We were driving to Utah with one of my more Liberal and socially conscious buddies two months ago and I made the comment that snowboarding has become exactly what it set out to destroy. Snowboarding is the new skiing. Ubiquitous. It is not "rebels" that snowboard, but John Kerry seen riding in Idaho in 2004. It is not crazy kids, but wealthy spoiled pampered kids and their 50 year old parents. Snowboarding makes old men and women think they are young and hip and cool.

I was commenting that it is exactly that phenomenon that makes it chic and cool and rebeleous to be a 20 something year old skier on twin tips. Or for my kids to ski. NONE OF THEIR FRIENDS DO IT, and that is exactly the counter culture image that snowboarding originally tried to capture.

Finally, I stated that it is not the punk rock kids that snowboard, but rather pretty much everyone. The Jock kids with their mommy and daddy's BMW, and the preppy kids. The sport has lost its way when it sold out to the major ski brands. Even Burton has turned into a machine, much like Nike. A machine that tries to stay cool and hip, but it is as if that image is contrived. Nike used to be cool and cutting edge too, until they signed every endorsement deal with all the major athletes and started charging $300 for Air Jordans. How is that different than Burton with all the major snowboarders? Burton is the new Nike.

It is funny to watch the anti-corporate crusaders who preach against globalism and huge corporations defend Burton and the other snowboard companies who are the new Nike and Starbucks of an industry that started out as a cultural statement against the corporate evil that was skiing. Smaller board companies are carving out a niche, but the problem is that most consumers in the industry buy like lemmings what the marketing geniuses at Burton tell them to.

Difference between smaller skating companies and snowboarding is that skating is a more universal sport with a much larger base to market to and consumers do not have to be nearly as affluent. It is a year round sport. And it is a much more established sport that does not attract 50 year old Presidential candidates. It was the second that John Kerry stepped on a snowboard that I realized how uncool the sport is becoming.

Wow, you've been thinking about this! :)

No longer a niche sport or industry? Definitely. Popular among rich, snotty kids? Check. But your comments got me thinking: is it all bad? Granted, it's interesting that I don't own any gear from the company that invented snowboarding because I can't AFFORD any of it, but it has also ensured snowboarders can ride virtually at virtually any hill on the planet, something that was unthinkable 10-15 years ago. Burton's rise also introduced competition, so there are plenty of more inexpensive, "non-premium" brands out there. That's certainly where I started. But you're right, when a rich noob walks into a store and says "gear me up" they all get pushed in the direction of all the premium, expensive brands snowboarding's runaway success has helped many companies develop. However, a noob is still able to gear up pretty easily at popular sports stores with cheap stuff (hello, Mole snowboard!).

But I agree with a lot of what you're saying. As a counterculture statement, forget it, it's gone. (Though I'm impressed most snowboarders in the Olympics wore iPods and baggy clothes!) I also agree that skating attracts a more authentic crowd reminiscent of the early snowboarding scene. But why would a rich kid want to skate in a dingy alley when they can "be seen" up on the slopes? ;)

Thanks for your comment. Very thoughtful.

Cheers,

Adam

I am not saying that it is even close to bad that Burton is enjoying the success they are. And I hope that I didn't say something like that. And your comment about all the snowboarders at the Olympics wearing iPods got me thinking--do I own an iPod to be cool like everyone else, or do I own it because it simply kicks ass and it just happens that because it kicks so much ass, almost everyone else has one too.

And that is the problem with rich noobs that Burton seems to be marketting and that the sport is going after lately. Let's think about this for a second--I run a ski site and have ridden or tried tons of gear. I have bought eight pairs of skis and two snowboards over the last four years (some for my kids and for friends that I shopped for). I know exactly what I am looking for and the price points that are reasonable. I buy in April for maximum selection and lowest prices and get a year or two old model. My twin tips were the 2003 models that I bought in April of 2005, so realistically, they were an outdated model that was about to be two years old instead of one, and I scooped them for $250ish and they are almost $750 skis brand new. Same with my boots. $750 top of the line Nordicas that are three years old, but only have one season on them now and that I paid $300 for. I know the sport and don't ride stuff because of the brand, so much as because I know the product reviews, know the quality, and buy based on quality for cost. I am willing to wait for the spring cleaning sales.

I am the kind of consumer that puts ski and snowboard retail shops out of business. They make their money by pimping the newest and latest gear and the cool factor to noobs. The real skiers and boarders that I know that have phat skills ride older gear unless they are crazy rich. Nice older gear, but a two or three year old model. It is the noobs that buy the $800 Burton board in November and the $300 Bindings and $300 boots because they are Burtons. And Burton does not sell to consumers, they sell to shops. Their goal is to maximize the profit of the shops that buy the gear in July to sell in November and to do it, they work the cool angle.

