Thread: greg hill is now on salomon

Yes, to gain more cred, Dynafit should sponsor an amazing ski mountaineering athlete like Benedikt Böhm!
[insert some sort of irony-indicating emoticon here]

Originally Posted by Alkasquawlik

An interesting analysis into where many think skiing is going.

Burton will reach out to Lee Lau.

just for the record, the "conspiracy theory" comment was intended to be a joke (and the mastermind part).

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

I don't buy a hammer because some douche on This Old House uses it

What the fuck!

Are you calling Tom Silva and/or Norm Abraham douches?

Anyway I hope Greg makes some money for his family and gets to keep on doing what he loves doing, while you cretins argue about the merits of it.

Ha, dynafit compared to RIM is pretty funny, maybe if Greg Hill went to plum you would have an argument but not salomon. Different tools for different purposes. It would be interesting to see if Salomon is even interested in getting into the lightweight stuff or if they just want to develop a solid product for guys who "tour" and rip big lines.

It would be surprising for GH to drop his dynafit bindings anytime soon. Maybe for skiing the hill, shorter hikes or on product shoot tours, but not full time. As others posted, Salomon brought him on board to stay current with the freeride touring movement, develop product, and because he is passionate about the sport and a good ambassador.

Originally Posted by CookieMonster

You're in the minority, plus no one gives a shit whether or not you ski in the first place.

Sponsorships sell product. Plain and simple.

Saying something with e-conviction doesn't make it true.

What "sponsorship" sells is an image, for the "sponsored" person. "Yeah, I got picked up by Bumfucker Gloves, it's pretty rad, they actually cover my hands!"

3-card Monte artists, people who usually excel in used car sales and real estate brokerage -- they are the ones who convince humans that "sponsored athletes" sell "product."

By the way, Muppetboy -- plural of "product" is PRODUCTS. Note the S.

Originally Posted by bestskieratsnowbird

so you're an asshole and don't want people who just happen to be talented at something and get free shit or even money to do something they love... got it. ski prices aren't coming down any just because someone sponsors less athletes, i can tell you that with 100% certainty.

Great argument! So the "argument" for "sponsorship" is not that it encourages dipshits to be fanbois and buy shit because My Hero Uses It, but instead, it's so a dirtbag can "make a living"?

Well fuck that. I got more dirt in my bag than you fuckers. Where's my fucking sponsorship? I got more "image" and "attitude" than all you fucks combined!

Originally Posted by JRainey

I think dynafit is killing it with their boots, but they need to get back to purity in the binding department. They seem to be added more and more gizmos and weight, without really innovating. I'm not saying other companies are either, but who know's what's coming.

Maybe if all the fucktards quit thinking that Dynafits need to "look beefy" before they'll trust the damned things, we wouldn't see bullshit add-ons to suit lift-riding poseurs who want to look adventurous and rugged.

***********

On-topic: Can't wait to see an X-Scream Series with tail groove for skin attachment.

Originally Posted by DyingToLiveToSki

Ha, dynafit compared to RIM is pretty funny, maybe if Greg Hill went to plum you would have an argument but not salomon.

No, it's totally true. RIMs going down the toilet because Samuel L Jackson, Zoey Deschanel and John Malkovich appear in ads using iPhones. Not because RIMs phones suck. Or maybe Samuel shows up in the Apple product meetings and says "don't fucking put that button there holmes"

Originally Posted by creaky fossil

What "sponsorship" sells is an image, for the "sponsored" person. "Yeah, I got picked up by Bumfucker Gloves, it's pretty rad, they actually cover my hands!"

3-card Monte artists, people who usually excel in used car sales and real estate brokerage -- they are the ones who convince humans that "sponsored athletes" sell "product."

Sorry but I'm going to call total bullshit on that quote. Sponsored athletes sell products by legitimizing them to the consumer. No one skis harder, farther, higher, bigger, faster than the sponsored athletes. That is the point. Those guys use the product harder than anyone, whether they are a big mountain ripper, a mountaineer, a racer, or a park rat, etc. Because they use it harder that legitimizes the product to every consumer who isn't sponsored, because they simply cannot go as fast, big, high, etc. Would you buy a ski, boot, and binding that is only used by people on the bunny slope? Hell no, because there is no proof it can meet the demands that you will throw at it. Sponsored athletes provide the proof, among many other things they should be doing to promote the brand.

