Do you think its kind of embarrassing for atomic to basically be salomons bitch and have to use salomons superior bindings...

@bradwalters might be able to speak on the k2 thing. But from what Ik I don’t think they share the same r&d team. There might be some tech shared but I don’t know for sure

Lots of false premises here. What is sad is that people think what you said, which is something Atomic should do a better job of communicating.

First off, all binding projects are a 50/50 split between Salomon and Atomic- budget, development, testing, production etc. is all shared.

Second, Atomic drives the development of the alpine race bindings. If you think the X binding looks like a Salomon you're high AF.

Third, if skis are expensive to make, boots are ridiculously expensive to make, then bindings are ludicrously expensive to make. Bindings are so cost prohibitive that brands have to come together to develop & make them. This is why you don't see every ski company with their own binding company.

Lastly, there are more bindings produced with "Atomic" written on them than "Salomon".

You're coming at this from a weird, agro angle. How did you get from "large companies own multiple brands that do similar things" to brands being each other's "bitch"? I feel like every thread you make you're trying to find a reason to "call out" brands for something absurd and meaningless. Are you embarrassed for Armada because they sell a rebranded Shift? In what world are Salomon and Atomic "bitter rivals"? This is the ski industry, not Succession.

Everybody but the indies is in bed with everyone else. And the indies are in bed with big brands for bindings, and in bed with each other for bulk materials orders. It's one big orgy in the ski industry, and that's part of what makes it awesome.

Like, Rossi, Dynastar, Look, Lange are all under one corp, but Look licenses Dynafit bindings and rebrands them. That's how it goes. Does that make Look (gasp!) Dynafit's "bitch"!?!

ATK bindings are available rebranded from three (maybe four?) US brands, all with different names and some slightly different feature sets. That's how international trade works in the ski industry right now.

You answered your own question in the nearly indecipherable paragraph about Volkl and Line. Those brands all exist under the same roof and fill different roles. Line's customer base does not care that Line does not make FIS skis. Volkl's customer base does not care that Volkl does not sponsor the Traveling Circus. What "secrets" do you imagine Volkl donating to Line? Why is FIS the end-all-be-all of ski excellence for you?

To your last question, because they make different skis! People who want V-Werks Katanas aren't trying to decide between expensive carbon touring skis and Afterbangs.

The sad thing is that morons think Dolan knows what he's talking about.

WoFlowz@bradwalters might be able to speak on the k2 thing. But from what Ik I don’t think they share the same r&d team. There might be some tech shared but I don’t know for sure

I can help with this a little bit....

First off....Jarden does not own K2/Line anymore or Volkl/Marker/Dalbello for that matter. We are owned by a larger company but it's not them anymore. I've been here almost 3 years now and I haven't worked for that regime so that info is a bit dated. Even with the new company, I have yet to even meet anyone from the ownership team so really it doesn't really effect any of us or our decisions on the day to day. While I am a director here at K2 I do not sit on the executive team so maybe my answer would vary if I was in those conversations. Bottom line is that we have to perform and sell products but isn't that the goal of any company?

I'll also clear up some other stuff...Volkl/Marker/Dalbello are not operated out of the same office as us up here in Washington. In house we have K2/Line/Fulltilt (and some others that are not applicable to the conversation here) but I couldn't even tell you one person who works for Volkl/Marker/Dalbello that isn't on an executive level and I doubt that i'll ever know. I believe that they are based on the east coast but again, I really couldn't tell you. I see their products when they are released to the markets like the rest of you and we do not share any secrets. They have their own set of designers, engineers, leadership team, everything. The only time we really cross over is when we have bindings on our system skis. We always use Marker and we recommend Marker products on our other skis that we sell.

In regards to things that I can actually speak on which is the working dynamics of the companies that work in the same office as me....

To be perfectly honest...ever though we are in the same building we keep things pretty separate. Sure there are some crossover conversations and some of the engineers work on product for all the brands but we all know and respect the fact that the brands need their own DNA and have their own customer base. We're all friends and ski together when we can but we really let the brands operate on their own. We all have our own private areas of the office where each brand keeps their "secrets" and we really only share select things with one another until the collections are finished. To give example...I just wrapped the product design for 2022 and yesterday was the first time the guys at the Line/Ft side saw the offering. They are also done with their collections so we basically give eachother a preview of what we're doing. Again, no shade to eachother we just want the collections to be different.

