Funny Backpacker Magazine qoute.

[hammock engineer]

I recieved a sample Backpacker in the mail. Something to try to get me to subscribe to it. I know how everyone here loves them, so I thought I would share this with you.

"POPQUIZ

Are you an ultralight wanker? You should stop counting ounces and get out hiking if you trim your map edges or remove product labels. We urge you to save your sanity instead of another .036 ounces.?"

Does this mean that weight doesn't mater, or is that the mentality to my base pack weight getting below 20 pounds?

[Tinker]

I wrote them a letter and had my subscription cancelled when they started advertising Honda OFF ROAD motorcycles, both in their written pages and their website.
It seems that they're only interested in the almighty $ anymore.
Lightening up your pack often means buying cottage industry cutting edge UL gear, or making your own, neither of which puts money into the back pocket of Backpacker. The big advertising bucks are spent by the gear manufacturers unwilling, for liability reasons (and returns by unrealistic gear users) to make ultralight gear. It's understandable, but unfortunate.
Off road motorcycle ads in a hiking mag. are akin to Omaha Steak ads in Vegetarian Times.

Btw: I own and ride an old Honda street bike. I have no problem with environmentally friendly transportation ads appearing in an outdoor mag.

[Crash]

Backpacker Editors just don't get it.

How many articles on hammock camping and reviews have you seen in their Mag? they tell me they are reviewing hammocks but you know they won't really do it. it would offend their big advertizers.
I complained when they had a whole mag without any trees in any of the pictures!!
They show that backpacking is 'peak-bagging' and going to all the hot spots.
They go for the views but they are very short sighted.
How many of them log on to White Blaze to see what the real world is doing?

Pg 55 of the Feb 2006 issue has Reader Poll: "Luxuries you rarely pack: # 8: a Hammock"...........................
Since when did my HH become a luxury??

Luckily, to be a real backpacker you don't have to follow that Mag's way.
Yes I do have a subscription to it (a holiday gift).

Be a White Blazer and be true to yourself.

[Doctari]

Backpacker has totally lost touch with (hiking) reality. I agree that if given the choice in spending the time trimming your map edges & actually hiking, you are probably better off just hiking, but judging from my copy of that "sample" I have to agree with Tinker. The almighty $$$ is the driving force with Backpacker now. I let my subscription go after a 5 page with glossy pictures & a 2 page map article on hiking in, , , , , , , Downtown San Fran Sisco. Also in that issue: 5 (FIVE!!) half page adds for SUVs, 2 for off road motorcycles/ATVs & alot of other CRAP not even remotly related to self propelled travel.


BTW, Backpacker knows my feelings on this, not surprisingly, they didn't respond to my letter. I still have several old issues, from back when hiking was top dog & ads were a means to support backpacking. I read them from time to time, great stuff. Now, Backpacking is a 4th class citizen & MONEY isn't top dog, it's the only dog in the yard.

This is company wide at Rodell press, owners of Backpacker mag & several others. $$$$ first, (topic) if we really have to.


Doctari.

[Tha Wookie]

wanker?

They just want to sell more advertisements.

The lightweight DIY movement does Backpacker Magazine no good.

They sound scared to me.

[halibut15]

I agree that Backpacker is turning into an "all for the money" magazine and ignoring real trends and issues in backpacking, AND I'm all for ultralight backpacking, but you've gotta admit, that quote was pretty dang funny. As it can be with anything, some people do tend to go a tad bit overboard lose sight of why they're going out into the woods in the first place.

[Tha Wookie]

Or.... could it have been an inside reference to the lightweight gear tester "Wanchor"?

[Mags]

Luckily, to be a real backpacker you don't have to follow that Mag's way.

But this Mags' way ain't that much better some would argue.

[hammock engineer]

Backpacker Editors just don't get it.

How many articles on hammock camping and reviews have you seen in their Mag? they tell me they are reviewing hammocks but you know they won't really do it. it would offend their big advertizers.
I complained when they had a whole mag without any trees in any of the pictures!!
They show that backpacking is 'peak-bagging' and going to all the hot spots.
They go for the views but they are very short sighted.
How many of them log on to White Blaze to see what the real world is doing?

