Blister annual book of gear

I don't think people are complaining that the insurance is bad, just that it's not the reason they got involved with the Blister subscription. I signed up for the benefits it originally offered: deep dives, the printed guide, personalized recommendations, and discounts. Now that most of those are locked behind a subscription tier that's four times more expensive, or not included due to the introduction of insurance, I'm mildly annoyed. Insurance wasn’t what the Blister subscription was about for the past decade or so.

If Netflix suddenly charged $80/month but included free car washes, you’d probably think, “OK, that’s a nice offering, but it’s not why I got Netflix,” and maybe you don't even have a car.

All that said, I’m still a (basic) member, and I still love the Blister crew and have had a blast at their summits. But I’m frustrated that I lost benefits for a new offering that doesn’t relate to what I originally signed up for. I’m glad they’re making the industry safer, but I wish I hadn’t been caught in the crossfire as a non-industry gear nerd.

Haaa love the the Netflix analogy. Put me in the camp of being excited for Disney+ to start offering free dental cleanings for the kids.

It’s generally good business advice to keep your main thing your main thing. In my business I’m approached directly by side businesses all the time to offer joint marketing efforts to our customer base with revenue sharing models. If it lines up with our core purpose, mission, and vision - we may consider it. It rarely does, especially when you really drill down.

I don’t know blister’s purpose or their guiding principles (not to be confused with whatever they choose to market). Given their current business model I’m not sure they do either. But I don’t know that.

A word of advice, though: keep your main thing your main thing. At the very least this is a marketing and branding debacle - what more proof do you need than the confusion of your core customer base? I’d worry that this speaks to a far bigger issue though. At best you’re just becoming Spot Insurance’s outsourced sales and marketing arm, not a “partner.” I don’t see them spending time and effort and dollars and customer base to sell Blister.

ETA: I’d love to see you guys approach Spot and offer to share a percentage of revenue for every Blister membership they sell. Tell them they can make it an add on for every policy they sell. They would laugh and laugh. And then they’d say no.

You know why?

Because they’re an insurance company. Not an outdoor focused content company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eSock

I don't think people are complaining that the insurance is bad, just that it's not the reason they got involved with the Blister subscription. I signed up for the benefits it originally offered: deep dives, the printed guide, personalized recommendations, and discounts. Now that most of those are locked behind a subscription tier that's four times more expensive, or not included due to the introduction of insurance, I'm mildly annoyed. Insurance wasn’t what the Blister subscription was about for the past decade or so.

If Netflix suddenly charged $80/month but included free car washes, you’d probably think, “OK, that’s a nice offering, but it’s not why I got Netflix,” and maybe you don't even have a car.

All that said, I’m still a (basic) member, and I still love the Blister crew and have had a blast at their summits. But I’m frustrated that I lost benefits for a new offering that doesn’t relate to what I originally signed up for. I’m glad they’re making the industry safer, but I wish I hadn’t been caught in the crossfire as a non-industry gear nerd.

---

^ this

Am I the only one who wishes they would go skiing or have reviewers in the other hemisphere during the summer, instead of posting bike content?

I don’t go to blister for bike content. It’s another keep your main thing your main thing miss IMO, though I’m far less certain of that. I’d say this, though: for a paid site they sure do seem to miss a lot of their self-imposed deadlines. Maybe they can focus on at least completing their main thing before branching out too much.

Wasn’t there supposed to be a big alpine binding shoot off or something? That section is gone from the book.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

JFE/Blister's posts seem clear
- our feedback won't get Blister to stop the insurance
- our feedback won't get the subscription tiers we want (Blister's hands are tied by underwriters)

so maybe we could use this opportunity to try to influence Blister to improve something else we want. like maybe figure out our top 1-2 realistic requests as a group, and then politely ask Blister for those.

if our top 1-2 requests are a win-win for all parties, and realistic, then maybe it could happen. who knows?

are people here willing to discuss & narrow it down to 1-2 requests? what are YOUR top 1-2?

i might suggest something like
- provide a way for users to upvote which skis/boots will get priority attention
- step up the Flash Reviews (focus on doing more of next year's skis earlier in feb/march/april, & keep updating more of them later, & it's ok to sacrifice some free Full Reviews & other stuff for this)

those 2 ideas alone could potentially get us timely on-snow performance for the specific skis we care about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkiLyft

Haaa love the the Netflix analogy. Put me in the camp of being excited for Disney+ to start offering free dental cleanings for the kids.

---

Yes!

I don't care if they offer insurance or not, but it should be a separate purchase, or even company, to the gear reviews and guide.

It's a bit mad that they are bundled together in my mind. I just can't see the connection.

In other news my internet provider is doubling it's price per month but providing free dog day care. I don't have a dog.

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mustonen

I don’t go to blister for bike content. It’s another keep your main thing your main thing miss IMO, though I’m far less certain of that. I’d say this, though: for a paid site they sure do seem to miss a lot of their self-imposed deadlines. Maybe they can focus on at least completing their main thing before branching out too much.

