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!

Core vs conglomerate

profile picture
SKRockies
Posts: 606 - Karma: 1,689
Hey team,
all over this website I see people talking about supporting core brands over conglomerates and doing whatever we can in order to keep the core brands of freestyle skiing running because conglomerates dont put money back into our sport but it brought me to an interesting thought process. Would supporting conglomerates more lead to conglomerates supporting our beloved sport back? If big companies gained more revenue from the freestyle industry would they be more willing to put money back into contests? Now obviously i wont go out there and tell everyone here to buy only core or only big company brands, i have my fair share of rossi and smith gear, and my fair share of bloom and yoke and tall t gear also. Just a question i thought we could put to debate that seems to always come up yet never truly get discussed.
Apr 7 2017 5:32PM
13 0
profile picture
-Dan
Posts: 7130 - Karma: 51,737
I wouldn't say that large corporations owned brands don't put money back into our sport. That's decidedly false. But it's also a fact that some of their profits go up the chain to CEOs and share holders. Which means some of skiing's money leaves skiing.

With that in mind I prefer to support brands that support the skiing I like and that give me reason to believe the money will stay in skiing. This tends to be smaller brands but don't have to be. Especially if more of our community supports smaller brands, then these brands would have opportunities to grow themselves.

As you mentioned, having various brand's product is totally normal. It doesn't have to be all one or the other. However, where your money is truly going should be a consideration when it's time for you to buy new gear. That's all I can hope for at least.
Apr 7 2017 7:08PM
2 0
profile picture
Young_patty
Posts: 3280 - Karma: 37,930
-DanBut it's also a fact that some of their profits go up the chain to CEOs and share holders.


Isn't that how most business's work?
Apr 7 2017 11:27PM
4 0
profile picture
-Dan
Posts: 7130 - Karma: 51,737
Young_pattyIsn't that how most business's work?

That's how corporations work, yes. Not every business has public shareholders or CEOs that overlook many other enterprises tho. Do you disagree with the point I'm trying to make?
Apr 8 2017 4:55AM
0 0
profile picture
Young_patty
Posts: 3280 - Karma: 37,930
-DanThat's how corporations work, yes. Not every business has public shareholders or CEOs that overlook many other enterprises tho. Do you disagree with the point I'm trying to make?


Ah I see, I don't disagree I'm just not buisness savy and was just wondering.
Apr 8 2017 8:35AM
1 0
profile picture
CB4TSB
Posts: 428 - Karma: 1,221
Talking about core ski companies is so core right now.

Anyone out there name me a ski company that was not started by skiers. You can't, you know why, skiers love to ski then they create ski brands. 10 years from now many of these "core" brands you love will be owned by cooperate conglomerates. 12 years ago Line and Armada where the most "core" brands and nobody would think that in 2017 Rubbermaid would own K2 and Salomon would own Armada. All this "core" talk is just that, talk.

Keep it core y'all
Apr 8 2017 10:01PM
3 0
profile picture
Casey
Posts: 7849 - Karma: 24,311
Well the market pushes these mergers and buyouts because it's so uncertain, margins are so thin, technology spreads to every company within a year, they basically all rise and fall together. It's the same deal with resorts. Mom and pops ski area can't afford to take losses but if they have the backing of a billion dollar investment firm they know they have that added financial security plus access to capital improvement money to get their resort upgraded with new lifts and a nice lodge and start making money again. The reality is, if you are Armada or K2 or Salomon, your real competition isn't Rossignol or Line, and that is reflected in the structure of the marketplace.
Apr 10 2017 1:47AM
0 0
profile picture
oxiclean
Posts: 615 - Karma: 687
waiting4snowTalking about core ski companies is so core right now.


Talking about core ski companies is so the opposite of core right now. Also, K2 is not owned by Rubbermaid. Yes, they are both owned by the same company, but one doesn't own the other.
Apr 10 2017 10:07AM
0 0
profile picture
SKRockies
Posts: 606 - Karma: 1,689
waiting4snowTalking about core ski companies is so core right now.

Anyone out there name me a ski company that was not started by skiers. You can't, you know why, skiers love to ski then they create ski brands. 10 years from now many of these "core" brands you love will be owned by cooperate conglomerates. 12 years ago Line and Armada where the most "core" brands and nobody would think that in 2017 Rubbermaid would own K2 and Salomon would own Armada. All this "core" talk is just that, talk.

Keep it core y'all


the point isnt whether or not the brand was made by a skier, it depends on if said company is willing to put money back into freestyle skiing or not. Like you said im sure every ski company ever made was made with the help of a skier, but that doesnt matter shit all if they arent bringing money back into freestyle skiing because it doesnt help us and our dying sport.
Apr 10 2017 6:29PM
1 0
All times are Eastern (-5)