Pat Donnelly Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 www.summitdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040223/NEWS/402230105&rs=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncermak Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Interesting article...especially the numbers on market share. But for the real inventor of snowboarding, check out the article in snowboard Journal, volume 1... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 "In the 1983 World Championships, the first held on the West Coast, Sims introduced the halfpipe competition, then proceeded to dominate it with help from the Sims team, which included Terry Kidwell. Burton was not impressed. He was sure that the future of snowboarding would be alpine racing and backcountry. Burton's prophecy did not pan out, and he reluctantly embraced the freestyle market." this begs the question..... what the hell happened to Jake?!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Dold Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 What do you mean? Why did he dump alpine? If there wasn't much profit in it, it was probably a good business decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 He didn't merely "dump" alpine, I think he, or probably his company, actively tried to push alpine into obscurity. just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grady Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 How or what did he/they do, Jack? I have heard a lot of how Burton tried to kill alpine or whatever, or make it diminish, but never really heard a good explanation. Please inform this newbie. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NMU Alpine Boarder Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Something else that caught my attention is that there are still 4 Anti-snowboard resorts out there. Obviously, there is Taos, but what are the other 3? Also, just curious what their reasons are for STILL excluding boarders. I would think there has to be almost as many boarders now a days as skiers, so I would think there would be a huge financial gain for these resorts to open up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
utahcarver Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Alta and Deer Valley are the other two, what area is the 4th one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarvCanada Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 If I owned a mountain, It'd be called Carve Mountain only for hardbooters and skiers and all it would have is wide groomers at 25 degrees slant. Since I can't fulfill that dream, like all of you, I'd pay good money to go to a mountain where there are no jibbers and probably very little bad skiers to scrape away the snow into scheisse piles. Heavenly conditions all day! I'm betting good skiers would pay for that too. I bet if you go to those mountains in a hard boot set-up, a board not covered in stupid looking logo stickers and pants that don't sag with chains coming out of them, they would let you on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurman Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Mad River Glen, I believe, is the 4th one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Originally posted by utahcarver Alta and Deer Valley are the other two, what area is the 4th one? Mad River Glen, VT, and I hope it stays that way. It is not really an anti-snowboarding mountain, it is more of a "museum" of skiing's past. Snowboarding is simply not a part of that. Minimal snowmaking and grooming, narrow winding trails, no frills, no glitz, poseurs need not apply. Their slogan is "Ski it if you can." Also, their main lift to the summit is a diesel powered <i>single</i> chair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skully Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Alta may be much like Mad River Glen. A sort of a museum. They haven't gone the whole high speed quad route or any of that, so they are not in need of $$$. My theory is that when the old man who owns Alta now dies, the kids will get greedy, and we'll be in! ;) (ha ha) As far as Deer Valley, Their instructors visit The Canyons, where I teach, whenever they get a client who wants to snowboard. I spoke with one of thier instructors about this on a lift just last week. His comment was: They are pretty much running at capacity now with skiers only, why change things? They've got their market of foo-foo skiers filling their bank account, and it's a market niche. As far as groomers are concerned, everyone claims that Deer Valley has no equal... So until we live in a perfect world, we'll just have to ride Skwals at Deer Valley and carry poles just to keep up the image... "Is that a snowboard sir? No, its an in-line monoski!" (right Billy?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maciek Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by Jack Michaud He didn't merely "dump" alpine, I think he, or probably his company, actively tried to push alpine into obscurity. just my opinion. Jack, Nobody pushes some idea into obscurity on purpose without a reason. If you do not know what is behind then you know it is money (or you should assume it is money). Once the market opened for freestyle that is easier to sell (and easier to learn on the basic level), Jake understood that the only way to make money is to go freestyle. After that, recession period(s) came and every reasonable company had to focus on a mainstream product to stay alive. That's so obvious why the same was done by Rossignol, Atomic (Oxygen), Burton and probably others. You can even ask Sean at Donek if we are at the most profitable side of his business. Jake did not change mentality. He simply is a human being and money talks. To many, principles come second, but on the other hand you can't cook principles to feed your family needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brodster_57 Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Originally posted by CarvCanada If I owned a mountain, It'd be called Carve Mountain only for hardbooters and skiers and all it would have is wide groomers at 25 degrees slant. Since I can't fulfill that dream, like all of you, I'd pay good money to go to a mountain where there are no jibbers and probably very little bad skiers to scrape away the snow into scheisse piles. Heavenly conditions all day! I'm betting good skiers would pay for that too. I bet if you go to those mountains in a hard boot set-up, a board not covered in stupid looking logo stickers and pants that don't sag with