Outdoor Activities and Marketing/Commercialization

This is more of a rant than anything but I'd like to get everyone's opinions. I'm starting to get annoyed with outdoor marketing. 

I understand all the gear that I buy comes from a company that needs to make a profit and marketing is a great way to do that. However, I feel as though we are on the verge of becoming Nike/Jordan/Underarmour/GAP/American Eagle/etc. A few recent events pushed me towards this mindset. The first was due to reading Outside Magazine and unless I was blind to it before, this most recent volume seemed like 100 ads and 5 articles. The next event was listening to Climbing Gold podcast and hearing Alex Honnold market Whoop, Hydroflask, while Emily Harrington and Adrien Ballinger market whiskey. It made me imagine commercials of Lebron James talking about Sprite or David Ortiz eating a 12" subway sub. Finally, after seeing what stupid things a certain outdoor influencer does but still get's sponsored told me companies just want their name out there no matter the cost or who represents their company. 

Like I said, I understand how businesses work and that they need to market. It just seems like climbing is becoming a glamorized sport that soon will have Alex Honnold talking about the next La Sportiva shoe in between watching the Office on Hulu. I'm just getting a sour taste in my mouth from all of this commercialization of climbing. I'm not even an old trad dad!

Does anyone else feel this way? Am I just wishing I was part of the climbing culture back in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's? I do outdoor activities because I like it. Not because some hotshot on Instagram or TV does. I buy certain gear because it is the best type for my activities, not because Honnold talked about it on a podcast. 

Oh well. Thanks for listening to my commercialization rant. 

 Am I just wishing I was part of the climbing culture back in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's? 

Perhaps. We gave up on Outside Mag due to excessive ads in like 1983. Literally.

Mitch Steinerwrote:

I'm not even an old trad dad!

Does anyone else feel this way? Am I just wishing I was part of the climbing culture back in the 80's, 90's, and early 2000's? I

Old crusty trad dad is not an age band, it is a state of mind.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Ok, cool, so why do you care about any of this if you do it for yourself?

Good point! Not sure why it bothers me so much. I still enjoy listening to podcasts and reading magazines. Just don’t enjoy the blatant and excessive marketing.
I guess my mind thinks it shouldn’t be such a prominent part of outdoor activities. 

Mitch Steinerwrote:

Just don’t enjoy the blatant and excessive marketing.

I am quite sure there are a few mp users who know a few things about publishing, hopefully they will chime in.

From what I learned in my googling-101, ads are used to pay for publishing those magazines - writing, editing, and printing. Basically, if all the ads were to be cut out, the price of magazine would go up at least by that amount. You say 100 ads and 5 articles. So, 1:20 duty cycle, so to speak. Then one could estimate that price of publication not supported by ad revenue would be ~20 times as high. Of course, all details are off, but that is the gist - there ain't no free lunch.

amariuswrote:

I am quite sure there are a few mp users who know a few things about publishing, hopefully they will chime in.

From what I learned in my googling-101, ads are used to pay for publishing those magazines - writing, editing, and printing. Basically, if all the ads were to be cut out, the price of magazine would go up at least by that amount. You say 100 ads and 5 articles. So, 1:20 duty cycle, so to speak. Then one could estimate that price of publication not supported by ad revenue would be ~20 times as high. Of course, all details are off, but that is the gist - there ain't no free lunch.

On top of all of that, the advertising game has changed considerably. Online advertising gives you so much information about your viewer; print advertising does not. So they have to look for more unique ways to advertise (see: content marketing). 

Stephen Szyszkiewiczwrote:

Old crusty trad dad is not an age band, it is a state of mind.

I am 24 and identify as a trad dad

In a sense, this has been around for a long time.  

The general question you might use to clarify the issues is "how much do I want to subsidize the lifestyles of nerds to go do what they want."

People have been crapping out media since at least the 30s (or 1890s or whenever you wanna peg it) to try and support their fun times in the mountains.

I'm fine with it.  If someone has to shill some shit in instagram or whatever so they can afford to be on the road another 6 mos, then more power to them.  It doesn't pay as well and is much less certain than how I pay for my trips, but then, I only really get out on weekends (though maybe I'll just get starlink and start selling broadband in the 'fuck the superbowl' or whatever that place is called).

Cause at the end of the day, advertising that way just isn't so effective that it is actively harming me, and there's no way to build the cochella of rock climbing or whatever.

