Bacpacker Magazine award to Big Sky

Donna:

Folks have been so aggravated by BS' delivery issues that repairs/after-sales services are rarely if ever discussed. But even here, there is a track record to go by (i.e. something more than just Bob Molen statements).

BS has no facility whatsoever in the US to handle repairs of any kind. If Bob Molen can sew, he hasn't shared that with anyone. In my email exchanges with a BS Evolution tester at backpackgeartest.org — the tester mentioned that when two guyout points ripped from his tent, the response he got from Bob Molen was to have the repair done locally — then submit a receipt for reimbursement. That tester did as he was told — but never got any reimbursement from BS.

So, for those of you lucky enough to receive your tents — make sure you recognize that as terrific tents as they are, they are also UL tents and need to be cared for as such. If they get damaged, you need to know that you are completely on your own — both in terms of finding a repairer and paying for the repair yourselves.

Kristen,
now that many folks have weighed in over several days on the subject of BS and there is no question today regarding BPM’s knowledge of the nature of the business practices of BS, the question remains of how BPM is going to handle this. I believe, as a subscriber to BPM, that your credibility hinges on how you react to your knowledge of this companie's business practices. You have given your seal of approval to it’s practice with respect to delivery by your mention of delivery in short time from ordering the tent inferring that customers will have no problems either. By the way, did BPM make a traditional order where you paid via credit card or did you even have to pay for this tent? There are folks who will be ordering from BS who probably would not if they were acquainted with this thread. If you and your publisher let this stand you may mislead readers into making a purchasing decision that they may be sorry for later. As a suggestion, you, BPM and BS might want to demonstrate your bona fides by publishing an address where the owner of the BS can be reached during regular business hours for service of process.

It's not that the factory(s) in China can't produce the tents in question Donna; it's what happened to them when they did produce them?

Let me recite a tale here for folks to get a taste of what Chinese factories can do to a product….

I have a friend who is a business associate from a few years back who has hired 2 factories in China to build 2 separate items. The one factory was/is supposed to be building sailboats in the 25-35ft range; easy enough you'd think since my friend who's a well studied engineer gave the factories everything but the labor to build the boats! Nope, the factory took it upon themselves to use a cheaper resin in the f'glass, different f'glass materials, different ballast(instead of solid lead they mixed it with concrete! changing the density of the ballast!), they used substandard paint inside the boats.

My friend went back over after the first dozen 25fters' were 'ready' and thought everything looked ok…..until he nearly died trying one out on the water!! When he got back to the dock, he had the boat hauled and got it weighed. It was almost 1/3rd heavier than spec, and comensurately slower on the water, and very unstable in wind gusts. Next he cut the boat up in the shop, found the concrete ballast mix; found the empty barrels of unspec'd resin, found cheaper wiring, ad infinatum!!

He ended up having to scrap what amounted to $100k US in boats, and made the factory eat them financially, as he refused to pay for inferior work. the response from the factory was that they tried to save money buying 'similiar' materials, but not what was ordered…..After 1 year of aggravation with that place, he went out and found another factory. By the way, the first place tried to sell those bad boats off to unsuspecting nationals under a different name!!

All I'm saying is that if Bob ran into this type of scenario he should have been up front about it with customers. Not that he did, but if I spent as much time in 'Asia' as he did last year i could've learned to sew and sewed all I had pre-sold!……So many kite factories over there, so little effort by Bob to get them to make his tents.

Gene:

The turnaround time for tents is much quicker than a boat. I don't pretend to know Bob's sourcing problems, but countless other companies source from China, Vietnam, etc. — and yet — Bob Molen is the ONLY ONE that:

o collected money upfront,
o delivered with a 14-month delay, and
o continued to be evasive with his communication.

Hi Kristin,

Could you set yourself up for Private Messaging? (Click My Account above.) I'd love to send you some feedback about your magazine, Big Sky and the Gear Guide.

Thanks!
Brian

I don't understand why you put Backpacker on such a high pedestal. Backpacker has always sucked up to players.