---

for me, at least, the bike content is a value add. especially when it used to be paired with good personalized advice. blister talks more about balance points and body position on bikes than other sites, and i find this extremely useful. by spending more time on how it rides and how it compares than the big bike sites they’re doing something different and useful.

i’m also bummed that the membership i’ve had for 9 years has gone away. gone up in price would be fine. 9 years is a long time, and shit gets more expensive. but i just wanna read about, and talk about, gear. oh well, let’s see if flash reviews are worth it alone. on that note, please get out the reviews for the products in your guide.

Firstly, it feels important to commend blister for sticking to their guns and finding ways to monetize (ie exist as a business) without taking ad money from the brands they review. I’d imagine that Their impartiality is the reason anyone posting in the thread cares in the first place.

id love to spend money with blister, there just isn’t a set of features for me. and it sounds like that is the case for many In This thread.

Regarding the features, I pay for the Outside family of brand’s outside+ membership to acces the paid version of Trailforks and for commercial buy/sell listing privileges on Pinkbike. And along with the Outside+, I get their spot insurance membership for $110. It’s domestic only not international, but given as a dad of young kids, I’m just not traveling internationally to do risky action sports. And at that price, even if I don’t strictly need it (we have great insurance and max out of pocket every year anyway, but some recovery is better than none) it’s still a no brainer with a clear value prop. I know what I’m buying and why I’m buying it. In contrast, i want to spend money with Blister, but there isn’t a set of features that line up for me to buy.

Been holding off sharing these thoughts, and only doing so because I care about blister succeeding and think the work they do is super important and helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Firstly, it feels important to commend blister for sticking to their guns and finding ways to monetize (ie exist as a business) without taking ad money from the brands they review. I’d imagine that Their impartiality is the reason anyone posting in the thread cares in the first place.

id love to spend money with blister, there just isn’t a set of features for me. and it sounds like that is the case for many In This thread.

Regarding the features, I pay for the Outside family of brand’s outside+ membership to acces the paid version of Trailforks and for commercial buy/sell listing privileges on Pinkbike. And along with the Outside+, I get their spot insurance membership for $110. It’s domestic only not international, but given as a dad of young kids, I’m just not traveling internationally to do risky action sports. And at that price, even if I don’t strictly need it (we have great insurance and max out of pocket every year anyway, but some recovery is better than none) it’s still a no brainer with a clear value prop. I know what I’m buying and why I’m buying it. In contrast, i want to spend money with Blister, but there isn’t a set of features that line up for me to buy.

Been holding off sharing these thoughts, and only doing so because I care about blister succeeding and think the work they do is super important and helpful.

---

Blister reviews your skis and you are not a member. I think that is great and worth support from me.

I realize my sharing those thoughts isn’t in my self interest as a brand owner. I share my thoughts on a personal level, as a long time subscriber, hoping that they might be helpful to blister in some way.

I’d totally subscribe to a blister phone app that cataloged all the verified ski specs, flex impressions, and the final word paragraph about each ski. my guess is so would 1000’s of ski shop sales staff employees.

Sorry if I came across as anything negative on Marshal. Not what I was trying to say at all.
Trying to say it is cool that Blister is independent of manufacturer influence.

Not at all man! It’s a super good point. IMO- the only reason anyone is posting about all this is because of how invested everyone is in what blister is doing and genuinely wanting them to succeed.

You got my wheels turning to be a little more clear with what I was trying to say in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Firstly, it feels important to commend blister for sticking to their guns and finding ways to monetize (ie exist as a business) without taking ad money from the brands they review. I’d imagine that Their impartiality is the reason anyone posting in the thread cares in the first place. [....]

Regarding the features, I pay for the Outside family of brand’s outside+ membership to acces the paid version of Trailforks and for commercial buy/sell listing privileges on Pinkbike. And along with the Outside+, I get their spot insurance membership for $110.

---

Thanks for the kind words, Marshal. Much appreciated. And just to set the record straight, whatever coverage Outside was offering is no longer available. Just trying to reduce the amount of confusion & misinformation in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Firstly, it feels important to commend blister for sticking to their guns and finding ways to monetize (ie exist as a business) without taking ad money from the brands they review. I’d imagine that Their impartiality is the reason anyone posting in the thread cares in the first place.

---

I'd describe them as semi-impartial. They don't take advertising money, but they do depend on manufacturers to supply them with pre-production gear for review. That limits the extent to which they can be totally frank. I.e., I'm not concerned that they'd say positive stuff they don't believe. But I think this would limit their willingness to tell us any strong negatives.

Compare that with, for instance, Consumer Reports (CR) which, to maintain independence from the brands they review, buys all their review samples at retail. Unfortunately, that wouldn't work for Blister's business model, which relies on being able to review stuff before it hits the shops. Plus it would cost them a pretty penny to buy all their review models themselves. They review about 1000 skis each year, which, even at wholesale, would cost them 100's of thousands of dollars.

