Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Company Call out: Anon

profile picture
willysworld
Posts: 2116 - Karma: 5,485
So 3 or 4 seasons ago Anon were sponsoring a few really good skiers namely Eric Pollard and Michelle Parker and a couple of other good skiers Burton the parent company (long associated with being a skier hating brand) pulled the plug on the ski program because it wasn't cool for them to be associated in any way with skiing.. now fast forward 3 or 4 winters and they are back to sponsoring skiers.. picking up Pollard and Michelle again and also

now quote unquote

anon. was absent from the skiing community for a number of years, but now they’re back in a big way, showing lots of great support. How do you see yourself fitting into this re-emergence? What do you tell the skiers who continue to shun anon.’s retreat from skiing?

Sandy: Brands change and people switch jobs. anon. has a fresh new vision with skiing as a big part of it. I’m really glad to be part of this re-emergence and know anon. will be a big part of skiing for years to come.

Kieran: I’m excited to be a part of the re-emergence of anon. I just see myself as part of a varied team where no one is cookie cutter, and we all bring something a little different to the table, so I guess I’d like to think I help round that out. As far people shunning anon., I haven’t heard of anyone hating on anon. now that they’re back in skiing, but if anything I think them coming back is a testament to how much skiing has grown, and I mean everyone makes mistakes right?



do we as a community really need to support companies that are only here for the money and frankly don't give a shit about the sport as a whole? just ass fucking it for what it is and then taking the money and running...

Dear Burton skiing wasn't cool enough before it probably still isn't cool enough now...

If I was a consumer I would want to support brands that have been down with freeskiing and skiing as a whole since day dot.. Ie. Oakley, Dragon, Spy.. Smith.. not companies owned by the evil corporate money sucking , skier hating people at Burton..

Thoughts?

Dec 18 2013 10:48PM
374 47
profile picture
willysworld
Posts: 2116 - Karma: 5,485
https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/311740/
Dec 18 2013 10:54PM
1 0
profile picture
YoungChristmas
Posts: 1066 - Karma: 2,110
the faunt actually got bigger
Dec 18 2013 11:13PM
97 1
profile picture
TACO-DOG.exe
Posts: 11988 - Karma: 12,261
anon can do whatever they want. i really don't care
Dec 18 2013 11:16PM
14 0
profile picture
CrotchKiller
Posts: 9037 - Karma: 6,943
hahahahah you think Oakley actually gives more of a flying fuck about skiing then anon?
Dec 18 2013 11:27PM
34 4
profile picture
Turd.Ferguson
Posts: 1437 - Karma: 2,713
all oakley cares about is trying to sell those dumbass 600$ goggles that not even bill gates would buy
Dec 18 2013 11:46PM
5 12
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
Anthony Bacon ruined it all... why hasn't he been tried for war crimes yet?
Dec 18 2013 11:54PM
15 0
profile picture
Bagina
Posts: 849 - Karma: 2,888
.

Dec 19 2013 12:01AM
34 1
profile picture
Trace.
Posts: 1460 - Karma: 635
They seem to be sponsoring riders who are almost universally loved here on Newschoolers. If Kieran and Sandy Boville are stoked on Anon I can only hope good things come out of a company with a hella rich parent company in the sport. If they're really taking rider input as seriously as the article made it seem maybe they'll do skiing well.
Dec 19 2013 1:26AM
6 0
profile picture
stickski
Posts: 1938 - Karma: 1,529
Maybe I'm not "core" but I don't really care, if they're supporting Pollard and other skiers then that's great. I still probably won't buy their products or think of them much, but I'm not personally hurt by them. The beauty of capitalism, ignore it if you don't like it.
Dec 19 2013 1:33AM
0 0
profile picture
VANULAR
Posts: 1930 - Karma: 5,131
this.
Dec 19 2013 2:12AM
11 0
profile picture
STwoops
Posts: 2941 - Karma: 5,126
this
Dec 19 2013 2:14AM
5 1
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
no idea why fuckin eric pollard wouldn't have a better goggle sponsor but oh well.. i use a pair my friend gave me.. burton is super gay though
Dec 19 2013 9:59AM
8 2
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
this oakley is the biggest marketing company out there. Classic case of spend fuck tons on marketing and not on research and development for a better product. All the companies that are marketing giants make shitty products like skull candy, beats, red bull, and oakley to name a few.
Dec 19 2013 10:14AM
6 8
profile picture
Doc_Watson
Posts: 483 - Karma: 413
i thought Karl Fostvedt rode for Anon...
Dec 19 2013 10:15AM
8 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
Yeaaa, he has been. Poor soul.
Dec 19 2013 10:28AM
10 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,069
Do you know how these big companies work? The guy that used to run the skiing division probably got a new job/go promoted/quit then anon just said fuck it and then last year hired a new person to run the ski side because they realized they could make money off of it.