Gene, I'm sorry, I was not taking you to task. There was no need to edit your post. I was feeling guilty about my own post and trying to prevent it from hijacking the thread. I hope you don't feel I'm picking on you, because I was really attempting to commiserated with you.

I can understand Backpacker's choice: the Big Sky tents fit into the comfortable norm for the Backpacker readership in what a tent should look like, but also sheds weight.
This is probably what attracted many of you to the tent as well.
So the question is, is Backpacker responsible for reporting on the company in the gear guide, or just the gear?
I don't claim to know the answer, but I also don't think it should be assumed that a "gear of the year" blurb (not a multi-page story on the tent) should go beyond the gear itself.
(I'm going to duck now)

Well I was going to email it straight to the BPM editor, but chances are (as in all dogmatic and emotion-containing discussions) she won't find it insightful anyway. Maybe someone here can get more value from my ramblings.

PJ, thank you and I'll respond to you tomorrow.

Brian

Hi Kristin,

I'm writing to give you some feedback on the Award you recently gave to Big Sky products for their tents, and about your publication in general. Please not that I realize that you have been "away" for 4 years, so when I say "your magazine" I mean it in the grand sense, as in "the magazine of which you are now the Gear Editor."

As you have probably gathered by reading in forums around the internet, your magazine's credibility comes into question by some when equipment is reviewed with an eye to functionality and purchase-worthiness, full stop. Your review style seems to start and end with what works and what doesn't, rather than looking at a product from a whole-experience perspective such as customer service and most importantly (I feel) whether the style or type of item is worth packing at all.

My primary example is the current Big Sky Tents debacle. I tell you honestly that your magazine came across like they might be shareholders or family relations of the founder of Big Sky when you actually granted them a prominent award in their highest-circulation issue of the year! This was despite the fact that Big Sky seem to be the Worldcom of cottage manufacturing. (Remember, even Enron delivered *some* electricity!) After reading nightmare stories about Big Sky for more than a year, I was surprised that Backpacker is so far removed from the Backpacking community that they would give the company an award and stimulate hundreds or thousands of orders placed based solely on that recommendation! Many of the people who were -and will be- stiffed by Big Sky are your readers, after all.

On the subject of gear selection, many are surprised by your frequent reprinting of popular and long-discredited myths to recommend gear that is coincidentally-or-not made by advertisers. On the subject of canister fuel versus white gas, for instance, you stated as late as 2002 that white gas is "efficient" and "good for long trips" in comparison to canister fuel.

http://www.backpacker.com/gear/article/0,1023,3805,00.html

By 2002, Backpacker had still not weighed its' fuel tanks before and after cooking to find out that it takes roughly twice as much liquid as canister fuel to cook the same meal? Many find it hard to believe. Learning how much fuel it takes to cook a meal is Backpacking 101, and canister fuel had been on the market for decades by the time you published that "review." In fact, the efficiency of canister fuel has been common knowledge in the climbing community since climbers finally retired the Optimus SVEA 123 in the 80's as their standard stove. Yet you guys are still pushing white gas and Expedition stoves to unsuspecting beginning backpackers?

I submit to you that the only user who benefits from a jet-engine-noisy, very heavy, very expensive 16.5oz Primus Omnifuel does not learn out about it in the pages of Backpacker Magazine. He or she is climbing Everest or trekking to the Poles, and already knows which available stoves will burn Diesel and Jet Fuel. Hocking $150 1-lb AvGas burning Expedition stoves to neophytes under the guise of the advantageous "efficient" white gas option is not what some would call good journalism.

It also seems telling that the "centres" on your website ("waterproofing centre", "sleeping bag centre") actually use the logos and marketing material of your sponsors as their logos, headers, and infographics. If your purpose is to review products and technique and provide the resulting information to readers, does it not come across as a mild conflict of interest when your reviews are actually branded by a manufacturer? It would be akin to a dentist who wears an "Aquafresh" labcoat and drives a "Listerine" Mercedes: which oral health regime do you think he's going to recommend? The whole thing smacks a bit of 1950's health announcements, with well-known doctors informing the public about the advantages of smoking Chesterfields.

