Printable View
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.
Yes!Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiLyft
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustonen
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.
Blister reviews your skis and you are not a member. I think that is great and worth support from me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
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!
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Olson
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Physicist
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.
Fair enough, Rob. Let me try again to speak to that connection...Quote:
Originally Posted by rob stokes
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.
No you're not alone, and I think they used to do thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Flippo
Well saidQuote:
Originally Posted by galileo
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JFE24
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JFE24
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 ;- )
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Physicist
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
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 obi wan kenobi
The only criticism that's absurd is yours:Quote:
Originally Posted by waxloaf
(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.
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 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. I did think your criticism was pretty dumb, which is why I jumped in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Physicist
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