Indeed, CR goes the extra step of using anonymous shoppers, so companies don't know to add, say, extra QC to ensure the product is perfect. And to ensure they are rigorously separate from the brands they review, they pursue legal action against any that use CR's product reviews in their advertising.

And there's also the personal element: Blister is not separate from the industries they review, they're part of them. For instance, Ellsworth has personal relationships with a lot of the ski brand product managers. There's nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing nefarious, but, just based on human nature, that has to have some impact on how willing they are to publish any frankly negative views they may have. It's hard to do your friends dirty.

And this is reflected in the language of their reviews. I've not seen them say something like: "We don't recommend this product for these reasons. There are better options." You know that there are certainly occasional misses out there; and knowing what's bad is just as important to the consumer as knowing what's good. I actually see more frank reviews, covering both the postives and negatives, on outdoorgearlab.com.

Again, given their reliance upon the industry, I don't see how they can attain the separation needed for true impartiality. So I think the best we can do is simply be aware of this.

Finally, this challenge isn't specific to Blister Gear. It's true in any area, simply because of human nature: Complete impartiality requires complete separation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

I'd describe them as semi-impartial. They don't take advertising money, but they do depend on manufacturers to supply them with pre-production gear for review. That limits the extent to which they can be totally frank. Compare that with, for instance Consumer Reports (CR), which buys all their review samples at retail.

Indeed, CR goes the extra step of using anonymous shoppers, so companies don't know to add, say, extra QC to ensure the product is perfect. And to ensure they are rigorously separate from the brands they review, they pursue legal action against any that use CR's product reviews in their advertising.

That wouldn't work for Blister's business model, which relies on being able to review stuff before it hits the shops.

And there's also the personal element: They're not separate from the industries they review, they're part of them. For instance, Ellsworth has personal relationships with a lot of the ski brand product managers. There's nothing nefarious about that but, just based on human nature, that has to have some impact on how willing they are to publish any frankly negative views they may have.

And this is reflected in the language of their reviews. Someone may have found otherwise, but I've never seen them say something like: "We don't recommend this product for these reasons. There are better options." You know that there are certainly occasional misses out there; and knowing what's bad is just as important to the consumer as knowing what's good. I actually see more frank reviews, covering both the postives and negatives, on outdoorgearlab.com.

Again, given their reliance upon the industry, I don't see how they can attain the separation needed for true impartiality. So I think the best we can do is simply be aware of this.

---

Funny, I subscribe to Consumer Reports, and I find most of their reviews to be super underwhelming. For the vast majority of their product reviews, I don't find there to be enough detail.

Also, to this point: "but I've never seen them say something like: "We don't recommend this product for these reasons. There are better options."

We say that all the time. Like, in every single Deep Dive we put out, where we do our product comparisons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rob stokes

It's a bit mad that they are bundled together in my mind. I just can't see the connection.

---

Fair enough, Rob. Let me try again to speak to that connection...

I started Blister first and foremost, because I (and my friends) loved the outdoors - skiing, mtn biking, climbing, etc. And it pissed me off that nobody seemed to be even trying to just tell the truth about this expensive gear. We could have done what most every other review outlet does - take advertising money from the gear companies we are supposed to be honestly reviewing.

We steered clear of that conflict of interest because the goal was to give fellow skiers, mtn bikers, etc, legit information. It was very much a painful principle. I don't come from money, and we've turned down a lot money for 14 years now, because it was the right thing to do. Was this the most beneficial thing for me personally? Definitely not. For the community? Yes. I've also turned down numerous offers to sell Blister, because it was clear that the interested parties would have dropped several of our founding principles. (Such a sale would have benefited me personally, but that's about it.)

But back to the connection between providing legit information for skiers, mtn bikers, etc, on the one hand, while also working to make sure that people don't get financially wrecked when they get injured: to me, the 3+ years of working on the injury insurance has been another way to provide something better for people in the outdoor community. Millions of skiers, climbers, boarders, cyclists, mtn bikers, etc, around the world are under-insured or uninsured. (That isn't fear mongering, that's just facts.)

Personally, I only have to look at my friend group and my community. I broke my neck skiing in 2017, didn't go get medical treatment for 5 days because of my insurance situation. That could have killed me. Here in Crested Butte, 'go fund me' campaigns are an all-too-common occurrence -- as they are in most mountain towns. Many of you know that one of our reviewers & close friends died skiing this year. Another friend of ours required a life flight this summer from a kayaking accident. Most of the people I know have high deductibles. Lots of people I know (many shop kids, in fact) have no insurance.

