New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2007 Gear guide is out - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robscapes
Volkl is owned by K2 and they do lots of advertising.
So, you are saying that K2 buys lots of K2 ads, but secretly whispers to the mags that they want Volkl to get all of the Gold medals?

Give me a break.
post #32 of 47
troutman, I am not sure what exactly your damage/point-of-authority is, but the point of my post was to point out that ad spending cannot be determined from one issue, and there are many more factors beyond ad pages that may involve a contribution to the magazine. My statement about pulling ads out of the first issue because the reviews do the talking is not contradictory in the least. If I was an ad manager, and I knew I had those gold medals (regardless if they were awarded fairly or not), I would use my ad spending on other issues where my brand would not be covered as heavily by a third party. Volkl in this case is a good example as they are a smaller company nestled within one of the largest winter sports conglomerates on the planet.

I am not sure why your tone with every poster that you respond to is constantly insulting but myself and others do not need to be patronized for not taking the ski publication gear reviews with anything more than a grain of salt... or furthermore, for offering up ideas that might differ from your own; unless of course you can provide financial statements and invoices from the top 8 ski companies in the world that detail their ad spending... or conversely an ad revenue and other contribution breakdown from several of the major skiing related publications. Basically, your method of determining this information is not exactly based on facts or any kind of science, so unless you used to be or currently are an ad manager for a major ski company I think it is safe to say you are offering your own speculation on this topic as well.

Personally I am not that interested in how the magazines come up with their reviews and awards for each ski/brand. The comments that are made about each ski, regardless of its performance, are poor at best in terms of describing how a ski actually performs. I would be happier with the reviews if no "best in the test" skis were selected, but instead they actually said something about how the skis performed. Apparently asking for facts and other concrete quantitative information in this industry is a taboo.

Later

GREG
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
troutman, I am not sure what exactly your damage/point-of-authority is, but the point of my post was to point out that ad spending cannot be determined from one issue...unless of course you can provide financial statements and invoices from the top 8 ski companies in the world that detail their ad spending...
Damage?

I understand your point, and in theory I acknowledge that it is true. However, look at empiracal evidence avaiable to us, namely the last several years of Ski/Skiing. The amount of advertising per brand is remakably stable from year to year. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that K2, Salomon, and Rossignol have very deep pockets while companies like Elan, Blizzard, and Stockli do not. Atomic and Völkl are somewhere in the middle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
If I was an ad manager, and I knew I had those gold medals (regardless if they were awarded fairly or not), I would use my ad spending on other issues where my brand would not be covered as heavily by a third party. Volkl in this case is a good example as they are a smaller company nestled within one of the largest winter sports conglomerates on the planet.
A 2 page spread in Ski costs about $20,000 - no matter whether it's the buyer's guide in August or the thinner issues at the end of the season. You would really forgo a chance to sit on coffee tables throughout Ski Town USA for 6 months in order to put an ad in the soon-to-be-forgotten January or February issue?

I do not understand what Völkl has to do with your point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
I am not sure why your tone with every poster that you respond to is constantly insulting but myself and others do not need to be patronized for not taking the ski publication gear reviews with anything more than a grain of salt...
I feel I am treating the issue with the same level of cynicism that most posters here subscibe to. The "ad revenue" BS drum beats incessantly here, and nobody has EVER bothered to really analyze what they claim to be "common knowledge" and I am growing tired of it.

I personally know many of the people involved in the testing process and I know that they do everything they can to keep it above board. Do the tests have shortcomings? Yes. Grain of salt? Check. I've made my criticisms of the tests widely known here, but the assertion that buying ads = buying gold medals simply isn't true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
or furthermore, for offering up ideas that might differ from your own;
Again, Greg, this isn't an "idea." It's a baseless drumbeat that nobody here will ever honestly evauluate because they would rather be "right."

To digress slightly, doesn't this work both ways? Why do posters like yourself cling to this consipracy theory? Because it helps you explain why the ski you prefer didn't fare well in a certain test...In a sense your a disagreeing with an alternative viewpoint and looking for a way to discredit it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
Basically, your method of determining this information is not exactly based on facts or any kind of science, so unless you used to be or currently are an ad manager for a major ski company I think it is safe to say you are offering your own speculation on this topic as well.
SIA reports detail what manufacturers sell in pretty explicit detail. If you've been around this industry long enough, you know what that means in terms of funds available for promotion, ads, etc. Furthermore, as I outlined above, ad buys have been pretty stable over the last 5 years...this isn't voodoo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HeluvaSkier
The comments that are made about each ski, regardless of its performance, are poor at best in terms of describing how a ski actually performs. I would be happier with the reviews if no "best in the test" skis were selected, but instead they actually said something about how the skis performed. Apparently asking for facts and other concrete quantitative information in this industry is a taboo.
I completely agree with you here.

