a ski magazine rant

[cyn]

OK, I'll admite that we subscribe to both "Ski" and "Skiing" magazines, because I guess anything is better than nothing, but I just received the latest edition of Skiing and I had to vent.
Just like all those extreme skiing movies, the two big ski mags have taken on an undeniable, boring sameness - a kind of repetition, issue after issue, of face shots and hucking and self-arresting and chutes.
The people I see in their publications are almost all 20-somethings, and almost entirely male, with the occasional woman thrown in - usually in the apres-ski section. And they're always buried over their heads in powder in some insanely exotic location or 30 feet in the air, hucking a cliff in Alaska. The latest issue of skiing has an interminable article on how to live in a camper/trailer while hitting all the hot spots - without winter tires.
I keep asking myself how many of their readers have ever or will ever do this kind of skiing, and if there could be a different magazine for the rest of us - competent, responsible, enthusiastic skiers who spend a LOT of money on equipment, travel, etc. Every time I pick up one of those mags, I feel like a sucker for buying into their hype (Hummer ads, etc) and also like I don't count for anything, even though skiers like myself probably represent the vast majority of revenue at ski mountains and ski shops.
Is it just me?

 

[dloveski]

totally agree, this does not represent 99.5 percent of the skiers and boarders.

 

[ski diva]

I agree 100%. It's actually one of the reasons I started this forum -- I felt completely left out of what was going on in the ski media and figured there had to be others like me, too.

I actually think "Ski" magazine has gotten a bit better than it used to be, though I think there's a lot of room for improvement. And it's considerably better than "Skiing." That magazine is total trash. I got a free subscription to the latter from attending this year's Warren Miller movie and never even activated it. I agree these magazines totally miss the mark for the majority of their readers, but since they're pretty much the only game in town, I guess they can do whatever they want. Still, publishing is based largely on demographics, and I can't imagine their editorial material is truly reflective of their readership.

 

[cyn]

ski magazine equipment reviews

Please excuse the glaring typo in my first post. I guess I was in a major rant.
The thing I forgot to mention is that one of the principle reasons we subscribe is to read the ski reviews at the start of the season. But wouldn't it be great to read, just once in a review, "this ski sucks"? They never have the guts to do that, so you always have to read between the lines.

 

[ski diva]

One word:

Advertising.

They don't want to upset their advertisors. Better to do a disservice to the readers, I guess, with incomplete reviews.

 

[Jilly]

I gave up my subscriptions to all the American ski mags. We have 2 here in Canada and I know that both are available by subscription. Ski Canada and SkiPresse. SkiPresse - is free at most resorts and ski shops. I like the ski reviews in SkiPresse the best. They don't seem to take the advertising $ as much to heart as Ski Canada. Usually if the ski is that bad it doesn't make the mag. Both are available on-line.

 

[skigirl]

ski mag.

posted by cny "The thing I forgot to mention is that one of the principle reasons we subscribe is to read the ski reviews at the start of the season. But wouldn't it be great to read, just once in a review, "this ski sucks"? They never have the guts to do that, so you always have to read between the lines.[/QUOTE]"

cny: I agree 100 percent about the ski reviews. My husband keeps telling me to become a ski tester because I am never afraid to tell the ski reps at Demo day exactly what I think of their skis. If the ski sucks I tell them point blank. A word of warning though if you do this be prepared to be told flat out that you just don't know how to ski!! I always laugh at that and say trust me I know how to turn a ski!! LOL!!

 

[cyn]

no respect!

You know, it's really interesting how my husband never gets any comments on his skiing ability when he returns a demo because he didn't like it.

 

[skigirl]

Now that I think about it they never tell my husband that either!! Must be woman thing, you know we don't know how to ski!! LOL!!!

 

[Greeley]

Get the annual subscrition to realskiers.com for good ski reviews. They don't beat around the bush, if they don't like a ski they will let you know why since they don't cater to advertisers. Ski & Sskiing will never give you a straight answer because they don't want to piss off their big advertisers.

 

[treebunny]

to continue the rant, has anyone noticed that when they review a ski area they are always talking about out of bounds terrain? how the heck does that tell mr and mrs average skier whether they are interested in the resort?especially since mr and mrs average are also the people with the money to ski and buy skis and go to resorts to ski. i don't care about the monster rock drop in the roped off area under tower 7!!! and i am disconcerted by the ski areas that are opening up questionable terrain only for bragging rights to who has the steepest drop on the planet. but that gets them in the magazine.

