Is your sport for sale? Adidas Outdoor, Nike 6.0...: Kiss or Kill?

Looking at brands like Nike's ACG and now Adidas what are your thoughts on Big Corporate creating new brand image?

Will it take $$$ to bring Climbing into the 21st century in regard to legitimate paychecks for industry pros,olympic placement, etc.?

Wait someone bought Colmbia? (they own MH) Also Addidas buying 5.10 is only really going to widen 5.10's market and benefit users. There is a great interview of 5.10 over on VitalMTB about it, that supports my last sentence.. Also seems like a very logical buy with them moving into the outdoor market.

Wait someone bought Colmbia? (they own MH)

No, not that I'm aware of.

Sorry, let me clarify-

DESPITE the recent "mergers" can and/or how can a large corporation (like Nike or Adidas) arguably "traditional" sports companies break into a notoriously "non-traditional" sports market.

Mr. Holmes wrote:Looking at brands like Nike's ACG and now Adidas what are your thoughts on Big Corporate creating new brand image? Will it take $$$ to bring Climbing into the 21st century in regard to legitimate paychecks for industry pros,olympic placement, etc.?

We dont need large corporations sponsoring pro climbers and bringing unnecessary attention to our sport. One of the nice things about climbing it is still relatively small compared to most sports. However, if our sport catches up with other sports, there are going to be some big changes, and most of them wont be for the best. If our sport grows to the size of other sports, landowners, corporations, and the government will step in and start to try to "manage" our sport. We don't need to be managed. So called management is more accurately called restriction. We will have people telling us how to climb, where to climb, when to climb, ect. We dont need that. I like that I can go to the crag and pretty much do whatever I want. If I want to top rope, I can do that. If I want to free solo El Cap, I can do that. That is how our sport needs to stay.

20 kN wrote: We dont need large corporations sponsoring pro climbers and bringing unnecessary attention to our sport. One of the nice things about climbing it is still relatively small compared to most sports. However, if our sport catches up with other sports, there are going to be some big changes, and most of them wont be for the best. If our sport grows to the size of other sports, landowners, corporations, and the government will step in and start to try to "manage" our sport. We don't need to be managed. So called management is more accurately called restriction. We will have people telling us how to climb, where to climb, when to climb, ect. We dont need that. I like that I can go to the crag and pretty much do whatever I want. If I want to top rope, I can do that. If I want to free solo El Cap, I can do that. That is how our sport needs to stay.

+1

I agree that one of the nice things about climbing is that it's a comparatively small community. This, however:

20 kN wrote: ...If our sport grows to the size of other sports, landowners, corporations, and the government will step in and start to try to "manage" our sport. We don't need to be managed. So called management is more accurately called restriction. We will have people telling us how to climb, where to climb, when to climb, ect. We dont need that. I like that I can go to the crag and pretty much do whatever I want. If I want to top rope, I can do that. If I want to free solo El Cap, I can do that. That is how our sport needs to stay.

is stupid.

Large companies investing money in our sport isn't going to ruin the sport or suddenly restrict how we climb. Climbing isn't like other sports- there's no teams, there's hardly any rules (aside from basic safety and ethics), there aren't any large regulating bodies dictating how and when we climb, it doesn't make a great spectator event, setting up a man made climbing wall is costly and time consuming, etc., etc. The list of differences goes on and on. Anyone who tries to compare climbing to mainstream sports is comparing apples to oranges.

If Nike or some other large sporting goods company suddenly starts manufacturing climbing gear, I'm still gonna keep climbing just the same as I always have.

Taylor Ogden wrote:I agree that one of the nice things about climbing is that it's a comparatively small community. This, however: is stupid. Large companies investing money in our sport isn't going to ruin the sport or suddenly restrict how we climb. Climbing isn't like other sports- there's no teams, there's hardly any rules (aside from basic safety and ethics), there aren't any large regulating bodies dictating how and when we climb, it doesn't make a great spectator event, setting up a man made climbing wall is costly and time consuming, etc., etc. The list of differences goes on and on. Anyone who tries to compare climbing to mainstream sports is comparing apples to oranges. If Nike or some other large sporting goods company suddenly starts manufacturing climbing gear, I'm still gonna keep climbing just the same as I always have.

You are not looking at the big picture. Sponsoring does not directly have any negative effects, but indirectly it does. Do you think that Nike is going to pay Sharma a million dollars for a sponsorship deal and then never tell a single person about it? If large corporations start sponsoring people, they are going to make it known, which will in-turn attract significantly more attention to our sport. More attention means more management, rules, ect. I have an example to prove my point.

Slacklining in my state used to be a fairly unheard of activity. Consequently, the few who participated in it could slackline wherever they wanted. Then the few that did slackline started creating Facebook groups, websites, ect., and now there are a lot more slackliners in the state. Recently the state has got wind of our sport and started enacting restrictions to try to shield themselves from slackling liability. Now people are constantly getting harassed by the city and being told to take their slackline down. That is what happens when something little becomes big; and it has happened in every state in the nation that has climbing.

Take a look at the automotive industry. There are entire libraries of books that have regulations regarding automotive manufacturer and usage. Why do you think that is? It is because almost everyone in America has an auto, so big brother has to step in and make sure everyone is safe and all that crap. How many rules do you think there are regarding the usage of amphibious automotives in the ocean? Probably not many. Why? Because no one has an amphibious auto, so the government does not care. If that number starts to increase, so will the rules regarding its usage. Climbing is no exception to these examples.

While I agree that bigger sponsorships or Olympic participation aren't something I particularly care to see in climbing, the following statement is troubling:

20 kN wrote: If our sport grows to the size of other sports, landowners, corporations, and the government will step in and start to try to "manage" our sport. We don't need to be managed.

Climbing has been managed since long before any of us were born or started climbing. This has been done by both government bodies and by the climbing community itself. To think that an increase in the population of people who climb will suddenly bring about management that didn't exist at all is incorrect. Its already here.

We need to be managed. Unless you think that the 5 million or so people that go climbing every year should have a free-for-all on public and private land to do whatever they want, we need some sort of guidelines to dictate actions. You may disagree with the direction that management takes, but I think few people would relish having no rules at all. Yes, sometimes management may feel restrictive, but by and large most restrictions are aimed at preserving the environmental or social aspects of a recreational activity so that future participants can enjoy it as well.

Management doesn't always have to come from government bodies. The NPS, BLM, and your state parks are all involved in management, but so are the American Alpine Club, the Access Fund and more localized groups such as Red River Gorge Climbing Coalition or Friends of Indian Creek. If you don't like rules codified in law, I suggest working with your local organization. The more we manage ourselves, the less we will be managed by others.

20 kN wrote: We dont need large corporations sponsoring pro climbers and bringing unnecessary attention to our sport. One of the nice things about climbing it is still relatively small compared to most sports. However, if our sport catches up with other sports, there are going to be some big changes, and most of them wont be for the best. If our sport grows to the size of other sports, landowners, corporations, and the government will step in and start to try to "manage" our sport. We don't need to be managed. So called management is more accurately called restriction. We will have people telling us how to climb, where to climb, when to climb, ect. We dont need that. I like that I can go to the crag and pretty much do whatever I want. If I want to top rope, I can do that. If I want to free solo El Cap, I can do that. That is how our sport needs to stay.

+1 and +1 again.

I think this conversation about climbing being "brought into the 21t century" and climbers getting paid, etc, is all a bit of a joke. Of all of the THOUSANDS of sports and activities out there that people compete at, a very small percentage of the athletes are compensated and sponsored. I'm sure many of you just watched the Olympics earlier this month, right?

Living in London made it kind of impossible for me not to watch. I went to a lot of events, most of them being sports like rowing, volleyball, diving, etc. These are the best athletes in the world. They give SO MUCH MORE to their chosen sport than any of us give to climbing. And do any of them have sponsorship deals? A VERY VERY small percentage of them will ever receive any sort of compensation at all, aside from free shoes, etc, just like many "sponsored" climbers.

