Blister annual book of gear

[kc_7777]

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

[Physicist]

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.

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....

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.

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).

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.

[galileo]

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

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

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

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)

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.

[Mustonen]

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.

[gaijin]

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.

[Self Jupiter]

RE-REVIEW THE MVP!

[hopelesslyadolescent]

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.

[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.

[rpearce1475]

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)!

[GoatRodeo]

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

[kc_7777]

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

WTF? That’s what you classify as “visionary”? Hahaha. Are you naive? Or related to JE?

They’re selling insurance to make money.

Please delete this thread so we don’t have to read this any more and let’s get back to talking about skis. Like Blister should too.



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[carlh]

It’s pretty easy to ignore the ads and the book is fun to have with a lot of skis in it. I wish blister had a bigger reviewer on staff (6’+ 200lbs+) other than Paul Forward who doesn’t have to ski inbounds. I also wish had a Pnw based ski reviewer because what works in Colorado doesn’t always work here. That said they are still the best reviews available if they have been on a ski you’re interested in and the deep dives make it easy to relate to something you might have tried.

@Marshall should do a gear 30 and nerd out on HL skis so we all want to buy them more as well.

I have blister insurance because I have a $5000 deductible and it’s cheap enough to feel worth it. If you don’t like it don’t buy it, the only thing you can’t get without insurance is personalized gear recs.

[Benneke10]

@Marshall should do a gear 30 and nerd out on HL skis so we all want to buy them more as well.
.

https://blisterreview.com/podcasts/h...l-olson-ep-226

[jdadour]

Please delete this thread so we don’t have to read this any more and let’s get back to talking about skis. Like Blister should too.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Seconded.

[arild]

Denied.


(Though the idea of having blister talk more about skis, boots and bindings, less about bikes, bourbon and rye, is a good one).


Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

[MoeSnow]

It’s pretty easy to ignore the ads and the book is fun to have with a lot of skis in it. I wish blister had a bigger reviewer on staff (6’+ 200lbs+) other than Paul Forward who doesn’t have to ski inbounds. I also wish had a Pnw based ski reviewer because what works in Colorado doesn’t always work here. That said they are still the best reviews available if they have been on a ski you’re interested in and the deep dives make it easy to relate to something you might have tried.

@Marshall should do a gear 30 and nerd out on HL skis so we all want to buy them more as well.

I have blister insurance because I have a $5000 deductible and it’s cheap enough to feel worth it. If you don’t like it don’t buy it, the only thing you can’t get without insurance is personalized gear recs.

+1 for PNW-based reviewer.

[K1mJ0ngTr1ll]

Denied.


(Though the idea of having blister talk more about skis, boots and bindings, less about bikes, bourbon and rye, is a good one).


Sent fra min LE2123 via Tapatalk

Especially when it’s WhistlePig. One of the most over priced ryes on the market.

[waxloaf]

Agree that whistle pig is overrated, but I support all bourbon talk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shmerham]

In 2023, we had this: "a membership level without the insurance." But then, in 2024, we had a big decision to make. If we were going to continue to be able to offer an inexpensive injury insurance option that (1) covered everyone of any age (2) anywhere in the world (3) and included coverage of multiple sports, the insurance company that underwrites the policy would only allow us to offer all of that - without jacking up the premiums - if we consolidated to a single membership.

So then, we had a choice to make. And given that, by the fall of 2023, we'd seen how widespread the problem was, we decided that it would help more people in the community if we could continue to offer the coverage to everyone - not just for citizens of the U.S., with coverage that would only work within the U.S. So that's the call we made, and I believe it was the right and the good thing to do.

Jonathan, I appreciate your candor. I feel badly that the insurance underwriter really pinned you into a corner on this one. I don't envy your challenge of trying to provide good content and not lose money.

[Crystal Skier]

Seconded.

FKNA




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[eSock]

Anyone else notice the overwhelming majority of ski reviews posted are now either first looks or flash reviews? By my napkin math, less than 10% of of reviews posted this season are actual full reviews. Many flash review skis from last season still don't have full reviews either. I wonder what's going on.

[kc_7777]

tbh I barely go to their site any more. Don’t listen to the podcasts any more either. The lack of owning up to the selling insurance for money issue pissed me off. So I canceled my subscription.

