UKH

£20. great bag:

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/alpinism-22l-mountaineering-backpack-grey-id_84...

I get that Decathlon don't pay to advertise on UKC, but IMO it would make more sense to include some outright budget options before that Fjallraven one for £180.

That Decathlon pack looks potentially interesting for £20 - though we've not used it, so that's not an endorsement.

As a general rule we only work with brands who advertise. We've gone over the reasons for this many times so I'll spare you here and assume you know. But suffice to say Decathlon aren't currently on board. When budget brands advertise with us then we do look at their products, and I can point you to a couple of recent examples. We can't all afford top whack, so where possible we'd always like to make space for budget gear.

Back to the Fjallraven pack. Yes it's an eye-opening price for a day pack, and we've said as much. But to play devil's advocate, another way of looking at it is: how long will it last versus a budget alternative, and how far should we be encouraging people to buy cheap when it may just end up as tomorrow's landfill? Is there such a thing as too cheap? That Fjallraven pack could seem like good value when you hand it down to your grandchildren, and by then you might have gone through half a dozen 'bargain' alternatives.

If quality and longevity are important then it makes sense that we include a top-end product like this in a group test lineup. The other ten on review are priced lower anyway.

I think we're all increasingly aware of environmental concerns, so it's worth pointing out that this Fjallraven pack uses organic and recycled materials and it's manufactured to a certain set of 'sustainable' and workplace standards. I'm sure they aren't perfect, and we are not here to advocate for Fjallraven, but at least they're trying.

I think I'm safe to assume that the materials, manufacturing processes and workers' conditions that go into a £20 pack will be far less stringent. The bottom line there is clearly price, and attached to that is likely to be a set of externalised costs that the end consumer isn't necessarily even going to be aware of.

The outdoor industry as a whole could do a lot better at tackling these issues, and I'd include the outdoor media in that. We are currently considering how we might meaningfully incorporate environmental and ethical questions into our reviews in future. Which probably explains the rather long response I've just written.

I got a 20 litre Decathlon nh500 pack recently for "town" use, cost £19.99. Surprisingly comfortable and well featured pack. Has a chest strap but no waist strap.

Dave

Just to add to the mix, I've recently got one of these:

https://www.tatonka.com/en/product/cima-di-basso-22/

which at £26 seemed a bargain. Good rope carrying ability (which was important for me) and big enough for a moderate rack and accessories for a day's climbing.

Well if the argument is environmental, then may I suggest that people don't look at new packs, but at there old highschool pack. Most people still have them and they seem to have some indestructible powers. Maybe it's survivorship bias, if it survived high school, it will survive anything else.  

I say, time for the UKC writers old highschool pack as day pack test.

I bought the predecessor to the Decathlon/Simond pack mentioned above, originally for travel to/from the office but have been using it for walking & skiing as well & its pretty good & only just starting to show signs of wear after some 6 years of frequent use. 

I recently threw out my old Karrimor Pinnacle, but it was close to 50 years old

Even so, you've made a lot of positive assumptions about their product vs Decathlon's based on zero evidence, and they are paying you for this. 

Anyone play the vid to that Simond pack on the Decathalon link? The pack is stuffed with features and is only 620 grams for 20 quid! Saw a climber out with the larger Simond pack this week and got asking him about it, really good kit. Shame their stuff is never featured on here despite the amount of positive posting on the forums about their kit.

Have I? Nothing I've said about the Fjallraven pack is an assumption, positive or otherwise: that info is on their website. In fact they make a virtue of it - you could call that brand identity/marketing, or corporate responsibility. Either way it's hard not to see it as a good thing.

That Simond pack may be decent - it looks like it could be, for the money. But as far as I can tell from the available product info, it's not made with recycled materials, or with any particular emphasis on sustainability or decent labour conditions. If it were, don't you think that would be highlighted?

Of course we could say the same about many higher-priced brands too.

Fjallraven are not paying us for this. No one pays for reviews.

"But to play devil's advocate, another way of looking at it is: how long will it last versus a budget alternative, and how far should we be encouraging people to buy cheap when it may just end up as tomorrow's landfill? Is there such a thing as too cheap? That Fjallraven pack could seem like good value when you hand it down to your grandchildren, and by then you might have gone through half a dozen 'bargain' alternatives."

