I’m no industry insider, but writing this blog has certainly given me a glimpse into things I didn’t know about our little ski world. Some stuff hasn’t surprised me, and other things have come as a bit of a shock. We all make different assumptions, so I’d like to find out what you’re all thinking.
That brings me to this weekend’s poll– What do you think is the biggest determining factor when a ski media outlet decides what skiers to cover? We’ve all heard and voiced complaints about the exclusivity of the group that gets coverage, but I’m curious to know what you all perceive to be the reason why so many good skiers are left out of the limelight. As always, feel free to add, subtract, or expand on the answers in the comments.
Over the weekend I’m going to try to get some quotes from folks who are or have been at the helm of major ski media outlets, and we’ll see how their perception lines up with yours.
i sort of think people who answered sponsors/money are being needlessly cynical.
O really?
How about choosing an athlete based on how well they are perceived to drive media sales?
^Hmm, this got me thinking. The non-cynical way to spin this, and the way that I think is more appropriate, is to say, “choosing those athletes who the consumers are most interested in (and thus, for whom they are most likely to shell out cash).”
This question assumes that serving the customer or serving the bottom line are mutually exclusive pursuits. Absolutely, there is a practice within large magazines and, even more so, videos for charging for coverage, pay-to-play essentially. But those companies are using that money to also cover athletes who the people want to see. Essentially, that’s the only way keep their audience. If not, a competitor, be it a website, webisode, video, etc., would eat into their market share, they would lose their consumer base and ruin the pay-to-play scheme in the process.
The only way to succeed in business to find a niche and serve it better than your competitors. The bigger the niche you can serve, the bigger your profits. The notion that media entities can have a monopoly and the kids will eat up whatever they are given because they don’t have option is BS. There are more options than there have ever been.
Brobomb itself is an example of this. Apparently there was lack of community for bitter, jaded, over-educated, underemployed, old skiers with clearly nothing better to do (myself included). The reason Jon isn’t pulling in the big bucks is that it’s a very small (and poor) demographic.
Here is what I’ve learned about big ski media. It’s always conservative. It never leads the pack. It’s going to let someone else waste that money and energy. When the little guy has success, it will just jump in and outspend him. That way is a hell of a lot less risky, always successful and most importantly, a lot more profitable.
So if you’re unhappy with coverage by the big media outlets, you really have only the kids to blame. When they demand the granola crunching, tight pants wearing, tech brobomb skier of the week, you’ll see them in the magazines. The problem is they want a steady diet of the same old thing, and big media is only too happy to comply. They’re only giving us (and by that, I mean the big US) exactly what we’re asking for.
Jeff, do you really think the blame rests with the kids? I think you raised a more important point with the conservative nature of the ski industry (not just the media side of things, but that is a part of it).
Perhaps more of the blame lies with manufacturers, those that ultimately pay the bills – whether in the form of ads that fund the mags/sites or the salaries that go to the athletes. As you pointed out, there’s a lack of chances being taken. And if marketing manager y from company x is relying on message boards and websites to find the new talent (which it seems like a lot of them are), they’re of course going to be behind the curve, because that stuff is online now, and taking an entire year to feature what’s already blown up may not be very relevant by the time it makes it to newsstands.
Magazines in particular have an obligation to not just regurgitate the same ol shit you can find online, and I don’t know if many are doing so to the extent that they could or should be. All I know is that we shouldn’t be relying solely on the marketing machines to tell us what’s cool – especially when their means of information gathering puts them behind the times from the get-go. Just my two cents.
I’ve been one of the biggest advocates of new technology and the internet in skiing AND now more than ever do I see the unequivocal value of print. They need to compliment each other. I’m also on a deadline and don’t have hours to sit and argue on BroBomb.com so I’ll leave you with this question:
Can the Internet do this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrJ6EpfKnMw