87% of beginners FAIL! - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by day7 

  Even if you do have an amazing first day, the mental, physical, and monetary costs add up.

You could say the same about dating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by day7 

One thing to consider is that there may not be much in the way of comparable sport-like activities.  It seems to me, most sports or 'active' pastimes require a lower energy barrier.  If I want to go cycling, I grab my bike and go out the front door; If I want to play tennis, I find a local public court and grab a friend; If I want to go for a swim, I find a local lake or pool (or ocean if you are so lucky).  The point is, most other activities can be done in a way that is low overhead and on your own time.  Skiing on the other hand requires significant planning and requires the use of a resort.  In this sense it may be more like going to an amusement park than going for a bike ride (for the first timer).  If you take this mentality and then add to it the cost of renting equipment and the learning curve of skiing, most people are going to chose something else.  Even if you do have an amazing first day, the mental, physical, and monetary costs add up.  I think this is a large part of why many people only go once.  

 

Golf may be the closest example, but it seems to me that golf courses are more accessible (at least geographically) to more more people.  

Agree, but I think there are quite a few other things that might fall under the same category, but just as skiing is something only 13% pick up, most of these other sports would be things that us skiers wouldn't pick up:

tracked car racing (kart or car or moto/dirtbike), outdoor rock climbing, bungee jumping, skydiving or any flight-related activity (hanggliding, ballooning, pilot license).  And depending on your location, firearms/sport shooting is similar-pretty easy to blow through a lift-ticket's worth of ammo in one shooting session, and a guns are about the same price point as far as gear goes as skis.

Even any of the ocean-activies are similar, (scuba, surfing, kayaking, windsurfing, kiteboarding).  People going to try it once and take a lesson; but not going to make it their life and buy a wetsuit and gear.

Perhaps big fish sportfishing or big game hunting is even more extravagant (but that's more like heli-skiing)

All "event" type activities with high prices and relatively higher barrier of entry 

I think its' a meaningless percentage until you know more. A lot more. Such as:

1) What was the design of the survey that collected that number? Was it nationwide, one resort, when (recent recession, post-recession, good snow year, bad snow year), based on what (sample size, phone vs. in person, who was in the sample in terms of age and income, other key demographics.)

2) What's the retention rate for other sports? Is it significantly higher for sports wit comparable levels of accessibility (meaning cost, travel, specialized gear etc). And is "return" defined as once a year, or 50 times a year? 

3) What was the ultimate yield? Meaning, of people who did come back for second time, how many stayed? A lot of people will try something once, maybe because they're along with some friends, but for them, meh. Or perhaps as part of a trip that they won't be able to repeat.

4) What's the desirable alternative? Is there a "target" return rate? Do resorts need a certain return rate to survive? 

I could go on, but you get the idea... 

Quote:

Originally Posted by raytseng 

 

Agree, but I think there are quite a few other things that might fall under the same category, but just as skiing is something only 13% pick up, most of these other sports would be things that us skiers wouldn't pick up:

 

tracked car racing (kart or car or moto/dirtbike), outdoor rock climbing, bungee jumping, skydiving or any flight-related activity (hanggliding, ballooning, pilot license).  And depending on your location, firearms/sport shooting is similar-pretty easy to blow through a lift-ticket's worth of ammo in one shooting session, and a guns are about the same price point as far as gear goes as skis.

 

Even any of the ocean-activies are similar, (scuba, surfing, kayaking, windsurfing, kiteboarding).  People going to try it once and take a lesson; but not going to make it their life and buy a wetsuit and gear.

 

Perhaps big fish sportfishing or big game hunting is even more extravagant (but that's more like heli-skiing)

 

All "event" type activities with high prices and relatively higher barrier of entry 

I think your probably right.  Yet, I think its more than just the price, its the fact that non-skiing families look at ski resorts in the same way they look at other recreation areas (like amusement parks), and those don't have a learning curve.

Originally Posted by Kneale Brownson 
I think COST, COLD, CHALLENGE, AVAILABILITY and lastly--poor first experience--all contribute to the statistics. Why would you come back if you had a terrible introduction to the sport on a cold, cloudy, windy day and it cost you a bunch?

Originally Posted by GoldMember 
I agree with this but would add athletic aptitude.  Skiing is not that easy for some to learn which just frustrates them and they never have a desire to try it again.

