Is Ski Magazine anti-helmet?

[Edd]

Not looking for a helmet debate here; they get boring fast. I've noticed for the past few years that the percentage of photos with helmets in Ski magazine flat out does not reflect what I see on the slopes, where I see many more.

In this month's letters section of Ski, two readers wrote critical letters calling them out on this. The response: Editors note: For more on the helmet debate, see "Hardheaded", page 35. This, of course, is a non-answer. The article contains the usual viewpoints and statistics, but nothing pertaining to Ski's position on the issue.

The thing is, if they don't want to take a position, I get it. Maybe they don't want to say the wrong thing and have their words used against them later and blah, blah, blah...

However, if they are going neutral on this, why wouldn't they go 50-50 on the helmet/non-helmet photos. The noticable lack of helmets could be interpreted as a passive expression of their real opinion.

Thoughts?

 

[ski_resort_observer]

If you really want an answer I would email them and ask them. It's listed in the masthead of the magazine. Normally the editors are looking for the best shots whether it's a gallery type thing or photos connected to an article. SKI like all consumer mags is under alot of pressure to make a profit with a multitude of headwinds towards that goal which means they need advertisers desparatetly.

From what I can see there is more advertising than editorial content in SKI and the other consumer mags owned by Bonnier, including SKIING. Please post the answer if they actually respond to your question. Could be interesting.

 

[vonski]

this is typical of all Trade magazines. I always find it funny in the Construction Trade magazines where they will put in a picture of a guy under a steel beam with no hard hat on no safety line and no safety glasses on. No specifics, but I have seen such. So, I would guess the magazine is just putting up the best shots with no food for thought towards safety issues.

 

[Glenn]

It probably has to do with the number of photos they have on hand. Even though it is a "big" magazine, I doubt they take enough pics of each area, ski test, whatever to weed through "helmet vs. no helmet". I'm sure it's tough enough just to get good shots, let alone start weeding things out based on what people are wearing.

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

a lot of it is on the part of the talent in the photo shoot...there are plenty of pro skiers out there who aren't wearing helmets or don't wear them for a relatively low key photo shoot even if they do wear them when they're filming. If anyone ought to put pressure on them its Smith, Giro, RED, and Bern, leave it up to the helmet comnpanies to encourage the use to help promote their product which in turn would give them more $$ to spend on advertising. Advertising $$$ are hard to come by in the industry right now...anyone notice that the only ski companies to do print ads in both Ski and Skiing's buyer's guides were K2 and Volkl...and they were one page ads deeper into the mag. In previous years there would have been at least 4 other ski vendors in there and there would be competition for the inside front cover. The other companies are in Freeskier and Powder...and there are plenty of full page spreads...but Powder and Freeskier charge a significantly lower page rate.

That being said, Sam Bass, one of the editors at Skiing and the guy who runs the annual test, wrote a pretty strong piece last year advocating the use of a helmet. Sam took a header into the woods a couple of years ago, got pretty banged up, and credits his helmet for saving his life.

 

[dmc]

helmets look stupid in magazines to the public(not y'all).
They may even make the picture seem scary,too hardcore or out of reach... I guess it depends on who the picture is marketed too..

 

[andyzee]

Better question, does anyone take ski seriously?

 

[ski_resort_observer]

It probably has to do with the number of photos they have on hand. Even though it is a "big" magazine, I doubt they take enough pics of each area, ski test, whatever to weed through "helmet vs. no helmet". I'm sure it's tough enough just to get good shots, let alone start weeding things out based on what people are wearing.

They actually have way more pics then you can imagine, some of the articles they use assignment photographers, some with pics on hand provided by local photogs called stock shots. They also use pics they already have, file shots and pics provided by the resort to save money. If they don't have an acceptable shot or ones that are not up to date enough they simple send someone, get the shot from a stock photo agency who have millions of pics or call a local photog. Remember, the stories are done usually 6-12 months in advance of the published date.

I don't know the issue date but SKI did a little story on the Bush's new "lincoln Limo'
http://www.sugarbush.com/vermont-skiing-snowboarding/groomer-rides last spring at Mt Ellen, ironically. The story was written by I think Leigh Newman, a writer from NYC. It probably won't be a big article but I hope the pics are from Sandy Macy, a local photog and the Bush's official picture taker. In the past you never knew if it would actually get in the mag but today with such tight budgets I imagine if they spent the money for the story it's going to get in mag at some point.

 

[RootDKJ]

Better question, does anyone take ski seriously?

Not for a long time. Even less for Skiing. Still subscribe though. Old habits die hard.

 

[Edd]

If you really want an answer I would email them and ask them. It's listed in the masthead of the magazine..........

SKI like all consumer mags is under alot of pressure to make a profit with a multitude of headwinds towards that goal which means they need advertisers desparatetly...........

Please post the answer if they actually respond to your question. Could be interesting.

Again, 2 letters were printed this month regarding this and they still didn't answer the question. I'm thinking you and a couple of others here hit the nail on the head when you talked about money; like the cost of good, applicable photos and how maybe they can't be too picky...or if the helmet companies put some real leverage on them they would certainly cave and generate more helmet photos. It's almost always about money.

 

[millerm277]

No helmet looks better. (say what you want about helmets, but I really don't think anyone here is going to say normal helmets make most people look better.)

 

[Rambo]

Strange thing is, the letter to the editor also noted that the magazines ski-testers mostly did not wear helmets and the letter writer noted this and thought it somewhat strange. In the a published response one of the assistant editors, an attractive woman, who is also one of the testers noted that she personally always wears a helmet.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

For the ski test shots it's under a somewhat controlled environment. The path of the skier is planned. In addition, a helmet would be distracting in this situation, if they allowed personal helmets that could be a hassle depending on who advertises and how much in the mag. If they used a SKI mag supplied brain bucket, another possible conflict, diferent slippery slope.

If there were letters to the editor I wouldn't be surprised if things change regarding imagery and helmet use but you won't see it until next year but they could come out with a public statement about a change.

As mentioned no one looks good in a helmet vs the normal attractive photoshopped airbrush look. :lol: With a helmet you don't need Suzy Chapstick(a Rutland gal BTW), you can use Suzy Slapshot who has a buzzcut. :wink: