On October 30th, I presented a slideshow version of this post at the annual Night of Lies in Canmore. Feel free to check out the video.
Is sponsorship a sin? NO. But bullshit is.
After nearly 15 years of climbing, I rarely read climbing magazines. I have no subscriptions. If I do pick up a magazine, I usually only look at the pictures. The words usually make me nauseous.
My experienced climber friends are the same way. Some of them haven’t looked at a climbing magazine in years.
The more you climb, the less you’re interested in reading the same recycled stories with the same characters smiling from new faces. And the less you can tolerate the self-promotion that comes from white lies and self-serving exaggerations in hopes of becoming (or staying) sponsored. And those indulgences are rampant and widespread.
If sponsorship isn’t backed up by a legitimate accomplishment that is significant to the sport, then being rewarded for something insignificant is sad and undeserved. And it’s immoral, because it creates a facade, and facades are lies.
This happens more often than you might think. Many of the athletes you often see in climbing magazines are phenomenal at self-promotion, but range from average to crap at actually climbing. Ice, mixed and alpine climbing have the worst offenders. (Rock climbing is usually too consistent, popular and objective for lies to last long.) Truth is, many climbers are sponsored for what they say, or how well they’re known, rather than for what they’ve done.
The problem stems from the fact that the “athlete” is the performer, but also the judge and the journalist. A lack of objectivity and a lack of integrity combine to create opportunistic self-promotion masquerading as journalism. The result is that average achievements beget above-average attention. (All those “Hot Flashes” you read, written in the third person, are often written by the climbers themselves.) Few other disciplines would tolerate such a lack of objectivity, but no direct access to the “feats” of accomplishment makes us dependant on it.
Sponsorship is only defensible when the degree of self-promotion is equal to or less than the significance of the achievement. When Good Climber does something Rad and says, “This is Rad”, that’s fine. Kudos. Too often though, Wanna Be Famous does something mediocre and says, “This is Rad! Really! I swear!”
The sad fact about our sport is that genuine devotees are the exception, not the rule. True athletes, masters and visionaries do exist, but only some of them are sponsored. Most are not.
Disclosure: Yes, I was a sponsored climber. I resigned from all of my sponsorships in December 2007. I am happy I did.
UPDATE, October 22nd: After some dialog with editors of some of the climbing magazines, I see now that the first few paragraphs of this post may seem critical of the magazines. That is not what I intended. My beef is not with the magazines, but with opportunistic climbers of questionable integrity and the brands that support them. It’s not the magazines’ responsibility to police our sport. It’s my hope that the climbers themselves will do that, and then the brands will follow suit.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
ya good points. but wasn’t the first sponsored climber reinhold messner (both the greatest alpinist and ice climber of his age)? sponsorship = money to devote to full-time climbing = better performance…in theory.
@Chris (Butch): He may have been, but my point still stands:
“If sponsorship isn’t backed up by a legitimate accomplishment that is significant to the sport, then being rewarded for something insignificant is sad and pathetic.”
-and-
“Sponsorship is only defensible when the degree of self-promotion is equal to or less than the significance of the achievement.”
For his time, Messner was the best at whatever he did, so pursuing sponsorship (in his case) made sense. Unfortunately, many climbers today don’t maintain that same ideal.
I would agree. I was at Lake Louise yesterday and a heavily sponsored climber was there falling off of 5.11+. I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but really, is even a 5.12 climber these days pushing the sport? Are they worthy of sponsorship by numerous big companies? I don’t think so. These days it seems that anyone who can market themselves well, and presents a good ‘image’ and package to their sponsors is going to try to get as much free stuff as possible. It’s much more refreshing to see someone who climbs hard, groundbreaking routes, without any thought as to fame and outside support…they still work a 9-5 job like everyone else, but climb because they love it, and do no seek sponsorship because, for them, climbing is not part of the capitalist marketing that companies have created, but is one of the last bastions of pure adventure and removal from everyday life.
Thanks, Jason. I would have to agree. 5.14 seems to be the standard these days.
That said, I thought of another type of sponsorship which I think is legit. My criticism is mainly directed at “athletes” that publish their exploits and try to get magazines’ attention.
The type of sponsorship which I think is worthwhile for both brands and sponsorees is when guides are sponsored. It makes sense. Trained guides are a valuable resource for brands to get their product in front of the target market (clients). It also works for guides, because it helps them out with reduced gear expenses.
But my criticism still stands for climbers that try to make a career out of notoriety rather than legitimate accomplishment.