chains coming out of them, they would let you on. Sigh! I find this not much different than the discrimination of those four ski resorts. I heard a rumor that the orginal owner of Taos made some legal clause about never allowing snowboarding..ever... before he died. And that the kids are trying to let it but legally can't. I don't know much about legalities and it is probably just an empty rumor, but if it is true I am lmao. I hope they all go bankrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsider Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 i heard from a taos rep at a trade show 3 years ago that taos would be open to snowboarders in 4 years, but it sounded like he was just trying to get rid of me and to the baggy pants and stickers thing, if the sticker placement is good and the rider is not a dumbass loser, then dont let appearance fool you. i ride hardboots religiously, but sitill appear to be another one of the stupid new school skiers (they have hardboots too). just let my riding and my personality do the talking... :cool: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Grady How or what did he/they do, Jack? I have heard a lot of how Burton tried to kill alpine or whatever, or make it diminish, but never really heard a good explanation. Please inform this newbie. Thanks! Speculation: major innovation and effort put into developing world class leading alpine products reached its peak in either 96 or 97. Fact: In 2001, Burton moved all its alpine product out of the main catalog, and into a pocket sized side-show catalog, and into a segregated section of their website. It still had a pretty full selection of gear, including 3 lines of boards (Factory Prime, Ultra Prime, Coil), and more than one line of bindings and more than one line of boots. All the while, their marketing speak continued to say things like nobody is more dedicated to alpine than Burton. Speculation: They were hoping to continue to cash in on hardbooters and/or squeeze some more money out of their existing tooling, while simultaneously helping people forget or never learn that alpine exists. Therefore, Burton could then justify cutting alpine loose. "Oh look, the market is suddenly even worse than it used to be." Yeah, thanks in large part to you, Burton. The Burton catalog was alpine's highest-profile mass marketing device. In 2001 it went poof and vanished. Subsequently, questions like "what is that?" and "is that a monoski?" seemed to increase on the hill. I don't think it was coincedence. Fact: In 2002, Burton slashed it's alpine gear to one ambiguously purposed line of boards called the Speed, and one boot. I think they continued to offer one standard binding and one step-in. All the while, their alpine ad copy still read as if they were so committed to racing and making the best gear possible. Speculation: It was then no secret that alpine was being shown the door at Burton, yet for some reason they were still hanging on by a thread. Why? Maybe hoping to cash in on the Olympics a little bit? Fact: In 2003, no changes other than some lame blood-splatter graphics. Speculation: I think no boots were being made, and they were selling leftover stock. Fact: In 2004, No new alpine gear is available from Burton in North America or Europe. An even slimmer line of gear is available in Japan only. They let Chris Klug sell their leftover stock and factory seconds through klugriding.com. klugriding has since sold out of nearly everything. Speculation: Will they take that as a wake up call that there still is a market? Or will they give Chris a pat on the back for clearing out some space in the warehouse? Nobody knows, but their direction and momentum doesn't favor the former possibility, imo. The reason I think they wanted to get rid of alpine is their desperate attempts to maintain a cool, hip image, which alpine doesn't help. They're well aware of the stigma of being number one and being a "corporate giant", therefore anything remotely uncool is out the door. Burton could have easily continued making alpine products. They make plenty of money. Do I know what I'm talking about in that regard? No. But I find it very hard to believe that alpine was dragging down the ship. No way. Why do I care? Because I grew up on Burton, and they always seemed to be a champion of alpine and racing. I always thought they'd be there for us. But on the other hand, I realize now that they've shoved us out of the nest, that we can fly on our own. -Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_watkins Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 I personally think it's pretty clear burton is looking to diversify beyond snowboarding and become a much larger style company... something like has happened big surf companies like quicksilver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Donnelly Posted February 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 http://www.vaildaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040225/NEWS/402250102&rs=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 26, 2004 Report Share Posted February 26, 2004 Originally posted by Maciek Jack, Nobody pushes some idea into obscurity on purpose without a reason. Oh they had a reason alright - alpine was hurting their supposed cool, hip image, so they had to justify some way to dump it. They didn't have the sack to simply say "that's all folks" one day, they first had to try to make it look like the demand for their alpine gear was drying up on its own. If you do not know what is behind then you know it is money (or you should assume it is money). Jake did not change mentality. He simply is a human being and money talks. To many, principles come second, but on the other hand you can't cook principles to feed your family needs. [/b] Are you telling me splitboards are more profitable and are a bigger segment of the market than alpine? I can't believe that. Why is Burton making splitboards and not alpine stuff? Image, pure and simple, in my opinion. They make plenty of money. They could keep doing alpine if they want. But I've made peace with the fact that Burton is gone, and I've concluded that we don't really need them. What bugs me is that the way they went about getting out of alpine was not very classy. They sneaked and weaseled their way out. They didn't want to take ownership of the decision, or so it appeared. But hey, if Klug Riding can turn things around and make it work for them, then great, that will only mean more carvers on the hill. -Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.