Cats? Pigeons? Elephants? Rooms?

Like us all I fully understand that sponsorship (which is not the same as advertising) is essential to an event such as the TGO Challenge. TGO magazine have been a core sponsor for many years, and others have come and gone. Without the generosity of numerous sponsors over the years it would simply not be possible to mount this premier world back-packing event - one that has been characterised by an exemplary safety record owing to the significant resources that are employed both in initial vetting and continuing monitoring by Control.

I’ve been fortunate enough to have taken part in a number of Challenges. And have always recognised that acceptance has always been subject to a draw – both for the first cut and for the stand-by list, should this be applicable. I welcome recent revisions to the draw – specifically front-loading the initial numbers to absorb the inevitable drop-outs, changing the automatic entry for participants outwith the UK, and assurance that those unlucky in the draw may be given favourable consideration in the following year. Subject to brown-paper packages containing Ardbeg or similar.

And – a song that I have sung many the time – I fully endorse the long-standing policy that ensures that around one-third of entrants in any year are first-time Challengers. This is how our family grows and evolves. I am now but an empty gourd, a dry husk blown hither and thither amongst The M*n*dL**ths.

But there are concerns. As Phil has noted, in this month’s TGO magazine, page 21, there is a full-page advertisement offering participants in a multiple-choice question the chance to win a place on this year’s (2014) Challenge. Specifically Hallweg is offering three TGO readers the opportunity to take part (either alone or with a companion) on the TGO Challenge taking place between the 9th and 23rd May In other words, a total of six places maximum.

There are caveats. Within the small print there is the sentence “. . . relevant documents will be sent to the winners upon notification. Once completed forms are received, if the event’s organisers do not think you qualify, you will be notified immediately and another winner will be chosen.”

The closing date for this “competition” is January 17 2014, and the “winners” will be notified by 31st January 2014. And again All completion winners will have to complete an official application form and submit their proposed Challenge route by 15th February 2014

Two weeks to get a route together if you’re a first-timer? Go for it boys and grrrls . . .

This has come very late in the day – specifically long past the entry date. Whilst I can – as I’ve instanced above – fully understand the important role of sponsors – there’s a niggling question in my mind regarding the ethics. Yes, I get that sponsors should participate – they’re paying out the money. Certainly TGO have and RAB have fully engaged. I’m sure that we all welcome their participation, and wish them well.

I guess that it’s this sudden offering of places on The Challenge via a multiple-choice “competition” that is in fact simply an exercise in gathering personal data for marketing purposes that has me worried.

I would very much hope that these additional potentional sponsored places have been factored into both the initial selection and the stand-by list, and are entirely outwith these numbers.

I rant. You pant. Best Of The Beasts, my brothers and sisters.

To address HMP3's last point, I've just come home to find an email from JM to the standby listers in which he kindly points us to this opportunity and says:

But HMP3's post causes me to think about the standby list - namely, is it necessary? In bygone days the draw was made and as people dropped out so places were filled, often until quite shortly before the event.

Clearly this put pressure on vetters, having to vet routes late in the day - and indeed to be on hand to do so. So latterly the draw has been "front loaded" by 20 - 30 and the closing date for getting in from the standby list moved to the beginning of April, and this year to mid March.

I see the sense in this, as our vetting team now have a clearly defined cut off date and can plan to get on with life outwith the Challenge. The natural wastage of late withdrawals for various reasons (injury, work/family commitments etc) would take care of the "front loading" and leave around 300 eager Challengers to set off in mid May.

However, with the front loading and the reduced time for withdrawals, dare I suggest that the standby list has had its day? I, like many I guess, would like to clamber aboard next year, but wait in limbo for the slow crawl up the list. In the meantime we are unable to plan for or respond to invitations to alternative ways of spending our time in May - and it must be nearly impossible for those in employment who need to book holidays well in advance.

If the draw can be front loaded by 20 or so, and given that the organisers now have over three decades of stats, surely it wouldn't be too great a step to front load by another 25 or so and not have a standby list at all?