Such an approach has arguably influenced many competing (but less well-sponsored) publications. One such publication is BackpackingLight.com, whose primary focus is to aggressively *cut through* manufacturer hype and rhetoric rather than actually reprinting it. In an age of citizen journalism, this kind of approach is gaining favor — albeit not from many sponsors.

On the last page of this year's Backpacker Gear Guide, (also recognized widely under various forms of "Adpacker / Cannonball Guide",) you suggest ways to reduce pack weight. And what is the only justification given for doing this? To make space in ones' pack for more gear sold by Backpacker sponsors or potential sponsors! I tell you Kristin, many backpackers shook their heads at what appears to be the trivializing and apparent nose-thumbing at one of the more dynamics of the sport of backpacking; weight. Lightening up just so you can carry more gear: to some it's like quitting cigarettes so you can take up cigars!

Your magazine purports to discuss the whole sport of backpacking, and great and detailed pontification is given to almost every aspect, metric, and dynamic in the field. Except for the one metric that advocates the purchasing of less gear from your sponsors, that is.

To wit: My friend learned backpacking independently while away at school; she is a happy proponent of the "gear for gear's sake" attitude so often found on the pages of consumption-oriented magazines and guides. I'm always astounded at the 40 lbs that she hoists onto her 125-lb frame for a weekend trip; it's given me a lot of insight into the content of the many Backpacker-published books that line her shelf. She has spent a fortune on a mountain of gear that is simultaneously overdesigned and underperforming for the weight, and owns a very expensive 6lb pack and pair of 6lb boots to drag it all around with. Yet despite her being a very informed, prudent, and conservative backpacker by Backpacker standards, this gigantic load of your advertisers' products almost cost her her life when she hiked the West Coast Trail in 2005. She would have died with pounds and pounds of "safety items" and "camp luxuries" strapped to her back, supposedly protecting her from emergency and discomfort but actually pulling her to her death. And, without an ounce of exaggeration, that was not the first time that her huge "safety" load almost killed her.

I guess what I want to impress on you is that if you truly were not averse to offending sponsors with your analyses, I feel you would be willing to suggest that readers only lug along massive piles of sponsors' gear in the name of "comfort" and "safety" if they are willing to accept the absolutely 100% inevitable consequences of carrying a heavier load an equal distance. In short, I would suggest that an unbiased publication would advise its' readers to think as critically about weight as they do about any other metric in the sport.

The consequences of greater weight are well-known, but oddly never discussed critically in the context of a Backpacker gear review. Dangerous and potentially dangerous situations increase dramatically in likelihood when a heavier load is carried: falling, injury from falling, heatstroke and heat injury, hypothermia and cold injury, dehydration, dangerously poor decision making, external stress or friction injury (bruises or blisters,) internal injury (hernia, strain, sprain, break, infection,) despondency leading to dangerous group dynamics, being trapped by dangerous weather due to party inagility, danger to a compromised party member due to inability to walk them out quickly, etc. etc. These all occur in greater frequency with increased load! (Also not having fun, but that's an aside.)

And the inexperienced walker, fatigued with his or her unnecessarily heavy load, can of course compound these problems very quickly. Fatigue leads to chill leads to loss of dexterity leads to laceration = serious wilderness emergency in 5 minutes flat. Petite 130lb woman has her body weight increase by 30%, unfamiliar weight and balance and footwear cause her to slip often and eventually end up soaking wet with a sprained ankle, unable to move to warm up and lacking the dexterity to change clothes and make camp. Fatigue leads to dehydration leads to immobility of the party which leads to weather emergency, trapped on a ridge in an August whiteout with a sick girl. (You know more of these stories than I do; I am certain of it!)

All of the above situations have happened in the past to so-called "traditional" backpackers I've hiked with. And when they happened, no Backpacker-Magazine-praised "Lightweight Oven" or "Lightweight Camp Chair" or "Titanium Latté Milk Frother" was of comfort to the victims. And yet I (an admittedly casual reader) do not find your reviews or articles to advocate the selection (or deselection!) of gear in order to always carry a prudently light load.