You guys are so sensitive.
Dec 19 2013 10:29AM
19 5
profile picture
TheClap.
Posts: 21664 - Karma: 4,140
Catching feeling like a boss, it's the NS way
Dec 19 2013 3:55PM
9 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51642 - Karma: 162,227
Thanks for the tip OP. I'm ordering an Anon helmet tonight.
Dec 19 2013 4:05PM
1 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,458
I met the anon TM at if3. The dude gets it. If you don't believe me, look at their team. He was the Forum TM before Burton shut that down.
Dec 19 2013 4:20PM
8 1
profile picture
NPCPLUS
Posts: 162 - Karma: -155
magnets
Dec 19 2013 4:46PM
2 0
profile picture
Moving_Mixtapes
Posts: 37 - Karma: 1,006
skiing and snowboarding is SOOOOOOOO different
Dec 19 2013 4:47PM
2 0
profile picture
TheClap.
Posts: 21664 - Karma: 4,140
Your also a one plank rider... but I see what you did
Dec 19 2013 5:29PM
1 0
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,951
you guys are kidding yourselves if you think that most of the big name brands aren't owned by huge corporations that care about the market only as far as the profit goes. its just economics

lets look at line, a brand that is generally seen as "core," and do some quick wikipediaing

line is owned by k2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2_Sports
k2 is owned by jardin, a huge fortune 500 company, whose CEO was sued in a class action lawsuit for securities fraud and settled for 8 million dollars in 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_outdoor_industry_parent_companies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jarden

an entire corporation can't be summed up as good or bad because of their history, even if its recent. there's good and bad people at every level in every corporation and they have different values, different visions for the company, and they frequently change jobs. i'm sure the guys at anon right now are really excited about working with skiers again and getting the green light from burton.
Dec 19 2013 9:36PM
6 0
profile picture
Iraq_Lobster
Posts: 1866 - Karma: 4,904
solid logic there
Dec 19 2013 9:41PM
0 1
profile picture
wasatch_rat
Posts: 1772 - Karma: 2,951
oh fuck off with your pretending not to use wikipedia. if you want to go find something more reputable than wikipedia to prove me wrong you go right ahead and i'll concede defeat and learn something new. until then, i'm going to enjoy the convenience of one of the most vast, easily navigable sources of knowledge at my fingertips.
Dec 19 2013 9:49PM
4 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
That doesn't mean they're all produced in the exact same way under the same guidelines... you fucking moron. Nice job using Wikipedia to prove your pointless point.
Dec 19 2013 10:40PM
0 0
profile picture
jamiebrowne
Posts: 545 - Karma: 54
clearly a lot of you don't know what a dividend is
Dec 19 2013 10:43PM
1 0
profile picture
jamiebrowne
Posts: 545 - Karma: 54
or how a publicly owned company works
Dec 19 2013 10:44PM
1 0
profile picture
SnowMiser
Posts: 801 - Karma: 3,150
Props to skiierman for constructively posting in a thread where the highest rated posts are making fun of him. +1
Dec 19 2013 10:45PM
6 0
profile picture
theVan
Posts: 204 - Karma: 225
huge magnets around my eyes and brain all day? no thanks. anon can suck it my money goes to Smith and Electric
Dec 19 2013 11:54PM
1 1
profile picture
Alp1ne
Posts: 717 - Karma: 203
You are a full blown retard if you think thats how the corporate world works. No company would disband an entire division because they lost the guy in charge, they would take the next guy and pay him less to do the same job.

