Fresh vs Finished - The Productivity Trap
Chapter three in a series on how to read, understand, manage, and optimise route setting - written for the people who run climbing walls.
Last month we replaced a sentence - “just go and do what you want” - with four lines on a page. This month we're going after a number. Specifically, the number most operators reach for first when they want to know if setting is going well: routes/problems per day.
The number everyone reaches for
It's an easy number to love. It's easy to track, easy to compare between setters, easy to put in a spreadsheet next to a day rate and call it productivity. Most gyms have a rough sense of what “good” looks like:
Metric | Bouldering | Roped (below 12m) |
Routes / blocs per day | 6–14 | 4–8 |
Numbers like these are useful as a sanity check - if a setter is producing one route a day, something is probably wrong, and if they're churning out twenty, something is probably wrong in the other direction. But used as a target rather than a sanity check, this number quietly becomes the thing you're optimising for. And routes per day was never the thing you were actually trying to buy.
"Everything a setting day costs. None of it tells you what it earned"
What the number can't tell you
This is where it's worth being honest about what a productivity benchmark actually measures. It's a statistical, post-production snapshot - it tells you how much got made, not whether the thing being made was worth it. As Jérôme puts it: “an output benchmark like this only holds up if you assume the setting is good and most of the routes will land” - and even then, it's an average measured after the fact. It doesn't tell you, in advance or in principle, whether the time a setter just spent was time well spent.
So the question is not just “how many did we make” but “how many of those will a customer actually want to climb, more than once, and tell a friend about.” Those are very different questions, and only one of them shows up on a productivity report.
Fresh vs finished
Every reset sits somewhere on a line between fresh and finished. Fresh means the wall changes often, novelty stays high, and customers always have something new to try - but pushed too far, fresh becomes rushed. Setters chase the count, forerunning gets skipped, quality drops, and you end up resetting more often to compensate for routes that weren't good enough the first time. That's productivity going up while commercial value goes down.
Finished means the reverse: slower, more considered, extended testing and tweaking, heavily forerun and refined sets that feel genuinely complete. Pushed too far this way, finished becomes stale - brilliant routes that sit unchanged for so long that the wall stops feeling alive, and the gym loses the “something new” that brings members back on a Tuesday night for no particular reason except curiosity.
What type of customer this attracts and its impact
Rotation rate is not just a maintenance/operational decision, it's a customer filter and core commercial lever. A high-turnover wall keeps beginners moving: constant novelty gives new climbers a reason to return that has nothing to do with mastering any single route, which matters because novice climbers plateau fast and sandbagged grades punish them disproportionately. Frequent resets soften both problems by replacing the route before frustration sets in. A low-turnover wall does the opposite: it signals to regulars that a project is worth the investment, that the gym trusts them to spend six weeks failing on the same move before it disappears. Push either strategy too far and it stops filtering for the customer you want and starts filtering them out - beginners get bored of a wall that never moves, regulars get resentful of one that never lets them finish anything.
This is why rotation strategy can’t be set in isolation from commercial strategy. Most facilities will land somewhere in the middle, but “the middle” isn’t a default - it’s a decision that should follow from two numbers: the lifetime value of your core customer, and your customer attrition rate. Is the business built on volume - a large community of average climbers cycling in and being replaced steadily, where retention depends on constant reasons to come back? Or is it built on the smaller group training hard, whose annual spend is often lower but who churn less over a longer horizon and carry outsized aspirational value - the climbers other members look up to, the ones who make a centre’s reputation. Get that identification wrong, and rotation strategy ends up optimising for the customer you don’t actually need.
That’s exactly why rotation sits with marketing and overall commercial strategy, not off to the side as a setting-team call - it’s a lever for whichever customer you’ve decided to build the business around, alongside your reset budget and, as chapter five will get into, the shape of your grade curve.
The practical version is simple enough to run this month: pull your last quarter of visit or membership data, split it roughly into new/beginner traffic and long-tenure regulars, and use that ratio to decide how often each part of the wall changes. What routes-per-day still can’t tell you is where you land on any of those axes. A setter can hit the benchmark by rushing six mediocre routes or carefully producing six excellent ones, and the spreadsheet looks identical either way.
Buying returns, not routes
Here's the reframe worth sitting with: you are not paying for routes. You are paying for the returns those routes generate - repeat attempts, longer sessions, more frequent visits, the kind of quiet loyalty that shows up on a retention report six months later, not on a setting log the next morning.
A route that costs an hour to set and gets climbed four hundred times over its life is a wildly better commercial outcome than a route that costs fifteen minutes and gets climbed twice. Neither of those facts is visible if all you're tracking is how many routes went up today. The goal was never maximum output. It's maximum commercial value per reset - and value, unlike output, has to be inferred from what happens after the routes go up, not just counted on the day they do.
Questions worth asking instead
• Do you know which routes from your last reset got the most repeat attempts - and did anyone ask why?
• Is your setting team ever rewarded, formally or informally, for speed alone?
• When output is high, is quality checked as carefully as when output is low?
• Could you tell, this month, whether a slower, more considered reset would have made you more money than a faster one?
• Do you know, roughly, what share of your visits come from new/beginner climbers versus long-tenure regulars and does your rotation cadence actually reflect that split, or just an industry benchmark?
The one idea to take away
Routes per day is a resource number, not a value number. It tells you what setting cost you. It says almost nothing about what setting earned you. Keep tracking it if it helps you plan staffing and budgets - just stop mistaking it for a scorecard.
Next month, we hand the pen to Jérôme for the idea that changes almost everything downstream of it: what if the difficulty of a route was never meant to be the creative decision at all - and your wall has been saying something you never intended?
This is chapter three of an ongoing series. If you've ever watched a fast reset outperform a slow one, or the other way round, tell us what happened in the comments - it's exactly the kind of case study this series is short on.
Jez Tapping is an indoor climbing industry consultant with over 20 years in the sector, including as former Regional Climbing Manager and Head of Climbing at one of the UK's busiest indoor climbing centres. He holds a BA in Sports Development and Coaching and an Masters in Sports Management, sat on the board of NICAS for 9 years, and is Chief Commercial Officer of the Global Climbing Standard. His work spans commercial strategy, governance, operational improvement and coaching programme development for climbing gyms and federations worldwide.
Jérôme Meyer is a French professional climber turned route-setting entrepreneur. A four-time Bouldering World Cup champion (2001, 2002, 2003, 2006), he retired from competition in 2008 and went on to serve as the Olympic and Sport Director within World Climbing. He is now co-founder and CEO of Circle, a global platform connecting climbing gyms, route setters, and hold brands through 3D route-setting technology.
Comments