Originally Posted by Atrain505

Sorry but I'm going to call total bullshit on that quote. Sponsored athletes sell products by legitimizing them to the consumer. No one skis harder, farther, higher, bigger, faster than the sponsored athletes. That is the point. Those guys use the product harder than anyone, whether they are a big mountain ripper, a mountaineer, a racer, or a park rat, etc. Because they use it harder that legitimizes the product to every consumer who isn't sponsored, because they simply cannot go as fast, big, high, etc. Would you buy a ski, boot, and binding that is only used by people on the bunny slope? Hell no, because there is no proof it can meet the demands that you will throw at it. Sponsored athletes provide the proof, among many other things they should be doing to promote the brand.

Oh jesus. I hope you have an elaborate altar in your dirtbag hovel where you worship the immense talents and deity-like status of sponsored athletes.

Who sponsors you? Top Ramen? I'll be sure to be convinced henceforth that Top Ramen makes people STUPIDER and less competent at logical reasoning.

Originally Posted by Atrain505

Sorry but I'm going to call total bullshit on that quote. Sponsored athletes sell products by legitimizing them to the consumer. No one skis harder, farther, higher, bigger, faster than the sponsored athletes. That is the point. Those guys use the product harder than anyone, whether they are a big mountain ripper, a mountaineer, a racer, or a park rat, etc. Because they use it harder that legitimizes the product to every consumer who isn't sponsored, because they simply cannot go as fast, big, high, etc. Would you buy a ski, boot, and binding that is only used by people on the bunny slope? Hell no, because there is no proof it can meet the demands that you will throw at it. Sponsored athletes provide the proof, among many other things they should be doing to promote the brand.

That's predicated on the consumer believing that "the pro" uses the exact same product they can buy in shops, among many other things. There may be people out there who think the way you are saying, there are also plenty of people who don't, and don't believe sponsorships provide any legitimacy at all. See: skis reskinned to look like consumer models

You guys REALLY think that the target audience for ski gear gives a flying fuck about what athletes use which products? I doubt 95% of people that buy ski equipment can even name a single person on the product company they are using nor do they give a shit.

As someone said earlier, it's about validation of gear abuse, but again, the only ones that know about such validation are a bunch of internet dweebs stoking each other's cocks.

The idea that sponsored athletes don't sell product is an epic fail.

No company spends more on athlete sponsorships than Nike - do you really think they have no fucking idea what they're doing? Phil Knight would read this shit and do a double face-palm. The ski industry may be a super micro version of this, but it's the same basic economics.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

That's predicated on the consumer believing that "the pro" uses the exact same product they can buy in shops, among many other things. There may be people out there who think the way you are saying, there are also plenty of people who don't, and don't believe sponsorships provide any legitimacy at all. See: skis reskinned to look like consumer models

The golf industry called and said you have no idea what you're talking about. Besides, do you really think a company like Salomon doesn't do proper market research to figure out what kind of sponsorship budget they can justify?

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

The idea that sponsored athletes don't sell product is an epic fail.

No company spends more on athlete sponsorships than Nike - do you really think they have no fucking idea what they're doing? Phil Knight would read this shit and do a double face-palm. The ski industry may be a super micro version of this, but it's the same basic economics.

Even as comedy (lame, crippled, with both ACLs shredded kind of comedy), the idea that Nike sponsoring Michael Jordan sold Nike shoes to kids who worship Jordan is totally irrelevant to skiing.

Skiers seeking "sponsorship" like to imagine themselves as their generation's version of a Michael Jordan analogue. Once they get "picked up by" a maker of chossy corny decals & stickers, they think they've "made it" and now are some hot shit. See? This PROVES I'm just like Michael Jordan! Tens, if not twenties, of stickers and decals are now being moved because I'm their sponsored "rider." Proof!

Comedy is supposed to be funny. Not sad, inept, pathetic.

Originally Posted by Atrain505

Sponsored athletes sell products by legitimizing them to the consumer. No one skis harder, farther, higher, bigger, faster than the sponsored athletes. That is the point.

The sponsored athletes get new shit every few months and are therefore invalid testers of long-term durability. I know because I do deals for a few sponsored athletes. They are always on brand new stuff. And FWIW they are good people and I'm happy that they figured a way to get some money to help them live while they train and race.