The most realistic scenario is that anon was going through tough financial times 3-4 years ago, it was a rescission, and they decided that skiers would continue to buy there goggles without having to spend money marketing them specifically to skiers.
Dec 20 2013 12:14AM
2 1
profile picture
liftedresearcher
Posts: 1140 - Karma: 1,775
c'mon dude. You cant call a guy a retard and then come back with a response as stupid as that one.


Dec 20 2013 12:38AM
1 1
profile picture
ErryB
Posts: 138 - Karma: 1,685
Anon M2 goggles are cool, what other goggle can you simply just throw your lens in, in the days of capitalism, transnational corporations and offshoring even the "core" ski companies are owned by bigger companies, they still need to research their products though and design them. Although i tend to stay away from big companies like nike, under armour or oakley because i don't want my share of their profit to go into researching some football or other sport gear.
Dec 20 2013 12:56AM
0 0
profile picture
GritznGravy
Posts: 170 - Karma: 248
Hahahahaha. Somebody took "Introduction to Microeconomics" and is super hyped to let the whole world know about it. Stop trying to sound smarter than everyone my man.

inb4 a reply about how "well actually, I'm a second year Economics major at The University of Chicago"

What do you think would be the cournot equilibrium in a duopoly game between Anon and a more established company?
Dec 20 2013 1:32AM
2 0
profile picture
No.Quarter
Posts: 5257 - Karma: 16,962
Click for larger image
Dec 20 2013 1:45AM
9 1
profile picture
lands11
Posts: 1818 - Karma: 1,677
I don't have a single problem with this because it will in no way effect me. Also, I support Burton because each year I get a shit ton of extremely cheap stuff from their fall factory sale. $6 dollar shirts, $15 dollar pair of shoes etc. They also are the sole snowboard sponsor of my schools ski and snowboard club. One of my good buddies is the guy in charge of working with Burton through the club and he always comes back saying how chill the guys are that work there. So I have no problem with them at all, they are a large company who obviously needs to be concerned with making profit, and if entering the skiing side of things helps with that then it only makes sense for them to do it. I don't think OP understands how large companies work.
Dec 20 2013 10:30AM
0 0
profile picture
gravel
Posts: 5518 - Karma: 42,202
Eric Pollard still rides for Anon...

At least as of like 2 months ago.
Dec 20 2013 10:40AM
1 0
profile picture
RubberSoul
Posts: 11249 - Karma: 14,642
i don't think anyone is claiming that a huge number of burton's employees aren't chill, hard working cool dudes

i also don't think anyone refuses to respect that all companies need to worry about making money

the difference is, you can choose who you support and the employees are getting their wage either way... but at the end of the day your purchases decide whose bottom line youre supporting, Company X or Burton, who as an entity has made it their "thing" to hate on skiing like theyre stuck 15 years in the past

