or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Why should I "go with a pro"?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why should I "go with a pro"?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
PSIA does an excellent job of making better ski Instructors. It does a lousy job of helping those instructors get work and a decent salary. Mountains prefer to use the non-certs at lower hourly wages and the public does not realize they are getting screwed. The new "Go With a Pro" program is a step in the right direction. I would like to see as bold a campaing as "Demand a Certified Pro or Demand Your Money Back!"
This years PSIA marketing campaign encourages the skiing public to get help from paid instructors instead of from their friends, etc. Stache would have the organization go boldly into specifically pushing certified pros. Just last weekend I worked with some parents who had tried to teach their kids on their own and realized they needed help. All of the pros here probably have many such anecdotes. If you are one of the better pros on your staff, you've probably had the joy of doing a "do over" lesson (i.e. guest had a bad lesson and complains, then supervisor tells you to go make them happy) (i.e. the supervisor knows that you can fix the mistakes of the non-certs). We've seen a ton of posts on this forum advising people to seek out level 3 certs in order to get the best lesson. But what kind of proof is out there? What is it that a student gets from a level 3 pro that they don't get from a level 2 pro? From the customer perspective, what are they buying that they can go home with (i.e. they can not take the instructors experience and skill home with them)?

In my heart I know that there (on average) is a difference between cert levels and it is significant. But if I had to explain that difference to a guest in the lift line, I couldn't do it. And I probably could not do it on a chair ride either. For pros vs non-pros, I do have a "lift line" answer: "We have lots of tricks that make learning easier." If I had to make up an answer for certified pros, it would go like this:
"With each advance in certification, a pro has more accurate movement analysis diagnostic skills, a larger tool kit of developmental exercises that can be employed and a better ability to match the most effective drill to a student's needs. As a students skiing level or amount of learning disability increases, these differences are more apparent and more effective. The result is that the more certification a pro has, the more likely it is that a student can learn more effectively and at faster pace than from a pro with less or no certification."

The "Go with a Pro" marketing campagin is very slick and professional in the sense that it directly addresses customer problems. For example, here are two of the poster messages:
"Terminal intermediate? Want to be a terminal expert?"
"Your equipment is full of potential. Are you?"
These sound like effective sales pitches to me. But there is no meat behind this program (yet). There's nothing that says "here's what a pro does for you" that you can't get anywhere else. Of course this fits the intent of the campaign to push lessons by any instructor in order to pursue the "rising tide lifts all boats" strategy. But it does not support Stache's desire to push certified pros. Where is the "Value Statement" for certified pros? How does the public get screwed just because they are getting a lesson from a non-cert?

On one of my rare "stupidvisor" shifts this year, I sent a rookie pro out on his first level 4 snowboard lesson. If it was a guest, I would have had him shadow me as I taught it. But it was an employee lesson (which normally would only occur if there also was a paying guest) and I wanted my pro to get paid for his time - so I shadowed him. The employee had fun, improved their riding and walked away satisfied. When the lesson was over, I briefed the pro on the things that went well, why certain things were going on and what I thought could have been done differently (e.g. less talk - more movement, end on time and show up for the next line up : ). Although the student was happy with their lesson, I know that I could have done a lot more for them. If it was a guest, I can clearly see how this experience would have been screwing them. But I'd have a hard time coming up with something like "with a certified pro, this person would have fallen less than one time per run instead of 3 times per run, been riding 20% faster down the hill, been riding 25% more efficiently, and developing edge angles of 45 degrees instead of 25 degrees".
In my heart, I believe these kinds of things are happening. I just don't know how to prove it. If we could, then it would be a lot easier to get more work and more money for certified pros.
post #2 of 28
Short answer for taking lessons.
1. Instructor will guide you on trails that are an appropriate challenge without boring you silly or scaring you stupid.
2. Make new friends of your own ability and allow your friends that brought you to ski where they are happiest at their ability. You can exchange stories later at Mahoghany Ridge.
3. You might actually improve and feel better about your self.