A specific facet of "athletic aptitude" is simultaneously very simple and very complex: Some people think it's really exciting and fun to slide on slippery surfaces ... the faster the better. Others really do not like it at all, but they may not properly know this about themselves. They may be deluded for any number of reasons. But if they don't like going fast on snow or ice, they are just never going to latch onto skiing. Sounds stupidly obvious, but when you look at how much time and effort is spent by so many skiers obsessively trying to slow down, you'll see my point. (Now there are the terrifyingly clueless and skill-less bombers, but at least these folks have potential.)

There is a brilliant letter to the editor in the May 7 New Yorker, by Dan Mayer. It's about happiness, and is totally relevant in this thread.

...But what does self reported happiness really measure? Consider two hypothetical Saturdays: one spent sitting on the sofa, and another spent climbing a mountain. It is safe to assume that the couch-sitter would report higher levels of hour-by-hour happiness than the climber, as he would encounter none of the fatigue and pain experienced by the latter. But the climber would be able to report a sense of accomplishment, and would have banked a memorable experience. Put simply, happiness involves two dimensions: gratification and achievement. When some researchers purport to be measuring "happiness," I think they are really measuring gratification. As the parent of a small child, I can attest to the fact that parenting at this stage is mainly an achievement activity, in that every day feels great, but often not until I'm sitting on the sofa with a glass of wine at the end of it.

Look at the phenomenal explosion in the popularity of road cycling in the Lance and post-Lance era. This tells me the block is not expense, and it's not that people don't like pain, or are unwilling to pursue athleticism. Cycling offers plenty of all these, I can assure you. ( It also, Sibhusky, offers stretch pants, of a sort. )  Now imagine that to cycle you had to drive three hours, pay eighty bucks, and then get out there in fifteen-degree weather. NOW you are talking block.
 

So we need Lance to start skiing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by epic 

So we need Lance to start skiing?

So Bode and Lindsey are why skiing is not close to death's door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

I once had a ski club lesson kid come out of the rental shop wearing two left boots  never did figure out who had two right boots

I take it his right hand turns where great!

Skiing uses gravity instead of pedaling so blood doping won't help all that much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by epic 

So we need Lance to start skiing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

Skiing uses gravity instead of pedaling so blood doping won't help all that much.

 

Doh! Why did it take me this long to grok the obvious way to make the transition to altitude easier, when visiting the Rockies. Thanks, JayT!

In the winter of 1977-1978, my then fiance' (an athletic skier) tried to teach me (an athletic never-ever) to ski on a crowded beginner slope in Western Pennsylvania, and I almost didn't come back.  What we did not know is that I do not have a neutral walking stance - I now know that I'm a supinator, so my feet are biased toward their outer edges, and when I would try to do a wedge, I could not get both skis on the inside edge.  So my wedge was basically flat skis, and I would go ten feet, pick up speed, and bail out to stop by falling on my side.  Over and over again, all day, like Arte Johnson on the Laugh-In tricycle (for those oldsters that remember that schtick).  Fortunately, a few months later in the spring I tried again when the snow was wet and slow, and found I could do traverses and then get one ski stemmed out on an inside edge to make turns.  That was enough progress to give me hope.  Eventually when I went to buy my own equipment the problem was diagnosed, adjustments were made, my skiing really took off, I got professional instruction, and I was hooked for life.  I wonder how many less-than-neutral stances or other anatomical problems with knees/ankles/feet make the sport seem impossible and discourage first timers into not coming back (particularly those that are taught by a friend and not an instructor that might spot various physical issues)?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by nolo 

According to statistics presented at the NSAA Meeting at San Antonio yesterday, "87% of first time skiers do not return."

 

That's a tasty stat, but I wonder...

 

How does it compare to other active sports?

Does this statistic represent a worsening in the retention of beginner skiers?

Why do so few people who try skiing stay with it? 

What can be done about it?

Is the fact that the sport only retains around 15% of people who try a bad or a good thing for current skiers?

 

What do you think? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

Why do we want more skiers?

 

I suspect that those that do are "in the buisness" and profit from more volume.

