Nike 6.0, Under Armor: Big Name Capitalism enters skiing

Triple_Strum

Triple_Strum

Active member
So I have seen a few adds for these companies that are making their way into the skiing market. What do you guys think? I have an opinion, but please voice your thoughts here. Is it bad for skiing? Good for skiing? You don't care?
 
If they are legit, they will prove themselves. Kinda like nike has in the skate shoe department.
 
Honestly the first time i saw an Under Armour ski add i laughed for like 5 minutes, i thought there was no way they would try to get their paws into the industry because theres already so many monopolies of the market. However, i have to give them props, because its been a year now i believe since they have been in it, and they are doing quite well. Sponsoring people and producing quality outerwear is great for the growth of the sport, and if they can make more money doing it, i say more power to them as a company. Nike on the other hand, is a love/hate in my mind. I love their shoes, and think its great they are trying to expand and encompass a variety of sports. On the other i think to myself, do they really need to? I think the answer is no, but once again if it promotes growth of the sport, i am all for it.
 
Too mainstream. They are going to have to prove themselves, and do it really well. If they do it wrong they certainly run the risk of alienating the NS/core group of skiers. With lots of really good brands already out there they are going to have to do really well to even be considered. It would take years for them to be able to say they are "in with the NS/core skier group,"

Personally I will stay away from it because there are already other sick brands out there. I don't give a fuck how sick their team is, that doesn't mean their stuff is good. It could, but it isn't 100%.
 
I hate under armour because all those annoying football players in my grade and in the grade ubove me where them like normal shirts. I wear underarmour for cold days and that only. It is really exspensive though
 
Restricting this to the market of the average NS'er, and not skiing as a whole, I believe that much of the industry, (particularly outerwear) is strongly driven by opinion leadership.

Basically if people don't like the brand, they won't buy it and these companies will fail with their attempts to access this market.

If Nike and UA do good things, position themselves properly and make some quality gear then that may cause some of the more influential guys to start buying the product, which will lead to the masses jumping on the bandwagon.

They also need to come across to actually 'give a shit' without just looking like a corporation finding growth markets. Thats too transparent with a company like Nike at the moment, especially when trying to appeal to a bunch of people like NSers.

They do have decent teams coming through, so thats a good start.

If they don't do the right things, then people just won't buy the stuff, but if they do, then good on them and best of luck.

Overall I think it's ok for the industry.

Like in any industry, when you notice exceptional growth, then there is always going to be a loss of the 'culture'..and thats whats happening to this industry.

Increased investment by these companies is a good thing as far as sustainability and exposure goes. Nikes marketing is some of the most powerful in the world, and including freeskiing in their product mix will only widen the reach of what is possible.

Nike's sponsorship of competitions down the track will only push up prizemoney etc.

I'm indifferent as to whether it is good or bad - there are clear positives and negatives, but all in all i think it depends on how these companies go about trying to influence the guys that buy their products.
 
this will be good, im glad to see that in a few years most pro skiiers will probably be able to make a decent living off of skiing, from larger contest purses, to bigger contracts, big business brings big bills
 
nike isn't new, it's been in the game with ACG for a while. and i think its good that they are picking up skiers, because it shows that we are now "cool" in the eyes nike.

as for under armour? well i hate their adds and what they stand for, but their ski stuff looks pretty legit, and they have hibbert running the team, so i don't have a problem with that.
any company that is going to support dash long is a good company in my mind, because he isn't a comp skier, he just goes out and films sick seggys. T-rain just got picked up by them, so prepare for domination.

As long as these company's don't go out and buy up the biggest pros *cough*CORUPT*cough* and they invest in spreading the wealth throughout the ski industry, i don't have any problem whatsoever.

and besides, someone's gotta pay for hibbert's bar tabs.
 
i think nike would be cool i saw a preview of their outerwear a couple months ago and it looked sick and they make some sick shoes. im not sure if their gong to follow through with it or not or even if they already have. im not to stoked about underarmour. i think that their outerwear could be legit but not to cool. i think that their tight baselayers are totally uncomfortable, super itchy, and especially uncomfortable under your boots and it doesnt keep you warm at all.

and i know that this doesnt really matter but whats up with their adds? all the people in them are just giving you the stare down and are all super serious. its like they are trying to make their ski adds just like their adds for all the ohmega jock sports. all the true ski companies' adds have people having fun and what not
 
call me stubborn, call me stupid, call me ignorant. But i refuse to buy any ski related nike products. I don't care how legit or whatever they are or become. No thanks.
 
this is a dumb thread. if you don't like a company then don't buy from them. simple.

no amount of talent just because a company can afford it will sway my decisions. i don't give a shit about pros.
 
these companies year after year can afford massive losses in profit. some companies get into a sport to push out small companies, it might take a while, but eventually it rolls around. beause small companies really cant handle too much loss of money.

like if nike made skis and 6 people bought them and they lost a half a million dollars, but they took 2-3 people away from buying on3p skis, on3p would have alot harder time losing 3 sales vs. nike only selling 6 pairs of skis.

or if people buy nike outerwear because they have a "dope team" and it might be cheaper than saga or LD, its really hard for those guys to stay around. piggy back companies with unlimited budgets ruin the core of a sport. PERIOD

yea and like someone said remember underarmour in highschool? the jockhead football players wear that shit, now any skier in underarmour looks like a jockhead to me. the best under layer for skiing is ice breaker's merino wool, not some synthetic spandex.

its like the mom and pop store vs. walmart
 
well in that case, fuck em.

but like you said.......mom/pop vs walmart. if it didn't snow for two years and no resorts opened.....we'd all be wearing nike gear on that third year because every "core" company wouldn't be able to swallow the loses.
 
They've been trying for awhile (great point on ACG). I hated it when Adidas started making goggles and stole riders from Oakley. But, i realize it's just part of the capitalistic web. (Plus, they own Salomon.) If there's money to be made, then companies will gravitate towards it. And, if current companies aren't somehow filling the void effectively (technical innovation, stylistically, etc.), then it opens the door.

However, there are several barriers to entry in a tight-knit culture. In the end, it comes down to survival of the fittest, and being big or having lots of cash doesn't always make you the fittest.

Sure, Nike is doing quite well in skateboarding now, but their first two attempts failed. Nike SB's first run tanked, and Savier did miserably. However, Nike, Reebok and Adidas were the skate shoes of choice in the early 80s before Airwalk, Vision and others came along. Those roots paid huge dividends on Nike's latest run. The Dunk is the shoe that established the SB line, and the silhouette hasn't changed since the 70s or 80s. Now, retro/vintage stuff is in, and Nike's reaping the rewards of their heritage. Same goes for Adidas shell-toes. It was a little strategy and a little luck.

Meanwhile, Reebok's DGK and Ice Cream investments haven't helped them gain much ground. They'll keep trying until they decide the ROI is too low to continue. In the end, it's up to the consumer...
 
Adidas doesn't own Salomon anymore...and Quicksilver doesn't own Rossi anymore...

Just a fyi.

Nike and UnderArmor are both softgood brands marketing their products to the sport of skiing 1st and 2nd free skiing...

I don't see 1 single problem with that... There's obviously a market for the products we like...

If anything its fantastic. We get cooler products and more selection when all brands become interested in our sport...

It's the same thing that's happening in all progressive sports such as snowboarding, surfing, skateboarding, wakeboarding so why not skiing...

 
under armour makes great baselayer stuff, but its so damn expensive. overall in the long run its probably good because competition means we get better products. and maybe competitive prices
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top