Growing the sport of skiing - One Man's View

One thing that only just occurred to me for some reason is that, in the US, you're fighting a losing battle to get families skiing because of the school schedule, in addition to the distances from the mountains.

 

If you think about it, most people don't live close enough to pop over to the mountains on the weekends. So, the only time families can go skiing is during school holidays. Christmas-New Year's week is fine for that, but that's about it (Presidents Day might get some people out for a long weekend, but probably not too many). By the time spring break rolls around, a lot of people have their eye on summer, so they're looking to go some place warm (also, March isn't always snow-sure). Then, of course, you have the super-long summer break, where families blow all their money (and vacation days for the parents) on various trips.

 

Basically, not many families have the vacation days to go skiing more than one week a year, and that week conflicts with their desire to visit other family members for Christmas. Skiing takes a lot of time to learn well enough to enjoy, and one week a year just doesn't cut it for most.

 

Compare that to Europe, where they have the Christmas week and, in most parts, a half-term week in February. That's already double the amount of days the kids have off from school during the ski season (an early Easter adds another week some years). On top of that, there are lot of population centers close enough to the mountains for weekend trips. For example, Barcelona, Lyon, Turin, Milan, Venice, Munich, Oslo, Stockholm, and Vienna, as well as the entire nation of Switzerland, are a couple of hours or less from decent resorts. So in addition to the two weeks of school holidays, loads of families have the option of weekend trips to the mountains.

 

Even if you follow the British model of building a number of indoor slopes around the country, you're still limited by the small number of school holidays during the ski season. You'd need a major change to the school calendar to get past that. Perhaps push for the year-round calendar (9 weeks on, 3 weeks off). That would give kids more days off in the winter.

Edited by CerebralVortex - 6/22/12 at 2:25am

I don't want "growth" in the sport!

 

Too many damn skiers out there now 

 

Why do people ALWAYS want to "grow" sports, towns, etc???

 

Leave it be, those that are attracted to it will try it, leave the others home in front of their TVs....

 

Because if you lose skiers, then you lose ski resorts and ski manufacturers. The few that manage to stick around will raise their prices, sacrifice quality for cost, and decrease the options they offer.

 

That means increased costs and decreased options for you and me.

 

I'll pay more....

 

If you'd rather ski with the current slope saturation, you enjoy that and your savings. I won't even ski Friday through Sunday as it is!

The decline in skiing also follows the decline in the financial and real estate markets. I'll bet there is a correlation. A recent study was published suggestion the financial wealth for many in the USA dropped by 25 percent since 2008. I figure you can either sit around and accept this as the new reality, or get off your ass and do something about it. Those who will gain in this economic and changing demographic environment will be proactive.

A perfect example is how certain ski shops are proactive in a very good way on EPICSKI. They know the average person keeps their skis for around 10 years, but my guess is the figure is far less for their customers! Certain ski areas have also figured this out, offering exceptional service, great food, clean restrooms, etc. all in an effort to differentiate themselves from the competition. The same goes for ski instructors. Some differentiate themselves in great ways, like the guy who emailed me pictures of my kids on some double diamonds. They "get it", and earn repeat business.

The industry, and the people in it, have to be smarter and work harder. The ideas from the above posts are all good. The problem is getting the resorts to recognize that this time things really are different in the economy.
Edited by quant2325 - 6/22/12 at 7:07am

I think the small ski hills and the large ski resorts are already trying to attract more visitors. Why wouldn't they it's in their own best interest. All sports have the same declining participation. The trouble is too many seem to prefer to just watch sports or participate in activities via electronics from their couch. The little tubbies find it too difficult to get out of their sedimentary life style when they eventually find they are missing something in life. Probably the first generation who won't outlive their parents - glad my daughters weren't part of that upbringing.

 

Current slope saturation? None of the places I've skied have ever been saturated. Then again, I've never felt inclined to go to a hill near a major population center. I'm sure those would get crowds no matter what, especially on the weekends.

 

But, imagine if overall numbers dropped so low that the other resorts farther away shut down, leaving hills like yours as the only option for people in the area. What do you think the crowds would be like then?

Edited by CerebralVortex - 6/22/12 at 7:36am

I don't know about these studies. I went to the website of the Nat'l Sporting Goods Association, and looked the methodology, and they define participation quite loosely, imo:

 

A participant is defined as an individual seven years of age or older who participates in a sport more than once a year for all sports except aerobic exercising, bicycle riding, exercise walking, exercise with equipment, running/jogging, swimming, weightlifting, and workout at club. For these fitness activities, participation is defined as six times or more during the year.

Pound's "Make it new", Shumpeter's "Creative Destruction" or whatever...there has to be change.  Las Vegas figured it out, turning "sin" into "family" and suggesting everyone else let what goes on there, stay there. Ski areas are now offering zip lining, bob sleds, free photos while on the hill,  kids activities at the bases, etc.  I always thought many skiers will come back if they improve, and will stop coming back if they can't improve since each day of skiing is so costly.  That is why I think "One Run Ski Lessons" for a nominal fee (say $10-$20 per run) would get more occasional skiers on the hill and keep them improving a little every day.

As the stats show it is not just skiing, but all active sports.  \America's waistline reflects it.

 

Are there any sports other than Wi, that are up?  Is it money, or society, that is the problem.  You rarely see kids outside playing a pick-up game anymore, they all seem to be at the mall McDonalds or playing computer games, and the younger parents are not too much more active.

 

It could be very enlightening to see how the decline in sports in general ties in to the removal of PE from the school systems.  This could well be a cost savings our society can not afford.

 

Funny that this seems to coincide with lower test scores too isn't it?  Maybe the ancient Greeks were on to something with the healthy body and mind thing.

Back in the day, school districts (around the Eastside of Seattle in the PNW, at least) used to run their own ski school programs and bring busloads of students to the local ski areas at Snoqualmie Pass.    It was the thing to do when I was growing up.   My dad was a patroller so I was going skiing most weekends anyway.  A lot of people were introduced to skiing this way, and improved over a whole season of lessons. This seems to me a longer-term approach rather than hoping someone catches the skiing bug after one introductory lesson.  However, I think local ski areas wanted to channel more skiers into their own ski school programs, and I think that running these program probably became an expense school districts could no longer afford. 

 

There's also another big factor, demographic change.  Many, if not most ski areas developed along with the baby boom.  I'm amongst the last few years of boomers, and I just turned 50.   

 

So to grow the sport, or to even sustain participation at current levels (whether or not one likes or dislikes current levels of crowds), will require getting more adults to try an activity again which they stopped doing years ago (as was the case with me), or which they never tried growing up (as was the case with one of my best friends who started skiing ar age 45). 

Not sure if CerebralVortex is thinking about US Western "destination" ski resorts where the majority of visitors come from far away, but in the US East there are many ski areas that are within 60-90 minutes drive of large urban/suburban areas so weekend and after-school access is very doable for millions of kids.

 

Rossi Smash has a point to a degree.  A balance is needed.  I can remember one hour weekend lift lines in the 1970s, far worse than any I've encountered since.  Wouldn't particularly want to return to that, but neither do I want widespread ski area failures (enuf NELSAPs) due to not enough patrons.

 

Trekchick's Caberfae story is great.  One of the toniest places I ever skied was The Homestead in VA, basically a super fancy hotel with skiing as an amenity.  But darn if they didn't have a nice crowd of local kids show up for a cheap after school ski program one day I was there.

 

 

Some reasons for slowing of growth:

Youngsters choosing video games and web surfing over outdoor activities.

Boomers getting old, injured, or lazy

Overall Costs

Travel distance to ski area

 

I like the article's suggestion for each skiing point of entry to make it a goal to get one new family of four participating.  Would that be through some sort of promotional giveaway prize?

 

Some ski stores in my region offer "demo days", these usually occur on a weekday in early January and not only include free demos all day, but also a deeply discounted prepurchased lift ticket for $5, $10, or less.  They draw some customers, but I'm always kind of surprised how few actually take advantage of virtually free skiing and equipment rental (bring your own boots) because it's on a weekday.

 

Here's another suggestion along the giveaway line of thought.  Basically make it free and easy for a newbie to try a Saturday of skiing in January.  Pick a ski area that usually doesn't draw huge crowds, but is reasonably convenient to large populations, and has good beginner terrain, then promote a free Saturday of skiing for the first several thousand people that arrive, perhaps set up an online reservation system to gauge participation, and get a few local ski retailers to augment with free or almost free bus service and discounted eqmt rentals.  Then see what happens.  I suspect the ski area would make a ton of money off of food concessions alone and the ski shops might do alright too.    

I'm so bummed I didn't make it to June Mountain this past season.

A major reason for the decline of the skier base is the transformation of the sport into a difficult (logistics, time) and expensive destination or a distant daily commute experience. That more or less automatically reduces the skier population to those relatively fewer people who have the leisure time and money and commitment required. Even if someone already likes to ski it is unlikely that most will load up their families for a long drive to an expensive resort more than a few times a season unless they have a great deal of time and money. Their are so many other alternative forms of amusement as well as demands on our time and wallet that it is easy to drift away from the sport.

 

The people to ask why the decline in the sport are those whose operation of the small, local resorts failed. I'm sure they know. These are the places that were convenient, affordable and accessible to a larger ski base. I doubt that the reason for their former success was aesthetic although charm is often mentioned. These are the segments of the industry that were unable to survive, perhaps because of an inability to adapt and/or innovate. There are certain notable examples of such resorts which do survive in proximity to population centers. Buck hill in Minnesota is one that comes to mind. Someone should ask them.

 

All recommendations that suggest the industry should be less profit oriented are just pipe dreams. This is a business. The recommendation perhaps ought to be that they take more of a long view toward profitability but I'm sure there are many who already feel their profitability is too little and too seldom for the investment they have in place. On the other hand they could be less obvious in their greed, stop trying to make a 700% profit or whatever it is on their cheeseburgers and turn their attention to providing more perceived value for the cost. I'll be out skiing while their munching and would appreciate it if more of them were inside the base lodge. I'm not sure that this would increase the numbers of those in the sport although it might improve my experience.