This would cut down on the admin, and everyone would know where they stood right from the off.

Any thoughts out there??

We do have a vetters meeting every year to try and improve the running of the event and I have actually suggested the same thing i.e. an entry of 350 with no reserve list. This would allow for a drop out of 50 thus getting down to around the usual 300 starters. The idea was considered but discounted in favour of the status quo. TGO and other sponsors have always had the option to include some of their own, and these have always been outwith the main body of the draw. From my own point of view the main reason for suggesting this would be to give everyone the immediate knowledge after the draw of whether they are on or off thus being able to plan for the rest of the year what they will be doing.

Good call, Lord Elpus, and one I'd not considered. But which makes a ton of sense.

My understanding is that your suggestion is to increase the front-loading to take into account the inevitable drop-outs, and shut the door after first applications. I think that this is good. It reduces last-minute vetter loads, and gives closure.

Any other thoughts amongst the congregation?

Hi Hump3, I think we crossed in the ether!

Good for you, Grumps! Beast of The Beasts to you and Avril! Trust that yr pelt is well groomed!

As someone who suffered the tender agonies of the standby list and just failed to get on the last Challenge, I think Phil's suggestion has a lot of merit.

"Any other thoughts amongst the congregation?"

A small point on scrapping the standby list - if on average 50 people have dropped out with 300 entrants, 58 people will likely drop out of 350 entrants (50x350/300), leaving 292. Better make it 360 places with a drop-out of 60 (50x360/300).

I also wonder if entry behaviour might change in some unforseen way if the standby list were scrapped, although I can't think how at the moment.

John

Interesting math, and well taken! I'd imagine that the current excellent "front-loaded" model is based on a rough calculation that brings the entrants down from 320 or so to around 285, and then allows potential stand-by participants to bring the number up to around 300.

There are those of us who might favour a higher "front-loading" and an absolute cut-off at the November draw. The advantages are that this gives definitive closure. A stand-by list can present particular problems for Challengers in full-time employment.

Risky business this front loading. If everyone remained hale and hearty pre-May, we'd have 350 folks on the event, too many routes to reasonably expect the beleaguered vetting team to handle, and we'd potentially be creating the same problems that the current cap on numbers is designed to avoid – overwhelming small communities, straining B&B/hostel resources in some places, over-crowding popular wild camps and bothies.

For the first few years I took part in the Challenge the limit was 250, with a few sponsors' representatives (inc me) and others associated with the event. It later grew to 300, and having such a high number would potentially grow it again.

Good idea Phil (and Grumps). It would at allow everyone to plan their May without the IF? (and give more time to get over the disappointment). A subject for the next vetters meeting perhaps.

There are some very good points made on this and I agree with HMP3 and Phil in their views.

I too think it would be a good idea to do away wih the standby list, and this has been useful in opening up this issue - again.

I must admit, as it is now, I do not like the idea that "prizewinners" can get on to the Challenge over and above others who are on the standby list. I see this as devisive.

To me this opens a can of worms and sets a potentially bad precedent for future years.

That's just my opinion.

This thread is breaking naturally into two topics; the event sponsors' places and the standby list. Both are closely linked, by finance.

I've often wondered about the financial make-up of this magnificent event, and have come to the conclusion that the event is run more on the sheer hard work and enthusiasm of the organisers rather than for financial reward, which I reckon is non-existent.

The event sponsors (The Great Outdoors and their co-sponsor) must be ploughing a fair amount of time and money into this event and surely it's only reasonable that they receive fair value in return. I've always been surprised that in the past The Great Outdoors' co-sponsors haven't made more of their sponsorship. For instance, there seemed to have been precious little use made of the event by the last co-sponsor, Rab, when they have been loyal sponsors of the event for quite a few years. I don't recall any past sponsor making overt use of the event, when I'm sure they were perfectly entitled to do so.