So today at Blister, we're still trying our best to put out legit information about gear to the community. We're also now offering a product that can help a lot of people. (If someone else was offering it - a multi-sport injury insurance that works all around the world - including medical transport & backcountry evacs - we wouldn't have needed to.) Both the reviews we put out and the injury insurance we're now offering are things that we think serve the outdoor community. That's the connection.

Again, as this thread shows, not every single thing we do at Blister will be of interest to you personally. The Blister Summit is now some people's favorite thing we do. Some love of our bike reviews. Some here wish we didn't do bike reviews. Some like the podcasts most. Some probably hate the sound of my voice (can't blame em). And many people are really grateful for the injury insurance we're providing - we know this because we hear it multiple times a week from new BLISTER+ members and from people renewing their memberships.

Personally, I'm really psyched that we were able to save MoeSnow (see above) thousands of dollars when he got hurt. And I'm getting message every week from other people who are getting medical treatment when they get hurt. Recently, Henry in Boulder, CO wrote us:

“My regular insurance has a really high deductible, and with BLISTER+, I was able to get PT work done and also an X-Ray - both of which I wouldn't have been able to afford without BLISTER+."

So if we have to choose right now whether to offer something that people like MoeSnow & Henry will benefit from the most, or offer something that will most benefit people who already can afford PT and x-rays? Well, we've made our decision, and I've explained why above: for the time being, at least, we had to make that choice. I hope that some people here can respect that, even if you might not agree with it, or it doesn't benefit your current situation.

Also, things evolve. We're going to try to help out as many people as we can with our current offerings. We'll also do our best to evolve our offerings into better and better fits for more and more people. It'll take time, though.

And I'll reiterate:

1) Most of what we produce is free - our full reviews, our first looks (with verified specs, etc), and our podcasts.
2) Winter Buyer's guide - digital or print - can be purchased stand-alone for $24.95 - it's nearly 300 pages long, no money taken from the gear manufacturers we review
3) Digital Access Pass - $59. All Flash Reviews & Deep Dives, and we'll be producing more than every this season.
4) BLISTER+ - all of the above + the injury coverage + gear recommendations + gear discounts + new resort guides for $395 for 12 months of access & coverage.

Thanks again for your interest. I'll think about Marshal's idea for an app, and other constructive suggestions - especially suggestions where it's clear that you've read my previous explanations in this thread for why we're currently structuring things as we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flippo

Am I the only one who wishes they would go skiing or have reviewers in the other hemisphere during the summer, instead of posting bike content?

---

No you're not alone, and I think they used to do that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galileo

JFE/Blister's posts seem clear
- our feedback won't get Blister to stop the insurance
- our feedback won't get the subscription tiers we want (Blister's hands are tied by underwriters)

so maybe we could use this opportunity to try to influence Blister to improve something else we want. like maybe figure out our top 1-2 realistic requests as a group, and then politely ask Blister for those.

if our top 1-2 requests are a win-win for all parties, and realistic, then maybe it could happen. who knows?

are people here willing to discuss & narrow it down to 1-2 requests? what are YOUR top 1-2?

i might suggest something like
- provide a way for users to upvote which skis/boots will get priority attention
- step up the Flash Reviews (focus on doing more of next year's skis earlier in feb/march/april, & keep updating more of them later, & it's ok to sacrifice some free Full Reviews & other stuff for this)

those 2 ideas alone could potentially get us timely on-snow performance for the specific skis we care about.

---

Well said

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JFE24

Funny, I subscribe to Consumer Reports, and I find most of their reviews to be super underwhelming. For the vast majority of their product reviews, I don't find there to be enough detail.

---

Fair enough, but that's separate from the issue I was discussing. As I tried to point out, the issue of impartiality is a tricky thing.

For instance, the medical researchers who run industry-sponsored clinical trials insist, absolutely, that the industry funding has no impact on their assessment, because they have strict controls to maintain independence and transparency. And they really believe it. Yet meta studies have shown that non-randomized industry-sponsored trials consistently give more positive results to the drug or device being studied than government-funded trials. It's easy for us as humans to fool ourselves into thinking we are more impartial than we actually area.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JFE24

Also, to this point: "but I've never seen them say something like: "We don't recommend this product for these reasons. There are better options."

We say that all the time. Like, in every single Deep Dive we put out, where we do our product comparisons.

---

Sorry, I can't speak to your Deep Dives. I'm sure they are quite thorough, but I haven't subscribed to them because, in scanning through what you listed, I couldn't see any Deep Dive comparsions of the kinds of skis or boots I use. My experience is with your Digital Buyer's Guide (the topic of this thread) and the accompanying hard links, which I assume is your most visible review product. Could you please give me examples where you've said that there? I paid the most attention to your alpine boot reviews for the past two years and didn't see, among those, any products labelled as "Not Recommended". But if I missed that I'd be happy to be informed of such.

