Exposure in itself does very little in terms of changing policy.
A fuller answer might be that greater promotion and quality PR brings more people in to the sport, that means more money and greater voting power. That is something that industry and govt (at all levels) pay attention to, as opposed to 'legitimacy'. Other benefits might be larger local markets to bring prices down and increase market competition. Although there are drawbacks as well. Over-crowding of trails can risk having them shut down rather than opened up - just because you get more people doesn't mean there will be some kind of tipping point reached in terms of advocacy and market forces. Greater numbers can also attract greater attention, which often means greater regulation.
I just find it funny how you often hear "greater exposure" without any explanation why we even want it. As much as I find asking a simple and fair question seems to imply that I "don't get" something as if the answer is clear, simple and obvious.
Thank you. To a large extent, that encapsulates a lot of the intent that I poorly put across (which was too difficult to achieve on an iPad and I was mindful of the deadline).
I am of the belief that greater exposure is a positive thing. I also think it is a fair presumption that exposure, awareness, involvement and attention will happen quite slowly which should mean an opportunity to better control regulation and large scale influence.
I cannot cite official information but anecdotal evidence plus common sense would point to greater awareness playing a substantial part in the success of the typically cited global examples of successful MTB locations. It is commonplace whenever discussing trail advocacy to read about Whistler, 7Stanes in Scotland, Rotorua, Queenstown, European Alps destinations etc as examples of successful MTB facilities. I should point out that even though the title of this thread mentions DH (and most of the previous examples are mostly DH), I am really referring to the sport as a whole.
Even by their very discussion in forums such as this (as well as the global ones) awareness of riding locations increases which leads to more people travelling further afield for riding holidays. Coupled with the use of social media further increasing awareness, more people are visiting overseas riding locations. It is through the MTB community that I learned of the riding in Whislter and also visited Rotorua last year. And through the reports and discussion on this forum, I intend to visit Queenstown later this year and hopefully the Alps in 2015.
This awareness of locations will eventually increase visitation, bring more money into the local communities and (presumably) lift the awareness of the sport to the non-riding community. As the the greater public become more aware of the sport, the provision of facilities and services to support mtb will gradually increase as would involvement.
I would speculate that places like South America will start to increase their MTB presence and facilitation through coverage and development of events such as the Valapraiso urban DH and the upcoming EWS round (both in Chile) as well as the IncaAvalanche in Peru and the even the featuring of Salta (Argentina) in Where The Trail Ends. I have friends in Canada and Northern USA who are travelling to Sth America in February (the Northern hemisphere winter) to ride in the warmer conditions. Their awareness has piqued in recent years through coverage in international forums, social media and general discussion.
At a slight tangent, Ive just returned from skiing in Niseko, Japan. Speaking to some locals as well as expats, they said that one of the biggest factors in the increased popularity of skiing there was down to the huge numbers of visiting Aussies. 15-20 years ago, the industry was very small by comparison. Now skiing represents the bulk of the local economy (although there is a developing summer sport industry, including MTB). In addition to the large Australian and NZ visitors, the concierge advised that they are now seeing more and more Canadians, Americans and even Northern Europeans leaving their local pistes to ski in Japan. Surely a small skiing industry that has grown through the increased awareness on a global level could be paralleled against the MTB industry?
Therefore I think that the greater the awareness, involvement, attention etc, the higher the likelihood of the creation of facilities, supporting services and funding. One could even argue that with a critical mass of participants, the development of the sport from a product perspective might increase. More participation COULD lead to demand that pushes the envelope of design. Would it be silly to suggest that if the present number of global MTB riders was only half of what it is now that the development of current technologies would be far less due to reduced demand? Therefore if the present number was doubled, one might expect the development to increase . Granted that is a quantum leap but to me it seems a logical presumption.
MTB is a growing sport. More people ride now than 20 years ago and more riding locations are being created (both legal and not yet legal). We have all seen the sport develop from a technological point of view. Pushing the development of the sport through increased awareness seem to me a positive thing. Clearly I'm not alone otherwise Rachel Atherton would never have made it into the top 10. Obviously a global forum (VitalMTB) think that the attention she could potentially generate if vote number 1 would be beneficial to the sport hence their advocation for voting.
If there was an opportunity locally to elect someone like Caroline Buchanan for a similar award or Jared Graves for a male equivalent, I would have thought that almost every reader of this forum would be all over it, no questions asked. Perhaps Im wrong?
Ultimately its simply my opinion. I'm not looking to start a lengthy discussion or argument. If you see value in voting, please do. If not, then your decision is respected.
Regards.
