Outdoor Industry Disingenuous?

[mtnfund]

Outdoor Industry – Disingenuous?

 

I pose this as a questions, not a statement of fact, hence the question mark. Some time back there was a post directed at me from Raindawg, it read like this.

 

I think money is much better spent on programs such as the above than on a mountaineering class/experiment. 7,000 people and three villages are helped, rather than a few handful. Mountaineering is a luxury. No food, clean water and basic health care: no big expedition fun.

 

That started me thinking. How many people feel this way? How much is this attitude reflected in the charitable practices of the outdoor industry. As Cascade Climbers members have proven to be passionate and vocal, as well as smart, I decided to put some things to you all for feedback. Does Raindawg have the right point of view? Should money be spent to provide basics? Well, if he does, he may be in the minority, let’s find out.

 

I read the latest report from the Outdoor Industry Association today. They say that the outdoor industry is a $730 billion dollar a year moneymaker! That’s a bunch of outdoor stuff. You can read the report for yourself Outdoor Industry Report

 

The Outdoor Industry Foundation, a part of the Association gives some money away each year too. Their program called Outdoor Idol promises media recognition of outstanding young athletes under the age of 23. They took in $600k in 2005 and spent it on “Promoting the benefits of outdoor recreation.” They (the association) also published a report on the participation of Hispanics in outdoor recreation that points out the potential lost sales by not making more effort to reach this fast growing sector of our society. It’s all on the web site. To be fair, I believe we do need to promote outdoor activity, we are all getting fat, our kids are getting fat at rates that are scary, hell I think I am getting fat too !

 

So, I figured with such a robust economy for the outdoor industry as a whole, there must be some charity going on out there too. I did a bit of google work on some of the most popular brands (look in your closet) and was somewhat surprised by what I found. I won’t mention names right out as I can’t afford a lawyer. For most all of the big name companies, I found that places like the Nepal, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Peru etc. figured prominently in their marketing. Buy this whatchamacallit and you too can conquer K2, Everest or some remote peak in some far off land. So, it stands to reason that if you are using these countries as your backdrop, you are helping out there too? Hmmm. Well........

 

One big company with a real rep for saving the planet says in its guidelines for saving the planet grants it gives out “we fund work that takes place in countries in which we do business (United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Poland, Ireland, Austria, Spain, Scandinavia, Belgium, Korea, Japan, Chile and Argentina) Reads like a who’s who of environmental disaster zones to me.

 

Another big boy with a logo more famous that Mickey Dee did not seem to have any information on its web site about giving anything to anybody. Guess they don’t need that sort of promo anymore? I know they do though as they gave my clinic in Nepal about $10,000 a few years ago. I never met anyone from that company and no one ever called to ask what I did with the money, still it was quite nice of them.

 

Another biggie with a bunch of initials says it gives around $4,000,000 away each year. I checked and it does. All seems to go to US organizations though which struck me as odd. The same company has a travel business that offers to take you to Tanzania, Botswana, Nepal, and Peru to name just a few. You’d think they’d spend some money there?

 

So, this got me wondering, where does the money go? I can’t near account for what you’d expect from a $730 billion dollar industry but I found a few of the dollars. For starters, all charities with the first letter of their name being A did well. The top three choices by most of the big gear makers are charities that start with A.

 

One well-known A says it’s purpose in life is (take a deep breath, this is gonna take awhile) the promotion and dissemination of knowledge about the mountains and mountaineering in general as well as the cultivation of mountain craft, and the promotion of good fellowship among climbers; and the study of the high mountains of the world, the gathering of facts and the observation of phenomena pertaining to them, the production of a series of illustrated publications to present a complete description of the alpine mountains of the world; and the scientific exploration of high mountain elevations and of the regions lying within or about the Arctic and Antarctic circles; and the conservation and preservation of the mountain environment; and ---- well there are several ands. It all sounds good to me. I could use some more fellowship especially good fellowship. Lord knows my mountain craft needs updating. So, I decided to check this outfits tax return. As a public charity, they have to make it public you know. Wow, they have some money and a half. Over $8 million in assets. They take in around 2.2 million a year and pay out $315k in management, $145k for fundraising and spend about $1 million on programs. The programs are books and education (not quite $30k) (k means thousand) mountaineering research and library ($252k) and general support to expeditions and mountaineering related activities a whopping $700K.