I agree detailed reviews are nice. Your Buyer's Guide's reviews of, for instance, frontside performance boots are interesting, but brief, and I would have liked seeing more extensive detail in the links. One key bit that I think would greatly add to your boot reviews would be links to video of your reviewers skiing the different boots on the same terrain, so we could connect what they are saying about how the boots ski to how they actually ski for them. Perhaps this is something you already do in your Deep Dives.

Dave Dodge did something along those lines, where he had videos of himself and two other skiers using his boots at different forward lean settings. That was much more informative than just hearing him describe the effect of changing the forward lean.

Jonathan, thanks for giving us more background here.

I am appreciate very much what you and your team are doing. This thread has a lot of harsh critical comments and that was also an interesting read by itself.

To my opininon it is a easy task to ignore the Podcast or insurance adds (if you do not like that part) and just follow the other content.

However, one remark to all the critics: Blister provides high quality content on its website for free. Where else you get that? Also, to test & write & publish so much content is a lot of work. I think wie all can agree that also requires a good amount of good will (and lack of personal financial interest). That also should be recognized.

Other than that, I hope it snows soon and everybody will be on more important issues ;- )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

Sorry, I can't speak to your Deep Dives. I'm sure they are quite thorough, but I haven't subscribed to them because, in scanning through what you listed, I couldn't see any Deep Dive comparsions of the kinds of skis or boots I use. My experience is with your Digital Buyer's Guide (the topic of this thread) and the accompanying hard links, which I assume is your most visible review product. Could you please give me examples where you've said that there? I paid the most attention to your alpine boot reviews for the past two years and didn't see, among those, any products labelled as "Not Recommended". But if I missed that I'd be happy to be informed of such.

---

This is a pretty absurd criticism - you are knocking them because they haven't given you enough free detailed ski boot comparisons? Boots are so dependant on personal fit that any such breakdown wouldn't be useful at all, and I'm sure mags on here would be calling them out for that very fact if Blister did it. (Not that they would, because its a stupid idea.) From what blister actually provides on boots--which can be pretty darn detailed--I think you can get a really good idea about how a boot skis and flexes for that specific reviewer, which is a great place to start from before you head to a shop to try boots on. What more do you want, especially for free?

I'm surprised at the vitriol in this thread. Blister provides a really good service to those people who find it useful. If you don't - don't subscribe. Its not that difficult.

I personally found the site to be immensly useful when I was getting into skiing ~10 yrs ago, as it was the only place where I could find consistently detailed and objective ski reviews. I don't use it nearly as much any more as (I think) I have found a good sweet spot with the skis I like for the places I ski, but I still keep my membership as a way to support them and i like having the deep dive and flash review access. I am also a Blister+ subscriber because I do have a high deductible insurance plan and I do have a bad habit of smashing myself into hard things when I shouldn't. I haven't had to use it yet (thankfully) but I like knowing that its there if I need it.

Big fan of what you guys do at Blister, and I don't have a problem with different tiering (I'm a normal member who paid extra to get the print guide). However, I was surprised when you started announcing the ski companies had purchased Blister+ for their athlete teams - its great for the athletes, but it does mean money flows from ski company to Spot to Blister, doesn't it? It would have been cleaner if the ski manufacturer just threw in a $500 stipend to each member of their athlete team to use as they saw fit (e.g. a 20y old still on their parent's Cadillac plan may choose to use $500 differently, a Canadian skier who only skis at home).

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by obi wan kenobi

However, one remark to all the critics: Blister provides high quality content on its website for free. Where else you get that? Also, to test & write & publish so much content is a lot of work. I think wie all can agree that also requires a good amount of good will (and lack of personal financial interest). That also should be recognized.

---

Pretty much every review site is free, which isn’t to say that Blister doesn’t do a good job. I’ve never actually paid for a review site before blister. It was cool to get the buyers guides too, though admittedly that wasn’t what I was paying for at the time (when I signed up it was to read flash reviews because the promised full reviews were not being delivered as promised for some particular skis was interested in, and TGR forum reviews died when, well…. Don’t need to go back there I guess).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxloaf

This is a pretty absurd criticism - you are knocking them because they haven't given you enough free detailed ski boot comparisons?
....
I'm surprised at the vitriol in this thread. Blister provides a really good service to those people who find it useful. If you don't - don't subscribe. Its not that difficult.

---

The only criticism that's absurd is yours:

(1) I wasn't knocking them because they didn't give me "enough free detailed boot comparisons". First, I pay to get access to their digital guide. Second, and more importantly, that was just a side-comment to reply to Jon's criticism of Consumer Reports for providing reviews that were too brief. I was just pointing out that his guide's reviews are brief as well, which is entirely fair to say.

(2) Anyone who reads my prior posts in this thread can see they were polite. Your implication that I'm among the ones engaging in "vitriol" is inaccurate and dishonest. For instance, I could certainly have been harsher in replying to Jon for criticizing another organization for doing the same thing he does himself (there's a certain word that comes to mind), yet chose not to be.