Hope that helps clear the question up a little bit.

“How does a parent company own 2 companies that are bitter rivals?”

Brother I’m not sure you understand the fundamental goal of parent companies.

P&G owns Gain and Tide, Pantene and Herbal Essences
Luxottica owns Ray Bans and Persol (and literally every other eyewear brand)
Enterprise owns Alamo Enterprise and National
Nestle owns Purina and Friskies and fancy feast

The entire purpose of parent companies is to manage competitive brands under the same portfolio...

Awelterego“How does a parent company own 2 companies that are bitter rivals?”

Brother I’m not sure you understand the fundamental goal of parent companies.

P&G owns Gain and Tide, Pantene and Herbal Essences
Luxottica owns Ray Bans and Persol (and literally every other eyewear brand)
Enterprise owns Alamo Enterprise and National
Nestle owns Purina and Friskies and fancy feast

The entire purpose of parent companies is to manage competitive brands under the same portfolio...

Exactly. Shared resources through manufacturing and industry know how is the name of the game with parent companies.

Awelterego“How does a parent company own 2 companies that are bitter rivals?”

Brother I’m not sure you understand the fundamental goal of parent companies.

P&G owns Gain and Tide, Pantene and Herbal Essences
Luxottica owns Ray Bans and Persol (and literally every other eyewear brand)
Enterprise owns Alamo Enterprise and National
Nestle owns Purina and Friskies and fancy feast

The entire purpose of parent companies is to manage competitive brands under the same portfolio...

I don't know if this could be a good example, but it's like Instagram and Facebook: they're both owned by Facebook group but, even if they both have stories feature, they're pretty different and they've been created for a different types of users.

Does this mean that you know someone willing to sell some first edition Seth Pistols?

cydwhitYou're coming at this from a weird, agro angle. How did you get from "large companies own multiple brands that do similar things" to brands being each other's "bitch"? I feel like every thread you make you're trying to find a reason to "call out" brands for something absurd and meaningless. Are you embarrassed for Armada because they sell a rebranded Shift? In what world are Salomon and Atomic "bitter rivals"? This is the ski industry, not Succession.

Everybody but the indies is in bed with everyone else. And the indies are in bed with big brands for bindings, and in bed with each other for bulk materials orders. It's one big orgy in the ski industry, and that's part of what makes it awesome.

Like, Rossi, Dynastar, Look, Lange are all under one corp, but Look licenses Dynafit bindings and rebrands them. That's how it goes. Does that make Look (gasp!) Dynafit's "bitch"!?!

ATK bindings are available rebranded from three (maybe four?) US brands, all with different names and some slightly different feature sets. That's how international trade works in the ski industry right now.

You answered your own question in the nearly indecipherable paragraph about Volkl and Line. Those brands all exist under the same roof and fill different roles. Line's customer base does not care that Line does not make FIS skis. Volkl's customer base does not care that Volkl does not sponsor the Traveling Circus. What "secrets" do you imagine Volkl donating to Line? Why is FIS the end-all-be-all of ski excellence for you?

To your last question, because they make different skis! People who want V-Werks Katanas aren't trying to decide between expensive carbon touring skis and Afterbangs.

DolansLebensraumAnd line, by themselves make good skis

uhhhh thats gonna be a no from me dawg

onenerdykidLots of false premises here. What is sad is that people think what you said, which is something Atomic should do a better job of communicating.

First off, all binding projects are a 50/50 split between Salomon and Atomic- budget, development, testing, production etc. is all shared.

Second, Atomic drives the development of the alpine race bindings. If you think the X binding looks like a Salomon you're high AF.

Third, if skis are expensive to make, boots are ridiculously expensive to make, then bindings are ludicrously expensive to make. Bindings are so cost prohibitive that brands have to come together to develop & make them. This is why you don't see every ski company with their own binding company.

Lastly, there are more bindings produced with "Atomic" written on them than "Salomon".