 

The next A I looked into struck me as odd but they are on almost everyone's list to give money to. The mission is this. The _______ is a non-profit organization that seeks to represent the interest of American mountain guides by providing support, education, and standards. I had no idea those guides had it so bad they needed a nonprofit to give them a hand? I promise to pay my guide better next time, really. According to their tax return they take in around $492k a year and spend $400k of that on programs, $47k on fund raising and $80k on support services. Oh, about $220k seems to have been listed as payroll, just fyi. But the outdoor industry likes them, or so it seems.

 

The last A in the bunch may be the most productive. It’s hard to say for sure as I cannot locate their tax return. There is a brief posting on their web site that says that out of whatever they took in (around $1 million I’ve heard as a rumor only) they spent 15.5% on fund raising and admin, 49% on national policy, acquisitions & special programs, 22.5% on outreach and advocacy and 13% on something called general communications. These folks gave some money away as well. The guidelines to get money from though are very clear on one point; they will only fund projects inside the good old USA.

 

Seems like that good old USA is about the only place this $730 billion dollar a year industry wants it money to go. So when Raindawg tells me what he did, I have to wonder how typical that thinking is.

 

The gross national product of the US in 2000 was $10 trillion dollars. The GNP of Nepal is $42 million for 2006. Per capita GNP of the US is $38,000 per person as of 2000 the GNP per person of Nepal is $210.00 as of 2006. So, its pretty clear Nepal’s are not a likely market for all that outdoor gear. I wonder if that is why that $730 billion dollar industry invests little there.

 

Your thoughts?

 

And yes, my (OUR) tax return in right on my web site The Mountain Fund just click on the html version of the site, right there on the first page.

 

Oh, a footnote. Mountain Hardwear has been very good to us, without them I could not take the 20 medical people I will take this year to Nepal and Peru. Osprey and Montrail have also been very supportive. A special thanks is due Dan Mazur’s SummitClimb.

 

Edited May 8, 2007 by mtnfund

[sk]

i take it back i need to re read what you wrote.

 

are you saying someone is breaking a law or that you disagree with how they do business?

 

Edited May 8, 2007 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer

[Peter_Puget]

By "my tax return" do you mean the Mountain Fund 990?

[mtnfund]

No laws are broken. I may disagree but the point is do you? I am seeking your thoughts on this topic. Just looking for conversation about it. Your view equally valid to mine. Yes Peter Puget I mean The Mountain Fun 990, thanks for asking.

[Peter_Puget]

Honestly given the tone of your post I think calling the 990 "my tax return" is a bit disingenuous. Well not diingenuous but maybe a bit too much.

[mtnfund]

Explain that one oh sensitive one. Since I founded the org and give it most of its money, I think I earned the right to refer to it as mine. You are splitting some disingenuous hairs here, do you have a point, or was that somehow it?

[mtnfund]

In order that meaningful dialouge may occur on the merits of the conversation I hereby agree to call it "The Form 990 of the organization legally known as The Global Mountain Fund, Inc., but hereinafter for the purposes of these discussions known by all ye presents as The Mountain Fund" And no hard feelings Peter, that was a bit hardnose of me. Do I have a tone? The tone is meant to encourage discussion, as this is a discussion board is it not. The question posed to the group is a question, and as pointed out, not a statement of fact. It is an inquiry, so let us inquire then.

[olyclimber]

Honestly, I had the same impression as Peter Puget about "your tax return".

 

I'm sure you're an extremely generous person as you "founded the org and gave it most its money"...but why are we talking about you anyway? Isn't this about the Mountain Fund, which should be bigger than you are?

