Ski Magazine Buyer's Guide 2013 -Test Skis Disclosed

They failed to disclose the biggest factor in being part of the ski test. How much money you spend with them.

The magazines don't do this shit for free.

Some make you pay to show up, some make you pay per ski.

Then Goode must be throwing money at them, considering it's .1% market share.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

They failed to disclose the biggest factor in being part of the ski test. How much money you spend with them.

 

The magazines don't do this shit for free.

 

Some make you pay to show up, some make you pay per ski.

You bring up a valid issue.  This is something I wondered about for a long time: What is the cost to the manufacturers?  Is it a fee per test, a cost per model tested, money spent on advertising, etc? 

I am always amazed at how many good skis are "discovered" here, at RealSkiers, SkiCanadaMag, etc., that are never reviewed by the two big publications.

I really don't like their categorical breakdown, specifically this part:

- Mixed Snow West, 95-105 mm, for everyday use in typical Western conditions.

- Deep Snow, 105 mm and up, for powder days.

It seems like they need to either make the mixed snow west up to 110mm or separate deep snow into two categories: powder oriented all mountain and strictly powder.

Comparing a BMX 108 or Cochise to something like a Solly Rocker2 or 4FRNT Renegades is kind of goofy, isn't it?

Well, it's an irrelevant publication that caters to a less than savvy demographic.
 

SKI carries a lot of sway with your "average" skier, I would bet.  Not the type who visit ski forums online, however.

^^ For retail purposes that absolutely makes sense, particularly because you can list the same ski in multiple categories in some cases.

It's nice to get an early start this year with the ravings about the SKI magazine reviews.  "Only for the 'average' skier", "ad dollars being biggest factor, "poor categories" on and on.   Some of these are legitimate gripes, though I'm pretty sure the ad dollar one is just paranoia.  Sorry, I look forward to the gear issue.  I don't take them too seriously but I do enjoy reading the reviews, looking at the trends, contemplating gear purchases.  But then, I'm a pretty average skier.

I notice they don't even test Elans, one of the best ski mfrs out there IMO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngsman 

It's nice to get an early start this year with the ravings about the SKI magazine reviews.  "Only for the 'average' skier", "ad dollars being biggest factor, "poor categories" on and on.   Some of these are legitimate gripes, though I'm pretty sure the ad dollar one is just paranoia.  Sorry, I look forward to the gear issue.  I don't take them too seriously but I do enjoy reading the reviews, looking at the trends, contemplating gear purchases.  But then, I'm a pretty average skier.

The add dollar thing is not "paranoia". It's reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oisin 

I notice they don't even test Elans, one of the best ski mfrs out there IMO.

If Elan chose to target the NA market more heavily i'm sure they would. Elan does pretty healthy business in Europe, and they OEM for a bunch of other brands.

Aren't these the same folks that, will let you be a ski tester too (for a nominal fee), and keep naming Deer Valley as the #1 ski area?    They do get some pretty pictures though.

Got in a run with 3 of the testers at Snowbird in April.  They were all on Bonifides if that says anything either.

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

The add dollar thing is not "paranoia". It's reality.

Wow!  That's some pretty damning evidence.  You've convinced me.

GOOGLE SKIPRESS MAG

Quote:

Originally Posted by AverageSkier 

 

Wow!  That's some pretty damning evidence.  You've convinced me.

Believe whatever you please. I know people who have had to write the check. You probably think athletes get to be in ski movies for free too.

Every year, same crap.  "Ski" does not pick the skis or the categories in which to be tested.  The manufacturers pick the skis they want tested and tell the mag the category in which they want to be included.   If ad dollars were any kind of a determining factor, many of the small manufacturers that are, in fact, tested (often with good reviews) would not be represented.  Goode keeps getting reviewed.  Kastle was just being reintroduced a few years ago (with no ads at all) and they got in.  If the maufacturers don't submit skis, they don't get reviewed.

  "Ski" does not name Deer Valley the top resort.  The readers of the magazine vote it in.  One can quibble about the methodology (Snow quality has the same weighting as apres ski, for instance) but the magazine does not make the pick.

Wonder how selective the manufacturers are on which skis go to be tested? 