To close, I apologize for the long post, but I think it pretty clearly explains why I am so adamant on this subject. Let's revisit this in February after all the ads have been run.
post #34 of 47
how come when someone blasts people apart when they try to make points about bindings people are like yay ! but when somebody tries to dispute a really stupid conspiracy theory about ski test ratings corresponding to ad money people are like ? makes no sense
post #35 of 47
The advertisements are probably purchased several months before the publication is edited and mailed. Good point about achieving Gold Medal Reviews and advertising. Why buy alot of ad space if your skis did great. On the other hand everything is about brand image and brand recognition which is a direct function of advertising and the influence it has on the consumer.
At the end of the day if you're a super serious skier needing more clearcut concise remarks and quanitative info on skis, the reviews aren't going to cut it. The reviews have come a long way from years back, when I remember the desription of one the skis tested was"These are some sticky sticks".

All these years later, I still love reading about and seeing the new gear. The industry must be doing something right . You finish the season thinking you really like what you're skiing only to want to get rid of it in August when the new stuff is unvailed.
post #36 of 47

k2 / china/ exchange rate

k2's are made in china. the exchange rate has not changed there-its fixed. neither has there been any savings to the consumer over euro manufacture which does cost more. if you will pay, they will continue to get you to pay MORE.
post #37 of 47
Well, I've priced Outlaws and Recons and I don't see any savings on these skis compared to skis like Rossi or Dynastar, and Atomic. The MSRP on K2's flagship skis is ridiculous. I wonder how much more we'd be paying for K2 American made skis if the chinese built are so pricey.
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman View Post
I wonder how much more we'd be paying for K2 American made skis if the chinese built are so pricey.
The same. but now their profit margin is greater and they are making more $$. The looser here is the ski shop who's margings are down to (in some cases) less than 30% for main line skis. 'Long margin' (seeackage) skis are much higher profit.
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
So, you are saying that K2 buys lots of K2 ads, but secretly whispers to the mags that they want Volkl to get all of the Gold medals?

Give me a break.
Connect the dots.
post #40 of 47
It doesn't come as a surprise that the skis which are more demanding to ski, and thus often come with higher performance envelopes, would be lower rated in a magazine buyers guide tailored around selecting the best skis for the most people. For most people all-mountain expert appears to mean level 6 skier.

Powder, Ski, and Skiing buyers guides are all useful for nothing more than looking at graphics. I must say I really like the Dynastar Legend new look and generally dislike the Nordicas. Elan has some pleasing sticks as well.
post #41 of 47
I bet it's a lot like figure skating, but not quite like ice dancing. There is a lot of peer pressure to give higher points to the generally acknowledged champion; wouldn't want to risk your reputation by disagreeing too much with the status quo and generally perceived opinions, which are influenced by the adds.
post #42 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke walker View Post
k2's are made in china. the exchange rate has not changed there-its fixed. neither has there been any savings to the consumer over euro manufacture which does cost more..
K2 would tell you that their costs include things like base material, topsheets, and steel edges that are manufactured by European companies, and thus somewhat affected by a high Euro. Furthermore, oil prices are affecting the pricing of plastics - base material, topsheets, and binding parts are made of plastic.

For K2 system skis, those Marker bindings are still made in the Czech Republic, not the PRC.

BTW, onyxj nails it. When you are using 30-40 different testers, the most demanding skis will never be 'Best in Test."

Roboscapes, I have no idea what dots you are trying to connect.
post #43 of 47
i won't buy K2 skis exactly for the reason that they did away with American jobs claiming they could build them better and at lower costs in china, supposing that they still used the same components when manufacturered here, the savings are pure labor costs, in other words, American jobs. This didn't result in lower costs to the consumer. I would rather give the Austrians or Germans my money!
post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
BTW, onyxj nails it. When you are using 30-40 different testers, the most demanding skis will never be 'Best in Test."
I want to read the Jan/Feb "Controversy: Bad Boys" issue.
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
i won't buy K2 skis exactly for the reason that they did away with American jobs claiming they could build them better and at lower costs in china, supposing that they still used the same components when manufacturered here, the savings are pure labor costs, in other words, American jobs. This didn't result in lower costs to the consumer. I would rather give the Austrians or Germans my money!
I have to check, I don't think I have ever owned a pair of K2 skis. : I had a K2 snowboard, no skis though.
post #46 of 47
I owned a pair... I am not proud of that...
post #47 of 47
I'm curious as to the ad to review ratio. It seems like everyone had about the same number of ads....one...in the buyer's guide. My understanding is that the manufacturer's pick the skis that get 'tested' and that they prep the skis for the test. I know several of the testers and they do go above and beyond to try to stay neutral (not easy since some of them are related to or sponsored by companies or company people)...and while Volkl may be owned by K2 Holdings, I think that they are responsible for their own financial position in regards to ad spending...as K2 Skis (also owned by K2 Holdings) would be. Ditto for Rawlings baseball gear and all the other companies owned by K2 Holdings.

Personally, my favorite part of the tests are the 'con' statements - every ski gets dissed for 'not quick in the bumps or short turns'...of course - with a 78mm waist, getting from edge to edge takes a little distance, at least more than if you had a 63mm waist.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion