Visualizing participation at the ABC Conference
The industry players shaping the indoor climbing scene.
Introduction
Last week saw the annual ABC Conference. This event is the most important indoor climbing conference in the UK, and sees some of the biggest names in climbing descend on Sheffield, arguably the climbing capital of the country. The conference is two days full of talks, networking and, for good measure, a bouldering competition hosted by none other than Molly Thompson-Smith.
As I scanned through the list of companies that would be exhibiting - some of them household names and others unknown to me - I wondered how representative this group of organisations were of the indoor climbing industry as a whole.
In this article, I take a look at the different markets that make up the industry and discuss their level of representation at the ABC Conference.
Disclaimer: this analysis is not designed to be a precise estimate of the relative sizes of sectors in the indoor climbing industry, nor of their competitiveness. Rather, my goal is to promote discussion regarding the economic contribution of each sector, and whether there is scope to make these sectors more competitive.
The Economics bit…
Before getting started, there is some terminology we should know.
(1) Market size:
When considering the size of the market, we generally look at the total revenue of firms operating in that market or the volume of goods they sell.
(2) Competitiveness:
The competitiveness of an industry is slightly trickier to measure. I'm sure you are aware of the term monopoly - a single firm that controls all output in a market. In other words, a single company has a 100% share of the market. What about oligopoly? This is a small number of firms that control the output. Perhaps useful trivia for your next pub quiz.
To put a single value on competitiveness, economists generally use a measure called the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), calculated by adding up the squared market shares of the competitors in that market and multiplying this number by 10,000. Huh? More details in the footnotes. For now, it is sufficient to understand that a higher value of the HHI indicates a less competitive market and vice versa.¹
In the analysis below I take a look at measuring the market characteristics above based purely on data from the ABC Conference: (1) number of exhibiting firms in each market and (2) number of exhibition stands acquired by each firm.
Still with me? The climbing bit….
If you're already active in the climbing world, then many of the names mentioned in this article, their size and their area of operation will be familiar to you. However, if you are a recreational climber, or one of those odd people who doesn't yet climb, then you might be surprised to learn what goes on behind the scenes to ensure the smooth functioning of your local wall.
In the Packed Circles Chart below, each circle represents a market, and its size is proportional to the number of firms exhibiting at the conference.
Refer to the footnotes for an explanation of each of the markets.²
Market size
With regards to the sizes of each market, Walls manufacturers were present on 18.5 stands (EP's 5 stands have been split evenly between Holds and Walls, given the company's multiple areas of operation). Being the most dominant, the Walls circle in the chart is largest. Holds manufacturers had 13.5 stands whilst Equipment Distributors had 13 and so their circles are slightly smaller and of similar size.
When we look at the largest circles, they each have numerous dominant competitors. In Holds, these are EP and Core Climbing. Walltopia was particularly dominant in the Walls market (well, what would you expect with a name like that?) with 7 stands, whilst Kong Climbing followed with 4 stands.
It can be easy to disregard the smallest circles as irrelevant, but the low representation of organisations in these markets is insightful. For example, only one dedicated charity was exhibiting at the conference. I suspect this has more to do with the cost associated with obtaining a stand at the conference rather than this single organisation being a monopoly force in the charity space.
Conversely, Autobelays were present on two stands, represented by a single firm: Headrush Technologies. This is, of course, an example of a very uncompetitive market consisting of a single firm supplying the vast majority of the market.
It’s important to note that charities were present in other forms at the event. The NICAS team, for example, did not exhibit per se but instead opted for a more flexible format allowing their team to partake in the many talks and workshops that had been organised. Additionally, the ABC involved multiple charities including Papyrus and Refugees Rock in the “Inside Edge” competition by offering complimentary spaces and even presenting a dedicated block to suicide prevention.
Competitiveness
Remember the mathy bit from above? The diagram below orders each of the markets in terms of their HHI. In this context, this is a measure of Broadness of Representation, since there are obviously additional firms that operate in these markets that were not present at the conference. The markets at the top of the chart are those that were most broadly represented by a variety of different organisations on the stands (they have the lowest HHIs). These are Holds, Equipment Manufacturers, Software and Walls.
Of note to the industry as a whole is the lack of financial organisations displaying at the conference. The presence of only two lenders and two insurance companies suggests that financial interest in the industry is still in its infancy. This will likely change as climbing continues to establish itself not only as a prominent force in the action sports world, but as a relevant player in the leisure industry in general.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the 2024 ABC Conference provided valuable insights into the size and competitiveness of various sectors within the indoor climbing industry. Wall, Hold, and Equipment manufacturers dominated the event, highlighting their significant presence in the market, while areas like financial services were notably underrepresented.
As the climbing industry continues to grow and mature, it will be fascinating to observe how the diversity and representation of companies at future conferences evolve, reflecting broader shifts in the sector’s economic landscape.
Footnotes
1 The HHI is best understood with examples. Consider a market with a single firm with 100% market share. This market will have a HHI of 10,000. Alternatively, a market in which two firms split the market evenly (50% each) will have a HHI of 5,000. If these firms instead split the market 70% and 30%, then the HHI increases to 5,800. In other words, the latter case represents a less competitive market due to the less even market shares of each firm.
2 The exhibiting firms were split into 17 categories:
Association: Bodies that govern various parts of the climbing industry, such as the BMC and the ABC.
Autobelay: Autobelay manufacturers (Headrush Technologies).
Charity: Charities operating in the climbing sector.
Consultant: Industry advisors.
Distributor: Distributors of climbing equipment such as Lyon and Beyond Hope.
Drinks: This category consists solely of Tenzing.
Eco: Firms operating in the sustainability space (Climb3r).
Holds: Manufacturers of climbing holds such as EP and Core.
Insurance: Insurance providers to the industry.
Lender: Companies that provide leasing services and commercial loans.
Maintenance: Specialists in carrying out equipment inspections.
Manufacturer: Manufacturers of climbing equipment, such as Petzl, DMM and Edelrid.
Setting: Consists of Impact Route Setting, which provides setting and educational services to walls.
Shoes: Manufacturers of shoes, such as Tenaya and Boreal.
Software: Companies providing software services, such as employee and customer management.
Training boards: Manufacturers of training boards, such as Moon Climbing.
Walls: Manufacturers of indoor climbing walls, such as Walltopia.