 

Me, I want less skiers...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by beyond 

I think its' a meaningless percentage until you know more. A lot more. Such as:

 

1) What was the design of the survey that collected that number? Was it nationwide, one resort, when (recent recession, post-recession, good snow year, bad snow year), based on what (sample size, phone vs. in person, who was in the sample in terms of age and income, other key demographics.)

2) What's the retention rate for other sports? Is it significantly higher for sports wit comparable levels of accessibility (meaning cost, travel, specialized gear etc). And is "return" defined as once a year, or 50 times a year? 

3) What was the ultimate yield? Meaning, of people who did come back for second time, how many stayed? A lot of people will try something once, maybe because they're along with some friends, but for them, meh. Or perhaps as part of a trip that they won't be able to repeat.

4) What's the desirable alternative? Is there a "target" return rate? Do resorts need a certain return rate to survive? 

 

I could go on, but you get the idea... 

^^^^^This.

Looks like beyond pretty much nailed it.  Everyday I work with people that are awed by numbers but don't understand what's in them or what it means.  So 85% in 2002 and ten years later it's 87%.  Does that mean less people or more people stick with it.  You can't answer until you know the number they are a percent of.  When you weigh it against what Rossi Smash writes and that there is another thread trying to prevent more new skiers due to over crowding, you have to wonder why we need a better first time retention rate.

Aside from this past season which was plagued with horrible skiing weather, the last couple years the little mom and pop resort I work at, has been turning a profit.  So why do we need an increase of new skier retention?  I'm very curious as to how they even measure this with any credible data.

Has anyone tried to determine what is an acceptable yield?  If it isn't 13%, is it 16%?  20%?  If your resort suddenly increased never evers into novice once a week skiers by 5%, could they handle it or would they loose intermediate and advanced skiers to less crowded resorts?  More novices would also show an increase in Ski Patrol activity.  Are we ready for that?

One of the biggest problems with skiing isn't the cost or any of the rest.  In Ken's head it isn't a spectator sport for anyone but die hard skiers so there isn't much in spectator support/income.  Almost all other childhood sports enable people to either sit in the bleachers or along the side lines on a blanket and the whole family can watch.  You can go to practices and competitions alike and tell within seconds who is doing well and who isn't.  Most folks watching someone race down a hill at 60 mph and the next at 57mph can't tell the difference when the course is only 60 seconds long and some how the 57 mph person wins by skiing a different line.

Look at NASCAR.  All it is, is people making left turns in expensive cars really fast but even an idiot can tell who's in the lead.  And next to no one gets to participate in the actual sport!  How many Golden Gloves boxers can you name or even people that boxed in HS.  Have you even boxed (not fist fights - boxed).  Now,how many Pro boxers can you name?  Big difference.

Most childhood sports end within a season.  Little Johnny or Sally does a season or two of soccer or baseball and then they're on to something else.  If they do stick with it, all the way through HS, I bet it is less than "13%" and even less play in college, and what % go pro?  Same thing with skiing.  I'd bet more soccer cleats are sold in size Youth 2 than Adult 10.  There are adults that continue to play soccer but I would bet again, less of them play soccer than ski.  At least in these parts.

How many 80 y/o skiers do you know?  How many 80 y/o (active) soccer players?  Does that mean soccer has failed?

Basketball is a very successful sport, yet the young lady that works for me had to join a Men's team so she could play on one of the work teams.  She's the only female on any of the teams.  We employ in the immediate area > 8K people.  We had 42 people on the corporate ski teams and there was 7 or 8 women on it.  Does that mean that basketball has failed or at least failed women?

One last one.  What is the percentage of people that "support" epicski.  Is it even 13%?  How many people even register with epicski after the first visit?

Numbers.  Got to love them. 

Ken

Why does a "sport" need to grow? Seriously.

Unless you are part of the business (your wallet) that is skiing, what is the reason?

There are a LOT of skiers. Some are 5 days a year, some 25 day, some 75 days. Skiing has much that a life long participant must deal and little of it is within your control. #1 WEATHER,Snowfall/freeze-thaw cycles.. AVAILABILITY, of ski areas with a distance they are willing to repeatedly travel. COST,equipment, passes, food, lodging, gas, clothing.

I'm actually surprised there are as many skiers as there are! And that's people already skiing. With the current economic situation the number will be going down not up. And I'm OK with that

Skis are too heavy! That's why skiers don't return.

