• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Exclusive: Should the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?

Many of these article ideas come from you, our readers. In this case, @DocGKR raised a subject that I have been dancing around for the past few seasons, and now I feel it is time to shine the spotlight on a trend that we are seeing more of in the industry. We have been seeing the replacement or homogenization of a strong ski by a more versatile model designed to appeal to the masses. I have touched on this last season when I talked about Evolution verses Revolution (link) in ski design.

Average is the opposite of Excellent.

What is missing from too many skis now is distictive "character", something that will get the juices flowing and really make you feel that there are some parts of your game you need to be on top of to get that extra adrenaline rush when it comes together. Sure, that may also come with some downsides, but that is also a part of the "character".--ScotsSkier, SkiTalk.com Tester

This is the trend we are seeing from some brands: getting away from building skis for skiers and just making very good skis for people who ski. Revisiting Evolution vs. Revolution, and You Say You Want A Revolution I talk about the Head Kore 87 replacing the Monster 88 and the Renoun Endurance 88 replacing the Z90. Sales wise, both of these model changes are extremely logical. The two replacements are better skis for more people and will outsell the outgoing models three, four, or five to one. But two class-leading reference skis have now been sent to pasture. To quote Hollywood tough guy, Liam Neeson, these were skis with “A specific set of skills” . The Monster 88 had a specific charateristics and a feel on the snow. The Kore 87? It could be any one of any ski from any manufacturer. A Kore 87 does not create brand loyalty, the Monster 88 did.

Swinging the pendulum the other direction… Skis for skiers, not just people who ski.

Two brands are at the forefront here, and they are K2 and Rossignol. Both of these brands are establishing halo products to differentiate models from the pack and to get away from “bandwagon” skis. K2’s polarizing Disruption collection are powerful full contact skis and have a solid personality which is commendable. At the top of the collection is the Disruption Ti2, a 70 mm waisted long radius sabre with its Marker Piston Plate as close to a race ski as a non race ski. The Disruption Ti2 and the rest of the Disruption collection is far removed from the old K2 Recon, which was a fall-off-the-bone easy-to-ski ski. With one of smallest and most rewarding sweet spot skis on the market, the Disruptions are truly skis for skiers. Not too long ago, Rossignol created a full segment basically on its own with the easy skiing Soul 7, then once that segment was saturated with “bandwagon” skis from almost every brand, Rossignol abandoned the playful powder ski and went to skis that added power and a distinct personality with the Black Ops Sender Ti and the rest of the collection.

Then there is Augment, the small boutique brand from Mittersill, Austria. Augment has quickly become a favorite amongst our readers by offering some of the more skier-oriented collections with full-bore race skis to top-performing premium all-mountain series. For 2022, Augment is hedging their bets by not replacing their unique AM88. It is “unique“ because it is the only fully cambered, 88 mm, 21 meter radius ski on the market. (Augment does have a ski for a wider range of abilities and conditions: the AM98ti, which has early rise in tip and tail and a more compact 18m radius). The classic build of the AM88 is why we would like to see Renoun do a Z90 Classic. They might only sell a dozen of them, but the mold is made and it was such a unique ski.

So, when is more actually less?

When you try to be everything for everybody, you run the risk of being nothing for nobody. You end up watering down your business proposition and your brand promise in an attempt to be as broad as possible. You become so vague that no one knows what you are offering and your potential customers turn to other, more specific options. — Entrepreneur.com

When they say “It’s not about the money … it’s always about the money”. Very few will argue that selling skis is a volume business; the more skis you sell, the more money you make. But can there be a recoil effect? Remember SierraJim? Jim taught me a lot about setting up a retail ski wall to tell a story, but most of all, be profitable. As an example, if there are four 88 mm All-mountain skis that are basically the same, they perform equally in the same conditions, you really don’t have a story to tell other than asking, “which ones match your outfit better?” Now, if you have four skis that might have similar dimensions but different purposes, now you have a reason to show a ski that tells a particular story to the consumer.

We understand producing a ski that is a better ski for the masses. It makes absolute cents…and dollars. But (there is always a but), while this is fine for the people who ski, what about the discerning skiers who want a ski that requires a specific skill set, a ski that they think “I am glad I am on the Regulator Commando 6000” because they know they wouldn’t be having as much of a good time on any other ski? What is the best balance? A ski that does a multitide of things well for the majority of the skiers on the hill, or a ski that has a distinct purpose? A smaller sweetspot can be extremely rewarding when the skier and ski meld as one. Can a company walk the tightrope and offer both options? Does it make sense, regardless if it makes cents?