Are they the standard stock like on the feet of FIS racers?

Again, the manufacturers pick the skis to be tested and the category desired.  If a manufacturer submits FIS race skis into the Hard Snow category, those skis will be tested and evaluated.  Likely, such skis will get excellent scores on grip, less stellar scores on user friendliness and versatility.  Such a submission is, therefore, unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stranger 

Wonder how selective the manufacturers are on which skis go to be tested? 

 

Are they the standard stock like on the feet of FIS racers?

It depends on the manufacturer. Some of them just peel off the plastic and mail them others put a lot of effort into making sure they send the perfect ski.

Regardless of the above, manufacturers have an incentive to "game" the tests knowing that many consumers--for better or worse--purchase skis with their favorite ski publication under their arms.  I have no issue with this providing relevant information regarding the tests is disclosed.  For example, do the manufacturers pay the publication to test their skis?  That may explain why Goode, whose move to a wood core is a positive for performance, is now being tested more often.  It may also explain why Stockli, a relatively unknown (well, to the masses) manufacturer, kicks butt in cross and WC competition but isn't in many ski tests.   Unfortunately, the financial considerations behind these "tests" are never disclosed.

I think most skiers view the sport as a "hobby" and not an avocation.  They ski 5-10 days per year and don't want to spend a lot of time figuring out what to purchase.  SKI and SKIING meet their demands even if most of us hanging out on EPICSKI know better...much better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike_m 

Every year, same crap.  "Ski" does not pick the skis or the categories in which to be tested.  The manufacturers pick the skis they want tested and tell the mag the category in which they want to be included.   If ad dollars were any kind of a determining factor, many of the small manufacturers that are, in fact, tested (often with good reviews) would not be represented.  Goode keeps getting reviewed.  Kastle was just being reintroduced a few years ago (with no ads at all) and they got in.  If the maufacturers don't submit skis, they don't get reviewed.

 

  "Ski" does not name Deer Valley the top resort.  The readers of the magazine vote it in.  One can quibble about the methodology (Snow quality has the same weighting as apres ski, for instance) but the magazine does not make the pick.

Goode gets reviewed because they pay the price. Goode is savvy enough to know that their name carries weight with the uninformed readers of Ski magazine who may not be up on the latest stuff, but know names from 20 years ago.

I'm sure Goode does decent enough sales to pay for their stuff to be reviewed.

Kastle obviously came back with a healthy investment. Advertising is part of this. I would say good reviews in gear guides can be way more influential than full page ad's.

Just because you don't see a companies ski's on your local dealers wall, does not mean they do not do a healthy business.

To be fair, many of the results of last year's SKI reviews were very similar to the reviews both here and on TGR.  They named the Cochise the ski of the year and it got a lot of love everywhere else too.  Except Powder where it was barely mentioned.  Frankly, I'm even more suspicious of Powder's gear guide and how it seems very skewed in favor of all things Salomon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

To be fair, many of the results of last year's SKI reviews were very similar to the reviews both here and on TGR.  They named the Cochise the ski of the year and it got a lot of love everywhere else too.  Except Powder where it was barely mentioned.  Frankly, I'm even more suspicious of Powder's gear guide and how it seems very skewed in favor of all things Salomon.

Powder week is sponsored in part by Salomon. I think the Cochise is a good ski, I would say that Blizzard also substantially upped their visibility in the market buy putting the ad dollars where it needed to be. I would say that the Cochise was well reviewed on TGR, but not hugely popular.

Again though, magazine reviews are about paying people to get on your ski's. There is a cost to show up to Powder week, and there is a cost to get testers on your ski's

Freeskier did somewhat of the same thing. There was actually appointments to have "reviewers" test your ski.

I have to say that I have never, ever read a single copy of SKI magazine.
 

It has that much influence on me.  SBC SKIER on the other hand, is a heck of a publication.

Am I missing something?  Are they going up to test them now???  Or is this an old article?  Testing powder skis in the summer? 

Announcing the skis they are going to test in the future is completely useless information.  Are the testers going to announce how they think they will rate the skis when they finally get to test them.

They have already been tested earlier this year.