"I think I'm safe to assume that the materials, manufacturing processes and workers' conditions that go into a £20 pack will be far less stringent. "

...and?

the best multipitching-summit day sack around and only £15! look stylish in blue or orange as well.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/cliff-ii-climbing-backpack-orange-id_8302354.ht...

The lifespan etc are assumptions. Genuine question - you have to  buy a new pack today but there are only 2 choices, the Decathlon or the Fjallraven. Which one would you get?

Personally? I haven't bought a pack in years. They just keep arriving in the post.

More helpfully... surely everyone's going to have their own take on these things? There are people who'd happily spend £180 for something that's good quality and made with at least some consideration for its impact, and perhaps they don't mind that it's really only for walking since that's all they're going to be doing with it.

Others clearly aren't going to be able to afford that luxury. And maybe some would actually prefer a basic but climbing-oriented budget pack anyway.

Really they seem about as different as two small packs can get, so your hypothetical choice is a bit of a fruitless exercise. 

I got a LoweAlpine Edge Ii 22l pack from GO outdoors which seems to tick all the day pack wants (including bladder attachment) at £40

I've had a couple of these for years - use them virtually every day - wore a hole through one from cycling but the other is still going strong and still waterproof;

https://www.alpkit.com/products/gourdon-20

The wee DMM Zenith climbing pack is dirt cheap at the moment and not at all bad as a day pack for hillwalking.

https://www.alpinetrek.co.uk/dmm-zenith-route-sack-climbing-backpack

I've got a Cliff II, they've gone up in price a bit - mine might have even been under a tenner a few years ago, but anyway, they're great value for money BUT I've found the material isn't super strong and rips in it run a bit. Mine has a number of Gorilla Tape patches on it, inside and out - so it has been getting a few grams heavier each time I have to repair it!

If you get the Fjallraven one and keep your Hydroflask in it you're halfway way to being a #vscogirl, so there's a positive.

Save the turtles!

And I oop! (Personally I haven't worked out what that one is about yet, but I'm reliably informed it is as VSCO as Fjallraven Kanken packs.)

I have the older Montane Cobra 25 which has been replaced by Oxygen 25. Looks similar enough, still. I have 2/10/12/18/22/25/30/38/45 liter rucksacks (off top of my head, I hope I haven't forgotten something) and yet Montane Cobra 25 could replace half of them. 

Tough as nails, super comfy and functional. It has done many days in winter, managed to squeeze an overnighter last November to bivy on snow, been my go to for city breaks and even beach! Whatever I paid for it, it has paid off big bucks. 

There's a good reason you see a lot of French guides running around with the Simond bag!

So many zips!

I've always had a prejudice against zip-closure sacks. I relegated a Macpac 28l sack to gym bag when I thought the zips might be on their way-out. Proved my prejudice is entirely unjustified as the sack lasted another 5 or 6 years of almost daily use.

Sounds great, for the rest of us there's Decathlon.

Actually, Decathlon have a real decent environnemental policy. Lot of stuff here :   http://sustainability.decathlon.com/

And a lot of brands have an insane margin. 

? The more links in the supply chain, the bigger the margin is going to be, the shop, the distributor and the maker all have to make something, or they go bust.

What do you think is an insane margin?

Patagonia for example is known for their 55% margin, which is HUGE. 

But you're right, Decathlon is a maker, a distributor and a seller, so they can have lower final prices in comparison with other brands.

Is it? Compared to what? I remember in 90s some manufacturers and distributors trying to organise to increase prices in outdoor shops so they could charge retailers more, because it was said to be such a tiny profit margin compared to things like fashion retail and particularly clothing starting to be sold in supermarkets. Never happened though. Has much changed?

The Decathlon pack is great and seems to be all the rage with a lot of (Alpine) climbers I know. I get what you’re saying about workers’ rights but who really knows if the more expensive packs fare better on that score? They might all be made in the same factory for all we know. As for environmental, I’d have thought a no frills pack is going to be better, if anything - less resources used to make it. I suppose it might be less robust so could wear out quicker. Generally I’d be all in favour of more robust kit but I doubt a 20L pack would get very heavy use from most people, so it’s unlikely to be a major consideration here. I do know someone who destroyed one of these packs in a massive winter climbing fall but that’s another story...

So whilst generally I would advocate paying more for quality gear, I don’t think it’s worth it in this case. Decathlon do make some decent gear. I’m fact by being generally heavier it can turn out to be more robust than the premium brands. I’d recommend their winter soft shell trousers as well. Other stuff I wouldn’t use if it were free...

55% margin sounds unexceptional for software, assuming you’re talking about wholesale price (ie price at which the product is sold to retailers, excluding VAT) vs cost of manufacture (including direct overheads, again excluding VAT). In other words, they sell to shops for roughly twice what it costs them to make it - but then indirect overheads come off that, so their actual operating margin in the accounts is a lot lower. Whereas if you’re talking about operating margin in the accounts, 55% would indeed be a goldmine.

You’re probably right about Decathlon / Simond. Fewer links in the chain and generally a leaner operation. Different business model essentially.

From your own wording... they do... 

Ealier you stated that you do not review products by companies/importers that do not advertise here (UKC, UKC or Rockfax I assume). To me, that reads load and clear -> advertise, so pay to us, and have the possibility of having your products reviewed here.

I'm fine with that, but I do call out when some one claims a a horse ain't a horse.

Oh, and I did not notice anythign about you only reviwing gear for your business partners form the actual article. IMHO it should be their to be easily seen by everyone (for regular user who found the article via Google, for an importer/manufacturer that might wish to get their stuff reviewed and so on).

But there's a difference between `we only review the products of those who advertise with us' (which is what Dan said) and `the advertisers pay us to review their products'. The latter implies payment for positive reviews, but the former may mean the product of an advertiser gets a crap review. Of course advertisers hope for a good/decent review (and frankly very few of them make rubbish gear), but what's the alternative. As has been rehearsed here many times, the only viable alternative to an advertiser-supported website is a subscriber-paid-for website (and someone has to pay for the work done). And I can guess what the preferred option would be for the majority of UKC users...

55% margin doesn't sound "huge" when it has to cover all the costs associated with the business AND leave a profit. Of course a 55% profit would be pretty large

No, I'm afraid you're 'calling out' wrong.

Brands pay to advertise. Reviews are not adverts. Reviews could I suppose be considered an added perk of advertising with us, but they are not a service as such and definitely not something that a brand would ever be asked to pay for. 

That might sound a fine distinction, but it's vital in maintaining the Editorial/Advertorial split. It leaves us free to say what we like about products in our reviews, for instance. We call a horse a horse whether the brand is a big client, or a minor one.

If a brand advertises with us then we have an ongoing relationship, and naturally that allows us to go on and talk about reviews. Should we expend staff time to-ing and fro-ing with brands that aren't even supporting us? You might be surprised how much time it takes to produce these things, and time is money.

While we do occasionally review product from brands that don't advertise, it would be impossible to make a general policy of this. Could any media outlet talk to every conceivable brand, or review all the GTX jackets on the market, or all the packs in a given category? So an added advantage of concentrating on brands with whom we already have said relationship is that it gives us logical boundaries when compiling group tests.

But just to repeat myself, reviews aren't adverts.

In Decathalon';s defence, on the topic of worker's conditions they work with :

https://www.verite.org/

https://www.stronger2gether.org/

https://www.responsiblesourcingtool.org/

in order to improve their supply chain. I no idea if it's better than Fjallraven who use:

https://www.fairlabor.org/

or ME who use:

https://www.fairwear.org/

or Patagonia:

https://www.fairtradecertified.org/

but just because they are a massive company who aren't shouting about their credentials, doesn't mean they aren't doing their bit.

You’re right. Reviews aren’t ads. 
 

But If you limit the options to only those brands that pay for adds, then you limit are in fact capping the crop which you review. 
 

And I’m fine with that, as long as you *clearly say so*... in every review. 

If you ’hide’ the information in a forum post, it is not easily available to a Person reading the review.

nasty way of putting it, is that the reviews are biased. I do know that it is not the case per se, but the fact is that there is bias in the sense that not all brands are represented and that this discrimination policy is not easily found. 

Luckily there’s an easy fix. Slap in a Note that you tend to only review products that advertice in the site(s). Just put in at the start of *every* review. 

Dan said they don't pay for reviews, but if reviews are limited to brands which place ads on UKC, then in effect they are, although not as a direct service.

For the record, l don't have a problem with this, since it's not a core part of the site for me (and I will have to win the lottery before dropping £100+ on a 20l sack!)

Dan, this part was just fine for me. Honestly, I personally don't mind you skipping brands/stores like Decathlon. (i see some do) However, the part that followed:

This part is really putting Fjallraven on a pedestal, while you do a lot of assuming that cheap(er) bags must be poor quality/wear out quickly/unsustainable/bad materials/poor workplace standards. It kind of reads like people that don't buy a Fjallraven are bad people. I'm sure you don't mean that, but that is the vibe it has. If you going to be on a high horse about the environment; then encourage the best choice; use what you got. most people replace stuff before they are worn. There is plenty of good content made about bringing old stuff back to life and even pitching them against modern stuff.

We're unlikely to do that. It would be dull, pedantic and faffy for the layout. I'm not convinced there's a strong case for it, and as far as I'm aware there's no widespread demand for it among readers. 

Shouldn't it go without saying that in most instances not every brand is going to be covered? There are scores, if not hundreds, of brands out there. No reviewer in the world is capable of covering them all, and in the unlikely event that anyone ever did it would be unmanageably vast for a reader. 'Discrimination' seems an uncharitable way to look at that simple reality. 

I take exception to the implication that we're hiding information. We don't imply anywhere that our group tests are fully comprehensive in the way you seem to hold out as the ideal, and as such there's simply nothing to hide. As far as possible we do however try to cover the obvious products that UK readers are likely to encounter, and from as many of the main brands as we can. 

You're right, the suggestion that there's any bias is nasty. It's also plain wrong. An easy fix for that would be to think before posting. 

Good suggestion, thanks - we could certainly look more at recycling/reusing/old gear in general. We'll add that to our ongoing discussion on environmental coverage.  

Natalie's just reminded me of this piece on recycling from a few years back: https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/10_ways_to_creatively_repurpos...

Sure there's scope for more of that sort of thing 

I'm sure you're right... It's hard not to get wound up when our professional integrity is being questioned in a half-baked fashion. And he did ask for it. But that's no excuse for playground tactics.    

But unfortunately the BIAS is there. You don’t review certain brands as they do not advertise here, so the BIAS is simply there. That said, the results you give might not be biased, but the whole context is as you are DISCRIMINATING non business partners. 
 

Think of it this way, were I to review climbing guidebooks and systematically omit Rockfax from all reviews, because I once didn’t like one of their employees Forum post. Would my reviews be biased. The content reviewed might be or not, but the whole review scheme would certainly be. I had just omitted one big player based on some arbitary criteria (which I don’t mention) in the reviews. 
 

Did you know that for all ’rebutable’ research you need to describe the criteria and system used for the measurements plus research so that others can assess the results or even replicate them. You produce results but omit the criteria and system by a large account. 

I would say you are simultaneously both over-thinking and under-thinking this! We are reviewers, not researchers.

Our criteria aren't at all arbitrary, as I've gone to great length to explain. And I don't think they're remotely comparable to your imagined personal grudge against Rockfax scenario.

I'm not sure that making the same points as before, in shouty caps, is really advancing the argument.

Perhaps it's semantics, but I'm lost by this talk of bias and discrimination.

yet that info is nowhere near the actual review. And that is the problem. And How is my imaginary scenario any different than yours? I could say that your business us holding a grudge against all companies that do not advertise here. Same same.

Webster is a good start. 
 

You are biased the your business partners. And you’re discriminating brands that do not advertise here. 
 

As I said, the review results aren’t biased (knowing the effort I knew Toby put in the stuff he wrote). But the whole context is. As you are only showing the part truth, not the full one. 
 

And I even understand that, doing a comprehensive review of What is available is going to be really spendy, time consuming and not really possible. Which is Why giving out the selection criteria is important. You’re omitting that now, or again only giving only part of the truth... like we asked (our business partners) 20 liter daypacks suitable for this and that. See What’s in between the brackets, that is missing currently. 
 

And BTW, that is also bad press ethics. 

still, you’re a business so do as you please. But then don’t try to take the high horse when you get called on it. 

To be fair to Dan and UKC, this is nothing new. Think of any climbing magazine (remember them) and Summit in particular and they are near enough 50% advertising copy and the gear reviews read like advertorials.

I find their Group Tests to be some of the most useful reviews out there, as in they are thorough and written by people who know what they are on about. But helpful to know it's a select population under consideration. 

I do remember them, albeit didn't read Summit much. But I did write to Rock & Ice (or was it Climbing, can't remember... one of them big US climbing mags anyway) once and bitched about the fact that you had to buy the mag and over half of the pages were adds, and in fact they should be paying for us to read it... The reply I got was that only 49% of the page estate was adds... I guess they missed the point, like Dan is missing here.

Yes, that is the main gribe I have. They give the impression of having a grand group test, but omit the fact that they only reviewed products from their business partners, which I'm sure happens to be a lot smaller populace of the products available in stores in the UK (let alone products that can be ordered to UK).

Generally the reviewers ask the importers or manufacturers for a certain criteria stuff for review and then they either get something or not. Now that is fair, but if you don't even asks from all the big players of the field, the crop which is review is only a selection (based on what ever criteria, it doesn't matter). And even that is fair, as long as it is mentioned.

Oddly enough, quite a lot of other players reviewing stuff, seem to get this right. They clearly state how they got the stuff and what ties do they have with them (ranging form 'I bought this with my own money 'cause it seemed like a really good product' to 'my corporate sponsor sent me this thing to review free of charge').

Back to the rucksacks

they are all pretty heavy for a day packs

https://www.ultralightoutdoorgear.co.uk/equipment-c3/rucksacks-c19/all-ruck...

I think sub 300g is sufficient for day use

You give the impression of taking HeMa's comments a bit personally which is a shame as it's UKC policy not your review he is addressing. Given the importance of transparency and accountablity in the current climate HeMa is making a reasonable point worth reflecting on.

Interesting, thanks for that. It'd take some delving to work out which is more stringent (perhaps a job worth us doing) but I'm glad to know Decathlon are better than I'd assumed, so I stand corrected on that 

Can you point me at an example of a web site or magazine that does it better than UKC, in a way you approve of?

Alan

https://dslrvideoshooter.com/giant-diy-sound-panels-for-better-audio-and-li...

Both in the vid and also on the webpage...

In fact, if you made the requirements clear (in order for us to review your products, you need to advertise here), you might even attract more advertisers...

And to be fair, prior to this thread, I was not aware of your policy... and I've been here for quite a while.

I have always been under the assumptions that just like numerous other webzines doing reviews, you ask numerous shops, importers and manufacturers for stuff to review. And then they either provide you with some samples or not. 

In an ideal world, you would also list the who you requested material for review (again transparency) and if it was not reviewed we can safely assume that the shop/importer/manufacturer did not bother to take part in the review. -> Their loss. But I know, this is pushing it a bit too far... considering how buttheart some seemed to be even from the hint that the reviews are biased on the base that you only select certain brands to the reviews and don't make that point clear.

Henkka, I could see an argument for having a little box at the top of the reviews saying something like "products reviewed in this review were provided by companies that support UKC through advertising. UKC gives an over all specification for the review and the companies select a product for reviewing that they feel fits that specification and have no editorial control over the review". That would definitely give some clarity to people who land on the page via Google, but for regulars this has been discussed again and again over the years, in discussions attached to the reviews. I know you know how it works because you've very kindly taken pictures of me reviewing stuff for UKC and had a play with various "UKC review kit" when we've been out climbing.  In fact I think you might be "modeling" the item in one of the photos from my review years back of a Jottnar down jacket!

Ah, I didn't make my question clear. That doesn't appear to be a web site for comparison reviews unless I am missing something.

Can you point me at an example of a web site or magazine that does comparison reviews better than UKC, in a way you approve of? (It would be nice also if you could stick to an industry of at least comparable size and form as the Outdoor industry).

Alan

The disclaimer can be shorter...

And as I wrote just a few minutes ago... I never knew of the policy that in order for UKC to review the product, the comp would also need to sponsor the site. I worked under the assumption, that the manufacturer sends stuff for review (indevidual reviews) or UKC asks for stuf for the group tests... For indevidual stuff, it really doesn't matter why some stuff got reviewed.

