Question for marc, con't

[joegm]

continuing from the last post in question for marc, i've never really bought into the idea, of discounting early/late season lift access... i maintain that 95% of the people who are desirous enough to go make the effort to ski in oct/nov and april/may are going to be willing to pay up to a much higher ceiling than would your average recreational jan feb and march skier. i think an argument COULD BE MADE that late early skiers should pay MORE. i'm not gonna make that argument, but to me that argument makes more sense that the current pay LESS, approach. my arguemnt for now is that it should ( in terms of a daily ticket ) should be the same price, whatever that price is. and i would say that assuming a GOOD FAITH EFFORT from a resort to extend/get open by committing to extended snowmaking, season pass holders who choose to ski on the shoulder season, should pay a couple of hundred bucks more on top of the regular price season pass. the only people this MOSTLY is going to affect are the HARD CORES.. i don't believe this will price families out of skiing because the are generally not involved in the shoulders... i really believe the approach the industry is taking is flawed.

 

[cancat]

OK. Here Goes. <BR> <BR>IMNTBHO, <BR> <BR>The "INDUSTRY" is the problem to begin with. At some time, skiing was a lifestyle in which some people tried to make enough of a living just to be able to stay in the lifestyle. Now it is an Industry in which the most important thing is to finish the year as high as possible in the black. Killington, Sunday River, Mount Snow etc. in the ASC stable, and Loon, Waterville etc in the Booth Creek stable HAVE NO OPTION to say "we're not going to try to maximise profits, we're going to cultivate the lifestyle". They HAVE TO justify the cash spent on snowmaking in October on a balance sheet. They can't say that they were trying to open because they were jonesing for turns. The result of this is what the "industry" has been trying to figure out for the last 20 years or so. Visits are flat. Little growth. The growth years of skiing were when the LIFESTYLE was the goal. The wool pant years, and the 70's. (other factors apply too of course) Even Snowboarding's growth years can be seen as having a lifestyle focus. The Industry's marketing focus has always been New!, bigger, faster more. But you can only expand so far. Faster lifts and smoother trails take the exploration away. More development eventually crosses a line making the base area look like suburbia - Kllington used to be a ski area. Now it is a Town. A visit to the NELSAP website shows that most small areas can't keep up with this approach. <BR> Tenny is making a go of it by trying something new. They unfortunately hyped it beyond what they could provide fresh out of the crate. Hopefully it was just glitches that can be fixed, it would be a breath of fresh air if they could pull it off. The early/late season skiing was always the territory of the lifestylers, the hard core sliders. You weren't really hardcore till you were there opening day (or before). No mass market sliders are going to venture out in Oct. to slide on slush, and they are the ones who pay the bills in the "industry" structure. Can a mountain play to the Lifestyle crowd and survive? What if you could increase the number of lifestylers? Could Cannon, for example, blow snow early up top, build bump trails early, crank out the snow into March cause they can and stay open till May? YES. But only if people go to Cannon to enjoy those things in enough volume to allow the hill to pay for them. They would need to market the lifestyle of BEING a snow person and offer other things to cultivate that. Cultivate a community feel, the excitement of being on the snow, the high of making it down a difficult trail the first time, and the second, third, etc., no matter if it was a green, blue or black, the views, meeting new friends on the lift cause they enjoy sliding as much as you, meeting old friends in front of a warm fire and doing it all over again tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. Not because it was going to be New, Bigger, Faster, More tomorrow, but because it is going to be just like today! Killington opening day used to be like that. Most opening days are. But Killy's was in OCTOBER. They no longer justify the cost. Bragging rights mean nothing aganst Tenney - no comparison. Instead, we have lost a month of that lifestyle, and the "industry" doesn't know how to cultivate that feeling for the rest of the season either. Only then will enough people visit Cannon early/late season (because they want to live it) to offset what would have to be spent to offer it.