The small guys and micromanufacturers make products that they sell to those that know what they are getting and want something special. You have to know the sport to even hear of Illuminati.

What kind of gear do you think John Kerry rides:

http://conservativecrust.com/archives/Dork.jpg

Look at the picture closely and look at the board. Notice the "BURTON" at the bottom of the board?

I forgot to add, that if not for all the rich noobs, the money and investment into the really cool stuff for the high end riders and skiers would not exist. They are who fund the industry. The guy buying the 2007 board in November this year for $1000 because it looks really cool is the guy that is paying my way so that I can buy the same one for $350 in April.

My beef comes with the folks that think it is hip and cool for a 60 year old dude to be snowboarding and at the same time think that the sport is some kind of cultural statement for kids to make and be rebellous. The rebel part of snowboarding no longer exists. It is not particullarly cool or hip or young to do anymore. The folks that think it is are old and want to feel young. The rest of us just think it is a good way to spend our time and get into nature and the outdoors.

The small brands market to this niche. The majors market to the 60 year olds and the noobs who pay top dollar for stuff. The rest of us look for deals and might ride the same board, but it is because of quality and price, not brand name. The emergence and dominance of one or two major brands--especially Burton--is a testiment to how Burton has been able to make a name for themselves. The sport is about noobs and Burton's name is why the noobs spend the big bucks so that folks like me can skim the ski swaps and April clearance sales and get kick ass gear that grabs hold of the mountain and shreds. I guess it is the same as with my iPod, do I dig it because it is cool to have an iPod or because iPods kick so much ass? It is the latter. But for many, it is the former.

So here's where I get completely out of my element. The only brands I have ever owned are Mole (snowboard), Ride (snowboard), Salomon (bindings). I have never owned a piece of Burton gear (except for a hoodie) nor have I owned anything by any of the smaller brands.

So my question is: can you tell the difference using Burton gear vs. some of these other brands? Is there anything to justify the premium other than the well-developed brand?

Though if marketing 101 taught me anything, it's that consumers will often just PAY for the brand..

You guys all have great points and I feel them. Really, I do. However, I am 36 right now and started riding when I was 17, back in 1987. When I started riding, skiers called you a fag, because you were on a board. Most ski areas wouldn't let you even buy a lift ticket when you showed-up with a board. I'll be snowboarding when I'm 80 and I ride Burton. Why? Because Burton is still rider-owned and everyone that I met from Burton is passionate about snowboarding, bar none. They understand the connection between boarding and different lifestyles. Someone compared them to Starbucks, Nike and other huge corporations earlier. Understand that Burton is a privately held company, and they don't have to answer to Wall Street. If you don't like the fact they they are huge, then tough. Enjoy the trickle-down tech like one fo the earlier posts pointed-out. I used to ride a Ride Timeless, back when they made them in the US and not in China. I rode a Palmer as well for a couple of seasons, even though it was made in an Austrian ski factory. There was also a small flirtation with a Salomon 550 that sucked. For a while, I rode Morrow, back when Rob Morrow was the Jake Burton of the West Coast, then guess what, K2 bought Morrow and if you find a Morrow deck that was made after 1999, then chances are it was made in China. I'm a rider and I'm now older, with a decent-paying job in media and I own a home. I still skate (poorly) every now and then and wakeboard during the summer. Yes, I admit that I can come-off as a yuppie sometimes, but my roots are in the rebellion of snowboarding. I ride back country. I hate skiers. I like REAL punk rock and hip hop, not the MALL CORE shit that people call "punk" these days. I drop cliffs. I hit booters. I also think that there are great indie board companies as well and they need to be supported. If you're going to hate Burton, do it for the right reasons, not because they're big. Have you ridden one of their $700 boards? They're sweet, but a $300 Burton rides pretty damn well too. Hating Burton because they're big is your choice, and I respect that, but before you shoot your mouth-off, think about the stuff you ride. Did you buy it at a chain store (owned by a corporation), instead of a skate shop? Is it really made by a ski company that thinks they're punk rock? Is a guy that will never, ever set-foot on a ski hill pressing your deck? Passion for snowboarding is passion for snowboarding; period. Be thankful for that, because if it weren't for snowboarding exploding, most of the ski resorts in the US would be closed right now and you'd be a skier -or- riding a deck with no sidecut or edges or flex and shitty bindings. When I used to really be into skating, everyone hated Powell Peralta, because they were huge at the time, so I get why there are Burton haters out there. I think the best comparison for Burton (instead of Nike or Starbucks) would be Toyota; they offer a bunch of solid gear at different pricepoints and the gear usually won't let you down, whether you're a older Lexus driver or you're 24 and have a slammed Scion. Whatever you're into, just don't compare Burton to a corporation, because trust me, they're not. By the way, I'm typing this on a Mac, because I think that the real monster is Microsoft.