In the name of safety, you seem very willing to advocate a costlier sleeping bag, an extra set of clothing, a technical jacket, a more capable tent, extra medical equipment, more fuel, more food, extra gloves, a second set of footwear, etc. All items which can be purchased at extra cost from your sponsors, but which are guaranteed to keep you safer with proper application. Yet there is never mention of the fact that hauling all that extra stuff will put you in more danger in the first place.

The treatment of weight that your reviews and articles seem to give is as a secondary concern; i.e. make sure you can haul your load all the way to the campsite and don't carry more than 1/3 of your own bodyweight. (Your advice I believe.) Even your survival issue didn't remind readers that chances of needing survival skills and equipment are increased when pack weight increases.

I suggest, admonish, and challenge you to devote less attention to gear for gears' sake, and more to selecting a truly *appropriate*, *effective*, and *prudent* backpacking kit. Even if it means buying less gear.

Your readers will reward you, I promise!

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,
Brian

PS It may sound from this letter that I do not believe that the walker is responsible for all aspects of his or her own safety. Nothing could be farther from the truth: safety starts and ends with the individual, full stop. That said, your publication is influential. Not only the equipment you recommend, but the technique, style, and attitude found on your pages is adopted and passed on to others by your readership and the community at large. Are you responsible when someone reads your magazine and then has a bad trip? NO! Does your influence over the backpacking community come with a certain level of responsibility? Yes, I feel it does.

John Kays said:

"As a suggestion, you, BPM and BS might want to demonstrate your bona fides by publishing an address where the owner of the BS can be reached during regular business hours for service of process."

Courtesy of the Wyoming Secretary of State's website:

Corporation Detail:
CID: 200500490813 Type: CORPORATION
Name: BIG SKY INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED
DBA:
Incorporation State: WY Initial Filing: 04-07-2005
Status: ACTIVE Standing: DELINQUENT
Defunct Cause: FORCE ACTIVE Defunct Date:
Mailing Address: 970 W BROADWAY #289
JACKSON, WY 83001
Registered Agent:
Name: ROBERT MOLEN County: TETON
Address: 17800 E. HWY. 287
MORAN, 83013
Name Changed: Address Changed:

[Ed Note: DELINQUENT — He who hesitates will see his claims discharged in bankruptcy.]

Dear everyone,

Listen, I love and truly respect the passion that is clearly evident in this forum. However, some of you are letting passion cloud your perspective. Look at it from my point of view: A big part of my job is to seek out outstanding gear and tell our readers about it. I won’t apologize for telling people about Big Sky tents, which everyone seems to agree are impressive. Print magazines–unlike online ones–have limited space. It’s not an excuse, it’s a reality. That said, we will run a letter in our June issue (May has already gone to press) from Mitchell Keil that describes BS’s delivery problems, with a response from Backpacker (ie, me). The delivery and service problems that everyone is complaining about are actually quite common with startups. But the sweet justice is this: If BS doesn’t make right and shape up, they won’t make it. Simple as that.

A couple other points:

Brian, actually I did find your lengthy “ramblings” (your words, not mine) insightful and I appreciate the considerable time that obviously went into it. I also find some of your observations outdated and completely missing the point. You call us to task for praising white gas stoves in 2002—that was 5 years ago! I think you’ll find that a huge percentage of our recent stove coverage focuses on canister stoves, for all the reasons that you cite. We are not, in fact, “pushing white gas and Expedition stoves on unsuspecting beginner backpackers.” Quite the opposite, really.

As for the missing-the-point part, you took issue with the “Pack this/Not That” page in our Gear Guide. It baffles me that you feel that we “trivialize” and “thumb our noses” at the issues of weight. We cover various aspects of weight shaving in just about every issue. But, as we all know, not everyone is an ounce counter. Many folks, and many of our readers, want a more luxurious experience. The section that you referred to very clearly said “One of the bonuses of cutting pack weight is making space for a guilty pleasure or two.” The intended implication there is that IF you are inclined to get back some of the weight you’ve saved, here are some fun ways to do it. If you’re inclined to shed weight, period, you are free to ignore that section. We have readers with different needs, and we try to be relevant to all of them. Everyone is not an ultralighter.