Pg 55 of the Feb 2006 issue has Reader Poll: "Luxuries you rarely pack: # 8: a Hammock"...........................
Since when did my HH become a luxury??

Luckily, to be a real backpacker you don't have to follow that Mag's way.
Yes I do have a subscription to it (a holiday gift).

Be a White Blazer and be true to yourself.

I agree on the hammock and luxury thing. I don't think my back would hold up to a thru without mine.

I went in to my local outfitter yesterday to check out the granite gear vapor trail pack. The people working there thought it was way to small to take on a thru. They also thought I would need more than 20lbs of gear. Maybe, maybe not, but I'll find out on the trail.

I also thought it strange that when I was talking about my gear (I am going to bring it in sometime and load the pack out to test it), that they never heard of the HH. I guess tents make more money for them.

[soccersoldier13]

Instead of worrying about what this magazine says or any other for that matter, shouldn't you be getting out and enjoying what you believe the magazine is failing to represent. Who cares what someone else writes, it's their opinion. I can also say that I think ultra-light fanatics are truly missing the point of what backpacking stands for. While packing within reason, it seems that the extreme ultra-lighters are taking the easy way out, trying to prove their manhood, instead of encompassing what the challenge and enjoyment of backpacking is all about.

[Whistler]

...it seems that the extreme ultra-lighters are taking the easy way out, trying to prove their manhood, instead of encompassing what the challenge and enjoyment of backpacking is all about.

Which is...?

Back on topic, it's not just Backpacker that sucks. Backpacker ain't what it used to was, but if you look at the rest of the magazine rack, I think you'll find that most mags these days are thin on content. Plenty of hype, though. There are probably less than a dozen magazines worth paying for.

-Mark

[Just Jeff]

Wear it like a badge of honor. WANKERS UNITE!

[bulldog49]

Which is...?

Back on topic, it's not just Backpacker that sucks. Backpacker ain't what it used to was, but if you look at the rest of the magazine rack, I think you'll find that most mags these days are thin on content. Plenty of hype, though. There are probably less than a dozen magazines worth paying for.

-Mark

I agree. It's the lack of content in Backpacker that caused me to not renew my subscription.

I don't really care who places an ad in the magazine. They are a for profit business and have the right to sell ads to anyone who wants to pay. I look at it from the standpoint those advertisers are subsidizing me by keeping the price of the magazine down.

[Toolshed]

Backpacker Editors just don't get it....

I think they do get it. Rodale isn't a cottage industry and neither is backpacking. Yes, Backpacker has changed from the first issues, which were more content than advertisement, but then while the first issues were a "cottage industry" it has gone mainstream.

How many felt alienated when Joy Division became New Order and went mainstream with widespread Radio Play?

As the masses descend on cutting edge "cottage industries" it becomes mainstream and those that felt "on the edge" usually now feel alienatd or disgruntled.

I have been reading BP for many many years and I understand it is not oriented to me. It hasn't been oriented to me in at least 15 years, but it is a great magazine in general. Are they wrong for choosing a target audience that doesn't include you?? Or perhaps it does. Do you still buy it and gripe about it?

Simply put, If they can't market to the masses, then they cannot turn a profit and will fold - you want them to have content based on your needs and there are very few of "you" out there.

Of course, with all the competition from all of the cottage industry magazines out there that market to the 4-5000 ultalighters, they might just fold anyways.

It will be 10-15 years from now, but I am sure that many of these utlralight companies will probably be bought out or merged into larger "mainstream" companies, or perhaps there will be a new mega ultralightweight Company that buys them all up. But it will become mainstream and there will be a whole new backpacking fad out there and we will scratch our heads and say -What's wrong with old-fashioned ultralight??

Interestingly enough, I do think that even the ultralight companies are becoming more mainstream in order to satisfy more consumers and (gasp) make more money. I see more ultralight tents and tarps out there getting heavier as the manufacturers add back the feautres that were originally cut out for the minimalists - Floors, storm doors, windows, vents, more mesh, more poles (but in different configurations).