And you know what? Those events that I went to watch at the Olympics were fucking cool. Awesome to watch, and I'd pay money to see them again and again, Olympics or not. They are exciting - they are spectator sports. You can quantify the athletes' success by looking at the scoreboard or the stop watch. You don't even have to know the rules, much less be able to identify with the actual athletes.

Climbing is not fun to watch. It's actually very boring. I don't even like to watch people climb. The only reason I watch the movies is to get ideas for my next trip. Some climbers enjoy watching other climbers because they understand exactly what that person feels, but the average person will have no idea what they are looking at. All they will see are a bunch of skinny little kids up there dangling around on neon plastic.

Climbing can't, and won't be like snowboarding, skateboarding, surfing, etc. It's just not cool. At best, it will be an Olympic sport for a few years, but we already know that being in the Olympics doesn't mean fame and fortune - not by a long shot.

As far as "management" goes, I agree with Sean Barb. The management is already there - and it large part it works very well. Pretty much every piece of exposed rock in the US is "managed" by someone. A lot of it is done in a very passive manner, but I don't see that changing. Do you really think that if Nike signs Sharma to a big endorsement deal that it will cause the NPS or BLM to set up cameras at every belay making sure that people are using the appropriate gear? Are we going to hear alarms go off whenever someone breaks out a drill to retro-bolt an old aid line? Are cops going to start waiting at the top of El Cap to arrest Honnold for "wreckless climbing" or hand out speeding tickets to the likes of Hans Florine and Yuji Hirayama? I think not.

20KN, I understand your concern, but you're reaching here. Your beloved Yosemite Valley is one of the most "managed" climbing destinations on the face of the earth. And it has nothing to do with climbing, but everything to do with preservation and revenue. Nike can't change that.

I've got to disagree with you Ryan...climbing is amazing to watch and both speed and bouldering are significantly more exciting than many existing Olympic sports like Ping pong, synchronized swimming, soccer(2 goals in 90 minutes and I love soccer but it's certainly boring), etc, etc, etc. Most of the Olympic sports with the exception of swimming, track, and gymnastics aren't even televised with the exception of a 20 second clip. What it boils down to for me is: are competition climbers amazing athletes who deserve to compete at the olympics? Yes they are! It does not matter if it's exciting or not...is curling exciting?

The growth of climbing - it's growing whether we like it or not at a very significant rate and as it grows more companies will focus more on the sport...it's inevitable and basic economics.

you can moan and biatch about it all you want ... the fact is that climbing is becoming more popular with the masses ... and where they go the money follows

personally i think more money in climbing is a good thing ... the gear will get more competitive and cheaper the more gets produced, there will be more crag development and awareness of access, and there will be more cuties climbing ;) .... it just needs to be managed

many climbers are selfish, they prefer not to share the crags/sport with others ...

Awesome feedback! I see all sides and agree with a lot. I am not sure how Municipal governance got mixed in with my intitial question but I am glad it did.

Sub question: Is there a link between corporate support/interest in a sport and pertpetually increasing regualation? More specifically, what could that mean for our lifestyle vs."sport" of climbing.

I digress, Regardless- as someone who is working for aka "on the inside" of one of the large coporations named, (rhymes with "likey") I can tell you any number of these companies could and may some day (sooner than later) own or at least have vested interest in our beloved mom and pop gear distributors, indoor gyms, dare I say, outdoor climbing areas?...
No trolling here just saying I agree with those that see the growing interest in our sport. It would seem those things that are anti- or non- mainstream are more attractive to become so (see grunge music post Nirvana, Sanuks, bouldering, tri-cams... ;)

The NFL started like this (and look where it is today); although a bit askew, is this were "we" are headed too???