Long answer for "Go with a Pro" or "Demanding a Certified Pro"

At just about every ski school I have worked with the "Best" instructor was NOT Certified. Also the "least" instructor was not certified. By accepting the luck of the draw you would not know which you were getting until you were well into the lesson and it was either great or it was too late (afterwards you request a re-do). By demanding a certified pro you are NOT guaranteed of getting the "best" instructor but you ARE guaranteed of NOT getting the least. By least I mean the one that is there for the free lift ticket. Someone wearing that shield pin whether it be Bronze, Silver or Gold, has invested much time and money in themselves and their industry and the student gets the interest on that investment. Until some ski school has the chutzpa to post lesson rates relevant to Instructor cert levels the student pays the same for the lesson, shouldn't they request the best value for their money, or should they just take what they get and if not satisfied ask for the re-do.
post #3 of 28
therusty,

Here's what I tell guests:

A higher level instructor is trained to teach more advanced skiers. As levels go up, the ability of the instructor to identify errors and fix them goes up too. This can get pretty tricky when teaching advanced skiers, so having a well trained eye and huge bag of tricks is useful.

Choosing a certified pro with a higher level guarantees a certain level of expertise:

Level I instructors are trained to teach beginners only. Level II can teach intermediates. Level III instructors teach advanced skiers, level I and II instructors. The teaching abilities of a level III are internationally recognized. Level IV instructors can teach everyone. Some instructors are specially trained in teaching children, park&pipe, and so on.
post #4 of 28
The big question is .... Just how is the PSIA going to push/market/advertise this new "campaign"?

There should be an "audit" of areas that display that big PSIA logo at the ski school desk and on literature or web sites. Damned near 97% of the instructors at most of the eastern "feeders" are kids right out of the ITC's and have the instructional depth of a kiddie wading pool.

I know a few great instructors who have dropped the PSIA card simply due to the declining wages. But they are in a minority and most schools only have a handful (at best) of cert types.

It's pretty rough to justify paying the additional $$$ to maintain certification when after (part time) instructing, you generate $20,000 revenue for the hill and take home $600! Now deduct the uniform costs, clinics and dues!

I just don't see PSIA demanding that the logos be pulled if they don't meet an "X" ratio. notr do I see them erecting billboards on the mountain road. Hell, the management markets to the "bus em' in crowd", they get herded into the rental line like cows to slaughter ... none the wiser.
post #5 of 28
Quote:
But what kind of proof is out there? What is it that a student gets from a level 3 pro that they don't get from a level 2 pro? From the customer perspective, what are they buying that they can go home with (i.e. they can not take the instructors experience and skill home with them)?

Rusty this problem will plague PSIA for many years to come. You see certification is a process to educate the Instructor. You can be certified for 10 or 20 years and maybe not ski the ability of a current Level 1 status, because the certification is irrevocable. That’s really leaves you as a potential student to do your research and when most instructors teach because of their love for skiing vs. the desire to educate the general public on the sport. Well ya have a problem.

I agree that the highest level skier Level 3, Examiner, DTS, are not the bests teachers just because of their certification. But you can be sure at some point they had to demonstrate an awful lot of ability in knowledge and skills mechanics to reach Level 3 and beyond. There is a much bigger problem with education and the entire industry but I will save that for another day.
post #6 of 28
Thread Starter 
Stache,

So you're saying that getting a good certified pro is a crap shoot, but that the odds are better? I concede that's true, but we need a better sales pitch. I've mentioned my ideas for a premium lesson product in the past. I'm all for pricing it according to the certification level of the pro.

Yuki,
PSIA has done a good job explaining what the "Go with a Pro" campaign is about. Phase 1 is just getting the slogan spread about. I like the concept of the campaign, but right now a legitmate question is "where's the beef?". This could grow into something useful or just as easily fade into oblivion.

If your reference to "Eastern" is Eastern US, I beg to differ. I work at Whitetail in South Central Pennsylvania, which is about 90 minutes from Washington DC and Baltimore. 60% of our pros are older adults who are professionals in other fields. We actually have professors and rocket scientists on staff. I think you'll find that a lot of Eastern resorts near major cities have a large percentage of professional people with day jobs on staff.