 

[altagirl]

I don't huck much of anything, but I do base my travel decisions on the difficulty of the off piste terrain, and if there's lift accessed backcountry, and good info on snow stability available, that would be a big draw for us (especially if we know someone who tours in the area who could share their knowledge). I could care less what the groomers or amenities are like - if we travel somewhere - it's for powder and steeps.

As far as resorts opening up "questionable terrain" - If it looks too dangerous to you, then just stick to where you feel comfortable. If the only terrain open at resorts is easy, you're just pushing people off into the backcountry to try more challenging things - and then you have more avalanche deaths because people go out unprepared. And injuries (even without an avalanche) in the backcountry are a lot more serious than inbounds where there is better access to assistance, if necessary. (I blew my knee in the backcountry last year and it was NOT fun getting out.) Personally, I'd rather see people pushing their limits inbounds with some safety nets in place.

Anyway, the magazines don't all appeal to me either. We pay for Powder, which is the most relevant for us, though it still has a lot of crap. We get Skiing and SKI for free. Skiing seems like it's more interested in covering where to party like a college student than anything else, and SKI is completely irrelevant to me usually. There are more articles on the latest multi-million dollar slopeside home and four star restaurants and fancy clothing than on skiing. And flipping through the one here, there are two articles on resorts that just show a bunch of bumps and groomers - which is also totally unappealing to me. As well as a lot of east coast coverage, which also doesn't interest me (I used to live there). Though I can understand that I'm obviously not their target demographic - all of that probably appeals to other people.

With ski movies - I do get bored of watching hucking (especially when it isn't even worked into the line they're skiing or it's impossible to land) and terrain park stuff, but powder and chutes and such are what I ski. We haven't scraped the money together for heli-skiing yet, but we will one of these days. So sure, it's not all relevant to me, but a lot of it is.

 

[BatGirl]

to continue the rant, has anyone noticed that when they review a ski area they are always talking about out of bounds terrain? how the heck does that tell mr and mrs average skier whether they are interested in the resort?especially since mr and mrs average are also the people with the money to ski and buy skis and go to resorts to ski. i don't care about the monster rock drop in the roped off area under tower 7!!! and i am disconcerted by the ski areas that are opening up questionable terrain only for bragging rights to who has the steepest drop on the planet. but that gets them in the magazine.

ITA! I was going to post the same thing. Tell me about the best run in each category, don't limit it to JUST the blacks and off piste.

Also, who cares about what neighborhood in SLC has the best parties because that's where all the skiers live?! Like we can just drop in or get invited. How is that interesting to people?

 

[Thatsagirl]

First, it's important to realize that each magazine has its own demographics. These magazines wouldn't still be around if they weren't serving their target market and making money.

Skiing is aimed at the young crowd and the adventurous off-piste skiers. It focuses on the sport of skiing and the obsessed-with-skiing lifestyle (and the nightlife), which is what a LOT of skiers are interested in. If their content doesn't appeal to you, just don't buy it. But to say a particular magazine stinks and can’t possibly be reflective of its readership just because it doesn't address what YOU are looking for is quite a stretch. They have plenty of readers in their target market, they are serving their target market, and they have a place where they belong -- it's just not on your coffee table.

SKI is aimed more at the mature skier who wants tons of amenities, other activities, fine dining, top-notch lodging, and so forth. This sounds like more what many women here are looking for, which is why you read it. But, to be honest, SKI's target market is men, not women. And as long as they can make money off of targeting men, as long as their subscription base is supported by a Mr. in front of the name, that's what they're going to do. Women will continue to be an "afterthought."

There used to be a magazine that was a much better reflection of what many of you here seem to want: Snow Country. I was an editor for that magazine for a few years. We had a lot of coverage aimed at women, at families, etc. But apparently, people wanted SKI more than Snow Country so it's now defunct. I'm always meeting people who say "I loved that magazine!" but the revenues never showed that.

The problem is not that these magazines don't target you in their demographics, it's that no one has created a magazine for women who ski. At least, there hasn't been a successful one. There have been some start-ups, but they failed. I think it's very difficult to target women, because not all women are the same. Some women are adventurous, some women are content to ski groomers all day, some women want luxury, some women will sleep in a dive motel to have more money for skiing, some women want to ski all day, some want to ski half a day and spend the rest of their time doing something else, some women have family concerns, some women do not. So, we continue to have magazines that target men and include women as an afterthought. (It's not that men are a homogonous group either, but men seem to be willing to read more of a broad spectrum than women, perhaps because they are more apt to have the "I wish I could do that" attitude.)