Hi Scott.
Good words. I wish more ‘wanna be sponsored’ would read this post.
Dude – this is the ultimate circular reality of Climbing – it’s not the truth about actual climbing, more the myth and media-ization of climbing. BTW i do receive, in the mail, climbing magazines – i like to support climbing – not the BS side of things, but the industry itself. A tough one, as many of the articles are often spayathon’s and many were centered around the BV in winter. Relenquishing your sponsorships is something that you may deem solid, as you are now in a position where maybe finances are not as much a concern as they were before Ambler – you are also in the loop for pro-deals, with the industry contacts. Some climbers of older ages do keep a few sponsorships for mentoring, historical and efforts – they may not be at the top, but they have left the true mark of what climbing is about – and that’s respect. (Gadd, Milton, Slawinski …) Yes there are a few climbers who are non-sponsored that are freaking awesome and exemplify the trueness of climbing (Unterasinger) Builders like Tos and the Perry’s deserve the same as the top end pros – they provide the areas for climbers to climb. Personally i’m a BIG fan of this style and of the Perry’s.
The fact that some of the younger generation is focused on getting sponsored vs. gaining more climbing skills is mostly a result of poor or no mentors, media and gyms.
But we do live in Canada where our level is good, 5.14- is still fully rad, where in Euro-land it’s the norm for the serious climber and the pro’s are in the 5.15 land.
So the fact that some dude fell off an 11+ at LL is kind of irrelevant, a bad day, or just the way climbing goes – some of them pro-climbers have a really big gear and can pull it out when they are in their zone. I’ve seen many pro-climbers climb poorly and then the next day send the hardest thing in the area.
Some of the kids from the gym are now actually sending the areas hardest climbs – this is the way – soon they’ll get bored and hopefully bolt the next set of top end routes.
Hope all is well in Semple-land … are you going to Lakit with Raph? …
Thanks, JD. But I think you need to re-read my post… Three important points:
# “Is sponsorship a sin? No, but bullshit is.” Will, Raph, Scott, Sonnie are examples of sponsored athletes that deserve their sponsorships. It’s the pretenders that try to make a career out of nothing that I have a problem with. I suspect the real athletes in climbing would agree.
# “If sponsorship isn’t backed up by a legitimate accomplishment that is significant to the sport, then being rewarded for something insignificant is sad and undeserved.”
# “Sponsorship is only defensible when the degree of self-promotion is equal to or less than the significance of the achievement.”
It seems more and more common that some climbers are trying to make careers out of notoriety rather than out of accomplishment. It needs to stop.
In response to LeBlank’s comment.
This particular athlete having a ‘bad day’ at the Lake has a list of ‘hardest’ redpoints in Squamish and elsewhere that have been climbed by senior citizens that sent the same routes with hockey puck rubber on their shoes and rigid stem friends for pro….those (now seniors) weren’t sponsored then, or now.
The argument still stands – if you are making yourself out to be something that you are not, you should just swallow your pride and go climbing for the love of it. Save your money for your gear, like the average joe (it’s not very honourable to impose on your friends who are reps, and ask them for discounts) and get out there. Enjoy the mountains with your friends, no fanfare, no press, no bullshit….could be liberating!
I think you have two points that you need to separate to fully examine.
One: Athletes self-promotion and writing their own articles for mags.
This happens in every industry. Heck, many people even write their own recommendation letters for jobs and just hand it to their former employer or professor and ask them to read and sign it if they agree. Especially in business publications it is normal for a person to write articles that are thinly veiled or blatant self-promotions and have them published deeming them an “expert” (which is the suits version of being sponsored.)
Your second issue is that you feel some sponsored climbers aren’t the best and the best aren’t sponsored and therefore it’s destroying the sport?
Every other sport is that way. The “best” players with the biggest endorsements are not necessarily the best players, but they have good personalities, they connect with the young people who want to be strong like them, and sell a product. It’s business. The strong silent type won’t make a company any money, won’t inspire new climbers, and will be a waste of the sponsorship budget if they are too shy to talk about what they do, pose for pictures and write a story.
I manage a gym and we do everything we can to hook new climbers. Having started climbing as a toddler in NH with my dad, I am jealous of the kids today getting a chance to excel early in the sport, and to have mentors (older, better climbers) to look up to. I don’t care if that person is the best climber in the world, if their sponsor’s poster of them helps one more newb understand and respect the sport they did their job and deserve what they get. I agree that there are many, many amazing climbers who are not sponsored and possibly should, but if they want to be sponsored and receive something for what they do, they need to give the climbing companies something to work with and market. In a world of business and bucks, just being talented isn’t enough. Hire a publicist.