And I am not super worried about all the folks finding my secret fun things to do.  

I don't have secret things to do, I just have places that are too much of a pain in the ass for other people to want to go.

Like, if you want to start making modular-synth-based glitch house or get your head around a bunch of archaic mid-20th century jazz tunes, by all means go do it... but folks shilling distortion pedals on their youtube aren't hurting me, cause there's no market for what I do musically anyhow and it's hard to do well.  In fact, the more the merrier.

The broad, long-term appeal of difficult tasks only holds for a small number of folks.

If you had the talent and following would you not do the same? 

Obviously they are reaching you. Don't like it don't participate. 

Not going to lie, I'm pretty sympathetic to this general perspective.

I personally don't care too much that Honnold or Cadwell are used to try to sell me a particular pair of shoes, or some sugary drink or whatever. What I care more about however is the fact that the industry is building up all that hype about climbing, how cool a sport it is and how everyone would be 50% cooler if they would pick it up. Which of course leads to masses of people and increasingly crammed cliffs, but more importantly increase conflicts regarding access. At least in my neck of the woods, relatively under the radar spots that used to be lightly frequented without issues have seen sorry incident of loud bluetooth speakers, poorly behaved dogs, trash & messy fire spots and unwanted campers... which of course have prompted land owners to forbid access (either to cliffs, or to roads/trails that used to be access, or prevent parking near trailheads). Fewer people does mean fewer chances of dumbasses ruining things for everyone.

But then of course, the pro athletes are the forefront of this hype train. They are the cool faces that help push the masses towards climbing. It benefits them for sure. It benefits the company getting a cool image in the process. It marginally benefits us because the videos are nice and free. But I think I'd trade away those, against no mass-marketing and the invasion that comes with it.

It may sound selfish, and maybe it is. But then I still don't understand why I would support the outdoors industry (BD, North Face, gyms, etc.) trying to actively convince people that they want to pickup climbing. Whoever wants to learn to climb can, and I'm happy to take newer climbers outdoors, initiate people to trad climbing etc. I just don't think throwing millions of $$$ each year in advertisement trying to do that to the masses is desirable.

I know full well this isn't going to stop - climbing is just following the same trend of, well, everything else in this age to mass marketing campaigns. This is why we can't have nice things....

Parachute Adamswrote:

If you had the talent and following would you not do the same? 

Obviously they are reaching you. Don't like it don't participate. 

I always ask myself that question and I’m not sure of the answer. I’m not even on Instagram and don’t post about trips and/or accomplishments. 

Maybe I just don’t like feeling “influenced” to go outside. I almost need to be a hermit and be off social media completely to get away from it.

I’ve been doing outdoor shit for years but it seems like it’s getting worse, or I am just more aware of it (magazines, social media, YouTube)

Parachute Adamswrote:

If you had the talent and following would you not do the same? 

Very interesting. I'd like to think no. But I fear I might have if I had....

Mitch Steinerwrote:

I always ask myself that question and I’m not sure of the answer. I’m not even on Instagram and don’t post about trips and/or accomplishments. 

Maybe I just don’t like feeling “influenced” to go outside. I almost need to be a hermit and be off social media completely to get away from it.

I’ve been doing outdoor shit for years but it seems like it’s getting worse, or I am just more aware of it (magazines, social media, YouTube)

No doubt, social media can fuck with what matters. Honestly, who cares what the media stars are doing. Doesn't affect my reality. 

Emily Harrington will not influence my choice of whiskey.

Franck Veewrote:

Very interesting. I'd like to think no. But I fear I might have if I had....

Most like to think they wouldn't. Most would. 

" It's the lure of easy money, it has a very strong appeal." Glenn Frey.

I’ve always had more respect for quiet badasses. However, they might be missing out on opportunities to make real change due to their platform. Yvon, Alex, Tommy, Jeremy Jones all have large platforms that use it for a particular purpose. And they all do some sort of marketing as well.

Idk I guess this is more of a jealousy issue with me. I think I just wish I was a climber before 2010. 

I also dislike having to appease landowners in order to retain and expand climbing access. But it is worth it in the end. I've got to stand on some pretty neat mountains and rocks, and never owned a single one of 'em.

It's unfortunate that these folks are appealing to "the public," sure. But "the public" owns a hell of a lot of land. 