 

[Patrick]

cancat, I totally agree with what you said. Newer, Bigger and Faster has brought with it more expensive tickets and less affordable skiing for families (ie. kids are the next generation of skiers). The Ski Industry knowns this, but they painted themselves in a corner. Forecast show that growth is nil, skier/boarder population in the coming year will decline as the overall population get older (and this is without counting that new immigrants are less likely to ski). The Industry can't attract or keep new skiers in the sport. The Industry was gear toward the upper income level (ie. ski condos, time-shares, village lifestyle) which middle class families can't keep up financially. The next generation of skier comes from these kids, however with less deals for day-skier and more expensive prices, the Industry are losing potential die-hards. <BR> <BR>cancat, you are probably the best place person to answer this question. I think I saw here last Spring, that Cannon doesn't allow skier up on the Tram when the ski area is closed (is this correct? - Tram is open year round right?). Is there any reason for this? The only one I can thing of is insurance.

 

[riverc0il]

iirc, the tram closes for maintenaince between ski season and non-ski season operation. <BR> <BR>interesting thoughts regarding the industry painting themselves into a corner. the way you describe it Patrick, a hundred years from now the industry could very likely loose half it's ski areas and equipment manufacturers. actually, equipment manfacturer consolidation is already fairly rampent and not a year goes by that another ski area doesn't slip off the map it seems. <BR> <BR>at least this year we have two ski areas making come backs! <BR> <BR>you'd think that the industry types would realize that their long term prospects are only gonna get worse and do something to help save the industry before it tanks. seems like everyone is just holding on right now hoping that it won't be them next. <BR> <BR>funny how the population is increasing so much, but skiing and snowboarding is not only not keeping up, but shrinking. strange.

 

[cancat]

It's actually really easy to see. IT IS H-A-R-D TO GO SLIDING. First you have to learn, renting equipment and falling on your a$$ all day. Then, once you figured it out a bit, you have to pack it all up and actually GO somewhere to slide when you want to. Add some kids and it's a recipe for stress. The quick high from "bigger, faster, more" just isn't worth the hassle unless conditions (snow, crowds, facilities) are perfect thus needing further "bigger, better, more" to increase the amount of time conditions are good enough to get poeple out. Catch 22. Worse, it is easier to sit at home and play downhill skier on the x-box. Of course, if the high from the lifestyle was the goal, the entire process of BEING a slider is the reward. Learning becomes part of the fun. The jouney to the hill is part of the adventure. Teaching your kids the magic of snow makes it more magical for you - not more stressful. Sucessfully negotiating crappy snow, hanging out with the PEOPLE in the crowds, and relaxing in a cozy old lodge ARE perfect conditions. They can be found at ANY hill - people just need to know they are there.

 

[Patrick]

Population: <BR> <BR>I am not 100% sure for the US, but most of the population increase in Canada is mainly driven by immigration, and not by us having children (theorically, each households need 2 children to renew itself). I believe that presently, larger families in Canada (and the US) aren't from the Upper/Middle Class population who were born here. That group is where most of the skier population comes from and the Industry is marketed toward. <BR> <BR>Newcomers to Canada/US in the last decades are mainly from Developing Countries where snow and the idea of sliding on it is very foreign to them. <BR> <BR>The population in the Western World (due to low-birth rate) is increasing becoming older. According to numbers in Hal Clifford book (Downhill Slide: Why the Corporate Ski Industry is Bad for Skiing...). Skier tend to ski more between the ages of 3?-42, then at 44 their number of ski days declines sharpely. Baby Boomers are in that range now. <BR> <BR>Why are the ski Industry not thinking longterm? Short term profit, shareholder return and let's cash in now. Let's make a killing and move on. <BR> <BR>Intrawest has already started diversifying by buying a golf resort in Florida for baby-boomers who will prefer as they get older to go golfing instead of skiing. <BR> <BR>Hope: <BR>The smaller ski areas might make a comeback. Places that offer no frills and cheap skiing might be the future of skiing. Dinosaurs with their huge infrastructure and debt might decome extinct. The problem in the last few years is that a numbers of areas tried to compete and inmitate the ASC and Intrawest of this world, geting bigger (bigger debt) for what risk being a short term trend. <BR> <BR>For those interested in the subject and a bleak view of the Industry, I highly recommended reading Hal Clifford's book.