It would be interesting to get his take on Rampage in its current form. Most of his commentary focused on the Fest series, and those are distinctly meant to not be comps - not that that changes what he was saying about it.
But the frustration of freeride has always been that compared to racing, it's impossible to gauge talent or set a hierarchy since the idea from the start was always that it wasn't supposed to be a competition - that was the 'spirit of freeride'.
Since the beginning, freeride athletes were paid a salary that was based on exposure, and they made further bonuses based on exposure focused on their sponsors: a print mag cover where you could see the bike, or fork, or whatever, was worth $x, a photo inside had a different value (double page spread worth more than single page, half page, etc). Movie parts...you get the idea. Check out Cam's original interview with Wade in three parts: [part 1](http://www.nsmb.com/wade-simmons-circa-2000/), [part 2](https://nsmb.com/articles/wade-simmons-circa-2000-part-ii/), and in [part 3](https://nsmb.com/articles/wade-simmons-interview-part-iii/), Wade mentions what he was making in 2000 and a little bit about what I'm talking about.
Essentially, social media works the same way - more views and clicks is worth more. The problem is that clicks and views don't necessarily equate to sales - some clicks are more valuable than others. That's what companies are trying to unlock and it's a difficult thing to assign value to - it's also very tough for the athletes.
Jan. 9, 2025, 10:07 a.m. - Pete Roggeman
It would be interesting to get his take on Rampage in its current form. Most of his commentary focused on the Fest series, and those are distinctly meant to not be comps - not that that changes what he was saying about it. But the frustration of freeride has always been that compared to racing, it's impossible to gauge talent or set a hierarchy since the idea from the start was always that it wasn't supposed to be a competition - that was the 'spirit of freeride'. Since the beginning, freeride athletes were paid a salary that was based on exposure, and they made further bonuses based on exposure focused on their sponsors: a print mag cover where you could see the bike, or fork, or whatever, was worth $x, a photo inside had a different value (double page spread worth more than single page, half page, etc). Movie parts...you get the idea. Check out Cam's original interview with Wade in three parts: [part 1](http://www.nsmb.com/wade-simmons-circa-2000/), [part 2](https://nsmb.com/articles/wade-simmons-circa-2000-part-ii/), and in [part 3](https://nsmb.com/articles/wade-simmons-interview-part-iii/), Wade mentions what he was making in 2000 and a little bit about what I'm talking about. Essentially, social media works the same way - more views and clicks is worth more. The problem is that clicks and views don't necessarily equate to sales - some clicks are more valuable than others. That's what companies are trying to unlock and it's a difficult thing to assign value to - it's also very tough for the athletes.