If bindings are so expensive to make why are attack 13s literally like 130$? Are they losing money hand over fist except when they premount tyrolias on head skis and sell the package?

cydwhitYou're coming at this from a weird, agro angle. How did you get from "large companies own multiple brands that do similar things" to brands being each other's "bitch"? I feel like every thread you make you're trying to find a reason to "call out" brands for something absurd and meaningless. Are you embarrassed for Armada because they sell a rebranded Shift? In what world are Salomon and Atomic "bitter rivals"? This is the ski industry, not Succession.

Everybody but the indies is in bed with everyone else. And the indies are in bed with big brands for bindings, and in bed with each other for bulk materials orders. It's one big orgy in the ski industry, and that's part of what makes it awesome.

Like, Rossi, Dynastar, Look, Lange are all under one corp, but Look licenses Dynafit bindings and rebrands them. That's how it goes. Does that make Look (gasp!) Dynafit's "bitch"!?!

ATK bindings are available rebranded from three (maybe four?) US brands, all with different names and some slightly different feature sets. That's how international trade works in the ski industry right now.

You answered your own question in the nearly indecipherable paragraph about Volkl and Line. Those brands all exist under the same roof and fill different roles. Line's customer base does not care that Line does not make FIS skis. Volkl's customer base does not care that Volkl does not sponsor the Traveling Circus. What "secrets" do you imagine Volkl donating to Line? Why is FIS the end-all-be-all of ski excellence for you?

To your last question, because they make different skis! People who want V-Werks Katanas aren't trying to decide between expensive carbon touring skis and Afterbangs.

FIS is so competitive that innovations that make a ski truly perform better are heavily rewarded. Imagine if formula 1 cars were sold to the public. Every jet setter dbag would then be buying whichever brand of f1 car won the championship That yr. And yes i know FIS skis are a little different than those sold to jerries but not much different. If hirscher had ridden head for the past decade head probably would have sold another billion $ worth of skis over the same period. Race marketing is huge biz in europe. If you dont believe me go to a hotel in any country in or near the alps and turn on the television. Skiing in ch, at, de, fr, and it, is like a religion.

SessionThe sad thing is that morons think Dolan knows what he's talking about.

Hey my fans on ns are ballers. Im the moron.

shin-banguhhhh thats gonna be a no from me dawg

haha. I was being nice but i am not really a fan of line skis either.

bradwaltersI can help with this a little bit....

First off....Jarden does not own K2/Line anymore or Volkl/Marker/Dalbello for that matter. We are owned by a larger company but it's not them anymore. I've been here almost 3 years now and I haven't worked for that regime so that info is a bit dated. Even with the new company, I have yet to even meet anyone from the ownership team so really it doesn't really effect any of us or our decisions on the day to day. While I am a director here at K2 I do not sit on the executive team so maybe my answer would vary if I was in those conversations. Bottom line is that we have to perform and sell products but isn't that the goal of any company?

I'll also clear up some other stuff...Volkl/Marker/Dalbello are not operated out of the same office as us up here in Washington. In house we have K2/Line/Fulltilt (and some others that are not applicable to the conversation here) but I couldn't even tell you one person who works for Volkl/Marker/Dalbello that isn't on an executive level and I doubt that i'll ever know. I believe that they are based on the east coast but again, I really couldn't tell you. I see their products when they are released to the markets like the rest of you and we do not share any secrets. They have their own set of designers, engineers, leadership team, everything. The only time we really cross over is when we have bindings on our system skis. We always use Marker and we recommend Marker products on our other skis that we sell.

In regards to things that I can actually speak on which is the working dynamics of the companies that work in the same office as me....

To be perfectly honest...ever though we are in the same building we keep things pretty separate. Sure there are some crossover conversations and some of the engineers work on product for all the brands but we all know and respect the fact that the brands need their own DNA and have their own customer base. We're all friends and ski together when we can but we really let the brands operate on their own. We all have our own private areas of the office where each brand keeps their "secrets" and we really only share select things with one another until the collections are finished. To give example...I just wrapped the product design for 2022 and yesterday was the first time the guys at the Line/Ft side saw the offering. They are also done with their collections so we basically give eachother a preview of what we're doing. Again, no shade to eachother we just want the collections to be different.

Hope that helps clear the question up a little bit.