[hungryhowie]

I agree. It's the lack of content in Backpacker that caused me to not renew my subscription.

I don't really care who places an ad in the magazine. They are a for profit business and have the right to sell ads to anyone who wants to pay. I look at it from the standpoint those advertisers are subsidizing me by keeping the price of the magazine down.

You're right. They can sell adds to whomever they want. It is the advertisements they CHOOSE to run that determine their character, however. A magazine with a circulation like backpacker has fairly good pickings about what they can run (and charge). There are clearly things advertised in the magazine that have little to do with backpacking and/or backpackers, but there are also some touchier subjects that do have something to do with us; i.e. SUVs.

When was the last time you were at a remote trailhead that wasn't littered with trucks and SUVs? I'd bet that a great percentage of avid outdoorsmen (and outdoorswomen) own an SUV-like vehicle for getting to their destinations. So to imply that those things aren't relevant to backpackers isn't necesarily correct.

You've got to understand that thru-hiking is a niche, and that if "real backpacking" is defined by the masses, than the magazine does a fair job of displaying that. The vast majority of backpackers out there are weekend warriors who break away from their career/family no more than 2 weeks per year...and that's who the magazine is catering to. Most of these folks haven't the experience to know about alternative types of gear. Hell, they hardly have enough time in the woods to know how to set up their 5-year old tent.

So of course it seems ludicrous to those of us who are lucky enough to spend 6-months in the woods refining our systems to a science. Of course it seems ludicrous to us to see articles about backpacking in downtown San Francisco when we spend half of the year wandering aimlessly through the woods watching for a path and 2" x 6" blazes. But we're a minority...a very very small minority...and we're not their target audience. So while we keep kicking this dead horse about how backpacker has fallen to the almighty $$$ over and over and over and over again...it's really quite safe to say that they're not talking to you. If you don't like it...don't read it. And consider yourself lucky that you get to spend so much time out in the woods. Enjoy it.

For myself, it's almost been 6 years since I hiked the trail (god, it feels like just yesterday). But that hike did so much for me. Recently, I moved to a large city on the west coast within driving distance of some really really neat stuff. On a day off, I can go to the olympic peninsula. I can go to the cascades. I can climb volcanos or explore temperate rainforests. I can go skiing surfing or kayaking. So no, I can't spend six months in the woods anymore...but I do get out about twice a month...which has been great for my soul...not that anyone cares or anything. Look, just do what makes you happy.

-Howie

[Tha Wookie]

Howie,

Although I agree with your post generally, this case actually has Backpacker calling lightweight hikers names ("wankers").

Hardly an honorable publication for one that is supposed to be an authority on the topic. That kind of tactic is another example of alienating its audience. Notice that the person who started the thread read it, hence he is the audience.

[Mags]

Food for thought in any case. I posted this link recently.


http://www.mountaingazette.com/art.p...ate=2004-10-01

[RockyTrail]

It's worse than you thought.
Look up the definition of "wanker"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker

[D'Artagnan]

Haven't seen the magazine article in question, but is it possible the original post here should have read "WALKER" instead of "WANKER"? Wanker is kind of an obscure word.

In any event, call me a Wanker or whatever you like. At the end of the day, carrying fewer pounds makes my legs and feet a whole lot happier. Wank on! (Or should that be Wank OFF???)

[Crash]

Instead of worrying about what this magazine says or any other for that matter, shouldn't you be getting out and enjoying what you believe the magazine is failing to represent. Who cares what someone else writes, it's their opinion. I can also say that I think ultra-light fanatics are truly missing the point of what backpacking stands for. While packing within reason, it seems that the extreme ultra-lighters are taking the easy way out, trying to prove their manhood, instead of encompassing what the challenge and enjoyment of backpacking is all about.

the problem is that some potential backpacker is going to use that Mag to get vital info and have a really crappy time out there on the trail.
We then lose another potential backpacker.
That's why I care.
No, I'm not a utralight fanatic, but a lot of what the Mag preaches makes FORMER backpackers out of a lot of people. And it keeps a lot out of people the woods who might go but don't because they don't have thousands of $$$ tied up to that gear.