The statistics have their limitations, and the data collection system is far from perfect, but they’re all we have. I think they serve us well in terms of the broad picture. And it makes sense that those who paddle very small craft like canoes, kayaks, and paddleboards are at greater risk of a bad outcome when things go wrong.
The original post brought up some interesting questions, triggered some examples of poor attitude as well as several tangent discussions.
It seems to me that the question here is what responsibility do manufacturers have when it comes to advertising and to how their products are ultimately used by the public.
Advertising, by it’s nature, works to convince the consumer to buy a product. To that end, ads feature pretty products being used by beautiful models in awesome surroundings. The ads are targeted - especially in these data mining times - to specific audiences. Oru’s target is non-bad ass kayakers with limited storage space who are interested in rec boats but are drawn to the sleeker looking vessel rather than a plastic bath tub. The price is higher, yes, but consumers will happily spend the money to look cool.
Most of the posters here are very experienced kayakers who immediately see the ad’s flaws, limitations and potentially dangerous usage of an Oru kayak, but the target audience for Oru sees really nice photography. They aren’t necessarily going to buy an Oru and immediately head for Iceland or Deception Pass and paddle unprepared in dangerous cold water. They see pretty locations, not necessarily destinations. Could they make bad decisions? Of course. That’s not Oru’s responsibility any more than car accidents are the fault of ads showing professional drivers doing stunt work. “Don’t try this at home” was so ubiquitous on TV that it became a punchline.
I bought my first kayak in 2002, a pricey 17’ glass Necky. The shop also sold me a cheap feathered paddle and a Body Glove water skiing vest. The kit didn’t come with any instructions. Was the shop at fault for not educating me about gear and safety? No. They missed an opportunity to up sell a completely ignorant never-kayaked-before customer but they were not responsible for me spending several years paddling all alone between Ventura and Santa Barbara with that damn foam vest under the bungees and no spray skirt. It was up to me to learn proper technique and safety and to recognize the limitations of myself and my gear. I did entertain the surfer dudes many a day trying to figure out surf launches!
A reputable company would pay attention to what their ads display, that’s true. Oru is obviously deficient on several fronts and it should be brought to their attention. Their response was pretty limp. Oru needs to think things through a bit better, perhaps get better at listening to feedback and could show themselves to be upstanding by fixing the flaws.
That said, it doesn’t mean Oru is responsible for consumers exceeding the design limitations of their products, for unsafe behavior by owners using their products or that they should be sued for any accidents that are the result of uneducated adult paddlers mimicking ads. Ads are not classrooms. Anyone who practices what ads preach are as clueless as Oru featuring down jackets on a cold water paddle. Does any guy really believe that coating himself in Axe body spray will cause buxom scantily clad women to chase him down the street? Or that bringing the right six-pack to the party will cause all the hunks to flock to your side? It’s marketing designed to make you spend money, nothing more. Caveat emptor.
Better to make paddling education easier to find and Mr. Avery is to be acknowledged for offering educational opportunities in addition to watch dogging ads. Classes should also be approachable, fun and not always about sea kayaks.
3 Likes
Paddler education is a noble endeavor. Statistics are tricky. We also have our own experience.- of which there are many different kinds.
Some of us have to go out and burn our fingers before we realize the stove is hot. The fools are ones that keep touching the stove anyway. Perhaps it is better to not be burned in the first place.
I survived the age of multiple paddling jackets, wool sweaters, and poorly fitting farmer john wetsuits… but barely. We can do a lot better now. I don’t need statistics to tell me cold water is dangerous. I know it firsthand. Some of us learn from our experiences and want to pay it forward. No one is immune from the need to make good decisions. We don’t have Tompkins (Northface founder) around anymore- a very experienced guy who made a sketchy decision that cost him his life.
“We want to do something good, but you’ve got to be very naïve and out to lunch to think that certain sectors of society are not going to put up resistance,” Mr. Tompkins [told The New York Times]. “If you’re not willing to take the political heat, then you shouldn’t get into the game of land conservation, especially on a large scale.”
Perhaps the same is true for paddlesport safety- resistance is likely to increase when efforts are scaled up. I really do think Tompkins would want us to learn something from his demise while also continuing to support his conservation initiatives .
So we can learn from others and also from our own mistakes/experiences. We can debate which statistics are real. …but I can tell you with absolute certainty that if you find yourself underdressed and swimming frantically for shore or gasping for breath while climbing up on top of your boat to get more of your body up out of the water- well, then it is very real for you. Sometimes the narrow view is all you need to be a true believer.