Personally, I am more drawn to Skiing than I am to SKI, even though I am in my 40s. Skiing and the outdoor lifestyle DEFINE who I am and who my husband is. We are adventurous skiers, we like skiing powder, off-piste, steeps, trees, etc. We love cat skiing and backcountry skiing, and we want to heli-ski some day too. To me, groomers are the way to get to the good stuff. I don't huck cliffs, but I can appreciate looking at photos and watching movies of skiers doing that. It's called living vicariously, I guess. However, I'll be the first to say that I won't be sleeping in a truck or camper anytime soon, I prefer to stay in a cozy inn or B&B and have a nice meal at least a few of the nights I'm on my vacation. Hence, the reason why I like some of the content in SKI.

Anyway, my point is that we are not all the same and we do not all look for the same thing. And while I can appreciate what you're saying about how the current magazines don't appeal to you, to assume that they don't appeal to anyone--including anyone here on a women's ski forum--is just not accurate.

 

[altagirl]

However, I'll be the first to say that I won't be sleeping in a truck or camper anytime soon, I prefer to stay in a cozy inn or B&B and have a nice meal at least a few of the nights I'm on my vacation. Hence, the reason why I like some of the content in SKI.

I have actually driven all night and then slept in my car in a ski resort parking lot. Not lately though, because my husband insists on sleeping comfortably, for some reason. ;)

But overall - I totally agree with you. And I think most of the magazines do the best they can to target their particular demographic and stay afloat, even when it doesn't appeal to me personally. I'd rather see content that's more "extreme" than what I do than content I think is boring.

 

[Thatsagirl]

I have actually driven all night and then slept in my car in a ski resort parking lot. Not lately though, because my husband insists on sleeping comfortably, for some reason. ;)

What did you do, marry an old guy? ;)

Interestingly, I might have done that when I was younger, but I never knew anyone who would go with me. We would just wake up really early, drive for 4-5 hours to get to the resort, ski all day, then drive back home.

But overall - I totally agree with you. And I think most of the magazines do the best they can to target their particular demographic and stay afloat, even when it doesn't appeal to me personally. I'd rather see content that's more "extreme" than what I do than content I think is boring.

It's kind of like skiing with someone who's better than you so you can improve.

A few other thoughts: The ski industry only has so many advertising dollars to keep magazines afloat. My experience in the publishing biz has been that advertisers don't want to split their advertising between men's and women's magazines any more than they want to split their advertising dollars among many different "ski" magazines (no matter how you look at it, much of the information is "unisex" or "generic"). The industry just isn't big enough to support a slew of magazines. Those with the most subscribers also get the most advertising dollars and therefore stay afloat. It's very difficult to get too much into a niche market as a magazine because you don't get the subscribers and you don't get the advertising dollars.

Also, purely anecdotal personal observation tells me that women do not read magazines as much as men, especially when it comes to outdoor/travel/adventure/recreational pursuits. Perhaps we don't give ourselves the leisure time to read? I don't know. I think it would be interesting to see if this observation is correct and if it is, WHY. I know that my husband and I both love to read these kinds of magazines and we get a slew of them (some are in his name, some in mine).

Thatsagirl

 

[altagirl]

What did you do, marry an old guy? ;)

Interestingly, I might have done that when I was younger, but I never knew anyone who would go with me. We would just wake up really early, drive for 4-5 hours to get to the resort, ski all day, then drive back home.



It's kind of like skiing with someone who's better than you so you can improve.

A few other thoughts: The ski industry only has so many advertising dollars to keep magazines afloat. My experience in the publishing biz has been that advertisers don't want to split their advertising between men's and women's magazines any more than they want to split their advertising dollars among many different "ski" magazines (no matter how you look at it, much of the information is "unisex" or "generic"). The industry just isn't big enough to support a slew of magazines. Those with the most subscribers also get the most advertising dollars and therefore stay afloat. It's very difficult to get too much into a niche market as a magazine because you don't get the subscribers and you don't get the advertising dollars.

Also, purely anecdotal personal observation tells me that women do not read magazines as much as men, especially when it comes to outdoor/travel/adventure/recreational pursuits. Perhaps we don't give ourselves the leisure time to read? I don't know. I think it would be interesting to see if this observation is correct and if it is, WHY. I know that my husband and I both love to read these kinds of magazines and we get a slew of them (some are in his name, some in mine).