Rossi's attitude is elitist and unfriendly. Skiing is a social event for me. I hate lift lines as much as anybody but an empty resort is not much fun either. Hike for your solitary rides but take the whole party inbounds.

People who ski with me almost always want to come back. Skiing is fun - especially when the party is on! Regardless of your skill level.

Eric

Quote:

Originally Posted by eleeski 

Skis are too heavy! That's why skiers don't return.

 

Rossi's attitude is elitist and unfriendly. Skiing is a social event for me. I hate lift lines as much as anybody but an empty resort is not much fun either. Hike for your solitary rides but take the whole party inbounds.

 

People who ski with me almost always want to come back. Skiing is fun - especially when the party is on! Regardless of your skill level.

 

Eric

Just because the social aspect is important to you doesn't make your way any better than mine. I'm having every bit as much fun as anyone out there and that only goes up when I can't see another soul anywhere.

If that is elitist and unfriendly in your book, I'm OK with that too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philpug 

Forget that it is 85%..87% or whatever...it is the vast majority that do not return when to keep the sport growing it should be a number below 50%. Don't get wrapped up in numbers. 

So.  You tell me to forget the numbers then state more numbers!  What is 50% based on?  There isn't a resort or industry that could handle that type of growth without serious changes.

If you want to know if the sport is growing, you need to compare it to the population of potential skiers.  Surely the population has grown since 2002 so we're looking at a smaller percent of a bigger number.  Then you need to figure out where snowboarders and the rest fit in.  There are so many variables it's ridiculous.  Some have been stated like obesity, economy, location, apathy, tech age, etc.  What sports have grown and how were those measured?  You can't throw out numbers and then say don't get wrapped around them.

My wife tried skiing last year for the first time.  Her first time out she was in nice boots with molded liners on skis that were tuned and perfect for a never ever.  Her instructor was an L3 and it was a private lesson.  She did fantastic and in 30 minutes was skiing linked wedge turns and stopping on a dime in perfect control.  When the lesson was over she made a bee line to the bar (at barely 11:00 AM) and got a drink.  Her hands were shaking.  She hated it.  Hated not having control and the fact that things were happening around her "unexpectedly" (i.e skiers/riders going by once they went up the lift).  She said to me "I tried it but I'm not coming back."  She said her instructor did great and they are both now friends.  She didn't care for that much nature either.

It wasn't the boots or skis.  Not the instructor.  The mountain is often complimented on what a great first timer beginner hill we have (by they way they were the only ones on it).  It was pretty close to a bluebird day.  It just wasn't for her.  I thought for sure she would like it as she's a roller coaster junkie.

Do I want the sport to grow?  Absolutely.  Do I look out at the mountain in the middle of winter (past season excluded) and cry "Doooooooooooooommm!"  Not even close.

People around here love New England Clam Chowder.  Excuse me; Chowda.  I tried it.  Can't stand it.  Has little critters in it and smells nasty.  I tried it and moved on and don't plan on eating it ever again.  For my wife, skiing was clam chowder and she moved on.

My point through all of this is no one has presented any information to state the health of the sport.  You also need to compare it to "similar" sports and how they are doing.  Maybe SCUBA and Hang Gliding (limited location and costly)?

Then if you really want to have fun, figure out if it is better to only have 13% come back for the rest of their lives or 50% that quit in less than 5 years.

Ken

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossi Smash 

Why does a "sport" need to grow? Seriously.

 

Unless you are part of the business (your wallet) that is skiing, what is the reason?

 

There are a LOT of skiers. Some are 5 days a year, some 25 day, some 75 days. Skiing has much that a life long participant must deal and little of it is within your control. #1 WEATHER,Snowfall/freeze-thaw cycles.. AVAILABILITY, of ski areas with a distance they are willing to repeatedly travel. COST,equipment, passes, food, lodging, gas, clothing.

 

I'm actually surprised there are as many skiers as there are! And that's people already skiing. With the current economic situation the number will be going down not up. And I'm OK with that

Even if you argue that steady state is OK by you - if the sport fails to at least replenish its ranks, it'll die.

Most skiers value having lifts served skiing available to them. Lift served skiing is an expensive proposition. And hard to manage.  Small variations in use (and related uses) have big implications for viability. Lose 15% or 20% of participants and my guess is that either places close or prices go up very, very dramatically. Or both.