PappaG hit it. People who actually tour a bunch get their information re utility and long-term durability from other tourists. Seeing a guy like Silas with 500 touring days on Dynafits is much more valuable data than seeing a celebrity on brand new shiny Dynafits with 5 days on them. Most tourists I know will not spend one dime buying Salomon products just because Greg Hill is pedaling Salomon stuff. Sure, some youngster will buy something because a famous guy uses it. See Celebrity Worship Syndrome. Nonetheless, while the tourists I know will be uninfluenced by this celebrity marketing, I'll join Brit in wishing the guy the best.

Originally Posted by creaky fossil

Oh jesus. I hope you have an elaborate altar in your dirtbag hovel where you worship the immense talents and deity-like status of sponsored athletes.

Who sponsors you? Top Ramen? I'll be sure to be convinced henceforth that Top Ramen makes people STUPIDER and less competent at logical reasoning.

No one sponsors me. I haven't eaten top ramen in years.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

That's predicated on the consumer believing that "the pro" uses the exact same product they can buy in shops, among many other things. There may be people out there who think the way you are saying, there are also plenty of people who don't, and don't believe sponsorships provide any legitimacy at all. See: skis reskinned to look like consumer models

I've worked with many top sponsored athletes. And yes sometimes they are on tweaked gear (mostly it is tweaked for testing purposes), so they decide test version "A" skis better, so ya let's go ahead and stiffen up the tail a bit for next year's production ski. Also many of those athletes do ski on production gear that is exactly the same as consumers buy in shops. Out of the 8 sponsored athletes I worked with this year 2 of them skied on versions that were not the exact same as sold to consumers. The difference in those skis were they were slightly stiffer, which I guarantee you the average consumer wouldn't like.

This part of your quote is all that matters Hugh, "There may be people out there who think the way you are saying, there are also plenty of people who don't." There are clearly people who think both ways. The fact that there are some people who think the way I am saying is reason enough for companies to do the whole sponsorship thing.

Originally Posted by Atrain505

There are clearly people who think both ways.

Atrain505, I generally agree with you, but not on this. A consumer who is significantly influenced by a celebrity endorsement is not doing much thinking. (S)he is acting emotionally, not rationally: The popular kids use X therefore I'm going to pay my money to buy X.

I do not doubt that Salomon did a cost-benefit analysis on this and decided that hiring Hill was a good biz move. Likewise, I do not doubt that Dynafit did a similar analysis and concluded the paying Hill what he required was not a smart biz move. Many young lift-area skiers who are looking to cross over to touring will be influenced by Hill's endorsement. Established tourists won't.

Originally Posted by Atrain505

The difference in those skis were they were slightly stiffer, which I guarantee you the average consumer wouldn't like.

So you've stated that what the pros want isn't what the average consumer wants. Real shocker, that one. Next maybe you'll come to a conclusion the pros gear churn is much different than 99.9% of the publics. So we get to some emotional connection (aka the Golf industry were dumb dude blow cash trying to get better) which is, well, emotional, not rational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromarketing

Originally Posted by TahoeJ

The idea that sponsored athletes don't sell product is an epic fail.

No company spends more on athlete sponsorships than Nike - do you really think they have no fucking idea what they're doing? Phil Knight would read this shit and do a double face-palm. The ski industry may be a super micro version of this, but it's the same basic economics.

So you think the ski industry should be more like a fad driven fashion company? Nike fucking sucks as a model. Buy a pair of shoes that you love and they've been "obsoleted" before the next ones wear out with minimal improvements but enough differences so the "same model" won't fit your foot. So you've got to find another model.

Originally Posted by PappaG

You guys REALLY think that the target audience for ski gear gives a flying fuck about what athletes use which products? I doubt 95% of people that buy ski equipment can even name a single person on the product company they are using nor do they give a shit.

As someone said earlier, it's about validation of gear abuse, but again, the only ones that know about such validation are a bunch of internet dweebs stoking each other's cocks.

You are right. Most people can't name exact names. That doesn't mean the sponsored athlete hasn't left an impression on people and help sold the product. For instance a few years ago my girlfriend was just starting med school and we went to a little dinner party. At the dinner party people start asking me about skiing. One young med student who skis maybe ten days a year she admits, "says I heard those rossi skis with the big tip and skinny tail are great for powder. The S...S somethings." "S7's?" "Ya that's it. I saw some hippy looking dude in a movie with them."