Peace.

-j

I am not hating on Burton, so much as pointing out that the company itself is still a corporation. Understand that there is no difference between a privately held corporation and a publicly traded one, save it be how many people participate in the dividing up of the profits of the company. The financial reporting requirements are somewhat different, but a corporation is a corporation. Burton is not "Jake Burton", though he is the primary owner of the corporation and is the face of it.

So let's compare Apples to Apples--or maybe Apple iPods to Burton Boards. They have a high price point. That is intentional. They price their product at the high end because their marketting geniuses want to build this aire of exclusivity and being the best. They are a premium brand. You analogy of Toyota is pretty accurate. Burton owns lots of smaller brands that cater to the lower end consumers.

My point is that Jake Burton and his company are getting filthy rich off of the industry. And they keep consolidating brands and buying up the smaller folks. And prices keep rising because there is no competition. Burton basically owns the market, not just with the Burton brand, but with other brands too.

You know, Nike is passionate about Basketball and Football and Baseball too. Nike founder Phil Knight is a graduate of Oregon and provides them with a sick amount of free gear, albeit all the gear is in the hideous Green and Yellow that the Ducks wear. Phil Knight at Nike is the Jake Burton of that company. He founded it as a small shoe company, it just happens that Nike had a good product and even better marketing people. Same with Starbucks. Their marketing folks convinced the world that a $4.00 latte is a good idea. And so the company just exploded. Howard Schultz is the Jake Burton of Starbucks. How about Michael Dell at Dell, or Larry Ellison at Oracle. Maybe it is Scott McNeely at Sun. All of them are good products, it is just that they have outgrown the small guy against the world mentality when they finally won that battle and became the big guy instead of the little guy.

You cannot be a Rebel when you are at the same time The Man. There is nothing to rebel against for Jake Burton anymore. He owns the industry. Snowboarding is mainstream. His company is massive. He is ultra rich. He owns Shawn White and every other major snowboarder in the industry as their sponsor. Snowboarding is an Olympic Sport.

The rebel factor of being a snowboarder to be rebellous is gone. It is like listening to Green Day or the Offspring because you like "punk rock". Being a snowboarder used to be a statement of "F You" to the prick skiers that ran the mountains. Now it is the Green Day or Blink 182 that is so totally TRL.

I say that, and at the same time, I bought a Burton board last year to use and the matching boots and bindings to go with it. Why? Because their stuff kicks ass. The board is a Royale and has a lion with dreadlocks on the bottom. The toe cap bindings are awesome. Sweet boots too. And this year I am going to learn to ride so that I can do both and it is my gear. I have no problem with hearing Green Day, but it is not rebellous. I have no problem owning Burton gear, but it also is not rebellous.

I still believe that what Tanner Hall is doing is more rebellous than Shawn White. Does anyone know who Tanner Hall is? Walk around and ask a random person. Then ask the same person who Shawn White is. Notice how Boardercross is an Olympic Sport, but skiing superpipe is not. The pipe is for boarders, but Tanner Hall gets his gold medals in the XGames not in the Olympics like Shawn White because Jake Burton is mainstream and twin tip park skiing (jibbing) is not.

The world has turned upside down. Black is white. White is black. And Snowboarding is the new skiing. Pricks doing it and when you ask someone under 35 if the ski or ride, 75% ride. And they talk trash to skiers who aren't old. Everyone else is snowboarding and skiing is gay. Precisely the opposite of the way things were 20 years ago, when Starbucks was just a small couple of coffee shops; Kmart and Sears ran the world, not Walmart; IBM owned the PC, not Dell; and Apple was a computer company that was relevant, not the maker of kick ass iPods and sleekly designed computers that no one except the hardcore use.

Burton sets the industry price points, just like Starbucks and Microsoft do. So don't knock Phil Knight, Bill Gates, Howard Schultz and others for getting filthy rich off driving the prices of coffee, shoes, and software up if you are not willing to knock Jake Burton for doing the same to snowboarding. BTW, MS Office is awesome compared to Star Office or Open Office (and I am a linux guy) and I am wearing Nikes right now. Linux is a better OS, but MS Office is the best suite. Microsoft makes a hell of an XBox360 too. Because Burton's products are good, does not mean they don't need to be looked at in the same light as these other ultra-successful companies. Publicly traded or Privately held.