R&D and manufacturing fixed costs have to be amortized across units of product sold. Not to mention economies of scale in materials. Sell a quarter the number of skis, shells, etc and see what happens to prices. How would you feel about fifteen hundred dollar a pair skis? Thousand dollar shells? Just for vanilla stuff - not even discussing high end boutique stuff. Same on the industrial side - stop both growth and replacement of things like lifts and economies of (un)scale will have their impact in strange ways.

Lose too much scale now and the long term implications of the feedback loop may be pretty ugly...

In the Northeast, we are a LONG way from skiing failing. Yes, I do expect that the prices for a seasons pass with continue to rise. Why wouldn't they, everything else is too. It's the swarms of humanity on the slopes caused by high speed quad lifts that keep me from even thinking about skiing on Fri-Sun. It's insane. So yes, less people is still OK with me. If I have to pay more so I can actually enjoy the less crowded day, that's the price I'll pay.

In case you're interested (or bored):

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/marketing/

If you read through several of them, you kind of get a flavor for it.  For some reason and I didn't see why, NSAA is stating that a 25% first timer return rate is the goal and should be done by increasing returning business by 6% per season.

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/home/about.asp

And when you read the above link about NSAA, you realize that the only thing they do is help resorts do better by selling them stuff.  So no matter how bad or good you are, they have something to make you even better.  If resorts didn't need to improve, there wouldn't be a need for NSAA.  As someone that works in manufacturing and is plagued by requests by companies and consultants that can "increase throughput" or "lower costs", this makes me skeptical of how they spin the data.  I'm not saying anything negative about NSAA or whether or not they are worth it.  I'm sure there products are good, but you have to remember, their job is to sell stuff and if you don't need anything, you probably aren't going to buy anything.

This implies ski resorts are doing better as of 2010/11 season:

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/historical-visits.pdf

52M visits in 1999

59M visits in 2009

Doesn't look like doom to me. 

Yes we can do better and would be stronger as an industry if people stuck with it.  Looks like a pretty strong base though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L&AirC 

This implies ski resorts are doing better as of 2010/11 season:

 

http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/historical-visits.pdf

 

52M visits in 1999

59M visits in 2009

 

 

Doesn't look like doom to me. 

 

Yes we can do better and would be stronger as an industry if people stuck with it.  Looks like a pretty strong base though.

Lots could be hiding under those numbers. The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that this is not an industry universally rolling in money these days.

As for the economics (let's round off a bit..). There's always a cost to bringing in a new customer - especially one you hope to derive an annuity stream from. If you lose 90% of the people who have walked through the door on their first visit, you better be making a ton of profit from that visit in order for it to net out OK. Or you have to make up for it via the 10% that sticks with it. I find it hard to believe that losing 90% of your already engaged (for whatever reason) potential long term customers is economically optimal.  Just from a pure business point of view, I'd certainly take hard look at the efficiency of that model.

One thing I'd do stimulate my thinking would be to connect the word "fail" to me as an industry rather than my (lost) customers. So I'd frame it as something like "ski industry fails to demonstrate meaningful value to 87% of first time customers - causing them never to return". I think this will drive better modeling and possible actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spindrift 

 

Lots could be hiding under those numbers. The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that this is not an industry universally rolling in money these days.

 

As for the economics (let's round off a bit..). There's always a cost to bringing in a new customer - especially one you hope to derive an annuity stream from. If you lose 90% of the people who have walked through the door on their first visit, you better be making a ton of profit from that visit in order for it to net out OK. Or you have to make up for it via the 10% that sticks with it. I find it hard to believe that losing 90% of your already engaged (for whatever reason) potential long term customers is economically optimal.  Just from a pure business point of view, I'd certainly take hard look at the efficiency of that model.

 

One thing I'd do stimulate my thinking would be to connect the word "fail" to me as an industry rather than my (lost) customers. So I'd frame it as something like "ski industry fails to demonstrate meaningful value to 87% of first time customers - causing them never to return". I think this will drive better modeling and possible actions.

There are lots of business models that survive on very little repeat business; museums, theme parks, etc.  All of them seem to be doing their share of trying to get customers back.