I haven't been climbing nearly as long as some people here but much of the thought process is similar to the "make america great again" slogan. People are persuaded to think that somehow the past was way better than it actually was and live in the rosey dream. When I started climbing 8 years ago prior to the opening of the mega bouldering gym in Seattle, no one I literally mean I would run into no one bouldering. So when I bouldered I had to bring stuff to clean the rocks and trim the brush, the trails were bad, beta was awful and incomplete. I guess it was more adventurous but it was mostly annoying cause I wanted to climb. Finding partners was also more difficult. 

Secondly back in the day, when people would have trouble getting on climbs or do all the climbs they would go out and put up more climbs. Instead everyone sits on here complains about a resource (volume of climbs) and rather than creating more climbs would rather there be less people. We do a sport where individuals literally spent money, time and energy rather than making our own contribution we gift ourselves an entitlement to something we didn't work for. Then when other people use this resource people have the audacity to complain #beggychoosers. 

I understand Franck's point about access but access has been pulled from climbing areas since the beginning of climbing. At this moment there are probably 10k people at the base of amarillo sunset. You can have high crowd volumes without issue or with issue. 

If climbing provides value to our lives are we actually entitled to deprive it from giving value to other peoples lives? If we can limit access issues, environmental issues, other minor issues climbing has on the general world would it be that bad if 4.6 billion people are convinced to go climbing by marketing? Why do you deserve climbing more than everyone else?

Finally do climbing for you, who cares why anyone else climbs?

Edit: Imagine if you said this about basketball. Sure there are a ton ads telling you need to buy some crap but who cares? If you love the sport it is probably a good thing more people are into it.

As far as magazines go, it seems like an annual subscription to the average magazine hasn’t gone up all that much in the last 40 years.  But based on inflation, the price should have quadrupled.  So, the quality of articles is going to go down, and ads are going to go up.  People just aren’t willing to pay for these things.

Look at some other products and services that haven’t increased much in price since 1980.  You gotta wonder about the quality ( or other things that are being done to keep prices low).

Mitch Steinerwrote:

I’ve been doing outdoor shit for years but it seems like it’s getting worse, or I am just more aware of it (magazines, social media, YouTube)

I don’t know if you are old enough to remember, but do you care that Ron Kauk and John Bachar sold Ford Broncos and Gillette razors on network fucking TV?  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XCyFd6gwxtw

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

If climbing provides value to our lives are we actually entitled to deprive it from giving value to other peoples lives? If we can limit access issues, environmental issues, other minor issues climbing has on the general world would it be that bad if 4.6 billion people are convinced to go climbing by marketing? Why do you deserve climbing more than everyone else?

To me you are somewhat conflating 2 things that don't necessarily go together - what you call "depriving" climbing from other people, versus not actively pushing marketing images & lifestyle using millions of $ each years to convince people to try climbing.

I guess I'm basing my opinion on this:

• A good marketing campaign can have an influence on what people decide to do with their time and money
• I'm against the industry spending tons of money actively trying to drive people towards climbing, who may otherwise have been steered towards whatever other hobby and been just as happy with it.

The way I see it, the lifestyle advertising, of which pro athlete are the public face of so to speak, is not much different from say Ford/GMC/Dodge spending millions to push SUVs & pick-up trucks. I'm sure a decent chunk of people who ended up buying those things didn't really need those cars (there were few SUVs on the road 15 years ago). Yet by pushing specific products forcefully enough, you can steer part of the potential market towards whatever makes most profits for you as a company (larger trucks & cars for carmakers, climbing for company that manufactur climbing goods, etc.).

I'm against pushing gaz-guzlers & huge cars to people who probably wouldn't be that interested in them without some effort to steer them to it. I'm also against pushing climbing as an activity/lifestyle to people who may pick it up, but probably wouldn't if there wasn't as much hype & marketing about it.

Franck Veewrote:

The way I see it, the lifestyle advertising, of which pro athlete are the public face of so to speak, is not much different from say Ford/GMC/Dodge spending millions to push SUVs & pick-up trucks. I'm sure a decent chunk of people who ended up buying those things didn't really need those cars (there were few SUVs on the road 15 years ago). Yet by pushing specific products forcefully enough, you can steer part of the potential market towards whatever makes most profits for you as a company (larger trucks & cars for carmakers, climbing for company that manufactur climbing goods, etc.).

Things sure were better in 1986! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XCyFd6gwxtw