 

This is a very conservative business in terms of the way those who run and manage ski resorts approach the sport. You don't see much in the way of innovation or fundamental adaptation in approach. Ask, these folks how to grow the sport and they will devise a half dozen gimmicky schemes which never work because they fail to change anything or address significant issues. Change just doesn't come from people who already know what they are doing. Just ask General Motors!

 

I don't have any magical solutions either except to recommend improving the experience for those who do show up. If the ski industry really wants so badly to attract new skiers or those who haven't yet bought into the program why do they do so little to provide for them? Most ski areas focus on the quality of the high end experience. You see a lot of marketing that boasts of vertical and expert terrain. No wonder new or less committed skiers feel out of place in the glitz and zoom of the places. There's nothing like being surrounded by people you perceive to be more adept, more knowledgeable and experienced to make you feel out of place and intimidated. They are all around you, in  the base lodges, on the slopes.  Often the places less accomplished skiers ski are also the run outs for more advanced terrain. You're out there learning to ski, perhaps dealing with fear and the unfamiliarity of the surroundings  and someone comes straight lining through your slope at high speed, perhaps imperiling your kids as well. The terrain appropriate for your skill level is just an afterthought, some place patronizingly referred to as the "bunny slope", someplace that will suffice until you become a "good" skier.

 

Make places within the ski area that are designed for such people as well designed as advanced terrain is designed for advanced skiers. Make these areas with the assumption that some if not most of them will never become "good". Make the experience such that you let these folks know they are "good" too and welcome. Make the beginner/ low intermediate ski area  so that the experience will be enjoyable and attractive and these people will come back. Make potential customers aware that regardless of how well they ski or even if they have never skied they will have a good time. What should the industry care if their customers are infrequent and inexperienced, isn't their money just as good?  It's not rocket science you know. You wouldn't expect expert skiers to come back if you provided them with a crappy experience would you? The need isn't just well designed and segregated terrain but also for base lodges, ease of access, ease of navigation for those unfamiliar with the place, quality of service (which isn't necessarily plushness of service, a frequent misconception). If the industry began to see skiing and the ski trip as an experience rather than a formula well known to all those in management we might begin to see some real improvement and growth instead of the usual pathetic pricing gimmicks that seem to suffice to prove to their owners that "we're trying"..

The original post talked about the decline of ALL sports. As skiers, maybe we are beating ourselves and our resorts up too much. Change society's outlook on risk and injury and maybe there will be a few more healed and rehabbed ACLs and a few less diabetic couch potatoes with heart attacks.

 

Petition ESPN to dump poker shows and replace them with small market sports (sports that don't attract a huge gambling crowd). Hot Summer Nights waterskiing dovetailed perfectly with Downhill World Cup features. Seeing a sport on TV or streamed to the computer will energize a new crop of participants.

 

Eric

I don't know where they got their numbers, but it wasn't in Missoula. Every weekend the mountain teems with kids in lessons. Last year was an all time high number of skier visits.

 

I really hate to bring up the h-word but I suspect there are some who would be willing to try skiing but for the perception of  risk created by the current prevalence of (h-word)s. The same person might have easily given it a try 30 years ago. I think I might be one of those people. I learned to ski 43 years ago, but if I were considering it under the current cultural climate, where every risk needs to be mitigated by some piece of safety equipment before one can participate, I might pass.

I see people who were "dragged along" to the mountain by friends, spouses, etc. everyday. You can see they don't want to be there.

 

Why do some skiers feel the need to do this? "to expand the sport"? If they don't at least have a desire or even curiosity, why are they being coerced into trying it?

Because you like it?

 

TC...but you weren't dragged there to ski. I see them all the time. Your example is fine, these people are actually interested.

 

btw....what don't you like about skiing "alone"? (At a resort you are never really alone even if you want to be!)

Going back to the original findings, they don't appear to match what the NSAA has found. http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/historical-visits.pdf

 

Looking at those figures, the total numbers appear to hover between 50-60 million, with obvious peaks and troughs that coincide with snow totals and the economy. So, although the number of people who have skied at least one day might have decreased, the number of ski days logged has remained relatively constant.

 

If you want a full report of total figures, this is pretty good http://www.vanat.ch/RM-world-report-2011.pdf. (The author really needed a native editor to smooth out the language, but the statistics are brilliant.) This report even states that the number of skiers in the US is up over the last 10 years.

Edited by CerebralVortex - 6/25/12 at 4:50am

I think you're onto something.  People who ski better, enjoy it more and come out more.  A lot of people who try it without proper instruction often never come back, or quit soon. 

 

However, you must have lots of money.  From the perspective of someone struggling to make ends meet, that's another $10 they don't have.  What the ski areas should do is have Random Lesson Give Aways, say every 1 in whatever number of tickets sold gets a free 2 hour lesson.  It will improve LONG-TERM profits.  It will encourage ski instructors to remain in the game, as they won't be standing around waiting for a lesson call.  It will allow the resort to plan appropriate staffing levels.  It exposes the public to good instructors, and might even end up selling more lessons (if they are good).