But for comparison/group reviews it certainly does matter. Because you are then also comparing the products to others... and if UKC omits some stellar products because they ain't sponsoring UKC/UKH/RockFax... that is again fair game, as long as it is KNOWN. Currently it is not (well, properly anyway).

The linked DSLRVideoShooter webzine also does group reviews. 

And yup... I picked one outside outdoor industry...  but then again, it's a one man show that does this stuff on top of his regular business... and still does a better job at it. And a bigger organisation/business should do a better job at it, after all they have more resources availalbe.

Can you link me to one of those because I can't find one.

Alan

https://dslrvideoshooter.com/best-5-inch-camera-monitors/

https://dslrvideoshooter.com/best-sony-a7iii-batteries/

And that took a whoppin' 10 secs.

Ok, so I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make by extolling the virtues of this review.

He is looking at 4 items out of many possibles (there are literally hundreds available if you search Amazon). He has commercial link up to all four items. He does make that clear at the beginning but that seems to me to be more of an advert than a fess-up clarification.

This guy is doing a good job but it isn't remotely equivalent of what we are doing. That is why I asked for something equivalent to the outdoor industry. This means a range of items, usually in the £50 to £200/£300 price range, of which a significant set of brands available on the (UK focussed) market are covered. Not 4 items out of a hundreds in a worldwide market. That is comparing four items, not a comparison review of a product type across a market.

Alan

Read the disclaimer.

So unless UKC starts buying them (not getting freebies)... then a tad different thing. Plus he makes sure, that there is no problem understanding his relationship to the manufacturers or vendors.

Your reviews do not containt that affiliation data.

I won't even go more to the fact that the participation to the group reviews is pay to take part... but that could be spinned in any way you like, or perhaps don't like.

Proper disclaimers make sure that people reading the reviews can use proper filters... I for one, was not that happy to read this (hence my replies), and had I know this I would certainly read the reviews in lets say a tad different light.

BTW. based on the reaction from your side, one might need to start thinkin' there is more happening behind the scenes... that is how rumors starts... by omitting or neglecting to give the proper information from the get go.

As I said, a completely different model of reviews in both size and the way it is carried out.

Have you got anything else to offer? Perhaps in the Outdoor industry?

Alan

No problem Dan, it wasn't a criticism, I just thought with UKC taking more of a look at the environmental side it was worth pointing out.

As an aside, I think a "where does our gear come from and who makes it" style article would be very interesting/informative.

Nope, and to be honest... not my job .

I simply raised the issue that your group reviews aren't really all that transparent/honest and might give people the wrong impression.

What I do however find really intersting, is the utter and complete resistance to even think about such a disclaimer. Are you worried that people would start feeling the (group) reviews are infact paid adds? You already have those (as adds and what ever the New Products things were).

Yes, definitely! We've been thinking about how to tackle this for years. This opinion piece touched on it: https://www.ukhillwalking.com/articles/opinions/how_green_is_your_gear_not_... ...but there's plenty more to say on the subject, and I hope we will. The research and corporate waffle-filtering that would be required is pretty daunting though

Unfortunately the example website you have provided is not a good one (as Alan as explained).  I was going to write a reply explaining why but Alan has already done it better than I could.  If you are going to prove your point it would help to use a suitable website.

I am not quite sure what your problem is with UKC.  I agree that putting a simple statement about the link to advertisers would not go amiss.  However, I am not sure it warrants the aggressive and persistent nature of your posting.  It comes across as you have some grudge against UKC (which I do not think is the case).

The model for reviewing that UKC uses is well used across a wide range of outdoor products and websites.  I seldom see disclaimers of the sort you are asking for as most people understand the commercial nature and pressures of running websites.  I think it is pretty obvious that a website will predominantly review products from the companies that advertise with it.  This makes sound commercial sense and makes it simple to decide which products (out of possibly a huge number) to review.  Any review of products will be inherently biased (in terms of which products are used for review) as it is impossible to review all possible products.

For me the main issue is that the individual reviews themselves are not biased.  In the case of UKC my view is that they are honest and unbiased, often picking up flaws and not afraid to call a spade a spade when needed.  The reviews are balanced and give a good selection from lower priced good value products to higher end products.  The impartiality of the actual reviews (irrespective of how the products were chosen) gives excellent information to help make an informed choice.