i think that's where OP is coming from....doesn't mean he has something against, well, anyone in particular who works for burton.. just the entity of burton, which is actually the only thing you really affect when you buy something or not from them
Dec 20 2013 10:41AM
4 0
profile picture
EMK
Posts: 1632 - Karma: 669
I can't say I've always done it but I feel like skiers should buy ski stuff from people that are also skiers, not business men who want to make money from skiing. People who like skiing will do more to support the growth of our sport in the direction that other skiers want, business men will work to make as much profit as possible with disregard for what people passionate about skiing think. I find it hard to say who to buy goggles from since pretty much every goggle company is owned by some sort of business giant. With that in mind I think that anon re-entering skiing can't do anything bad, and if they are gonna give skiers I like more money to get exposure then that's good for me. I can't say I would definitely buy their goggles but I don't know many companies that make good goggles who do more for skiing.
Dec 20 2013 11:11AM
1 0
profile picture
fratskier69
Posts: 1868 - Karma: 1,272
first ski magazine i ever had (like 10 years ago) same thing was happening. tj was on anon at the time i believe? then they did the same thing, stopped sponsoring skiers
Dec 20 2013 12:39PM
1 0
profile picture
Bogs
Posts: 4296 - Karma: 1,361
don't be stupid, at a certain point all companies are in it for the money
Dec 20 2013 6:57PM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
Hahaha... what? All companies are in it for the money. That's why every company is created, so people can get rich as fuck. Sure their "mission and vision values" might say otherwise but that's because having a public image is essential to running a successful business.

Dec 20 2013 7:20PM
0 0
profile picture
dom_daq
Posts: 371 - Karma: 440
Lol what products does red bull make? You want them to put money into developing higher quality energy drinks or what?
Dec 20 2013 8:12PM
0 0
profile picture
JOhD3
Posts: 1 - Karma: 12
It seems boarders don't have a problem with Anon rebounding with the ski community, so neither should skiers. A great company looking to make a buck by re-immersing themselves in the freestyle community is good with me.
Dec 20 2013 8:36PM
2 0
profile picture
Pancake_Fucker
Posts: 1843 - Karma: 1,917
Dude you can swap lenses really easy with smith too. I love my I/Os
Dec 20 2013 8:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Maximumsushi
Posts: 7837 - Karma: 3,351
I do think it is bullshit the way Burton has historically treated skiing. From what I remember, the reason they dropped their team in 07 was because they felt their involvement in skiing was damaging their brand cache among snowboarders. As for the person who mentioned the recession, Burton dropped their team in 07 and the major slowdown in the economy as a whole happened in 2008. Shit was booming in 2007.

That all being said, they're just a company making snowsports equipment. If you like their shit, buy it. Whatever. I've been a part of this ski thing we have going since twin tips were invented. There are plenty of ski companies, "core" and otherwise, that have the same level of involvement in skiing as Anon. There are a ton of companies that just sponsor a few athletes, pump out ad material, and try to make money. Take a minute and think what companies you feel actually have an impact on your personal experience with skiing.

Would people have an easier time forgiving Helly Hansen for dropping all of their riders? Does Burton/Anon being a snowboard company make it harder to forgive them?
Dec 20 2013 9:15PM
3 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
i mean you basically said it yourself that they make a shitty product and I mean there really aren't any better products out there it was more of an example to show that the only reason they are more successful than other energy drink companies is because of the money they put into marketing. Energy drinks are such a marginal market that all they care about is exposure and reputation not anything about skiing. Im not blaming them for that its just business
Dec 20 2013 10:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Pancake_Fucker
Posts: 1843 - Karma: 1,917
I'm still waiting for something that just tastes like them without all the caffeine and whatnot.
Dec 20 2013 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Alp1ne
Posts: 717 - Karma: 203
WHY THE FUCK would you ever pay the 2.50 for a drink smaller then a can of pop if it doesn't even get you pumped or drunk.
Dec 20 2013 11:15PM
1 0
profile picture
Alp1ne
Posts: 717 - Karma: 203
In all seriousness though all this rely means is anon is giving money to skiers, and not to mention skiers who deserve it.

They could have easily gone out and sponsored a bunch of randoms from small countries who are gonna be on global tv for the olympics but they didn't; they signed 3 guys who will probably never be on the competitive side of skiing but they film some of the most creative and sick segments every season without nearly as much financial support as the other guys putting out movies.

So newschoolers why don't you stop fucking whining and trying to talk about the business side of it that very few people in this thread even know enough about to comment on and give anon a high five for sponsoring three sick skiers who are in it for the right reasons and now have goggle sponsor.
Dec 20 2013 11:22PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)