For better or worse, PSIA has chosen the "be nice" approach towards other industry organizations. Something about catching more flies with honey. Whether or not it actually is better, I personally prefer to work this way. If you buy into the NSAA model for growth, the ski industry is facing a huge problem that is going to require all parties to work together as a team in order for the industry to stay healthy. The data on what is going on in Japan is really scary.

When you look at the PSIA dues as an expense associated with employment, it absolutely does not make sense for part timers. When you look at the dues for the value delivered with respect to your professional and technical growth, I think it's a bargain. If you only do it for the pin and you're only going to one 2 day clinic every 2 years and you don't read the manuals or the newsletters, then why bother? I got to ski a full day with Michael Rogan in a "private clinic" hosted by my mountain and arranged through PSIA. If I added my yearly PSIA dues to what I paid for the clinic, it would still have been a bargain. When I factor in the discounts on lift tickets and gear from the catalog, the availability of the educational material, the fact that the regular clinics I go to cost little more than lift tickets and the value delivered by the demo team members, I'm very happy to support PSIA through my dues. I'm already paying more in expenses to teach than I what I get a paycheck for. An extra $90 per year does not make a difference. The skills that I've learned from teaching have been very helpful to me on my day job and well worth the money "spent" on my teaching career.


Big E,
One of the eye opening revelations for me was how much better a Level 3 can be with beginners. Yet I've also been told about research showing that students do better with unstructured lesson from rookies than extremely disciplined lessons from old pros. As Stache has noted, the "more certified the better" does not necessarily work on an individual basis, but on average, I see the difference in results every day I'm out on snow.

All,
Note that Canadian instructors have four levels of certification versus the US 3 level system.
post #7 of 28
Rusty: My comment on professionals was directed toward the percentage of PSIA members, not their professions (real jobs). Whitetail may be different but my experience has been that many of the older instructors have been leaving. The "proof in the pudding" here would be for the PSIA to ascertain the percentage of certified instructors at such areas.

Additionally, one area "imported" a large number of kids from Argentina. They fed them and gave them housing. They were marginal (at best), wedge turners and since they were "paid for" who do you think ended up teaching while we pin holders stood around?

Personally, only one ski area has given me a "perk" ($10 discount), when I produced my card, and yes I was willing (as they say), to teach if called. That was at Whiteface. The Vermont areas never offered a thing. Out of five years, one $10 dollar discount was hardly worth writing home to Mom about!

When the average part timer brings in about $20,000 in revenue to the mountain, I don't think that it's asking too much to at least meet my expenses for the year. In our part of the country you don't even get the (graduated on service time) family passes.

I'm sure things are better for instructors elsewhere, but in our narrow feeder corridor here ..... it's not all roses.

I am from NJ, but my observations and comments are not directed at policies regarding Mountain Creek, Hidden Valley or Craigmeur, NJ's last remaining areas.
post #8 of 28
Big E,
Level IV? Is this the new "Master" instructor?
post #9 of 28
Sir turnalot,

It's Canadian: Level IV CSIA.

There are course conductor designations on top of that.

On a parallel stream is the CSCF -- ski coaches federation.
post #10 of 28
Oh, of course, I should have looked at you location. A long time ago, my brother went to get certified in Canada because there was too much BS in the U.S. - even a long time ago.
post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
One of the eye opening revelations for me was how much better a Level 3 can be with beginners. Yet I've also been told about research showing that students do better with unstructured lesson from rookies than extremely disciplined lessons from old pros. As Stache has noted, the "more certified the better" does not necessarily work on an individual basis, but on average, I see the difference in results every day I'm out on snow.
IMO, a level III is better with beginners because it takes that long to figure out just how little you must say to a beginner and what words work to really be effective.

The threshold of information needed to trigger "paralysis by analysis" in a beginner is very low.

eg. Just try describing the term "fall line" to a never-ever -- and watch how dumbfounded some can become.