I will end by saying kudos to Jason Billing, I agree, go climb for fun. Enjoy it and forget the bullshit.
Thanks, Kat. All good points.
To be clear, I have no problem with sponsorship or self-promotion. Both are smart and necessary in most industries.
But. I have a huge problem with lies. As the climbing industry grows, and more sponsorship dollars are available, more and more climbers are sponsored who have done NOTHING. To me, this misleads consumers and demeans the sport.
Sponsorship and self-promotion are justifiable when they’re backed up by significant accomplishment. But not when they’re only backed up by slideshows and photos in magazines.
I don't know the details or information about a specific which might have inspired the posting, but I know that having access to free/cheap gear allows a lot of genuinely devoted climbers to get out there and make their dream trip, which they otherwise might not afford.
Here are my thoughts – http://blakeclimbs.blogspot.com/
Although I enjoyed and agree with many of your comments Scott I have a few questions. You and I can have a shared cynicism but in reality not many others can relate either because they a) have never been sponsored b) are sponsored and still optimistic c) don't know the industry of Outdoor retail.
??'s
a) what is there is achieve by through this discussion?
b) Is all sponsorship a sin….I would have to say that perhaps the answer is YES. If it is for one it is for all. There is a huge variability in levels of ability, accepted risk, and proportion of media hype. Ultimately it is the COMPANY and ATHLETE to determine what is valuable. All sponsorship is partial selling out.
c) Do you admit to in-proportional hyping of any of your achievements? In retrospect, as a past sponsored athlete myself, and seeing the current state of ice, mixed and alpine climbing, I certainly could. The manufacturers that we worked with thought it was worth it and so did I.
Finally, who gives a shit. Be proud not being sponsored. Be proud of being sponsored. Climb for yourself…bottom line.
I don't know the details or information about a specific which might have inspired the posting, but I know that having access to free/cheap gear allows a lot of genuinely devoted climbers to get out there and make their dream trip, which they otherwise might not afford.
Thanks, Greg. Sponsorship, first and foremost, is definitely about selling more product, but I don't necessarily think that that's a bad thing. Used wisely, it can help the sport and set standards. However, that requires a certain idealistic integrity which I think is lacking in most (but not all) brands.
To take another angle – in the modern sporting world, top-level climbers (and athletes in general) have a choice: make themselves marketable or someone less talented will get the attention. Different choices will appeal to different people. Should we ask talented (but not groundbreaking) athletes to give up the chance to make money from doing what they love, just because someone else a bit better than them has chosen not to promote themselves? As your own experience shows, often the level of hype is not determined by the climber, but by the sponsor, so how can they ensure that the "degree of self-promotion is equal to or less than the significance of the achievement"? I agree that if the climber is exaggerating or lying then that's definitely not cool, but I would like to believe that most climbers (yes even those scum with sponsorship deals) would not intentionally mislead people about their achievements. Hyperbole is endemic in advertising, so why should we expect climbing not to be hyped if it starts being used in advertising?
Hey Scott,
Just checked out your Blog on the recommendation of a common friend. I like it, seems to be fueling debate, which always makes for interesting reading. I think you got it right with this statement: "For better or worse, this is my (probably fruitless) stand against it." When there is money involved that is what will dictate morals. It is a sad thing to state, but I believe it rings true for most things in society today. I appreciated Stephen Gordon's comment in regards to how sponsership in Golf and Tennis were the same in the 70's as it is for climbing now and his comment "not anything unique to climbing — more an issue with marketing in general and modern culture". I see the same things in Kiteboarding magazine's (my new sport I took up a couple of years ago) with articles about sponsored riders and thier respective kite companies. It's not always the best, but he who is willing to pimp himself out the most who gets the sponsorship.
Thanks, Todd. Pimping is definitely an important and necessary part of sponsorship. I have no problem with self-promotion. I did a lot of it myself when I was sponsored, and I would again.
My beef is with self-promotion without anything to back it up. Funnily enough, 99% of climbing sponsorships are gear-only, so blaming it on the temptation of money doesn’t follow.
I suspect it has more to do with some internal need for recognition on the part of the pretenders in spite of it revealing them as frauds.
Again, I have no problem with self-promotion. I think it’s a smart thing to do in most careers. But if someone is gonna hype themselves, they better have the money to back up their mouth (so to speak).