 

Getting back to the point of your post, I think that these are corporations investing in their consumers. Sure there are exceptions, but corporations are there to please the stockholders, and investing "donations" or tax write offs in local or in country concerns makes a difference their consumers can SEE.

 

How many of REI's customers think about traveling to Nepal but never do? A great percentage, I'm sure.

[Peter_Puget]

In order that meaningful dialouge may occur on the merits of the conversation I hereby agree to call it "The Form 990 of the organization legally known as The Global Mountain Fund, Inc., but hereinafter for the purposes of these discussions known by all ye presents as The Mountain Fund" And no hard feelings Peter, that was a bit hardnose of me. Do I have a tone? The tone is meant to encourage discussion, as this is a discussion board is it not. The question posed to the group is a question, and as pointed out, not a statement of fact. It is an inquiry, so let us inquire then.

 

 

Your tone is pompous and the manner in which you have structured your "question' screams for attention but I understand you want discussion on your terms so I will move on.

 

 

[mtnfund]

Agreed olyclimber, all points, so far anyway. What you say about investing where the stockholders and consumers can see is, or could be at least, a strong motivation. Consider this however. If your consumer and stockholder isn't going to travel to Nepal, for example, why so much use of that country and its mountains as the outdoor ideal to aspire to? Why not use Long's Peak, Wheeler Peak, Shasta or Rainier? This is where I suggest that something may be disingenuos. Are we being played for fools? Are these places only to be used to publish expedition logs that make the products look more enticing to us? If we are intended, as the advertising suggests, to pack up and go there, wouldn't we, the consumers, then SEE the investments being made? It's just a conversation.

[olyclimber]

They aren't in the business of altruism. They are in the business of selling outdoor products to people who can afford them. Anything else they do, they are doing for business reasons as well.

 

Nepal, Tibet,etc represents the "Extreme" that people might aspire to. They are mere ideas to the masses that don't visit them. Those ideas are powerful marketing tools.

 

Again, I'm not saying that all Outdoor Industry companies are like this. But I expect that many of the big ones that have to answer to shareholders are.

Edited May 8, 2007 by olyclimber

[mtnfund]

Olyclimber, I agree with you that they aren't in the business of altrusim. There is, I think, some real marketing effort to create the impression of it though. I am suggesting that some money-where-the-mouth-is practice may not be such a bad thing. And yes, you are correct that some do and I think do a great deal. I can't help but wonder though, back when Greg Mortensen started building schools in Pakistan if we (myself included) as an industry had put more stock in that practice if we'd live in a different world today. I don't mean this to be an "us or them" sort of discussion either. Mere ideas have power.

[mtnfund]

Peter Puget, sorry you feel that way. I edited the post to say OUR. I told you I agreed my first response was hard nosed. Yes I think my question does scream for attention. And so? Is there something wrong with an examination of the question. Is there a harm done by looking at it and having open and honest discourse about it? If so, what is that harm?

[bstach]

what does disingenuous mean?

 

I would like to go to Nepal and would like a gear company to send me money to do so. I will build a school or climb a big mountain when i am there.

[mtnfund]

So, here's a question. If the Acme Outdoor Company started building schools in Pakistan or schools in Nepal or health clinic for the families of porters in Peru, would people stop buying their products?

[Fairweather]

One of my favorites is a certain outdoor company that encourages us to boycott GM foods/products and write our representatives here in the US to encourage banning them altogether. I see the responsible development of genetically modified agricultural products as a way to help feed the very people for whom you claim advocacy. Are we still on the same page, sir? ...I didn't think so. Whose rules apply here?

