Reviewing Ski Reviews

Garrett sits down with George and Joe to discuss some of the buyers' guides and reviews we've seen this fall. We shout out a couple of outlets we think are doing great jobs with their gear reviews and dissect some flaws we see far too consistently across the rest. The goal of this episode isn't to go scorched earth on these media outlets, it's to address the problems with most of the ski industry's approach to reviewing ski gear and to present our case as to why there needs to be more effort put toward improving these reviews.
Check out all The Boston Ski Party Podcasts at: theskimonster....

[@spontaneousexploration]

@SkiEssentials crushes it when it comes to helping to make a decision. The print magazine "buyers guides" have always been like that. They're just advertisements wearing a review costume. People who are about to drop a grand on a product what honest opinions and real comparisons so they don't have to go through some expensive buyers remorse or regret their decision. This is why your direct comparisons are so helpful. Retailers and media don't want to be perceived as showing bias toward one brand or another. But it is possible to steer the consumer in the right direction without putting another brand down. Thanks and keep it up. The beer fridge makes my heart sad. Where are you located? It needs a bunch of Vermont gold in it.

[@TheSkiMonster]

@@spontaneousexploration some magazines are worse than others. Ski is taken the most seriously by consumers but is the least legitimate. Freeskier was better until they got rid of their ski test with an array of testers and their testing app. Yea we had a party in another part of the building and emptied her out. Did have some treehouses in there, King Julius JJJulius and Green. Send beer anytime. Hope this is taken by other outlets as a kick in the pants, we need all aspects of ski and snowboard industry to do better and pull their weight.

[@whoisthe1412]

That fridge needs more beers

[@TheSkiMonster]

@@whoisthe1412 accepting donations

[@patrion6028]

You have a lot of good points, but i feel you didn't address the elephant in the room. No reviewer actually wants to say something bad or rarely points explicitly to weaknesses. These are put into euphemisms or you have to be 'reverse understood' from the positives things said about it, or the things that have been left out. Talking about the negatives (or downsides), in the long run, harms your relationship with the brands, which puts you in a bad spot as a business. From an outside view, it seems that honesty is discouraged. You might not get invited to that trip to Utah, to Austria if you're honest, you might even not be supplied with products any further. It's like the mother of conflict of interest. You recently had the guys from Elan over. The RS 88 is a great ski, piss easy for any ability level, but the shovel has less support than a wet noodle and at less than 120 lb / 172 cm i can overdrive that thing. I also don't think it's any damp, i felt a major difference in body tear and wear after skiing them for two days vs. some BC Divus or Mirus Cor. That's fine, i knew what i was in for, i appreciate what the ski does and have a use for it. But i consider myself the 1%. The new tip design in the new model is addressing that issue, but it's rarely been talked about. The Elan reps talked about that and that it's a major improvement, yet you have to find a review that pointed to that before the release of the new model. Also, while we're at it, RS 88 Black Edition when? Talking about ski reviews and reviewers. A 90 second clip isn't a review period. Tip and tail stiffness, profile, camber hight, rocker length, mount point, weight, tip engagement, tail release, length breakdowns, conditions it excels at, conditions it doesn't, changes compared to earlier models, does it ski short or long, does the womens version actually have different build or is only a different graphic, how does it compare to the best sellers in it's category, i could go on. Not any point applies to any ski, yet there is so much to say and show that i think a 90s clip is an offense to the viewer, and there are a lot of those. Often times the intro and outro of these are like 20% of the clip, what remains as the actual review hurts me. Looking at the magazines, i would almost guarantee that they don't ski every ski they write about. Some texts are simply chat gpt marketing non sense, you're pointing to that for a reason! What drove me nuts was the last paragraph of the K2 140 Boa something something. That basically describes how the Boa systems works. That has absolutely no meaning in the boot review. That belongs to a dedicated technology article. That thing alone shows their feet never touched the boot. Payed appearances and product placement are another hot topic. I get it, it's required for them to sustain a business, but it does not have the end user in mind. Talking of marketing non sense. I seriously think this needs to stop. It's a desperate move from the brands to distinguish themselves from others. What in the world is 4 radius drive supposed to tell me? It's utter non sense, every ski on the planet has 4 radi if you look at it the way Völkl does. Doesn't matter if you make 3, 4 or 5. It's not a standout, it's simply how side cuts work and it's overcomplicating things. I don't consider buying a Völkl because someone arbitrarily invented a new marketing term and prints a few more numbers on the top sheet. It's not different to the marketing bingo you rightfully point at when looking at the Bent 100 description. The performance of the ski and who's it for is what should be in the center of attention, not some fancy made up marketing crap. Sure, you can shape the ski for easy turn initiation, for a strong kick out of the tail, and you can package that into a marketing bingo term. But why not just tell me what it does an what it's designed for? I have a hard time getting around that, and i spent a lot of time on skis and with ski gear, the typical end user or weekend warrior will just be confused. Give me nitty gritty details about construction, how it's more sustainable, tell me why you've chosen the new wood guy, why you relocated production from China to Austria, tell me why the 2025 Montero AR has a more forward mount point and what's the reasoning behind the cutouts in the metal laminate in the tip and tail for the AX / AR, let me be part of the journey, but don't fool me with advertisement junk. Last width in boots is a hot topic for me. I have very small feet and the information you find on the vendor home pages about boots is mostly horrendous. Atomic is making a pretty good job at listing details for different sizes. When smaller shells have a smaller last, let me know! I don't care about the last in the reference size when i don't ski that. For skis, there is usually a breakdown of different radi for different lengths, why aren't these information provided by all brands for their boots? I'm not going to make a final buying decision off of that, but it helps me narrow down what's even suitable for me. Anyways, glad we have things to nerd about in the sport and passion we all love!

[@SkiEssentials]

"You might not get invited to that trip to Utah, to Austria if you're honest, you might even not be supplied with products any further. It's like the mother of conflict of interest." This whole conversation is obviously very interesting to us and I love a ton of the points you made in your comment here, but I'll honestly say you'd be surprised how much this isn't the case. Yes, manufacturers want to sell as many skis as they can, but they also don't want their skis to end up on the feet of the wrong skiers, as that could have a far more harmful effect on someone's perception of a brand than a retailer or reviewer saying bad things about a ski. I like to think that while we try not to be negative for the sake of being negative, we enjoy pointing out a certain ski's limitations. Ripstick 88 is a good example. Some skiers will push right through that shovel and it's important to understand, but that doesn't mean it's a bad ski by any means. I think as the industry continues to evolve, manufacturers in general are becoming more comfortable with retailers/reviewers just being honest with their assessment of a ski. We're slowly moving away from the "this ski can do everything!" marketing hoopla and I'm very happy about that. We (as an industry, I mean) certainly haven't moved completely away from that as is evident in what the Ski Monster guys are talking about, but I do think we've moving in the right direction. One of the best examples I can think of for us, at least, is the M7 Mantra. Would it have been easy to just say blanket positive things about it? Sure. But it's way more important to me to call out its struggles in moguls, trees, etc, and that was a big part of our discussion around that ski. Anyways, just wanted to share my 2 cents as I know we're certainly involved in these conversations. I know your comment was on Ski Monster's video, but I still value the feedback and thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts!

[@patrion6028]

Love the feedback and insight, love to have you in the conversation! Your content and information is what brings light to the market in a form that hasn't been there a few years ago and it's phantastic to have your and also Ski Monsters content. I'm not in / part of the industry (maybe i should change that), and i'm happy to hear that the conflict of interest isn't as bad. Maybe it's more hidden and reviewers being overly careful, maybe it's sometimes the case that a KZbinr / Influencer got sponsored and is putting out a "review" where she / he feels obliged to the manufacturer , but that's stretching it a little. You're right when it comes to the M7, and more generally, when it comes to the more burly, stiff, challenging skis. That's where i also agree with the statement that manufacturers don't want to see that on the wrong feet. That's great. On the other end of the spectrum it's these 'limitless edge grip thanks to duracap construction' or similar statement, which is misleading, at best. Maybe we have to phrase things a little different. 'Saying negative things' might not be the right term, maybe being honest about the stenghts *and* weaknesses and / or application is more fitting, with a strong focus on honesty, not negativism. In a market that's as broad as ski gear, ruling things out is hard already, but doing that by knowing who's a ski is for makes it magnitudes easier. It certainly doesn't have to be as direct and pointed as i did with my two major downsides of the RS 88, and no one should think of it as a bad ski, it's the limitations *i* hit. Accesibility, turn initiation, edge release, versatility, soft snow performance, a great "i don't know what to expect on the mountain today" option, a great progression tool, an affordable option, so many good things about it. Just to put things into balance for everybody out there reading this :) Having such a middle ground and manufacturer that support that would make the market more transparent and way easier / less confusing for people who are getting into this phantastic sport.

[@TheSkiMonster]

Sorry for the late reply. For us, on A LOT of skis and boots we’re a part of in the first rounds of prototyping. So a lot of the negative comments are happening then during the validation process. In many cases when a ski is done, we’ve already signed off. We get invited to those things because of honest feedback. Now there are skis we’re not apart of the process and I get a earful everytime I say something negative about a ski on social media; talk a decent amount of sh*t about Volkl, K2, Line, Peak, Rossignol, Dynastar to name a few. However it doesn’t impact getting invited on a trip, Elevate the group above K2, Volkl etc. Invites me and the team on a lot of awesome trips - Japan was dope last year! We’ve talked about Ripstick 88 black editions with Elan, we’d buy it and I think the market would love it. Anything you want us to talk about we can. I think you’d dig a lot of the ski boot vids we’ve done if you haven’t seen them. - George

[@muddyhumber]

How can someone be objective about anything when they have had a paid trip to Japan/Austria/...? These junket type trips were outlawed in the pharmaceutical industry when it became (painfully) evident that they created bias and allegiance.

[@TheSkiMonster]

Maybe you couldn’t be objective but it’s pretty easy for us to be. We got to the point in business we’re at by telling customers how it is, if we stop that our business goes south. There is no advantage for us to mislead people and have them be disappointed in the products we recommended it has to exceed expectations, for our business to grow sustainably. The brands invite us on trips like this because we provide them honest feedback, the people that don’t get invited back or in the first place tell the brands what they think they want to hear. George