There are many issues/questions/accusations raised about Backpacker in this thread. I’ve tried to answer the questions relevant to this thread and will continue to listen in, as Big Sky either does or doesn’t shape up with their customer service.

Like I said before, I love the passion that’s here. (I do wish it could be more positive passion than negative passion, though.) To keep things productive, I encourage anyone who has strong opinions about Backpacker to write a passionate letter to the editor (letters@backpacker.com). We publish many of them with responses.

Thanks for letting me chime in.

Kristin Hostetter
Gear Editor
Backpacker

Hi Kristin:

Thanks for your response. I agree with everything you wrote above, except for one point.

You mentioned that delivery problems are quite common with startup's. That is true; however, collecting money up front and then delaying shipment for A YEAR OR MORE(!) is not common at all!

To make matter worse, Bob Molen has been consistently evasive with his communication (or non-communication actually). Having had some experience dealing with factories in Asia, I can certainly appreciate that many things can go wrong. But staying silent and being evasive is not acceptable.

Please note that Bob Molen monitors these forums almost daily (actually several times a day). He has responded to your post quickly, but chooses to all but ignore his buyers.

IMO, for Backpacker Magazine to ignore this or to attribute it all to "clouded passion" is rather cavalier, no?

Bob,

Ya hear that? IT MIGHT NOT HURT TO CHECK IN ONCE IN AWHILE!

Thanks,

Got-mine-but-hope-they-get-theirs

Kristin,

Your reply shows a lot of class.

My ex-wife dumped me because I was not meeting her needs and SHE became bitter. I dropped my BP subscription because it was not meeting my needs, but I wish BP well. The point is some people are bitter.

I shop at REI and the cottage gear guys. I think there is room in the market for both. The population of ultra-lite, SUL and XUL hikers is too small for a niche national print magazine. I understand the frustration, but it is not appropriate to impugn the motivation or integrity of the BP writers.

Wow! What a thread.

I appreciate Kristin stepping up. While Backpacker may publish letters, don't look for them to publish them un-edited. I sent a very concise e mail to them praising their article on the guy who was sifting through the wreck site of the plane that went down in the Andes with the notorious canabilism that ensued. I also added a sentence about how I wish they would not place ridiculous articles about "How to Survive a Music Festival" in the same publication.

They called to ask if they could publish my commments. I agreed. They only used the positive ones! Even though I have mostly defended Backpacker on this thread, since they are reading, I would ask that they give consideration to being open in their periodical to negative editorial comments….including the Big Sky ones that will surely flood in.

"The delivery and service problems that everyone is complaining about are actually quite common with startups."

I told myself "don't get involved in the BS arguments" but come on! What is said above is the #1 thing to avoid in ANY business!! If you can't handle orders, then you need to quit taking them! All it takes is honesty for most people-you just have to be upfront about it! For instance, I have (and probably will again) run out of the book I sell-but I am honest, and let people know, offering a refund immediately or the option to wait for the books to get printed. So far no one has asked for a refund-because I emailed them and was honest! And I email them when it comes back in and I ship.

It isn't hard to control a business when starting! It takes patience and discipline, yes. But if you don't have the $ to start up, you either need investors or a different business plan. Your customers are not a way to finance your business!

Xc

Eric, no sweat, I'm with you on this.

B2B, I was trying to extrapolate on my friend's situation with a Chinese factory; and the problems therewith due to a number of factors beyond his control. They are mainly, language barrier, and business practices due to cultural differences.

IIn no way was I attempting to 'defend' BS with my illustration, rather, I was highlighting some of the production difficulties one can encounter in Asian factories. Like I said, most any kiteshop could've helped him out of his jam, if he trully was in one and not floating down the Yangtze on boat!

Brian, now THAT post was informative! Sign in large letters over everyone's gear closet should read:

ALWAYS CARRY A PRUDENTLY LIGHT LOAD! DO NOT LEAVE SAFETY TO CHANCE!