Without a doubt, almost every ski area I've been to I wanted to give an enema and change everything.  Like many businesses, things "end up" in places and after another upgrade or two, they don't make sense to keep there or where it is at is what they could afford.  From simple blatant things like the rental shop and parking lot to little things like the layout of the bar (where I work they are short about 5 or 6 tables because they made the bar too wide - works for the bar staff but not the customers).

This past year at my home mountain they started station teaching with great success (lousy weather aside).  I think we should take it to the next step and a team of instructors should always be on the beginner slope giving lessons and tips and the clients shouldn't be charged.  Even if it is only for early season like Sunapee does.  Make the first "painful" visits seem to cheap and once things start to click, they might be more willing to buy a ticket, lessons and rentals.  Even if it is only on low turn out times.  The operating cost is there already.  All you're adding is the instructors wage as an investment in repeat business.  Maybe just get them "to" the magic carpet without paying for the lesson and then a nominal fee for on the magic carpet.

There are so many inefficiencies at most resorts I cringe looking at them.  So many things get set up with the wrong goal; it should always be to make it better for the customer (safety first is a given) and convenient for them to spend their time and money.

Ken

Quote:

Originally Posted by eleeski 

Skis are too heavy! That's why skiers don't return.

 

Rossi's attitude is elitist and unfriendly. Skiing is a social event for me. I hate lift lines as much as anybody but an empty resort is not much fun either. Hike for your solitary rides but take the whole party inbounds.

 

People who ski with me almost always want to come back. Skiing is fun - especially when the party is on! Regardless of your skill level.

 

Eric

I regularly drive 3.5-4 hrs by myself (and ski by my self as well), sometimes for a day trip.  I go to Starbucks when i want to socialize :).  I can see how it can be more fun to have friends around for begginers, but I wouldn't consider it a social event.

Bumps form from skiers. No skiers, no bumps. Since I love bumps, I love the crowds.

I have had fun skiing at a podunk resort with one chair, a Tbar on the steep little pitch and a "C" rating in the restaurant. But Squaw IS way better (in every way). The Squaw Alpine merger is great and will be even better when an interconnect happens. All this takes money from traffic.

The backcountry is massive and uncrowded. If you truly love the solitude and untracked, head out of bounds. Backcountry earns the snow, the untracked and the elitist attitude. But the retention rate for backcountry introduction to skiing would be negligible.

Eric

Quote:

Originally Posted by eleeski 

Bumps form from skiers. No skiers, no bumps. Since I love bumps, I love the crowds.

 

I have had fun skiing at a podunk resort with one chair, a Tbar on the steep little pitch and a "C" rating in the restaurant. But Squaw IS way better (in every way). The Squaw Alpine merger is great and will be even better when an interconnect happens. All this takes money from traffic.

 

The backcountry is massive and uncrowded. If you truly love the solitude and untracked, head out of bounds. Backcountry earns the snow, the untracked and the elitist attitude. But the retention rate for backcountry introduction to skiing would be negligible.

 

Eric

As long as there's something for everyone. 

No answers with this post - just my observations.

I learned to ski as a young adult (27) living in the mid-south. Every year our ski club had two or three charter flights to ski country starting with a big Thanksgiving trip to Vail. We had monthly meetings  plus an annual equipment show and gear swap. Some couples and some singles.  A lot of the members were not avid skiers but everyone enjoyed the experience. Some skied hard but others slept late, partied late and enjoyed the overall mountain experience on and off the slopes.

I don't think the inflation adjusted cost was any less in the 70's than it is today. I have no idea why it was the in thing to do in the 70s but today it is no longer a cool sport.

My wife grew up in snow country two  hours from some small ski hills. She was self taught as a kid and skied frequently through college. 

Our 20 something kids have skied recreationally all their life. They're good skiers but have no passion for skiing and absolutely no interest in spending the time or money it takes to get to the mountains and pursue the sport. We've invited their friends to join us for paid mountain vacation trips. One teenage boy who joined us took a morning lesson and quit before lunch and never went back. He said he enjoyed the trip to the mountains but spent the remainder of the week doing other stuff. One girlfriend did not try it "because she was a dancer and did not want to risk being injured". Another athletic girl took snowboard lessons for three days and was so sore and bruised that she begged off and worked on a term paper her last two days of the trip.

Our kids ski a few days each year with us because we have a ski-in ski-out condo and it's a family tradition. I have no idea why their mom and I love it and they could not care less.