But, as I said, this was just a side-discussion I had with Jon in response to his criticism of CR. The bigger picture is that, as should have been obvious from my earlier posts, my purpose was not to knock Blister. Instead, my purpose was only to say I think things should be accurately labeled. That's what I care about.

And it's not accurate to call Blister—or any reviewers—fully impartial, if they are dependent on industry cooperation to do their reviews. That's just the nature of things. That label should be reserved for those organizations that fully separate themselves from the brands they review. Otherwise "impartial" just loses its meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxloaf

Blister provides a really good service to those people who find it useful. If you don't - don't subscribe. Its not that difficult.

---

Again, it's not about that. I find my sedan useful and enjoy driving it. But I will disagree if the company that makes it, or anyone else, starts calling it a supercar or something else that it's not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

(2) Anyone who read my two posts in this thread can see they were polite. Your implication that I'm among the ones engaging in "vitriol" is inaccurate and dishonest. For instance, I could certainly have been harsher in replying to Jon for criticizing another organization for doing the same thing he does himself (there's a certain word that comes to mind), yet chose not to be.

---

Apologies if there was any confusion - I wasn't tagging you with the "vitriol" point, just describing this thread more generally over the past week or two, which I've followed only slightly. I did think your criticism was pretty dumb, which is why I jumped in.

As to your sedan/supercar point, that also strikes me as pretty dumb. If you want a sedan, buy one, if you want a supercar, buy one. Support companies you believe in, that's what I try to do.

I feel like I buy the guide for the section summary comparisons and list of best of/recommended gear. My tastes have aligned well with the skis JFE and others seem to prefer. Hope they can continue to be a viable business w/o straying too far from the “honest gear reviews” premise.

^same here

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandit Man

I feel like I buy the guide for the section summary comparisons and list of best of/recommended gear. My tastes have aligned well with the skis JFE and others seem to prefer. Hope they can continue to be a viable business w/o straying too far from the “honest gear reviews” premise.

---

I wonder if they track hits (traffic) on their site? I know I’ve gone there way less in the last 8 months…. prolly cause it’s so off-putting as they now come across as insurance pushers (vs ski reviewers).

My advice is to keep the “crashes and close calls” out of the gear reviews and podcasts. Cause when I go to Blister I wanna hear about skis. It’s like a Mtn bike company telling you that you’re gonna get really hurt when you ride mtn bikes so here’s some insurance for ya. That’s weird.

Agree with banditman above. I have no problem with them trying to be viable. Sell whatever the f you want. Then I’ll make the decision as to whether I’ll buy it. For example, I like the print version of the Guide (specs, summary comparisons etc. are useful to gear whores like me) and so I am willing to pay the $77CDN to get it delivered.

But I wish they would have a big button on the site that says “Insurance”. Then if I do want insurance I can go there.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxloaf

Apologies if there was any confusion - I wasn't tagging you with the "vitriol" point, just describing this thread more generally over the past week or two, which I've followed only slightly.

---

Thanks, appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxloaf

I did think your criticism was pretty dumb, which is why I jumped in.

As to your sedan/supercar point, that also strikes me as pretty dumb.

---

I agree with your desire for there to be less vitriol and more civility. But it's inconsistent to take that position and then use language like "pretty dumb". Why not instead just say that you disagree, and why? I've still not see you provide any substantive argument against my position which is, again, that I'm not trying to knock Blister, I'm saying that claims should be accurate....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

And it's not accurate to call Blister—or any reviewers—fully impartial, if they are dependent on industry cooperation to do their reviews. That's just the nature of things. That label should be reserved for those organizations that fully separate themselves from the brands they review. Otherwise "impartial" just loses its meaning.

---

I think Blister has good intentions, and they are as impartial as they can be given that they depend on industry-supplied gear, but there has to be an asterisk there (not just for Blister—for anyone in that situation). If you disagree with my asterisk, that's fine. But your disagreement doesn't make my position "dumb." I do lots of stuff that actually is dumb, but this isn't an example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxloaf

As to your sedan/supercar point, that also strikes me as pretty dumb. If you want a sedan, buy one, if you want a supercar, buy one.

---

You've misunderstood. I clearly said I'm happy with my sedan; my point was I would still criticize the manufacturer if they claimed it was something it wasn't (e.g., a supercar).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by waxloaf

Support companies you believe in, that's what I try to do.

---

Me too. But I don't support them mindlessly. I'm a customer, not a fanboy. If I think they've got something wrong, I'll say it; and will say the positives as well—e.g., I think Blister's ski suitability rankings are a great idea. The best companies welcome that feedback, since that's how they improve and stay ahead of their competition.

since honesty is blister's main thing, i will come to their defense on it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

I'd describe them as semi-impartial.

---

it's fair for you to say it that way. sounds like your concern is about semantics and reserving the word "impartial" for things that are even more impartial than blister. that's fine.

i read blister, & i notice the lack of negativity in their words, but i like how they do it, and it's impressively impartial enough for me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

But I think this would limit their willingness to tell us any strong negatives.