Thatsagirl

Heh - he IS older than me. I like joking it's because I was in the Army and he was in the Air Force so he's used to the cushy life. ;)

Anyway, regarding reading magazines - I probably read a lot more sports magazines than the average woman (probably a minimum of 6 a month between MX, skiing, and biking), but my husband is OBSESSED. Reading Powder, for him, is like a religious thing. You MUST read it from front to back, you can't leaf through and look at the pictures first until you've read every word in order. To me - I don't get this at all. I skim through, read what seems interesting, skip stuff I don't care about... and every month get a lecture on how wrong that is. Which I find pretty funny.

But seriously - the difference is that I read and learn about the things that interest me. I know the dimensions and specs on skis that I'd actually want to try - he pays attention to the specs on every fat ski and long travel bike, even if it's a brand he hates. He reads every article, no matter how stupid, if they published it in Powder. He looks at it like it's his job to read those magazines - I just skim through them for entertainment. Personally, I'm more likely to read Playboy cover to cover than Powder cover to cover - the writing is better.

 

[Thatsagirl]

Heh - he IS older than me. I like joking it's because I was in the Army and he was in the Air Force so he's used to the cushy life. ;)

Funny! :D

But seriously - the difference is that I read and learn about the things that interest me. I know the dimensions and specs on skis that I'd actually want to try

Perhaps it's the "practical approach" we ladies are so well known for. Why stuff our heads full of useless trivia and specs? It's not like we spend all our time trying to impress everyone with what we "know"! :p

...he pays attention to the specs on every fat ski and long travel bike, even if it's a brand he hates.

He should join Epic. ;)

He looks at it like it's his job to read those magazines

Well, SOMEONE has to keep us ski bums who write for a living employed... :D

 

[treebunny]

altagirl you point is taken regarding a review of backcountry, and of the triple diamond runs being in bounds, but that wasn't really my point. its not mainstream, its not appealing to who pays the bills!i don't go to a resort so i can rappel into a 58% chute and bang off a few cliff wallls so i can brag at the lodge, "I DID IT!" i like a good lay out, high speed quads, glade skiing, lift served powder bowls over that. and most other people do too. at my local mountain i do a lot of sh*t i wouldn't do at an area i wasn't familiar with. but it isn't advertisement worthy for the average skier. why base your whole ad campaign on death defying steeps skiable 1% of the year, when its only 1% of your mountain,to a general population of intermediate skiers adn snowboarders? i want to know about the ski resort i'm paying money to, what its like, its trails, its layout, its accomodations, not the national forest service that won't even rescue me when i'm lost!a review of a resort should be a review of a resort. not national park land, indian land, national forest land, dnr land adjacent to the resort. if you want to got out of bounds and find the ways of doing it safely, good as you say, go ahead. but that doesn't constitute a review of the ski resort.

 

[altagirl]

altagirl you point is taken regarding a review of backcountry, and of the triple diamond runs being in bounds, but that wasn't really my point. its not mainstream, its not appealing to who pays the bills!i don't go to a resort so i can rappel into a 58% chute and bang off a few cliff wallls so i can brag at the lodge, "I DID IT!" i like a good lay out, high speed quads, glade skiing, lift served powder bowls over that. and most other people do too. at my local mountain i do a lot of sh*t i wouldn't do at an area i wasn't familiar with. but it isn't advertisement worthy for the average skier. why base your whole ad campaign on death defying steeps skiable 1% of the year, when its only 1% of your mountain,to a general population of intermediate skiers adn snowboarders? i want to know about the ski resort i'm paying money to, what its like, its trails, its layout, its accomodations, not the national forest service that won't even rescue me when i'm lost!a review of a resort should be a review of a resort. not national park land, indian land, national forest land, dnr land adjacent to the resort. if you want to got out of bounds and find the ways of doing it safely, good as you say, go ahead. but that doesn't constitute a review of the ski resort.

Well, if the resort has open gates, and I can go and buy a lift ticket to use to get out of bounds - that's a big part of a review of ski resort, IMO. And I do travel for challenging terrain - maybe I ski into it slower to see what's there when I'm not familiar with the run, but I look for chutes and such at other resorts as much as I do at my home mountain.

And I WISH only 1% of skiers and snowboarders were interested in skiing steep, challenging terrain - if that were true it wouldn't get tracked out so dang fast.

What are you actually looking for in a ski magazine? Because SKI for example, already covers all the things you're looking for, they just add in a little bit of challenging terrain, powder, touring, etc. I can see where Powder wouldn't be your style, but they're targeted towards different groups of skiers. You really want SKI to not cover anything other than groomers and resort amenities? I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I think the average intermediate skier wants to see pictures of and opportunities for the skiing they aspire to do.