Corporations and skiing

Karl_Hungus

Karl_Hungus

Member
recently I have seen/heard a lot of people talking about big corporate sponsors and how it affects skiing as a whole.

I think the topic can be broken down into two groups, even tho many companies have elements of both.

There are small "core" companies that promote involvement in the skiing community and focus on the demands of the everyday ski bum, I'm thinking of companies like rmu, revision, line, etc...

Then there are big companies that seem to use the popularity of skiing for their own benefit (this can be said about both groups, but the intention of these big companies is solely profit while small companies may want other things) I'm thinking of salomon, Fischer, energy drinks, and other outside of the industry sponsorships (joss christensen sponsored by Bose, etc)

A lot of people hate on big companies and many people even base their purchases off of what group a company falls in (some people only like "core" companies) HOWEVER I personally do not think its fair to say core companies are good and corporations are evil, there are pros and cons

While core companies generally help the community and the average skier, corporate money is what helps the sponsored athletes at times, think about the pro skier, big money is what allows them to do crazy things, and can even support them through tough times. I don't have many good examples in skiing for this but think of pro skater Sean Malto, he tore his acl and wasn't skating for over a year, Nike (corporate money) supported him the whole way and kept him going. I'm thinking that without big money, athletes would have limited support and pro's careers would be very fragile because there would be no outside money to support their unpredictable careers. I bet a lot of pro skiers with big sponsorships (bobby brown, twallisch, James woods, Jesper tjader, etc..) were able to do a lot of their biggest accomplishments/projects because of their biggest sponsors.

finally: TLDR: corporations are good for the pros they sponsor, while core companies are good for the community.

So i ask ns, for anyone who still cares, should a pro skier "stay core"? Or should they take that big check, wear that red bull helmet, and "sell out"?

Also: should we as consumers avoid buying from corporate companies in order to keep skiing "core"? Or should we just buy whatever's cheapest/best?
 
13593523:icculus. said:
do whatever the fuck you want. who cares
Click to expand...

Fuck off with that, I make a thread about the ski industry and ask you guys what you think about things that have real implications on skiing and you say who cares? Go back to posting stupid gifs on other pointless threads
 
I don't think it's fair to say that Salomon and Fischer don't care about skiing and are only in it for the money. I don't know the details about their corporate structure so I can't say for sure (they may be owned by a larger corporation that has nothing to do with skiing). But, ask a racer how they feel about Fischer/what Fischer does for the sport and I suspect that they would have very good things to say. Just because a company existed before the whole freeskiing movement, and for that reason may not prioritize freeskiing like a newer small company that only makes twin tips, does not mean that the company is only in it for the money. The company may just have different priorities and a different image of skiing than the average NSer.
 
topic:drytshirtcontest said:
recently I have seen/heard a lot of people talking about big corporate sponsors and how it affects skiing as a whole.

I think the topic can be broken down into two groups, even tho many companies have elements of both.

There are small "core" companies that promote involvement in the skiing community and focus on the demands of the everyday ski bum, I'm thinking of companies like rmu, revision, line, etc...

Then there are big companies that seem to use the popularity of skiing for their own benefit (this can be said about both groups, but the intention of these big companies is solely profit while small companies may want other things) I'm thinking of salomon, Fischer, energy drinks, and other outside of the industry sponsorships (joss christensen sponsored by Bose, etc)

A lot of people hate on big companies and many people even base their purchases off of what group a company falls in (some people only like "core" companies) HOWEVER I personally do not think its fair to say core companies are good and corporations are evil, there are pros and cons

While core companies generally help the community and the average skier, corporate money is what helps the sponsored athletes at times, think about the pro skier, big money is what allows them to do crazy things, and can even support them through tough times. I don't have many good examples in skiing for this but think of pro skater Sean Malto, he tore his acl and wasn't skating for over a year, Nike (corporate money) supported him the whole way and kept him going. I'm thinking that without big money, athletes would have limited support and pro's careers would be very fragile because there would be no outside money to support their unpredictable careers. I bet a lot of pro skiers with big sponsorships (bobby brown, twallisch, James woods, Jesper tjader, etc..) were able to do a lot of their biggest accomplishments/projects because of their biggest sponsors.

finally: TLDR: corporations are good for the pros they sponsor, while core companies are good for the community.