 

The outdoor/travel industry is under no obligation to directly infuse the profits they realize into any particular region or cause. None. The fact that they help bring tourists to a given location who, in turn, spend money is enough. The myriad jobs they provide, from manufacturing to retail to travel to publishing - both here and abroad - are enough, IMO. But if the shareholders/members of company X or foundation A wish to distribute their profits in a non-traditional manner then all the better, of course! But being bullied or shamed to do so - or doing so and then being told "not enough!" is, at the very least, counterproductive. The word extortion comes to mind, but that is likely a bit too strong. I'll tell you what - if I ever gave you $10,000 and then read on some blog that my gift wasn't appreciated, it would be the last 10k you got outta me. Gift horse. Mouth. I'm sure your causes are worthy, but you do come across as ungrateful. If I had a big check to donate I would likely hand it to one of your underlings and request I be kept off of your mailing list. Try appealing to peoples hearts - not just their consciences. Seems to me you'll find more success. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

To your point, though: Outdoor Industry disingenuous? Absolutely. I sure roll my eyes when I hear their chest beating. But they're certainly not under any obligation to donate to you - or to have any organization like yours dictate the terms under which they'll be "allowed" to produce a profit or provide services in a given country. Last time I checked, Nepal peak fees were keeping up with market tolerances pretty well. If those $$ aren't going where they're needed then your issue is likely with the Nepalese govt?

Edited May 8, 2007 by Fairweather

[archenemy]

The outdoor/travel industry is under no obligation to directly infuse the profits they realize into any particular region or cause. None. The fact that they help bring tourists to a given location who, in turn, spend money is enough. The myriad jobs they provide, from manufacturing to retail to travel to publishing - both here and abroad - are enough, IMO. But if the shareholders/members of company X or foundation A wish to distribute their profits in a non-traditional manner then all the better, of course! But being bullied or shamed to do so - or doing so and then being told "not enough!" is, at the very least, counterproductive. The word extortion comes to mind, but that is likely a bit too strong. I'll tell you what - if I ever gave you $10,000 and then read on some blog that my gift wasn't appreciated, it would be the last 10k you got outta me. Gift horse. Mouth. I'm sure your causes are worthy, but you do come across as ungrateful. If I had a big check to donate I would likely hand it to one of your underlings and request I be kept off of your mailing list. Try appealing to peoples hearts - not just their consciences. Seems to me you'll find more success. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

 

To your point, though: Outdoor Industry disingenuous? Absolutely. I sure roll my eyes when I hear their chest beating. But they're certainly not under any obligation to donate to you - or to have any organization like yours dictate the terms under which they'll be "allowed" to produce a profit or provide services in a given country. Last time I checked, Nepal peak fees were keeping up with market tolerances pretty well. If those $$ aren't going where they're needed then your issue is likely with the Nepalese govt?

Well said.

[mtnfund]

To your point, though: Outdoor Industry disingenuous? Absolutely. I sure roll my eyes when I hear their chest beating. But they're certainly not under any obligation to donate to you - or to have any organization like yours dictate the terms under which they'll be "allowed" to produce a profit or provide services in a given country. Last time I checked, Nepal peak fees were keeping up with market tolerances pretty well. If those $$ aren't going where they're needed then your issue is likely with the Nepalese govt?

 

I didn't ask if they were under an obligation to donatne any money to any cause. No one is under an obligation to make donations to any cause at all. It is their money and they can do as they please with it. I am not suggesting there are terms under which they are allowed to make a profit. I've read Ayn Rand too. It's also not a question of shaming a company into doing anything. It's a question and a conversation intended to examine one aspect of the giving pratices: is it diningenuous (lacking in candor) to use impoverished mountainous countries as the backdrop for product sales and then not invest in those countries. I find it interesting that advertising photos abound with the products being used against a backdrop of some remote mountain range while seemingly, note that-seemingly, there is little interest in those places but for the photo ops. Is there an inconsistency of values in doing that? Much has been said about shareholder rights to direct profits and no one (at least I am not) is advocating otherwise. As a consumer, from whence all shareholder power is ultimately derived, should we examine such questions or just buy some stuff and not concern ourselves these matters?

[archenemy]

Although I agree with the Mountain Fund and its efforts, I have to admit that you really do come across as pompous. It's really a turn off. I mean, I'm a jerk and all, but shit, I am not running a non-profit that depends on the kindness and generosity of others. I do, however, budget in donations every year for causes I believe in. I believe your cause is a good one, but you fucking suck in the PR department.