---

yes & no. and by that, i mean it's "100% no" if you learn how to interpret their writing style. i see the "strong negatives" that are in there, but in the form of the absence of specific positives.

blister's approach seems to be more about "who is this ski for?"---not about "please go on and on about how terrible this ski is for the people who will hate it most" ...with their approach, it's almost just a side-effect that explicit negativity doesn't end up in there.

and blister's lack of negativity nowadays is NOT proof of favoritism or holding back. it's proof that pretty much ALL skis nowadays are good for at least ONE use case, for at least ONE skier type, for at least ONE skiing style, etc. ...a positive review in blister style like: "a really great hardpack ski for intermediates looking to skid around at slow speeds on a mellow, lightweight, soft, forgiving ski with their beginner girlfriend", combined with the absence of any mention of expert hard-charging skiers, can easily be interpreted as a COMPLETELY TERRIBLE WORST SKI EVAH for hard-charging experts ripping down The Crack. no need to write out any mean negativity for that---there's always a type of skier out there who will TRULY LIKE a ski that we think is "absolutely terrible! this brand should go away and die!!!!"...and you don't need to write the negative part. it's easy to interpret their honest words.

another easy one: "Jonathan didn't get along with this ski, so we had Dylan take the lead on this review." i agree with them that there's no point in having Jonathan write 10,000 words of negativity about how this ski sucks for his specific skier type. instead, read about other skier types who might actually be able to enjoy the ski's strengths. it's easy to interpret, easy to see the silent negativity in there. and if you don't know what your own skier type is, etc, they use wording that helps you start to know thyself over time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

Ellsworth has personal relationships with a lot of the ski brand product managers. There's nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing nefarious, but, just based on human nature, that has to have some impact on how willing they are to publish any frankly negative views they may have. It's hard to do your friends dirty.

---

my guess is you're right. hypothetically, for a "complete miss" product designed by one of their close friends, i suspect their "who is it for?" approach would describe the ski more as a big fat zero---not an explicit strong negative. maybe like "not a single one of our reviewers got along well with this ski, and none of us could find any of its strengths, and so far we are unable to confirm who this ski is really good for. if you like edge hold, there are better options out there. blah blah blah." ...sounds "bad", but notice there are no negatives in there (plenty of zeros)---and still all honesty, and easy to interpret that "it must suck" if they had that much trouble looking for the ski's strengths. (and to be clear, all these "quotes" so far are just me, trying to mimic blister's style)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Physicist

I've not seen them say something like: "We don't recommend this product for these reasons. There are better options."
Could you please give me examples where you've said that there?

---

i see them say a slightly tweaked version of that all the time. instead of saying it the way you prefer, which is basically "not recommended for anybody, ever", they say "not recommended for anyone except this one skier type/style/use case/scenario. there are better options." easy to interpret that it's not recommended for most people.

search function easily finds examples:
here's their way of saying "not recommended" (for some common scenarios).
actual quote: page 94 Blister Guide: "This isn’t the ski we’d recommend if you want something really snappy and easy to bend at slow speeds, nor is it a great off-piste option for most skiers."

here's their way of saying "not recommended, better options."
actual quote: page 161 Guide: "All of the heavier skis here are better if you prioritize stability and suspension"
actual quote: page 99 Guide: "though we wouldn’t recommend it if you want to truly carve icy slopes (the previous several skis are more practical for that)."
actual quote: page 138 Guide: "So if you often find yourself in the backseat and/or are just starting to venture off piste, we’d recommend something more forgiving like the next two skis or the Line Optic 104."

again, they don't say "not recommended" and leave it at that, because that means "not recommended for anyone on earth, not ever, for any skier type, for any style, for any use case, etc" ...blister can usually find a scenario where even an overall weak product is a decent choice. if that scenario doesn't apply to you, then you know that product probably "sucks" for you, and is "not recommended" for you. easy. and honest.

Attachment 501710

Sure is a lot of words. I skimmed only.

In re: impartiality: I think we’re parsing this well beyond the margin of error. Ski reviews are imprecise to begin with. I don’t need my ski review to be conducted with the same level of rigor as a cancer drug trial. Blister’s use of “impartial” is marketing, though they structure it so they’re more impartial than somebody who has a link to buy them from their online store. Bias exists and arguing that it doesn’t is stupid. I’d even go so far as to say it’s pretty dumb.

In re: negativity and reviews generally: slingin shit is helpful. If somebody doesn’t like a ski I want to know why. The big strong tail kicked your ass all over the hill? Sounds like something I’m into. The things you really like and the things you really don’t like is the signal in all the noise - and blister reviews sure have a lot of noise. That’s fine, but if we’re opining on review quality they could go for a bit more signal.

Oh, and vitriol? Maybe those worried about vitriol should pm Greg from alpinezone. We’re allowed to be critical and to call a spade a spade.