I have subscribed to backpacker on and off for the twenty years I have been hiking. I agree that it has probaby gone down hill, but it wasn't that great a magazine 15 years ago either. Actually, I think they hit a low point a few years ago with the format changes, but recently they have had better writing, and long usually interesting articles (that may not be about backpacking), so I think they are probably improving a bit.

But I was very surprised to see the EC go to Big Sky after all of the complaints here. The complaints are not about "delays" or "poor" service; that would apply to a few weeks at most. Not shipping paid goods for a year or more borders on fraud, and is or was an outrageous practice. I don't think that can be excused or overlooked.

The EC awards are backpacker's highest honors, and for the most part in the past, been given to obvious choices, universally well regarded. When a product gets an EC, that award is usually prominently advertised and promoted, for years after. I would be very surprised if it didn't have a measurable effect on sales, and would be a significant influence for many buyers. So I think it was a huge lapse in editorial judgment by BM; and given the explanation that they weren't doing this for money, inexplicable to me.

But I think the same criticism can be leveled at backpacking light. BPL also has rave reviews of the BS shelters. Unless I am missing it somewhere, I don't see any editorial warning about actually purchasing BS products, nor is there any link to the threads on this forum. What is the justification for failing to warn BPL readers of this problems directly in the reviews?

Kristen:
Thank you for continuing to read this thread and also for indicating that my personal letter to you will be published by BPM in the June issue. I look forward to reading your response.
That being said I have several further comments to make. You feel that the general tone of the posts here have had a lot of negative energy in them. True, many posts have drifted on to comment about BPM and its place in the backpacking community. Has it been a good steward of its prominent and influential position? While I am sure you would want to answer in the affirmative, what you may not understand is that we see in your award to BS a clear violation of that trust which you have earned in the general backpacking community. We see BPM honoring a company with questionable business ethics at best. Its tents may be unique in your view and wonderfully made and thus worthy of an ECA. But that can not and should not be the only criteria. Under that rubric, one could honor tents made by slave labor or child labor. We in this thread and indeed in this forum might ask: shouldn't BPM consider business ethics and practices in awarding an ECA? In some sense are you not a consumer rating magazine for the backpacking community?
Both your comment that start ups have delivery and service problems, and your comment that the market will take care of a business that deserves to be deep-sixed have been addressed elsewhere, notably by Benjamin Tang. But I must say that I was struck by your almost cavalier treatment of the real outrage expressed by the many customers who have been sorely treated by BS. Yes, we are passionate about gear and more so because many of us have only encountered the gear we purchase online. A great piece of gear gets an enormous response from us and is rapidly reviewed and commented upon. Cottage manufacturers depend on the word of mouth that typifies our community. We passionately agree and disagree on a piece of gear. We offer tips on using it, repairing it, modifiying it and improving it. And the best manufucturers listen and incorporate tested advice and great ideas. Your comments fly in the face of our "real" experience with online cottage manufacturers. They are incredibly responsive to customer feedback and well-being. That makes Molen's business ethics all the more egregious. The market can't take care of Molen if you prop him up with an ECA. Your ECA gives him the opportunity to sell more and deliver as he has in the past — a year or more late or not at all with no customer service, repair facility or warranty.
How do you respond to a BPM reader who goes through the 7 circles of hell having ordered a BS tent? I can't see you responding with a simple don't worry the market will take care of him, or start ups have problems like this all the time. What do you think a BPM reader would say and do if BPM never answered the phone, email or letter and never delivered the magazine?

For those interested, Backpacker continues to pimp Big Sky tents pretty aggressively.

http://rodale.typepad.com/backpacker_gearcasts/2007/03/editors_choice__1.html

Brian:

While I continue to believe that Backpacker Magazine made a poor choice, I appreciate Kristin's responses — and I trust she will continue to monitor BS with readers' best interest in mind.

In the meantime, we can all do our part to warn others about BS — until BS changes its business practice. One such change that can serve as a positive signal would be maintaining an inventory of tents — to avoid pathetic delays and lame excuses entirely.

But there is still a second part — which is warranty / after-sales servicing. BS has no facility whatsoever to repair anything. The one case I know — one person had two guyout points torn from his tent and was told by Bob Molen to have the tent repaired locally, then submit the paid receipt to BS for reimbursement. That person did as he was told, but never got any reimbursement at all!