If things are so separate tho then why doesnt head/tyrolia tell fischer and elan to fuck off and buy head/tyr bindings with the head or tyrolia logo on them? If every binding made either said dynafit/dynastar or salomon or head, wouldnt that tell the customer that those companies were the most serious ski companies out there and give them more referred sales because of that image?

or do the binding companies like bleed the living shit out of rebranding companies when they allow them to rebrand?

thanks for you guys’ posts tho. Its interesting to see even some disagreement in this thread as to how much in house companies keep their shit secret.

DolansLebensraumIf bindings are so expensive to make why are attack 13s literally like 130$? Are they losing money hand over fist except when they premount tyrolias on head skis and sell the package?

It's more the cost of creating all of the molds and creating the production line itself, which is just as expensive as the molds. Brands are generally looking at spending 1.5 million Euros in set up costs before they even make anything, which is insane for our oddly small industry. That cost is amortized over many years and it's why it takes a long time before you see a new version of any binding. Binding platforms usually run 10 years (or even longer) before they are changed.

onenerdykidIt's more the cost of creating all of the molds and creating the production line itself, which is just as expensive as the molds. Brands are generally looking at spending 1.5 million Euros in set up costs before they even make anything, which is insane for our oddly small industry. That cost is amortized over many years and it's why it takes a long time before you see a new version of any binding. Binding platforms usually run 10 years (or even longer) before they are changed.

Don't forget certifications too! I work in a different industry, but we have to certify products to ISO standards and it's an expensive pain of a process. Once we have those certs, we'll do everything we can to keep that platform the same for as long as possible. If we change it, it requires recertification.

I can't speak for binding manufacturers, but I imagine it's a similar experience. Once a binding gets its DIN ISO certs, a brand would want to hold onto that as long as possible.

DolansLebensraumIf things are so separate tho then why doesnt head/tyrolia tell fischer and elan to fuck off and buy head/tyr bindings with the head or tyrolia logo on them? If every binding made either said dynafit/dynastar or salomon or head, wouldnt that tell the customer that those companies were the most serious ski companies out there and give them more referred sales because of that image?

or do the binding companies like bleed the living shit out of rebranding companies when they allow them to rebrand?

thanks for you guys’ posts tho. Its interesting to see even some disagreement in this thread as to how much in house companies keep their shit secret.

I don’t really know what Head/Tyrolia do but I’m guessing it’s a general customer know how thing. We have to remember that compared to most people who ski we as a “community” here on NS know a great deal more about product than the average consumer. I’m guessing that the simply rebrand the items to keep a consistent look and branding on the product and to not confuse a customer? That is strictly a guess though.

The furthest we go at K2 with rebranding bindings is to mess with colors and some window graphics on the binding. I’m sure it would be a different conversation though if Marker made skis. Then I could see is putting a K2 logo on there just to not confuse the consumer.

I dont think the parent company is like super involved or whatever they probabaly let the brand do their own thing and do thier own r and d and sharing bindings isnt that big of a deal

Chrischi69I dont think the parent company is like super involved or whatever they probabaly let the brand do their own thing and do thier own r and d and sharing bindings isnt that big of a deal

Basically how it works:



Someone comes up with a cool idea for skiing
Has very little to no idea exactly how to run a company, and has enormous orders coming in they suddenly don't know how to deal with
Puts it on loans, lines of credit, whatever they can do to pay for production
Next year, same thing, dealt with a little better, more debt, repeat X10
Finally, company is struggling under the weight of debt
In comes capitalist investor to streamline things and insert big wad of cash for the low price of majority shareholder in the company
Company runs more smoothly, actually makes some money
Even larger investor (COUGH COUGH AMER SPORTS COUGH COUGH) comes in and buys out the previous majority shareholder, and makes the bulk of the money from the brand



And thus, the pyramid of big investor, small fish continues with the people who actually make the products earning a living wage, but not that much money and big investor company earning the lion's share of the profits.

BigPurpleSkiSuitEven larger investor (COUGH COUGH AMER SPORTS COUGH COUGH) comes in and buys out the previous majority shareholder, and makes the bulk of the money from the brand

That's not false, but to Amer's credit they invest a huge amount of money back into the brands. It's pretty rad that I get to spend about a million Euros a year on boot projects.

I know, its a necessary thing for our sport

onenerdykidThat's not false, but to Amer's credit they invest a huge amount of money back into the brands. It's pretty rad that I get to spend about a million Euros a year on boot projects.

***Amer sports has entered the chat***