HI Scott,
Thanks for answering my, probably written while drunk (based on the last 2 weeks), questions. Most importantly, I don't want to suggest that you intentionally over hyped any of your accomplishments but was admitting that, in retrospect, certain press on some of my climbs, one of which you were involved in, got press despite the fact that they weren't pushing any new limits. In that particular case you and I were both 'sponsored' so we pitched the climb as 'news' to some magazines and they ran it. We didn't deviate from the truth but maybe the magazines aren't always the best judge of newsworthy topics. We didn't reach any new spiritual or physical heights on that particular climb but thought someone might be interested. Perhaps because we were 'sponsored' the mags assumed it was newsworthy….Vicious circle.
Ultimately I agree with you and can see how many disillusioned climbers there are out there. I can also sympathize with the young, passionate climber that wants to be a professional because all they want to do is climb….everyday. On that note, I believe that as soon as the accomplishment is pitched as 'news' it is cheapened. The curse of the professional climber.
Fodder.
Look forward to the presentation….and a beer.
Thanks, Rob. No problem with the question. If I am questioning others, then I must put myself up for examination as well.
WRT the route we did, do you mean Mt. Stephen? I think that that’s a worthwhile tick. Often looked at, but didn’t get done until we did it. Hasn’t been done since, I think?
Thanks for posting some interesting thoughts on this subject. I'd only add a couple things (from my perspective as a non-pro guy).
First, the company gets a lot out of their climber spraying in the mags, even if it is lies. This helps the company and the climber, but I agree it hurts the sport.
Second, it is marketing. I can't stand the rampant prescription drug ads on tv, but marketing on the continent is just too effective and life controlling. A less than attractive climber doesn't have the greatest chance. We are marketing good looking people. Compare the percentage of photos of female climbers in mags to the percentage of women you see at the crags. Lotsa chicks in the mags.
Part of the marketing angle, but pros and photographers have a strong symbiosis… some more than others.
WIth regard to the mediocre accomplishments, I think the companies will wise up before long and drop whoever.
I think that's about it except for the fact that it's all pretty theoretical at this point. Lots of climbers get free shoes/gear/schwag but no money. Is that a problem? There is definitely status attached to just getting free shoes. Personally, I hope it never goes the way of surfing, where you got lots of 6 figure moneymen and the accompanying paparazzi, I think that' would be super lame. But, if you want to change it, YOU GOTTA NAME NAMES. And I have a feeling you're not going there. Not much would be accomplished…
Thanks, Dave. I agree that this is not unusual, and it’s just the case of unscrupulous marketing making it’s way into the climbing industry.
However… I must disagree with the following:
“With regard to the mediocre accomplishments, I think the companies will wise up before long and drop whoever.”
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Several very well-known brands are already well-aware of some of their athletes’ insubstantial resumes, but they’re banking on consumer naïveté. They’ve realized that the average climber thinks that all sponsorships are warranted — i.e. If someone’s sponsored, then it must be deserved — so it becomes a self-justifying marketing game with nothing substantial to base it on.
This is especially obvious when website bios are long-winded, but say nothing of technical skill (grades) nor of significant contributions (coveted first ascents). Usually the self-authored drivel focuses on “starting from an early age”, “passionate about the sport”, “seeing life clearly” and other such unsubstantiated nonsense.
Well, I would say that you’re not a literary genius either. Certainly not one of the greatest writers or thinkers of our time. Does that mean that you writing about your ideas or self-promotion of your opinion is immoral? Is your blog or presentation on this subject reducing the legitimacy of the literary culture?
BTW, not trying to be offensive here, just trying to make a point.
In any business you have to market yourself, if you hope for someone random to do it you will surely go out of business.
Thanks, Landon.
If you’re going to elect yourself to be the literary critic, then I suggest that you pay closer attention to the words on the screen. It’s important to read all of them if you’re going to comment.
As I’ve said repeatedly here and elsewhere — although perhaps in not clear enough language, or perhaps in not big enough or bold enough text — I have no problem with sponsorship, marketing or self-promotion. I have a problem with facades and bullshit. And too many sponsored climbers base their careers on both.
I am a mountaineering instructor that recieves sponsorship. I don't have to do anything in return for this support, and I only use the equipment that I feel is best for the job. The working relationship I have with my sponsors is excellent, and the opportunity to feedback on the kit they supply is brilliant, from a professional point of veiw.