Wait— I spew. Get shit. And then these dads carry on like it’s Tuesdays with Morrie?

Give your balls a tug and say something in one sentence.

RE-REVIEW THE MVP!

https://t4.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/02/35/23...Ciy267fdHn.jpg

Galileo's post is worth reading if you're truly interested in interpreting Blister reviews. It's a more nuanced approach but it's effective.

Guys! Loving the discussion, and no horse in the race on this topic myself, but I fear there is a little rabbit-holing on fine nuance, rather than seeing the whole forest.

Some publications reviewing technical hardgoods have five-figure ad packages to even get started, and can get into six-figure advertising relationships. That means for those publications, their customer is the BRAND. Here is total print distribution. Here are your awards. Here is how many impressions. Here is how many clicks. Here is your ROI. This kind of thing. These platforms are essentially marketing agencies for the brands.

For Blister, their customer is The Subscriber. Blister's relationship to the brand and their product managers is to ensure that Blister is evaluating new/relevant products and have the right details, to test the items fairly against their competitors, and against prior versions of the same product. Brand's that don't see value in that don't need to send product.

JE, Luke, Paul, Noah, David, etc can see through meaningless marketing fluff from a mile away, and call brands out on it where warranted (they said X, but on snow we found Y). Sure, the reviewers, like all humans on earth, have some personal biases, but the point is that they are pretty clear about them, transparent about the conditions they evaluated in, and are rather consistent about all of these elements through time, meaning I can use a review from four years ago and compare it to something posted yesterday, and still glean good stuff between them.

At this current stage in my life, I am not a customer for Blister+ Insurance, but I am glad that it exists. It continues Blister's mission of helping folks get the most out of their time on the mountain, it certainly helped MoeSnow up thread, and I am sure it’s helped plenty of other folks too. I do look forward to feature sets that make sense for me to buy, but in the meantime, I benefit from their free content.

Conversely, I do look forward to a more affirmative messaging on the Insurance. Just one guy's opinion!

Over and out.

I have been a long time reader/subscriber of Blister, mostly for the mountain bike reviews as I snowboard and don't ski. I feel their mountain bike reviews are unparalleled in their detail and they most definitely will (often repeatedly) call out a bike or components for being crap (though they use more polite words). I have gotten great advice on bike purchases from the team (back when my normal Blister membership included this). I, like most, was bummed about losing some of my membership features with the switch to Blister+ or digital access. I don't need Blister+ coverage (I have total comprehensive coverage as I'm active duty military) but would certainly recommend it for most people. I'm a physician and have seen first hand several people's lives negatively effected by high medical bills from unexpected injuries. I will be keeping my digital access pass for the deep dives and also just to support the company as I read so many of their reviews and listen to all of their podcasts. I just wish they would do more reviews on snowboarding and especially splitboarding gear (I'm happy to volunteer my services if you're looking Jonathan)!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Olson

Guys! Loving the discussion, and no horse in the race on this topic myself, but I fear there is a little rabbit-holing on fine nuance, rather than seeing the whole forest.

Some publications reviewing technical hardgoods have five-figure ad packages to even get started, and can get into six-figure advertising relationships. That means for those publications, their customer is the BRAND. Here is total print distribution. Here are your awards. Here is how many impressions. Here is how many clicks. Here is your ROI. This kind of thing. These platforms are essentially marketing agencies for the brands.

For Blister, their customer is The Subscriber. Blister's relationship to the brand and their product managers is to ensure that Blister is evaluating new/relevant products and have the right details, to test the items fairly against their competitors, and against prior versions of the same product. Brand's that don't see value in that don't need to send product.

JE, Luke, Paul, Noah, David, etc can see through meaningless marketing fluff from a mile away, and call brands out on it where warranted (they said X, but on snow we found Y). Sure, the reviewers, like all humans on earth, have some personal biases, but the point is that they are pretty clear about them, transparent about the conditions they evaluated in, and are rather consistent about all of these elements through time, meaning I can use a review from four years ago and compare it to something posted yesterday, and still glean good stuff between them.

At this current stage in my life, I am not a customer for Blister+ Insurance, but I am glad that it exists. It continues Blister's mission of helping folks get the most out of their time on the mountain, it certainly helped MoeSnow up thread, and I am sure it’s helped plenty of other folks too. I do look forward to feature sets that make sense for me to buy, but in the meantime, I benefit from their free content.

Conversely, I do look forward to a more affirmative messaging on the Insurance. Just one guy's opinion!

Over and out.

---

All of that. Couldn’t have said it better. While I’m not a Blister+ customer either, I think it’s pretty cool that it exists. Who knows, maybe one day I will be. I certainly get a lot of value from all of the free Blister offerings.

In the meantime, I think it’s rather visionary of JE + team to recognize an opportunity to get athlete teams covered. A step in the right direction for the industry as a whole, imo.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums