decent factor. He's on the world stage at the olympics, competing in all the events, he's younger which means his shelf life is longer than T Hall's, and he appeals to a wider range of people because he is seen as more of an "athlete" to average people that follow snow sports in general. I don't agree with that thinking and I fucking love ABM, no hate at all, but on paper I'm sure thats justifiable to Oakley. To a company like that things have to make business sense which is whack, especially because T Hall is an absolute legend. All of us will hate them for it but in the grand scheme of things when was the last time you forked over $150 for new goggles? Maybe every three seasons? When's the last time you bought ski gear for full price? Oakley started making motocross grips and other shit and then sunglasses and then moved to goggles, they didn't start in the ski industry, in fact most eyewear brands are split across multiple sports. The reality is that to a big brand like Oakley, the freeski market isn't big enough for them to profit and they have to look elsewhere for consumers, which turns into cutting people you thought they never would. It sucks and it's bullshit and the love that Oakley has for skiing is profit oriented, that's just the way it is. Simply saying thats whack and fuck Oakley doesn't help or make brands want to invest more into free skiing though, it only makes it worse. We should be aware of the realities and the ways businesses work, and use your power as a consumer to reflect your opinion. They're not going to have T Hall riding for them because they love skiing, or because he's a legend, those things don't always return monetarily, even though the impact is much greater to the culture of skiing. The goal of a business like that is to profit, so if they can use those resources for someone like ABM instead in their heads they see more return. Not agreeing, just stating the reality. That being said I'm sorry T Hall, that has to be so shitty and you deserve to support and be supported by brands that back you for the love of skiing first and your marketability second, and wherever you end up I hope they will treat you that way.

hi drew how long was it to type this paragraph asking for a friend

Paul. · Oct 19, 2018

Mr_muktuk242 said:
Bets on who picks him up? Spy?

Ruroc

codizzle · Oct 19, 2018

Andrew_M said:
Not to disagree that it sucks they cut T Hall, a big mistake for sure to all of us... but ABM is more marketable than T Hall by a pretty decent factor. He's on the world stage at the olympics, competing in all the events, he's younger which means his shelf life is longer than T Hall's, and he appeals to a wider range of people because he is seen as more of an "athlete" to average people that follow snow sports in general. I don't agree with that thinking and I fucking love ABM, no hate at all, but on paper I'm sure thats justifiable to Oakley. To a company like that things have to make business sense which is whack, especially because T Hall is an absolute legend. All of us will hate them for it but in the grand scheme of things when was the last time you forked over $150 for new goggles? Maybe every three seasons? When's the last time you bought ski gear for full price? Oakley started making motocross grips and other shit and then sunglasses and then moved to goggles, they didn't start in the ski industry, in fact most eyewear brands are split across multiple sports. The reality is that to a big brand like Oakley, the freeski market isn't big enough for them to profit and they have to look elsewhere for consumers, which turns into cutting people you thought they never would. It sucks and it's bullshit and the love that Oakley has for skiing is profit oriented, that's just the way it is. Simply saying thats whack and fuck Oakley doesn't help or make brands want to invest more into free skiing though, it only makes it worse. We should be aware of the realities and the ways businesses work, and use your power as a consumer to reflect your opinion. They're not going to have T Hall riding for them because they love skiing, or because he's a legend, those things don't always return monetarily, even though the impact is much greater to the culture of skiing. The goal of a business like that is to profit, so if they can use those resources for someone like ABM instead in their heads they see more return. Not agreeing, just stating the reality. That being said I'm sorry T Hall, that has to be so shitty and you deserve to support and be supported by brands that back you for the love of skiing first and your marketability second, and wherever you end up I hope they will treat you that way.

I met ABM once - definitely a nice guy. He works hard. Sweet that he got a bronze at Olympics. But 3 years from now, no one will remember him. No one. He's replicable. Tanner Hall, like Seth, Plake, Candide and McConkey, is entirely unique, legendary and irreplaceable when it comes to brand recognition.