Hanwag is making use of their sponsorship by offering the places that are always reserved for the sponsors (TGO is using Chris Townsend, presumably so he can write some excellent articles in subsequent issues of the magazine) for a raffle/competition. I believe it's entirely up to them how they use their sponsor's places. By doing this they are again raising the profile of the event with more publicity, which surely can only be a good thing. It seems that the eventual winners of their competition will still have to meet the required standards of competence required by all Challengers. And remember, these winners are not taking away any places from Challengers; they are the event sponsor's places that have always been there.

I would have thought that from a marketing perspective having a standby list is a real bonus for event sponsors as it creates more desire to be part of the event; It certainly keeps conversation about the event in the period between the initial draw in November and the cut-off date in March at the forefront of social media.

I agree that Phil's suggestion of a definitive draw for, say, 350 places as a way of creating the same conclusion will mean those disappointed in the draw will be able to get on planning a different holiday. However it will mean losing the social media 'buzz' for four or five months, which will be a loss for the event.

The finance of print media is surely perilous enough in these days of electronic media and so I would support whatever is in the best interests of The Great Outdoors magazine and let the magazine decide whatever's best for them.

This is shaping up to be a very interesting discussion.

Alan's point regarding Hanwag's initiative in maintaining a buzz for the event has raised issues re sponsers' engagement. Frankly, having giving thought to this, I'm now minded to support Hanwag. I'll confess that my initial reaction was skeptical - but now that I fully understand that these possible six extra places are outwith the regular process I commend Hanwag for fully engaging in our event and going further than simply providing some class of a Goody Bag.

Their incremental offer of boots is a brave step - it gives them the opportunity to get reaction on real-world Scottish conditions, and I wish them well.

When I first was introduced to The Challenge it was as the result of a random conversation with Roger Smith back in '99. Social media per se did not exist, and there were few who accessed the Internet. All bets are now off - and one only has to look at this Message Board to realise the implications. The Challenge has now a mighty presence, and I welcome all who contribute to this.

As I've written in my previous post, I've concerns that Hanwags's window between gaining a place and presenting a route-plan is extremely short - particularly for entrants who may have no prior knowledge of the event. But these are procedural matters, and should Hanwag continue as sponsors in future years they may wish to provide up-front information regarding route-planning and submission.

Moving on to the Standby List discussion
My own sense of the congregation is that maybe this is the time for this to be re-visited. My own take is that it should be scrapped, front-loading (pace Mr Grumpy) should be increased, and that all potential participants should have a clear indication mid-November.

In this context Hanwag's initiative gives those who haven't made the cut an opportunity. Yes, they gather details for marketing purpose, but no real harm in this, que no? At the heel of the hunt it's all about participation. It's a big tent, and we welcome all comers.

Well, The Werewolves of The Upper Dulmain certainly subscribe to this . . . I understand from Maurice Woolf that Full Moon in May 2014 falls at a time when many Challengers may be traversing The Unmentionable Mountains. I'd refer Challengers to Maurice's recent post right here

I completely agree with Alan, nobody is denied a place on the challenge as the sponsors allocation is not part of the overall limit on places. Given that winners of the competition have to meet the same standards as the rest of us I don't have a problem. I think Hanwag is paying a big compliment to the challenge by using their allowance as a prize. The event needs sponsors and if they help keep this amazing event viable then I am grateful.

An interesting thread which asks as many questions as it answers. In sprit, I am with Al and Russ. Mr Grumpy makes an interesting intervention along the lines that sponsors have always had this benefit, but maybe none have decided to do so.

As ever this has got me thinking. Expect a blog post at some point over the weekend. Those with not much time on their hands might decide to avoid it now!

I would just finish by saying this is an event that as evolved and changed since its early days. Maybe there haven't been too many changes in recent years but that is not the same as saying that things will never change.

Through blogs, Al and I have been on an extended riff about the future of print and outdoor journalism and this may be pertinent here as well. For our event to live on the magazine needs to live on. And these are still trying times.