So i ask ns, for anyone who still cares, should a pro skier "stay core"? Or should they take that big check, wear that red bull helmet, and "sell out"?

Also: should we as consumers avoid buying from corporate companies in order to keep skiing "core"? Or should we just buy whatever's cheapest/best?
Click to expand...

Gotta stay core, gotta buy from betalla or discrete.
 
This was a long paragraph that didn't really saying anything. It comes down to how the skier wants their career to play out. If they wanna become a comp jock, take that fat Salomon contract, but if they want to stay true to "skiing's roots" they will take the pay cut. Completely up to the skier.
 
13593536:drytshirtcontest said:
Fuck off with that, I make a thread about the ski industry and ask you guys what you think about things that have real implications on skiing and you say who cares? Go back to posting stupid gifs on other pointless threads
Click to expand...

your thread doesn't offer any discussion because that is how industries work.there are large companies and small companies and together they create a diverse industry. you also asked what our opinons were on the subject and i said idgaf because i dont. I dont care if a skier wants to take on a bigger sponsorship to have more opportunities and get that pay check or if they want to stay smaller, its up to them. also as a consumer idgaf becasue im a consumer and i will buy what i can afford and what i want. peace your thread is shit
 
13593597:icculus. said:
your thread doesn't offer any discussion because that is how industries work.there are large companies and small companies and together they create a diverse industry. you also asked what our opinons were on the subject and i said idgaf because i dont. I dont care if a skier wants to take on a bigger sponsorship to have more opportunities and get that pay check or if they want to stay smaller, its up to them. also as a consumer idgaf becasue im a consumer and i will buy what i can afford and what i want. peace your thread is

This post if filled with incorrect grammar. You should capitalize after a period, space after a period, don't (not dont), comma after peace, etc.

I think it would be sweet if we had a track changes function on ns...any thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
13593599:leprechaunsissy said:
your thread doesn't offer any discussion because that is how industries work.there are large companies and small companies and together they create a diverse industry. you also asked what our opinons were on the subject and i said idgaf because i dont. I dont care if a skier wants to take on a bigger sponsorship to have more opportunities and get that pay check or if they want to stay smaller, its up to them. also as a consumer idgaf becasue im a consumer and i will buy what i can afford and what i want. peace your thread is

This post if filled with incorrect grammar. You should capitalize after a period, space after a period, don't (not dont), comma after peace, etc.

I think it would be sweet if we had a track changes function on ns...any thoughts?
Click to expand...

^^oops, I wrote within the quote
 
13593601:leprechaunsissy said:
^^oops, I wrote within the quote
Click to expand...

lol i am typing with one hand and even if i didnt get surgery on my left wrist yesterday i still wouldnt give a single shit about my grammar on ns.
 
13593554:yhprum1720 said:
I don't think it's fair to say that Salomon and Fischer don't care about skiing and are only in it for the money.
Click to expand...

This. The whole idea that big companies don't give a shit about skiing, skiers, or their product that NS is so into has gotta go. It's just nonsense. Companies are made up of people, and I guarantee the people designing and building skis and boots and bindings and all that at Salomon, Fischer, and all the other big companies care a whole hell of a lot about skiing, their product, and their customer.
 
I think you need to define what exactly you mean when you say certain companies are "good for the community". In a lot of ways, a larger corporation can be "good for the community" - for example, putting a lot of money towards large comps, getting skiing good publicity through the media, paying athletes enough to make a living off their talents, etc. A core company might not have nearly as much resources to dump into the sport. Don't get me wrong, they can definitely have a big impact without a ton of cash, but money is really what drives any industry.