2 Likes
I do believe that some folks are truly that clueless- I guess I’m more of a Ralph Nader kind of person. The paddle boat manufacturers could always do what the drug companies do-
The people in the picture are not real paddlers but actors. Possible side effects of paddling in cold water without immersion wear include freezing to death, death by drowning, and a general loss of life. Discontinue paddling if your boat sinks and seek help immediately. Do not paddle your boat alone or while consuming drugs and alcohol. Studies have shown that paddling can be dangerous when done without adequate flotation, a basic ability to swim, or the absence of a properly fitted pfd. If you are pregnant or thinking about becoming pregnant consult your doctor before paddling. If you do not have money to buy a new boat your spouse may help.
4 Likes
How much would it cost to have manufacturers of kayaks, canoes and SUPs to include with each of the above they sell to include a pamphlet describing the suggested safe use for each model. Following this a more general discussion regarding safety, such as wearing a PFD, dressing for the water temperature, watching the weather, etc. It needn’t be exhaustive.
While not everyone would read it and fewer might follow all of the suggestions, at least it would have given everyone who is buying something an opportunity to educate themselves if they weren’t planning on formal lessons.
I suspect that some of the more responsible manufacturers might do this already.
1 Like
Along the lines of what has been discussed in this topic, I sent a letter to RAVE Sports that has an ad in PCOM that shows a model on a SUP without a PFD anywhere in site. On their site there are many photos showing people having PFDs and using them to save the SUP, but at least they have one with them in line with USCG and most state regulations.
1 Like
Some more specialized local retailers in my area will frequently have aca pamphlets and placards on the counter for customers. However, I have not seen that at the big box stores. Where the need is greatest, entry level rec boats, materials are less apparent.
I like this idea. I also think they should have a disclaimer under the ad with the couple drinking wine in their kayaks. I wonder what would happen if Ford tried to advertise cars showing a picture of a couple driving together while clinking glasses of wine.
2 Likes
Not much when compared to the cost of their products. But Oru may well already do that. My point in the video is that it doesn’t cost a manufacturer or retailer any more to make a responsible ad than it does to make one that throws safety under the bus.
1 Like
Y’all have more faith in humans than I do.
People sign legal documents without reading them and you honestly believe that the average customer will bother with a safety brochure? I needed an MRI 4 years ago. When I started in on the paperwork, one of the forms said I had read and agreed with the Patient Privacy Policy. It wasn’t in the paperwork packet so I asked the desk for one. Three people behind the counter and no one knew where to find it. That’s how often people read important stuff.
If you’re referring to the Sandy Hook tragedy, yes, Remington agreed to a settlement but they were not found guilty of anything. Since it wasn’t a jury decision against them I don’t know if a legal precedent was set. There are however differences, I think, although I’m not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV).
Sandy Hook was a mass shooting of children. Remington likely figured the emotional testimony would cause a jury to decide against them and decided to settle,
Someone suing in court on the basis of “My beloved didn’t wear a PFD or a dry suit because the ads showed people not using that gear” probably wouldn’t carry as much emotional weight. I’m sure a commonsense element or did the victim exceed their level of skill would be argued. There are also plenty of examples of people not associated with Oru kayaks who don’t wear PFDs, drink while on paddles or paddle in cold water without a dry suit or wetsuit.
Again I want to state that I don’t condone the Oru ads. I just believe that Americans are inclined to shift responsibility to other parties. There are egregious examples of deceptive and harmful advertising - tobacco and pharmaceutical companies come to mind - but not all manipulative advertising is criminal. The concept of Caveat Emptor is not “buyer beware” as is commonly thought but is more properly translated as “ due diligence” a very different concept.
The line between persuasive advertising that taps into emotional needs and deceptive advertising is the issue here. Oru, other than showing people drinking while piloting a craft (the law states that passengers can drink but not the person piloting a water craft), has not been deceptive, although USCG requires PDFs to be worn.
This is the gray area that cosmetic companies exploit. “Eliminates the appearance of fine lines” is a common marketing phrase. It is subjective and circumvents legal restrictions.
It would be interesting to hear from legal experts, if any are on this board, about the implications of showing people paddling without PFDs.