Same thing happened this year. Riding a lift with a real estate guy from LA up in Whistler. Same type of conversation. This time about the benchetler's. Saying he saw a bunch of guys in a movie skiing them. He didn't know names, but those athletes (Benchetler, Flahr, Sage) still left an impression on him and still potentially led to a sale. So internet dweebs and skiing insiders may be the only ones who know specifics, but you would be surprised on the far reaching impressions the whole "sponsorship" side of the action sports industry can make. Impressions = sales.

Originally Posted by Big Steve

The sponsored athletes get new shit every few months and are therefore invalid testers of long-term durability. I know because I do deals for a few sponsored athletes. They are always on brand new stuff. And FWIW they are good people and I'm happy that the figured a way to get some money help them live while they train and race.

I work with them too. And most of them actually get a variety of stuff but will generally use the same stuff all year. Out of the 8 athletes I shot this year all of them remained in the same outerwear all year even though they got more (the other stuff is used for walking around town or whatever). 4 out of 8 used the same pair of skis. Even though they got more. The other four would ski different skis depending on conditions (like a lot of consumers do). 2 out of the 8 broke pairs of skis. Both would have broken no matter the ski company. All 8 used the same boots all year. One guy only switched to new boots this year after being on the same pair for 4 years.

So yearly they switch gear for sure, every few months maybe.

Atrain, I don't know how long you've been alive and on Earth, but it would appear that during your stint here, you have somehow become confused on the relevance of "marketing" and have taken it to the extreme of believing it is essential to sell a product. It would appear this has occurred because, like many Americans, you mistake the charade of electronic image projection (internet/tweeting/texting) for actual life.

"Marketing" is all about creating that mistaken equation. Buy this new 2012 version of the 1968 Camaro Z-28 and you'll have more pussy than a cat breeder!

You are suggesting the psychological manipulation = reality, = honest, = preferable.

You're wrong, but you won't see it.

Hubris is not admirable.

Let me ask my entire group of ski buddies how often they've bought a given item because Joe Ripshitup was on that "product."

Okay, I've asked them.

To a person: "Who gives a fuck?"

But if you ask the Marketing Guru (who got that job by selling himself as a marketing guru, not by actually possessing useful knowledge or skill) you learn that my buddies are full of shit, and actually DID buy based on marketing, they just were so out-smarted by the marketing folks that they didn't realize it.

What a load of crap.

Keep justifying your fantasy view of life.

Your "marketing" pitches in this thread remind me especially of something relevant right now. They remind me of the "progressives" who support Obama, saying that he has to pretend to be more GOPish than Dubya Bush, because that's what will get him into his 2d term, where the "real Obama" will rule with a "progressive" outlook.

Yeah, nice fantasy.

Naomi Klein, No Logo

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Atrain505, I generally agree with you, but not on this. A consumer who is significantly influenced by a celebrity endorsement is not doing much thinking. (S)he is acting emotionally, not rationally: The popular kids use X therefore I'm going to pay my money to buy X.

I think we agree actually. Me using thinking was the wrong word. The influence is still there and the influence leads to a sale.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

So you've stated that what the pros want isn't what the average consumer wants. Real shocker, that one. Next maybe you'll come to a conclusion the pros gear churn is much different than 99.9% of the publics. So we get to some emotional connection (aka the Golf industry were dumb dude blow cash trying to get better) which is, well, emotional, not rational.

I stated that 2 out of the 8 pros I worked with this year didn't want what the consumers wanted, they wanted a slightly stiffer ski for landing their 40 foot airs that most consumers don't do. The other 6 pros wanted exactly what the consumers wanted. For them the consumer model worked for their 40 foot airs, etc.

Creaky fossil.
You are taking this way too seriously. I fully agree that not everyone buys because of marketing. I agree with that 100%. Most of my ski buddies are exactly like your ski buddies, "Who gives a fuck?" I fall into that category as well. My outerwear is six years old and kept together with iron on patches and some sew jobs with dental floss. I have the money to buy new outerwear no problem. Do I need it? Hell no.

I am only trying to say that marketing does work on some people. There is no denying it. Some people don't give a fuck, but some people do. Those some people justify the existence of marketing departments. That's it. Nothing more.