A Sheep Asleep

It’s been a funny few weeks in the outdoor blogosphere. Ever since Gore Tex decided to invite a group of “exclusively selected opinion leaders” to a “summit” in the Pyrenees to promote their new Active Shell wonder product, accusations of rampant commercialism and self-interest have been flying.

In one corner are those who see blogs as the last bastion in a world dominated by consumer advertising. They resent what they perceive to be creeping commercialisation and see ever closer links with gear companies as an insidious development to be resisted. To them the Gore event was just the latest, most egregious example of this.

In the other corner are the more commercial bloggers who feel that their reputations have been unfairly impugned and sense bitterness in others at their initiative to work collaboratively with gear manufacturers.

Before I get into all that, it’s worth thinking about the Gore Tex beano that sparked this furore. It would be naive to think Gore would spend many thousands of pounds from purely altruistic motives.

In journalism it’s called a “jolly”, an age old (and highly effective) tactic where hacks are plied with hospitality in the unwritten understanding that they will return and write favourably about the product. Some don’t, most do but few bite the hand that has (literally) fed them.

This sort of approach is particularly important in the field of breathable waterproofs. If you want the dissertation level treatise on the link between marketing hype and membranes then read Andy Kirkpatrick’s blog on the subject. Paclite is a case in point - it barely works, yet in the past few years there have been precious few people prepared to say so.

So it’s not hard to understand why Gore is keen to ensure a rapturous reception for its new product. The last thing they want is people asking questions about just how much of an innovation it really is, particularly with an increasingly active set of competitors nibbling away at their dominance.

A good PR launch sets the tone for a new product (the lightest, most breathable waterproof EVER etc). But independent minded bloggers can easily undo all this fine work if they don’t stick to the script. That’s exactly why the film industry has become so paranoid. It has found it increasingly hard to flog the latest turkey just by throwing millions of advertising and PR dollars at it if the film has already been judged a failure by online opinion.

In modern marketing an increasingly important tactic is to reach “opinion formers”. A lot of money and research goes into it. Marketeers see this as a way of bypassing traditional media outlets and getting straight to those who directly influence consumers.

That places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of outdoor bloggers. It’s a fast changing world and it’s easy to have your head turned by the attentions of global outdoor brands.

A lot of the criticism of commercialisation is overdone, but every article that is written about Gore is one that isn’t written about smaller manufacturers. To return to the film comparison, how many low budget gems are starved of the oxygen of publicity by the big studios and unfairly fall by the wayside?

What this spat has demonstrated is that bloggers need to be far more transparent about situations where they are writing about commercially supplied products or have other commercial affiliations. Fortunately, this does now seem to be happening, but there are still far too many instances where links between advertising and editorial aren’t properly or fully declared. Anyone who thinks this isn’t a problem is in denial.

Commercial companies will always try and exploit whatever coverage they can get, by whatever means necessary. That’s what they do. It’s therefore incumbent on bloggers to be totally straight with their readers. If they sense that their favourite blog may not be quite as impartial as they had hoped for readers will vote with their feet.

The internet is as wild and anarchic as the outdoors we love and cherish. As in life there are good guys and bad guys. There are those that are scrupulously honest and those that are rather less so. The truth will out.

 
I don’t envy people who review outdoor equipment for commercial magazines. Whilst swanning around in the latest technical gear sounds like a dream job, tight deadlines that only allow the most cursory of field tests on a limited range of brands and a few hundred words to elaborate must make it a difficult and frustrating process. Small wonder that we’ve seen a marked decline in the quality of reviews.  

It’s also frustrating for consumers who often rely on these tests to make important decisions about buying new gear. For markets to function efficiently, consumers need to be able to access sufficient information to make informed choices and support products and companies that are genuinely innovating. Because magazine reviews have become so superficial, we are seeing a proliferation of products with very similar features chasing after the same smallish group of mainstream customers. Manufacturers are not being held properly to account for the quality and variety of products they pump into the environment. 

Some magazines are more guilty than others. The Great Outdoors (TGO) remains admirably independent providing good in-depth reviews, but other magazines like Trail (owned by the voraciously commercial Bauer Media, also home to Heat magazine) seem to have become uncomfortably close to the suppliers of kit who of course are also major advertisers. Magazines aren’t the only source of product information, but they are still the most important, particularly given the almost total absence of knowledgeable shop staff that has accompanied the demise of many independent outdoor retailers and the rise of the chains. 

You might expect the online world to step rapidly in to fill this information deficit, but web reviews suffer from a lack of authority and peoples tendency to only review products they love or hate. (Which is true of online reviews for many things from restaurants to hotels.) There are some good bloggers and websites out there, but too often they are compromised by having to please the hand that feeds them, reviewing products sent by industry PRs whether or not they actually merit any coverage. If anything, transparency about commercial links with manufacturers is even worse online with no requirement to declare any conflict of interest between advertising and editorial.

My proposal is that all outdoor reviewers should agree and adopt a common framework for reviewing gear that would allow consumers to genuinely compare like with like. If printed space won’t allow every item to be shown in full, the detailed breakdowns could easily be published online. 

You’re probably thinking it’s naive to even suggest such a framework would be used or adopted, but I genuinely believe that if the outdoor industry is to move forward, we’ve got to start being more demanding as consumers and we can only do this when we have the right information to make informed choices and spurn gear that is undeserving of our money. This is only a starting point, these are my initial ideas.

By all means make comments and criticisms, suggest alternatives. Maybe together we can gather some momentum to start affecting some real change and banish the current situation where every bit of gear seems to get a meaningless four stars.

1. Function - 25
How does the item work in the field, is it fit for purpose, does it have any major drawbacks in general  usage. This section can be broken down into sub sections for different products eg boots (fit, waterproofness, ankle support, cushioning)

2. Features - 15
Does the item have all the necessary features, are any lacking/extraneous/not well implemented or thought through?

3. Technical innovations - 10
New materials or features that genuinely add to an item’s utility. Things it does that competitors don’t or does differently/better.

4. Quality - 10
Is an item well made and likely to last e.g. stitching, seams areas of high wear. Has it lasted well in continued use? For example, I’ve had to send back more than ten bits of gear in the last year due to manufacturing faults.

5. Value for money - 10
Is an item priced reasonably, both in comparison to competitiors and in relation to the points described above?

6. Weight - 10
Is an item an appropriate weight for its function rather than lightweight for the sake of being lightweight? Is the weight likely to have a significant impact on reasonable durability?

7. Recyclability - 5
Is an item made of materials that can be recycled? Does it use recycled fabrics as part of its manufacture?

8. Sustainability of manufacture / supply chain - 5
What is the carbon footprint of the item’s manufacture and shipment to market. Where is it made?

9. Range of sizes - 5
Is the item available in a suitable range of sizes eg varying leg lengths for each waist size

10. Availability in UK - 5
How readily available is the item in the UK? There is nothing more frustrating than reading about a fantastic piece of kit which cannot be found for love or money. (Until recently, Haglofs was a prime example of this.)

Total - (out of 100) A meaningful score, not another four star fudge.