Initially I felt a bit uneasy about a competition for places on the Challenge, but given these are extra and winners would have to fulfil the same criteria as the rest of us, I feel more relaxed. A maximum of six extra places doesn't seem excessive and it's not unreasonable for Hanwag to run this as a promotion as they are sponsoring the event.

I take Alan's point about the social media buzz as I was one of those doing the buzzing on twitter as I climbed up the standby list, just failing to get a place at the death. However, it seems it would aid the task of the vetters, aid the administration of the event and give people a clear yes/ no if there were no standby list. If that is deemed worthwhile by the organisers, then I would have no problem.

Is everyone getting a free pair of Hanwag boots at the end?

With you on that, Robin.

However, the "social media buzz" is a bit of a red herring in the standby list debate, as there is far more "buzz" from those with a place than those without. Thus 50 front-loaded = 50 more potentially discussing routes and rendez-vous etc and exciting the interest of others in both the event, and, of course, the magazine.

Hopefully more younger (by which I mean working rather than retired) participants too; as I remarked earlier, the standby list is of no real benefit to someone in employment who needs to plan vacation time well in advance.

And I wholeheartedly support Hanwag's use of their sponsor's places. I hope that their marketing department will exploit the event to the full and use it in future advertising and promotion - good for Hanwag and good for us.

I will be entering the competition. And I do rather fancy a pair of their boots. I wonder if there's a limit on the number of entries I can submit

I have to say that I cannot disagree with any of the points raised about the sponsorship, finances, and the need to raise publicity and keep a buzz about this great event.

I think there are two issues, as Alan points out. The Standby list and sponsorship.

But, as I see it, this initiative crosses into new territory.

I may be seeing this all wrong,so please correct me if I'm way off track:

Up to now there have been two ways to get on to the Challenge: by entry and by sponsorship. And, I've absolutely no issue with Sponsors deciding who they want to put on the Challenge.

Now Hanwag are offering "prizewinners" a chance to also gain entry.

Here I have to disagree with the general line that this does not take away from any places for Challengers. Whilst this is strictly true, it may not sit easily on some people's minds that others could circumvent the existing selection process.

Lets say that the "prizewinners" were people who applied for the Challenge, and, lets say that they were drawn way down the standby list.

They will not take away places, BUT, they will gain entry over people futher up the standby list. To, me, this seems unfair and devisive.

While it exists the standby list is the fairest way of giving people, who chose to apply, a potential chance of getting on the Challenge. Sponsorship has never been part of this selection process up to now.

It is now.

All the while there is a standly list and this new "prizewinner" way of circumventing the standby list, I do see this as devisive.

Perhaps I'm missing something here?

I just picture myself failing to get in by one or two places and then hearing that Joe Bloggs, who was ten places lower than me on the Standby list got on as a "prizewinner."

All in all I think that this has been a good day's work - from Gordon's initial post to a variety of responses. To my mind this is what is best about our Forum - the ability to respond to an issue - whether it be a route query, or, in this case, a more profound concern. The opportunity to engage in debate, and to respect the views of our fellows.

The way this works, though, means that Joe Bloggs winning a place does not affect your own chances of getting a place, because – as others have correctly posited – the Hanwag places are in addition to the 320 already on the event. Aye, it might seem a bit like queue-jumping but it won't actually affect the rate at which you reach the front of the queue, and can actually improve that.

If Joe Bloggs is at number 30, and you're at 29, you'll still be at 29 when he wins his place and he and his walking partner are given places. People will move up the Standby List in just the same way they would if the prize places didn't exist.

If anything, some on the SB List would benefit: if you were at Number 2, and Number 1 won a place, then you'd automatically be moved up to Number 1.

I'm quite chuffed that Hanwag's taken this approach. I had a long chat with their PR Hazel spelling out the fact that while these places are wonderful prizes, there's no way the winners can have any preferential treatment: so, if their experience isn't up to scratch, their place will re-allocated to another entrant. They must also submit their route to the same deadline as the other entrants (because of the lateness of the day, their deadline is the same as that of the first timers) and the route will be thoroughly vetted just like all the others, and bounced back for revision if found wanting.