NPF · Oct 19, 2018

codizzle said:
I met ABM once - definitely a nice guy. He works hard. Sweet that he got a bronze at Olympics. But 3 years from now, no one will remember him. No one. He's replicable. Tanner Hall, like Seth, Plake, Candide and McConkey, is entirely unique, legendary and irreplaceable when it comes to brand recognition.

lol wut. codizzle shut your old ass up

BrawnTrends · Oct 19, 2018

PB1 said:
Keeps Pettit...
Cuts Tanner
?

Probably because of snowboarding? (and age demographic)

fghtoffyrdmns · Oct 19, 2018

Andrew_M said:
Not to disagree that it sucks they cut T Hall, a big mistake for sure to all of us... but ABM is more marketable than T Hall by a pretty decent factor. He's on the world stage at the olympics, competing in all the events, he's younger which means his shelf life is longer than T Hall's, and he appeals to a wider range of people because he is seen as more of an "athlete" to average people that follow snow sports in general. I don't agree with that thinking and I fucking love ABM, no hate at all, but on paper I'm sure thats justifiable to Oakley. To a company like that things have to make business sense which is whack, especially because T Hall is an absolute legend. All of us will hate them for it but in the grand scheme of things when was the last time you forked over $150 for new goggles? Maybe every three seasons? When's the last time you bought ski gear for full price? Oakley started making motocross grips and other shit and then sunglasses and then moved to goggles, they didn't start in the ski industry, in fact most eyewear brands are split across multiple sports. The reality is that to a big brand like Oakley, the freeski market isn't big enough for them to profit and they have to look elsewhere for consumers, which turns into cutting people you thought they never would. It sucks and it's bullshit and the love that Oakley has for skiing is profit oriented, that's just the way it is. Simply saying thats whack and fuck Oakley doesn't help or make brands want to invest more into free skiing though, it only makes it worse. We should be aware of the realities and the ways businesses work, and use your power as a consumer to reflect your opinion. They're not going to have T Hall riding for them because they love skiing, or because he's a legend, those things don't always return monetarily, even though the impact is much greater to the culture of skiing. The goal of a business like that is to profit, so if they can use those resources for someone like ABM instead in their heads they see more return. Not agreeing, just stating the reality. That being said I'm sorry T Hall, that has to be so shitty and you deserve to support and be supported by brands that back you for the love of skiing first and your marketability second, and wherever you end up I hope they will treat you that way.

well, oakley still has scrappy on the team....I love that kid, but how is he more marketable than TANNER FUCKING HALL

fghtoffyrdmns · Oct 19, 2018

hannibal-linkter said:
Is this really news, that a 35yo Hall isn't riding for a brand that has been with him since inception? Tanner is showing his colors here and likely could've continued with the brand in some way with a more mature exit and sign of appreciation. Instead, he's done completely and it was all self detonation. This decision from a major company like Oakley who is owned by a MAJOR company like Luxottica was business, not personal. The real world exists people, and budget cuts, negotiations, etc. are real. So is the potential that Hall's manager isn't doing their job with contract execution - not many here probably considered that, eh? Regardless, breakups are tough, but get over it. Burn your goggles and cry yourself to sleep, tomorrow is another day.

lol fuck off

fghtoffyrdmns · Oct 19, 2018

Cade2 said:
Would Be sick to see him on spy with bdog

power move

freeskibum82 · Oct 19, 2018

IanAvery-Leaf said:
fuck Luxottica

came here to post that. glad someone else feels the same way. Oakley cant get their shit together. dropped orders. dealers missing crucial product for their stores to sell from orders their reps took months ago and still not fulfilled. More than likely tanner will be on another goggle manufacturer quick as any company would be stupid not to jump on this. give him a pro model immediately and see them sell out fast.

hi_vis360 · Oct 19, 2018

codizzle said:
I met ABM once - definitely a nice guy. He works hard. Sweet that he got a bronze at Olympics. But 3 years from now, no one will remember him. No one. He's replicable. Tanner Hall, like Seth, Plake, Candide and McConkey, is entirely unique, legendary and irreplaceable when it comes to brand recognition.