1 Like
For some reason @steevey deleted the post as I was typing my reply to. Maybe there was a reluctance to bring gun issues into the conversations, but my post was in reply to that deleted post.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, KayakerBee. USCG only requires that PFDs be on board. They don’t require that they be worn. Some states require that children wear PFDs, or that they be worn by everyone in the off season - and those state regs are increasing in number.
But the point we tried to make in the video was one of corporate responsibility. We’re suggesting that if you make your money from the sale of paddlesports products, then you should advertise in a way that doesn’t undermine the safety culture in paddling. We think that’s reasonable under the circumstances, and that definition is also easy to understand and doesn’t involve legislation. In effect, what we’re asking is that these folks self-regulate and behave like good corporate citizens in this particular arena - something that they can easily accomplish, but that the trolls apparently find difficult to understand or stomach.
The most common industry response to proposed regulatory legislation is to say that formal regulations are unnecessary and that the corporations can self-regulate. This is the perennial freedom vs regulation debate, and in this case, self-regulation is a simple matter of adopting a marketing polity that doesn’t undermine well-established safety protocols.
Thank you Moulton!
Again with the insults, classy.
I’m not against safety that’s simply an absurd idea. I’m against regulation, and I disagree with how you frame you opposition to regulation.
Politicians will use tragic incidents to push their agendas, but that is hardly the only thing or even the primary factor in their calculus in proposing legislation.
However, accepting your premise that tragic incidents are the “big driver”, using hyperbolic words like “carnage” to describe those incidents only serves to bolster the drive for regulation to “prevent further tragedy”.
Finally, I’ll quote the American Whitewater Association in reference to your and legislators’ claim to “increasing” fatalities in Washington.
“…the number of paddlesports fatalities over the past decade has remained relatively constant at an average of 11 annual fatal incidents (ranging from 7 to 14 annual incidents) as the state population continues to increase and participation in paddlesports has doubled. Given a relatively constant number of incidents but an increasing number of participants, the fatality rate has declined to less than 1 in 100,000 participants”
1 Like
Does the AWA or ACA track all paddle related deaths or only that occurred in WW runs? As to statistics;you can make numbers enhanse an argument based on what factors you use when gathering your stats. Numbers can always be played with.
2 Likes
I think both sides need to stand back and take a deep breath. Possibly take it outside in the parking lot. I’m seeing a lot of name-calling (the word “troll” is just designed to get under a person’s skin). Accusing someone of being “anti-safety” is the same. Some valid questions have been asked, I assume for the sake of receiving information, and not to be snarky or sarcastic. Perhaps I’m wrong. But this whole discussion has gone off the rails.
The OP has shared a great video that has a great purpose. But the bickering and name-calling has stripped the whole thread of its value. I’m all for open discussion, but this has turned into pure head-butting. How about both sides just try to be civil and respectful? People can have varying opinions, and still be reasonable people. You’ve established that you are both anti-regulation, and not anti-safety. Let’s accept that, please? You disagree on the reasons for all the regulations. Okay. Why fight about that? From outside the actual fight, it appears to have become personal, and not about the thread topic at all.
What I have gotten from the thread is this:
- Oru (and other companies) are advertising their products in an irresponsible manner, portraying people paddling in unsafe conditions, and without proper safety equipment
- Paddlers are more likely to die in the event of an on-water accident than the users of other types of vessels. Especially when the water is cold. Quite frankly, paddlers are more vulnerable, so this makes perfect sense to me.
- Responsible advertising and proper education of paddlers would help a) reduce the number of accidents, and b) help ensure paddlers were properly equipped, both of which would improve safety and reduce fatalities.
- sometimes when people disagree on the finer details, they dig in and the Big Picture gets lost. As does civility.
6 Likes
In other words, the horse is dead. Put your sticks away.
4 Likes
To my knowledge, ACA doesn’t track incidents. That wasn’t always the case. In fact ACA was the publisher of Charlie Walbridge’s excellent River Safety Reports for over a decade. The emphasis was whitewater. Today, AW tracks whitewater incidents and maintains a database. The USCG tracks all boating accident statistics, but as noted elsewhere on this thread, accidents have to meet a certain threshold in order to be captured by the statistics. That said, those stats are the best we have and the broad trends are obvious.
That quote is from an article that the AWA published in opposition to proposed paddle sports legislation. In the article they reference Coast Guard data, so those numbers are from all paddle sports.
Numbers can definitely be manipulated, as the saying goes, “figures never lie, but liars always figure”. However, a raw number such as fatalities is hard to manipulate. It either shows an increase or it doesn’t.