We'd like to hear your take and what attributes of a ski are important to you. Please comment below.
About author
Philpug
I started skiing in the mid-70s in the Pocono Mountains of Pennsylvania; from then on, I found myself entrenched in the industry. I have worked in various ski shops from suburban to ski town to resort, giving me a well-rounded perspective on what skiers want from their gear. That experience was parlayed into my time as a Gear Review Editor and also consulting with manufacturers as a product tester. Along with being a Masterfit-trained bootfitter I am a fully certified self proclaimed Gear Guru. Not only do I keep up with the cutting edge of ski gear technology, but I am an avid gear collector and have an extensive array of bindings as well as many vintage skis.

Replies

The full rocker Volkl Mantra (I guess it would be called the M4?) is the only ski I've ever loved. They are twitchy messes on runouts back to the lift, they feel dead in shallow bumps, are awful when landing drops and have an infuriatingly small window of stability when skiing powder - too far forward and they dive, too far back and they are impossible to control. But where you really need your skis to perform, like in bad snow in sketchy places or railing aggressive turns over variable snow, they perform. Volkl pissed off a lot of people by retiring the cambered Mantra and making this ski, but I am very, very glad they did. It is a ski with quirks and flaws, and one hell of a personality. I hope more skis are made like this.
 
Interesting post from JShort. I am not a Volkl guy, but from what I read most people did not like the M4 version of the Mantra. It just shows one persons trash is another's treasure. That's part of the problem right there. I personally am neutral on the M4's, I don't like any Volkls.

I think the auto industry deals with that with different sub-divisions. (GM was the king of that approach) The ski industry bigger players seem to all have a cross functional broad appeal lineups and then there seems to be indie companies that focus on more specialized skis. Maybe the bigger players should have "indie divisions" that address the specialized skis.
 
I don't know anyone who didn't like the Monster 88, but I also know they rarely sold at MAP pricing which makes it a discount product from the get go and tough on a retailer's bottom line. Maybe the ultimate 'I'll just wait until March" ski ever made. Just mounted my last fresh pair.... RIP mighty Monster. Let's hope it gets revived as a new Head Standard limited release boutique ski sometime soon, black topsheet and all.
 
I don't know anyone who didn't like the Monster 88, but I also know they rarely sold at MAP pricing which makes it a discount product from the get go and tough on a retailer's bottom line. Maybe the ultimate 'I'll just wait until March" ski ever made. Just mounted my last fresh pair.... RIP mighty Monster. Let's hope it gets revived as a new Head Standard limited release boutique ski sometime soon, black topsheet and all.
Funny you talk about not sellling at MAP. Back on Epic I did a Steals and Deals and mentioned one of the Heads and that it was a ski that no one would think of and that it would be a great ski to pick up at the end of the season when it went on sale. I got a scathing email from Head asking how I could write that and that it went against every sales philosophy ... To this day, Head has been distant with us.

I met of with a few people who got on the Monster 88 and felt it was to much ski for them, IIC it was more the earlier ones, still post 2014, I am sure these skiers would love the Kore 87 though. Head did do a Standard graphic fairly recently, it was on a iRally, IIRC.
 
If you’re the type of skier rocking a quiver with several options, you’re probably the type of person that would prefer skis be infused with a distinct personality. But for the masses, a ski that does everything really well and is approachable isn’t only preferred…it’s probably better for the industry because those people will have a better time on the mountain. And then maybe they pick up an extra pair of skis, and start wanting distinct personalities…

I guess what I’m saying is these things will probably always come in waves, and every once in a while something really special will come along and move the entire industry forward when one of these companies gets creative and tries something new. Which is perfectly fine, IMO.
 
I believe that a ski company has to do both, make mass production skis and have a smaller limited product offering. One product line that can fund the custom shop. If it is a race ski shop or an R&D small shop I don't care but in order to keep a brand moving forward it has to do both. I seem to remember a thread that talked about Kastle starting to make a more reasonably priced ski and isn't that a way to increase revenue in order to keep making the small batch special skis that the more technical skiers want?
 
  • Like
Reactions: eok

Article information

Author
Philpug
Views
3,693
Comments
6
Last update

More in Gear

More from Philpug

Top