ABM is easily one of the most unique and creative competition skiers in the game, not to mention he was in multiple STEPT movies what are you talking about

NickyHartmann · Oct 19, 2018

NickyHartmann said:
If we where talking about 35 year old X that was once a good comp skier trying to get back in the game, Id understand that move. But this is Tanner Hall. Multiple X Games medalist, dominant backountry skier, solid street skier and most importantly ICON in the ski industry. He helped build the sport to where it is today.. that being said that move makes no sense to me and is a big fuckup marketing wise on oakleys hand... Lakai just put out a pro shoe for Tony Hawk... Now I know it Tony and it’s a different industry but to me Tanner has the same credibility in skiing. Oakley should of put out a 20 year pro model if you ask me! Man oh man...

The again theres to sides to each story. We may never know. One thing is for sure Tanner will always be an Icon no matter what!

NickyHartmann · Oct 19, 2018

NickyHartmann said:
If we where talking about 35 year old X that was once a good comp skier trying to get back in the game, Id understand that move. But this is Tanner Hall. Multiple X Games medalist, dominant backountry skier, solid street skier and most importantly ICON in the ski industry. He helped build the sport to where it is today.. that being said that move makes no sense to me and is a big fuckup marketing wise on oakleys hand... Lakai just put out a pro shoe for Tony Hawk... Now I know it Tony and it’s a different industry but to me Tanner has the same credibility in skiing. Oakley should of put out a 20 year pro model if you ask me! Man oh man...

were**

dr_fop · Oct 19, 2018

Auzy said:
After everything he has gone through why would they decide to cut him now? Tanners on top of his game this shit is fucked up Oakley

I'm sure this decision was made from a financial perspective. He is just not as marketable as he used to be; at least not with their target demographic. Oakley is a smart company and makes moves based on the numbers and not on emotions. Tanner is skiing amazing as always but doesn't help sell goggles/etc. like he used to. And he is expensive to have on the Oakley team based on how long he has been with them. They probably didn't end the relationship as smoothly as they should have, that's for sure. But I can't hate them for making the move. Think about it this way, it's smarter for an NFL team to cut ties with a star player before his production drops instead of after. It sucks but it's life. Tanner will be fine. 20 years with Oakley is an incredible run. He had to know it wasn't going to last forever. I'm surprised that he made it to 20. But I still love Tanner as a skier and Oakley for their products. I never wore their goggles because of Tanner. I bought Oakley because of the quality. It took getting older to realize how business and life works and Tanner is finally beginning to understand that. They both have done awesome things for the skiing industry as a whole.

dr_fop · Oct 19, 2018

butteredpretzel said:
Real curious to see if there's more to the story. Why would they end a 20 year multi-million dollar relationship without reason?

They absolutely did end it for a reason.... a financial one. The bottom line is that he was costing them more money than he was helping to bring in. Easy decision for any company. The only problem is that they should have celebrated his departure instead of just cutting ties abruptly. It would have helped their image a little bit more.

dr_fop · Oct 19, 2018

sambi said:
Why? I mean he‘s still one of the best and he‘s a LEGEND.

But he is one of the highest paid athletes to sponsor and was costing more money than he was bringing in. Easy move for any company. But they should have ended the relationship differently than they did.

Tanner Hall Cut From Oakley After 20 Years

Tanner Hall Cut From Oakley After 20 Years

Comments

Joshdann14

Skibumsmith

Andrew_M

fries

hi_vis360

gravel

Paul.

codizzle

NPF

BrawnTrends

fghtoffyrdmns

fghtoffyrdmns

fghtoffyrdmns

freeskibum82

hi_vis360

NickyHartmann

NickyHartmann

dr_fop

dr_fop

dr_fop

Article information

More in Gear

More from Newschoolers

Share this article