Apart from TGO Magazine, it is hard to think of sponsors who've put representatives "into the field" as it were: Chris Lines did a half-Challenge for Berghaus a few years ago; Terry Abraham was put forward to represent Rab a couple of years back but had to withdraw due to work commitments… and many old timers will remember Craghopers (and later Berghaus) head-honcho Tony Wood turning up in Montrose with a £10 stuck to his forehead several years running, despite not doing the walk (yet!).

Here's another thought for the melting pot: what kind of person is likely to enter this competition? Who's likely to be lured by such a prize? Who's got the experience and qualifications to fit the bill? Hanwag might just have done a bunch of Standby Listers a marvellous favour!

That inspires another thought… I hope that if any solo Standby Listers win a place they might, in the marvellous spirit of this marvellous event, perhaps marvellously consider inviting another solo standby lister to be their "plus-one"… I'd hate to see marvellous places go to waste!

The existence of the SB List, and the front-loading, is a debate for later. Let's get 2014 safely and successfully out of the way!

I agree with HMP3, this has been a very good debate.

It has also been conducted with good spirit.

I feel content that issues have been well addressed and will not be banging on any further on this.

Thanks for a full explanation, John.

Well said John

This discussion has been long dead now ... but since it is suggested that the topic may be discussed at a future route vetters' meeting, I thought I'd add my thoughts for what they're worth.

2014 will be my ninth Challenge, and the third or fourth time (fourth, I think) that I have got in off the standby list. I have never been on the standby list and failed to get a place.

I have no misgivings about the Hanwag competition. I think it is a marvellous gesture, and well done them. I do think that the turnaround time for winners getting their routes in is rather short ... but this could easily be addressed in future either, as has been suggested, by adjusting the timing of any such competition, or by providing the winners with a few examples of routes successfully followed by past Challengers (graded from "easy low-level" to "really tough Challenge") both so they can see the sort of thing that' sexpected and so that, if they are struggling to plan a route in the time, they can just adopt one of the sample routes (indeed, there is scope for a bit of "engineering" here ... if the vetters have been noticing an imbalance in choice of start points, the sample routes offered to Hanwag winners could be skewed in favour of the under-used start points ...)

As to whether the Standby List has had its day or not, I am a firm advocate of its retention. Fully front-loading would run the risk of over-loading if insufficient Challengers dropped out; and it would change the profile of the route-vetters' workload. I am not sure the change would be for the better.

Having been on the standby list several times, and being in employment, I do not see the uncertainty as an issue. I assume I will be in Scotland in May and plan accordingly. If the middle of March comes and I don't have my place, I just plan an alternative active holiday in Scotland. 7 weeks oughtn't to be too little notice to put something suitable together. And if I stay away from the Challenge area, the accommodation won't all be booked out.

In short, therefore, I think that the standby list is the most efficient way of feeding in the correct number of replacements - neither too many nor too few - for the number of dropouts. The partial front-loading was a desirable adjustment from a route vetting point of view, albeit undesirable from the point of view of those lucky few who CAN drop everything and go at a week's notice. For them, a high number on the standby list was nothing to be concerned about. Now it is a little more so. But even if I were one of them, I suspect that would be a price I would readily pay for keeping the vetters happy by saving them from last-minute vetting chores.

For these reasons, I would be minded ot retain it. I do not think that desire which some people have expressed for absolute certainty as to whether they are on the Challenge or not is a good enough reason to abandon the standby list. Absolute certainty can be achieved, even with the standby list, by simply completing the form to say that if unsuccessful in the primary draw, you do NOT want to go onto the standby list. So, since you CAN have that certainty if you want it ,what argument remains for taking the th estandby list away from those who are willin gto live with the uncertainty for a bit?