I did buy (and appreciate) the print version of the latest Blister Buyers Guide and flip through that every now and then. Cost about seventy CDN with shipping but I’m good with that. Cause I know what I’m getting and I can just flip past the insurance ad (vs listening to a podcast with scripted crashes and close calls which is unsubtle, fear mongering IMO).

I think the original business model must have maxed out its subscription revenue volume (and top line revenue), and then maybe their payroll went up and so they went looking for another revenue source (selling insurance pays very well) but then they lost a lot of the one key they had which was independence/objectivity. I’m harsh I know. It’s too bad.


Sent from my iPhone

[XtrPickels]

Yeah, there's been a number of times that I was excited to find a ski only to be let down by it being a "First Look" - which is not a value add.
Additionally, There's a number of skis that were flash reviews and despite saying a full review is coming, it's now been years.

I still visit the site, but it's been less and less. I no longer go to see what's new. I just search when I want to know something.
I'm disappointed that there hasn't been any update to their UI or functionality. E.g. a ski-comparison tool.

[obi wan kenobi]

Anyone else notice the overwhelming majority of ski reviews posted are now either first looks or flash reviews? By my napkin math, less than 10% of of reviews posted this season are actual full reviews. Many flash review skis from last season still don't have full reviews either. I wonder what's going on.

Same here. Looks like Luke is doing all the testing. More Ski reviews and less other stuff would be great. The website uses an outdated software. Canceled my subscription as well.

[JFE24]

Sorry, can't currently get the site to do a proper "Reply with Quote," but to eSock's comment: "Looks like Luke is doing all the testing. More Ski reviews and less other stuff would be great."

It’s pretty wild, the amount of misinformation and wildly-off base speculation on this forum. I just hope that most people skimming these threads understand this.

(Just yesterday, we published a GEAR:30 podcast where Luke and I talked about the new skis we’ve been reviewing, including the ON3P Billy Goat, new QST Blank, new QST 106 , new HEAD Kore 118 & 112, etc.)

So to clear up the latest question... no, Luke isn’t doing all of the testing. If we’re just talking about the ski side of Blister (and not the snowboard or bike sides of Blister), I’m on the mountain at least 4-5 days a week testing gear. Same with Dylan, Kara, Paul Forward, Mark, and a few other new people who we are seeing how they do.

For virtually every ski review we publish, at least 2-3 of us are spending time on the ski, and it’s often more than that. Then those of us who have been on it discuss the ski, and one of us will take the lead on the review. Luke, Dylan, and I are now often so much on the same page about a given ski that we won’t take the time for each of us to write out in full a review where we just reiterate what one of us has already said. If there is an area where we have a disagreement about a product, that is where we will definitely each weigh in.

Also, as the demand and expectations have grown for us to cover (1) more and more skis, and (2) get that information out faster and faster -- both of which are totally understandable requests - we have prioritized getting our First Looks and Flash Reviews. Why?

First Looks: We’re pretty much the only ones out there who bother to get actual measured specs and more real info beyond the marketing speak of new products. As many people on this forum have said, they find real value in those measured specs. (FWIW, so do other ski companies, who frequently tell us they go to Blister to see what their competition has actually just unveiled.)

Flash Reviews: Again, as more people wanted info sooner on new products, we have moved to getting more Flash Reviews out. And as anybody who has read our Flash Reviews can attest, these Flash Reviews are getting increasingly detailed. And we also will often update those Flash Reviews as we get more time on the product and have new findings to report. Sometimes, even after we have spent a lot more time in a ski boot or on a ski, we’re finding that our Flash Review was quite on point, and further testing didn’t lead to new findings. In such cases, we are in less of a rush to get out the Full Review, because people can read the Flash, and they can always email us or leave a comment on the site if they have a question.

That then allows us to continue to get First Looks and Flash Reviews published, answer all of the Blister member questions, and do all of the other stuff we do - podcasts, Blister Summit events, etc.

I listed stats earlier in this thread that show that we are doing more ski reviews than ever before, not fewer. But there are a couple people on this forum that apparently don't care about facts. So be it.
But to the rest of you, I’d ask yourself: does the person on this forum who is telling you how we operate - or why we’re doing what we’re doing - know anybody at Blister? Talked to anybody at Blister? Or are they just making shit up?

Anyway, going to wrap up some prep stuff for the Summit that kicks off tomorrow, then get back on the mountain. I hope most of you are getting out too.