It's too much of a generalization to say something like "core companies are good for the community, large corporations are only good for riders and don't care about the sport." Each company does it's own thing. Whether large or small, at the end of the day, making a profit is usually the most important thing to any company - otherwise they would just go out of business. Appearing to care about a community (putting out videos, sponsoring things, etc), in a lot of ways, is also just a good marketing strategy to increase sales.

Take Line for example. A company that started as a "grassroots" company and grew into one of the biggest brands in our sport. They are owned by K2, which is owned by Jarden (which is a massive fuckin corporation). Despite being "corporate", Line obviously seems to care a lot about the progression of the sport.

You just can't make umbrella statements like that. There are shitty corporations in every industry out there that are only in it for the profit. There are core companies that are also shitty and only in it for the profit.

Any skier should support the companies that they feel are the "best", whether that means the cheapest, or the one that has the best influence on the sport. Your dollar is your vote for which company you want to be successful.
 
I know you need the bigger companies and shit, but god damn are they difficult to work with.

The resort I work with, they just like aren't all there. Of the 5 people I work with directly, 2 of them ski and genuinely have the skiers interest in mind. Where as the other 3 are fucking dumb. It's about the money and luxury and all this shit. I know that's just business but it sucks to be around. Not to mention a simple change needs to go through like 45 levels of people before you can actually do it... ugh it's a bitch, but it's just how those things work. When you do events independently, you have a lot more control over everything and it usually ends up more skier orientated. There's some give and take for sure.

Their priorities are different too. From our point of view, we're concerned about the actual event, the skiing, the skiers the whole process. They genuinely don't give a fuck how the event goes, they just care about the businessy and accommodation part and getting the most out of that. It's a lot of collaboration and you need that. But fuck, trying to get them to understand what you're doing is such a hassle.
 
13593819:RudyGarmisch said:
Logarithmic relationship between how core a company is and its size - brands that haven't even been launched yet are infinitely core?
Click to expand...

By that logic, TBK is the most core company ever
 
Oh great, skiing is getting hipster

I wont take sides on this issue because if you hate corporate douches, but hate new company's lack of experience; make your own skis, ride the backcountry and brew your own beer. Its all here on NS.

From experience with new companies and reps, they either seem to tired to interact with potential clients, or feeling to pinched to even bother talking to people. Everything is online, nothing is personal and I cant order a pair of ski I loved on demo from the rep. On some cases, reps dont even bother to try the product they are selling.

Look at the monster company called Salomon. They hire real reps, get their pros involved in events and really try to push the marketing. I always found the employee to be knowledgeable about their gear and most of the product line doesnt suck too bad for the price.

Then there is the far left field business like the MEC. Have you seen the gear and the use of world markets to reduce prices? They are still a cooperative outdoor retail store, so are they corporate to being a leading brand and retail store?
 
While there are corporations that only got into skiing and snow sports in general to make money (Nike, Under Armour) There are still pretty big corporations that care about the skier and the snowboarder. Let's take a look at The North Face. They're not just riding the wave that is their own success and using their brand name to get people to buy their shit. They're still innovating and creating new shit that no one else is doing. Fuseform to name one where they're the only company to weeve two different materials into one to create a seamless transition and create a more breathable, lighter jacket. Oakley probably has the best lenses out right now, Prizm is fucking amazing. '

But on the other hand you have companies like Nike you tried two times to crack the sport and failed. Their goggles aren't that great. But they still have the audacity to charge over 120 bucks for the goggles.

But these issues are pretty black and white. It's easy to see the companies that care and the companies that are in it for the money. The issue I have is the companies that present them selves as core but couldn't be further from it. I'll probably get a lot of hate for this but I'm looking at you Line. There is nothing specifically that makes Line core anymore. Like cool they have Line TC, you pay your athletes shit all while Line TC episodes on average reach 200k. I see Line skis in every park and in every shop. Line is owned by K2 sports and are made in China. They're horrible skis made with cheap materials and Line is heading fast downhill. Sure Line use to be core with Jlev was in charge and the ski industry owes alot to Jlev but Line today is nothing more than an illusion. They're a big corporation trying to act like a little core brand. And I hate that.
 
A lot of people are saying that it doesn't really matter but I think it does matter because the bigger companies like salomon, Fischer, Bose, monster, etc.. Are corporations and therefore profit maximizing because they have to please shareholders. This creates a vacuum of money that goes from the skiers hands into the shareholder, who buys some weird expensive shit with that. A more core company helps to localize the ski market because the money you spend might be put back into a ski event or is spent on something ski related.

Also everyone who is saying "thread doesn't matter because that's just how the industry works" the industry works (somewhat) because of how we act as consumers and how pros make career decisions, so if we change our thoughts about shit and act differently the industry changes, supply and demand, if you stop buying red bull, they will stop jumping out of space and shit, believe it or not they do that shit so you will drink their stuff.
 
Like I said in my original post I wanted to avoid black and white statements about corporations. The bottom line is that there is a lot of money being made in skiing by people who don't know a single thing about skiing, they're shareholders of random corporations that the average person has never heard of. Is this not a toxic aspect of the ski industry? It pulls money out of skiing
 
13593953:drytshirtcontest said:
The bottom line is that there is a lot of money being made in skiing by people who don't know a single thing about skiing, they're shareholders of random corporations that the average person has never heard of. Is this not a toxic aspect of the ski industry? It pulls money out of skiing
Click to expand...

While having shareholders at times isn't all that great, they do provide a skiing company with the necessary capital for undertaking huge endeavors. I will give you two such examples.

First, Atomic has one of the most (if not the most) eco-friendly ski factories in the world (in terms of eco-friendly materials being used, recycling processes, pumping heat generated by the factory into the town of Altenmarkt, etc.), and achieving this required investing millions of euros into the factory's infrastructure, which would have been near impossible without the investments made by the investors/shareholders.

Second, has anyone noticed that there are no small/core ski boot (or binding) brands? It is basically impossible start a ski boot company the way you can start a ski company. A single ski boot project (read: one type of boot) costs in the vicinity of 1-1.5 million euros in initial R&D, mold costs, and prototyping, without taking into consideration the cost of the factory or injection machines (which run about 500k per machine). The cost of plastics & components for serial production are also not factored into that 1.5 million. Small/core operations simply lack the capital to even begin such a program, and such an undertaking is made possible in a large part by investments made by the investors/shareholders.

Without the investment capital that in a large part comes to the brands by the investors/shareholders, you would, at the very least, not see new & innovative gear come out as frequently as it does. It would be a stagnant and boring marketplace. The investments that the shareholders bring to the table allows for innovation (and even the very possibility of making it in the first place) in a lot of areas that are ludicrously expensive.
 
13593950:drytshirtcontest said:
This creates a vacuum of money that goes from the skiers hands into the shareholder, who buys some weird expensive shit with that.
Click to expand...

This is an extremely simplified, mostly incorrect, summary of how this works.

13593953:drytshirtcontest said:
The bottom line is that there is a lot of money being made in skiing by people who don't know a single thing about skiing, they're shareholders of random corporations that the average person has never heard of. Is this not a toxic aspect of the ski industry? It pulls money out of skiing
Click to expand...

But this is true in literally every industry. I guess I don't understand why you think it's "toxic." It's not like these shareholders are the people designing products. All they do is sit there and collect money. They don't really contribute all that much to how companies are run.
 
13593950:drytshirtcontest said:
salomon, Fischer, Bose, monster, etc.. Are corporations and therefore profit maximizing because they have to please shareholders.
Click to expand...

You can't make an argument if your examples don't support the argument. Bose and Fischer don't have shareholders, they are privately owned companies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top