Football, an American institution

Climbing, an American institution???

freezeus wrote:I've got to disagree with you Ryan...climbing is amazing to watch and both speed and bouldering are significantly more exciting than many existing Olympic sports like Ping pong, synchronized swimming, soccer(2 goals in 90 minutes and I love soccer but it's certainly boring), etc, etc, etc. Most of the Olympic sports with the exception of swimming, track, and gymnastics aren't even televised with the exception of a 20 second clip. What it boils down to for me is: are competition climbers amazing athletes who deserve to compete at the olympics? Yes they are! It does not matter if it's exciting or not...is curling exciting? The growth of climbing - it's growing whether we like it or not at a very significant rate and as it grows more companies will focus more on the sport...it's inevitable and basic economics.

The only reason ping pong and synchronized swimming are not televised to death is that the US are not contenders. US women soccer are contenders so they get a lot of media attention, while their male counterparts don't. If there was an American contender in ping pong, TV would sell it to you complete with tear-jerking background stories and you would think it's great to watch. Just look at syncronized skating - it was not cool until Apolo Ohno. Or take curling for example - it got huge TV viewership last Olympics, just because the CNBC turned it it on during trading hours - Wall Street people got hooked on it just mindlessly watching it... Like Ryan said, you only think climbing is exciting to watch is it's because you know how the climbers feel. I agree with Ryan - climbing is super boring to watch.

Watch me at 4:59 then weigh in...

youtu.be/T2-135j1Kgk

Regardless of whether its exciting or not, Adidas (and others) are of the belief that

A) it is engaging enough to warrant multi-million dollar investments.

B) Sales reps are currently sitting on new climbing murchandise for up to and possibly past 2 years (without commissions)simply to "recieve buy-in from the climbing community as part of their "strategic marketing".

and C) well... I forgot what C was I was too busy watching climbing vids...

Sean Nelb wrote:While I agree that bigger sponsorships or Olympic participation aren't something I particularly care to see in climbing, the following statement is troubling: Climbing has been managed since long before any of us were born or started climbing. This has been done by both government bodies and by the climbing community itself. To think that an increase in the population of people who climb will suddenly bring about management that didn't exist at all is incorrect. Its already here. We need to be managed. Unless you think that the 5 million or so people that go climbing every year should have a free-for-all on public and private land to do whatever they want, we need some sort of guidelines to dictate actions. You may disagree with the direction that management takes, but I think few people would relish having no rules at all. Yes, sometimes management may feel restrictive, but by and large most restrictions are aimed at preserving the environmental or social aspects of a recreational activity so that future participants can enjoy it as well. Management doesn't always have to come from government bodies. The NPS, BLM, and your state parks are all involved in management, but so are the American Alpine Club, the Access Fund and more localized groups such as Red River Gorge Climbing Coalition or Friends of Indian Creek. If you don't like rules codified in law, I suggest working with your local organization. The more we manage ourselves, the less we will be managed by others.

Of course we are already being managed, but you dont think there are different levels of management? For the most part, the current management in many areas is fairly transparent. It ends with being told to pack it out, dont blast music, and stay on the trails. However, as more attention is attracted to our sport, the management will tighten. Potentially, tighter management could mean everyone is required to wear helmets, pass a belay test just like in the gym, use gear specifically approved by the landowner and no one is allowed to take victory whippers or use chalk, and so on and so on. You dont think that will happen? I assure you it can and will if we attract unwanted attention. Hell, it is already happening. The AF is hosting a meeting later this season to try to prevent increased erroneous regulation regarding bolting. The idea of the meeting is to create our own regulation rather than having some landowner who knows nothing about the subject creating regulation for us.

Yes, some level of management is required, and a good thing at that. However, we are at that level right now. The current level of management appropriately blends freewill with land protection. But as the management increases, and it will if we get more eyes on us, that blend is going to shift to more land and liability protection and less freewill.

If you want a good example, consider the laws of the United States 50 years ago, and consider them now. Hell, now free speech is actually a felony in some narrow circumstances! Singing a song on YouTube, even if you were only 10 years old, was almost a felony. The law to make it a felony nearly passed! The government tried to restrict the websites you could view on the Internet, and that law nearly passed. Apparently the FBI now has the authority to shut down websites located on a different continent. Those are all examples of what happens when the level of attention on a subject increases.

How many kids do you think begged there parents for a soccer ball, running shoe, etc. after this year's Olympics ALONE?