 

How's that for open dialogue?

[TrogdortheBurninator]

Although I agree with the Mountain Fund and its efforts, I have to admit that you really do come across as pompous. It's really a turn off. I mean, I'm a jerk and all, but shit, I am not running a non-profit that depends on the kindness and generosity of others. I do, however, budget in donations every year for causes I believe in. I believe your cause is a good one, but you fucking suck in the PR department.

 

How's that for open dialogue?

 

I was about to write the same thing. If "YOUR" organization is run anything like your online persona suggests, you can pretty much count out any contributions from the likes of me in the near future. I'd imagine the majority of other readers who take the time to read your drivel would feel similar. If I were you I'd delete all of these posts and hope that not too many readers have seen them.

 

[sk]

i shop gear for the quality of the gear, not for any kind of donating to anythign they do. honestly they are a FOR PROFIT company and i want them to be focusing on making the best gear they can for the best price. if they chose to donate some of their profit to some worthy org. that's their deal. i donate localy money and goods when i see fit. i wont be shamed into giving more, or believing what you do mountain fund guy. I understand that you believe strongly in what you do. and i am glad for you. you should. but that isn't going to make me change my mind about how and when or where i donate my time and money. i feel that is a private decision.

[mtnfund]

Interesting points of view. A couple of weeks ago MF was questioned about supporting a group of American guides to go to Pakistan to teach women mountaineering skills. It was suggested that money shouldn't be spent on that but rather should go to providing basic needs for poor villagers. So I began to wonder, what do people value? All the cause-related marketing research indicates that the charitable activities of a company are important in making a buying decision. I wonder if that is true? Putting these questions out for discussion is an ongoing attempt to get at what is valued and what is true about cause-related marketing. I am still keenly curious about those questions. The personal attacks, well, whatever it is a free country. I am not certain why on one hand I was attacked for the personalization of a tax return, an admitted faux paux for which atonement was promptly offered, yet the discussion continues to focus on me, my personality, rather than the cause-related marketing question. Muffy's comments are helpful in understanding what matters and what does not. She is clear that her buying decisions are for the most part not influenced by corporate giving programs. She also states that she tends to give money locally. So that too is a useful piece of information as it indicates, in her case anyway, a preference for charity in local communities. If the trend were to hold that a majority favored local donations it would stand to reason that funding overseas work is not where support lies and that should be taken into consideration when determining how money ought to be spent. That's good insight to have. I don't think I should delete this and hope no one sees it. The purpose of discussion is to garner points of view. The points of view of this group on the matter of charitable giving (versus my personality) are valuable, to me anyway.

[archenemy]

Certainly you haven't learned anything new here about gear marketing/social marketing? Some people will care, some won't. Simple.

 

If I were you, I would value the takeaway of how my tone affects the group that I am trying to benefit from and give benefit to with my non-profit. Dismissing this input as "personal attacks" really misses the point.

 

My reason for sharing this is b/c I honestly believe non-profits are important--not only for whatever specific thing they support, but also because they allow all of us regular everyday people the opportunity to do something all human beings wish to do: to give.

 

I'd love to see your organization continue to thrive in whatever area it deems most valuable; and not to see it held back by weak PR.

[mtnfund]

Did it sound as if I were dismissing your comments? Sorry, I am not doing that. I am listening and quite sincerely to them. I get that you are sincere and offering up your best advice. I am making notes and taking it all to heart. Some people will care and some won't, that is very true. What they care about is important to discover though. Your advice is and opinions absolutely matter. Again, sorry if I came off as dismissive, not my intention at all.

[archenemy]

Did it sound as if I were dismissing your comments? Sorry, I am not doing that. I am listening and quite sincerely to them. I get that you are sincere and offering up your best advice. I am making notes and taking it all to heart. Some people will care and some won't, that is very true. What they care about is important to discover though. Your advice is and opinions absolutely matter. Again, sorry if I came off as dismissive, not my intention at all.

:tup:It's all good.