I hope Kristin can help us clarify with Bob about BS' warranty policies — and if there is no warranty or after-sales services worthy of the name, then I hope Kristin will take that into serious account in all future publications.

I recently dropped my BP subscription, mainly due to all those paper thingys that fall out. The other problem is that all those SUV ads offend my sensibilities. (Kristin, can you help here?)

I can forgive the EC for Big Sky. After all, these tents are made with pure unobtainium!

Kristin Hostetter wrote:

–some of your observations outdated and completely missing the point. You call us to task for praising white gas stoves in 2002—that was 5 years ago! I think you’ll find that a huge percentage of our recent stove coverage focuses on canister stoves, for all the reasons that you cite. We are not, in fact, “pushing white gas and Expedition stoves on unsuspecting beginner backpackers.” Quite the opposite, really.–

While I have no motivation to debate, I was in a magazine section tonight while waiting for a prescription to be filled.

I flipped a series of mags and came to Backpacker. The first (and only) article I read was a series on how to spend more time in the high alpine and peak-bagging by refining your kit. Sounds promising.

On page 56, the second page I read, there it is in black and white: readers are recommended to assemble a lightweight "Alpine" kitchen. How? Buy a white gas stove such as the MSR Whisperlite, because of its' "durability" and "simplicity". I kid you not; check it out.

(I believe Kelly Cordes is one of the big advocates of ditching the old-fashioned and complicated canister systems of Yore and switching to the Whisperlite.)

Incidentally, for those who are interested in following Backpacker's advice on alpinism, the stove can conveniently be purchased from Backpacker directly at this link:

http://www.backpacker.com/equipment/item/mountain-safety-research-whisperlite-stove.html

I guess 5 years isn't very long after all.

I wrote my original post to try to convey some idea of the way that your corporation is viewed by some consumers. This is a perfect example: 5 years later and your corporation is still pimping 1984 stoves as a way to improve ones' ability to climb mountains. And this is to say nothing of the vaporware tents that are the subject of this thread.

And your corporation is, coincidentally, a major benefactor of the major gear manufacturers whose wares you hock at the expense of the backpacking community. How are we not to draw lines?

As in my original post, I admonish you to adapt your editorial style to one that benefits the consumer at least as much as (if not more than) your corporate sponsors.

We're well into the information era, and new media is informing consumers where old media sometimes hasn't. If you want to stay old-media, I would suggest that it's probably in your best interest to reduce at least the most glaring of incidents of the prostitution of your brand.

Brian

Dear Brian,

Clearly, nothing I can say will change your opinion about Backpacker, and that's fine. But it irks me (and once irked, I have a hard time holding my tongue!)that you continue to take things out of context and choose to see some deep, dark, evil motive that simply does not exist.

The sidebar that you refer to in april 07 clearly attributes those specific tips (and the whisperlite recommendation) to Anya Buyers, who is a volunteer coordinator for the colorado 14ers Initiative. That column is a place where we invite experienced outdoorspeople to share their opinions and tips, which we respect, even when they don't completely match up with ours. Some people still like to cook with white gas, bottom line. I reiterate that I can't even recall when I last reviewed a white gas stove in Backpacker because I prefer canisters (as do most of my experienced testers who have had the opportunity to try many different types). Maybe Anya hasn't had that opportunity, maybe she has and still prefers white gas, I don't know. It's her opinion and I respect it.

You wrote: "And your corporation is, coincidentally, a major benefactor of the major gear manufacturers whose wares you hock at the expense of the backpacking community."

I don't even know how to respond to that, it's so wrong on so many levels. First, people can buy gear from altrec.com through a link on our website. We don't choose the products, altrec.com does. As an editor, I have no say or control over the content of that store, not do I want to. Second, I'm not in the gear hocking business. I'm in the testing and reviewing business.

So, Brian, I'm sorry you are so disgruntled with Backpacker, and the variety of opinions that we take into account in our pages. But there is no other motive, other than sharing experiences. Choose to believe it, or not. That’s up to you.