As the companies push our sport, and the Jones' buy "dead Bird" clothing, etc. it inevitably creates more climbers and I would argue that this WILL inturn sooner than later, "affect your day at the crag." Just look at what indoor gyms have done to the population of climbers in just the past 20 years.

The question then is if so then how do we establish/retain that balance of self management in the outdoor enviroment (crags, mountains & boulder fields) so that if/when that bridge is crossed there is nothing to fix because it ain't broken.

I Don't think any one would argue that "only a climber know the feeling" but that doesn't stop Commercialism nor the perpetuation of a sport into the mainstream.

Great answers BTW!

freezeus wrote:I've got to disagree with you Ryan...climbing is amazing to watch and both speed and bouldering are significantly more exciting than many existing Olympic sports like Ping pong, synchronized swimming, soccer(2 goals in 90 minutes and I love soccer but it's certainly boring), etc, etc, etc. Most of the Olympic sports with the exception of swimming, track, and gymnastics aren't even televised with the exception of a 20 second clip. What it boils down to for me is: are competition climbers amazing athletes who deserve to compete at the olympics? Yes they are! It does not matter if it's exciting or not...is curling exciting? The growth of climbing - it's growing whether we like it or not at a very significant rate and as it grows more companies will focus more on the sport...it's inevitable and basic economics.

Speed and bouldering are significantly more exciting to YOU, but not the average person. Table tennis, synchronized swimming, etc are in the same boat. They are more exciting for people with a connection to the sport. You should have seen the crowd at the table tennis! Crazy people!

And are you really going to sit there and say that the most popular sport in the world is boring? That makes no sense for obvious reasons, but it does prove my point. You don't understand the game (obviously) and thus only the goals excite you. So think about someone who doesn't understand climbing. What is there for them to get excited about? How many times during a comp does someone actually finish a route or problem? And will a non-climber even know the difference?

Next time you get a chance, head over to a climbing competition and try and find someone who isn't either a climber or a family member. You won't. Not even in Europe, where comp climbing is a hundred times more popular than in the US.

I don't see a reason for comp climbing not to be in the Olympics. I'm certainly not trying to take anything away from the athletes and i won't argue that there are a lot more of them now than 10 years ago. I just don't think climbing will ever be like the big spectator sports, no matter how many people want it to be.

BTW, the reason you only see a few 20 second clips in the US is because TV over there is all about money and advertising. We have 7 BBC (public) channels here as well as a few dozen others. All free. Every event of the Olympics was televised without commercial interruption. TV is not paid for by adverts here, so no reason for commercials, ever. It will be the same for the World Cup, the next Olympics, etc.

I don't know why I know that - I don't even own a TV. Just thought it was interesting that you think everywhere in the world is just like the US.

20 kN wrote: Potentially, tighter management could mean everyone is required to wear helmets, pass a belay test just like in the gym, use gear specifically approved by the landowner and no one is allowed to take victory whippers or use chalk, and so on and so on. You dont think that will happen? I assure you it can and will if we attract unwanted attention.

Historically the reverse has been true; there are less restrictions now for required qualifications and equipment. Here at Devils Tower, the Park Service used to require helmets and demonstrations of skill level. You had to ask permission to climb. The same thing was done on the Diamond on Longs Peak, where the NPS banned climbing for quite some time. This wasn't limited to the government: climbing organizations had similar rules. The AMC and Vulgarians in the Gunks were famously at odds over the Appies attempts to require skill level checks and belay tests.

More people will certainly bring more need for management, but not in the way that you are thinking. It will mean better trails, bigger parking lots, and more restrooms to deal with the crowds. Your solitude may be destoyed, but you're still going to be allowed to take whippers.

More attention is a good thing, not bad. In the eyes of the general public, we're a bunch of lunatics out free soloing and falling to our death in droves from our unsafe behavior. Who wants to allow that? People do not support what they don't understand.

To join the rest of the discussion: climbing is really, really boring to watch in most cases. Maybe that's just me, but I've yet to see anyone run up and offer to belay so that they can watch me climb.