from a consumer perspective, the actual achievements of the sponsored athletes are a relevant argument only for highly technical gear.

i see this mainly from a rock climber’s perspective. let’s make two extreme examples.

climbing shoes : seeing a certain shoe on a difficult climb impresses me and might generate some GAS. yes, the level of achievement matters.

climbing clothes : technical needs close to zero, i can boulder or sport climb in anything comfy enough. But a cool look might make me curious. I have almost nothing of that company sponsoring most top guys, but i’ve bought a lot of stuff from a smaller brand that’s giving free stuff to all the “cool guys” they know.

then i agree that a sponsored person should not be a liar, but pushing the concept to “only the real best at the sport deserve sponsorship” sounds, at lest in some niches, pure moralism…

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.

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.

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.

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…