I for one have extensively used the reviews on UKC (alongside other websites) to help decide on purchases and really value that they are available free (or full of click bait).  I think the link to advertisers and therefore limit to the number of products tested is not an issue in comparison to the potential to have to pay to read the reviews.  In reality the vast majority of products available for me to buy are reviewed in any case.

I think that is being grossly unfair and I think you know it.  I can understand your belief that the process for selecting the specific products to be reviewed may not be transparent - or at least could be made more transparent.  However, it is pretty obvious to anyone who reads the actual reviews that they are transparent and honest.  It is clear that a lot of work goes into the reviewing to ensure that all the good and bad points are clearly highlighted.  In fact sometimes this really balanced approach to reviewing makes my life hell when trying to decide what to buy based on a UKC review.  They pretty much always highlight at least some bad points so I have to use my poor brain to trade-off the various pluses and minuses.

Ok. I would suggest that is because there aren't any outdoor web sites doing reviews that come close to ours for product scope and depth. Perhaps outdoorgearlab but that is very US-based and I am always surprised how few actual products they have in each category.

Ok. Thanks for your feedback. We are happy with our policy thanks. If you think that the comparison reviews come across as paid ads then I don't think you have read many. I would ask for an example but I don't think you are going to bother.

Alan

Alan discussed that here:

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/gear/unparallel_lace_sirius_and_regulus-7...

If it comes about, I'll happily do some donkey work research on a couple of brands as it's something I have an interest in.

It's easy, they all are... simply based on the selection criteria (pay us and we'll give you a change to take part in our reviews).

And you might be happy with your policy. I ain't and as far as opinions go, I'm entitled to mine. You can take it as critisims, or ban me (which speaks even loader that perhaps the high horse you're riding isn't actually all that high).

But yeah, I'm done with this topic.

Which I didn't read... hence all news to me.

And funnily enough makes my point (of disclaimers).

Just keep doing what you do! If having reviews who only feature brands which advertise with you is the price to pay for access to a free site full of quality content then it's a pretty good price to pay. 

And that's not to discredit the reviews at all, a lot of time and effort quite visibly goes into researching and using the products.

Just putting another +1 for this bag, for the price its unbeatable value and has been used on numerous multi-pitch routes in scotland this summer, and has done a great job! Rope carrier, Bladder holder, big outside zip for snacks, enough space for shoes and layers and it weighs nothing!

Curious how you measure durability. How much actual use do these packs get. Owning a couple of fjallraven bags, backpack and duffel bag, I'm pretty sure they won't get to be handed to my son let alone grandkids.

Compared to moderns bags I've seen on offer, they seem to be heavy duty, but compared to some of my older and still going strong bags, fjallraven seem pretty light duty. 

Hi Dan, 

Like others I've got to disagree with the assumption that if a product is 4 or 5 times more expensive then it will last at least 10 times longer and be better for the environment. If you've worn half a dozen of the Fjallraven and the Decathlon bags out then fair enough you've probably got a good idea of how durable each one is but that's not the case. If you think about lightweight gear, it can very often be both more expensive and less durable than their cheaper and heavier counterparts.

It's hard to say that your budget shopper won't keep and mend their cheap product for 10+ years and that the big spender won't just keep spending big and continuing to buy the latest and greatest shiny new product on the block every year or so. I've gone to a haberdashery to buy elastic for a couple of quid to fix all of the inner fixing points for a tent where the original ones had degraded. The tent only cost around £40-£50 and had been used extensively, but there was nothing else wrong with and I wanted to keep it. Will there be someone who replaced a Hilleberg tent in the time that I had that one? Probably.

It's actually a little offensive to suggest that those in the cheaper end of the market do not need things to last and are simply continually replacing their products whilst the premium shoppers are keeping their products for much longer. I find that's rarely the case.

In a similar thread about climbing jeans, 5 years was given as a reasonable amount of time to speculate the jeans that had only just been released would last. Based on what? This was compared to other products according to the reviewer could be expected to last 6-12 months. This was again a justification for the high price tag rather than the more likely factors such as premium positioning of the product and higher marketing costs.