Describe "rotating the femur in your hip socket" and you'll see total confusion. Toronto and the GTA is is a very cosmopolitan place. Many people arrive for lessons that have never seen snow, and speak very little if any english. Explanations mean nothing to them -- they need to watch, do and feel the movements.

That applies to most english speaking beginners too! You might as well be speaking a foreign language to them given the words used to describe the moves that they are asked to do.

If anything from certification, you should find a consistent use of the language when describing the moves. As levels go up, you should find that the descriptions get shorter and clearer -- that is both experience and training. Bob Barnes' posts are a perfect example of that.

Accessible clarity is the hallmark of a good teacher. It is the goal that one should try to acheive -- finding the one word/phrase that works and is strong enough to keep reminding them forever of good movements. That takes experience and that takes someone that cares.
post #12 of 28
Does anyone else see an interesting correlation between the low return rate of first time students, and the fact that in most cases, the least experienced teachers are teaching the least experienced, and often most frightened students?

Since I've moved out here, I've been amazed at how many people I've met who are instructing, yet prior to being hired, never took a ski lesson in their life! On some levels, I understand the rationale. Perhaps ski schools prefer instructors for whom the sport comes so naturally, that it's easy for them to be constantly presenting the proper visual image for their students. That being said, someone who is a natural skier may do quite well with this sort of "just do it" instructor.

While I have had the absolute least sucess with this sort of teacher, I am far from being your typical ski student. Most of the people who choose to stay with this sport have at least some natural ability at it. Me? I'm an instructor's worst nightmare!: For reasons that I still don't quite get, I chose to stick with it anyway, even though I spent the first 3 years believing that one bad fall would be career suicide! Not to be cocky, but I suspect that for me, the gratification of reaching at least an acceptable level of skill is particularly sweet, perhaps sweeter than it is for someone with a more natural ability. {I say this by way of explanation of my often naive, childish, and probably annoying posts every time I do something that you folks have been doing for years!:} IMHO, any instructor who can convince me to at least try to ski bumps, bowls, or steeps is awesome, no matter what their level of certification.

As far as the "full cert" thing goes, I'm going to say something that's going to get me flamed, but I'm going to say it anyway! Some of my very best lessons, both in the east or in the west, have been from Level 2s who are struggling to work for their Level 3s. The key word here is "empathy."
post #13 of 28

A couple of comments...

First of all, the "Go With A Pro" campaign is over... It's not new. That phrase was copyrighted before somebody in PSIA got their hands on it, and PSIA was threatened with a lawsuit for using it. I thought a few of the other suggestions actually made more sense anyway!

"Premiere Lesson"? Get this- Vail Resorts is seriously considering a plan which will charge MORE for L3 instrs. And no doubt, it will result in an INCREASE in price at that level, not a DECREASE in price for less certified pro's.

What will that do to the work load? Obviously for any consumer on a budget, it will mean that less certified pro's will end up with more work then L3 pro's. This will also result in more profit for the ski resort, as less qualified pro's get paid less then L3's. But the same amount of revenue is being generated. And for the record, the staff here are very much against this plan! (There was no corresponding wage increase for L3's included in this plan.)

Marketing Ski Instruction is always a crap shoot- should it be done by the pro's themselves, or by the resorts, or by PSIA? Never has this issue been dealt with by all three groups together. But at various times, each has taken a stab at it. Until all three sit at a table, and develop a unified approach, it will always be sporadic at best.

Because they are so closely affiliated, but each having separate desired outcomes, it will take some creative planning to make this work.
post #14 of 28
Wow, folks. Actually lots of topics in this thread: instructor ability, PSIA public relations, trademark infringement. The works.

I had an opportunity to work with the PSIA-W board for the past couple of years on the topic of advertising. I think the buzz must be created with the public, then the ski areas will be incentivized to hire L2s and L3s and pay them. Otherwise, the lower paid (and skilled) instructors will be the busy ones making the money. IF PSIA can convince the NSAA members to put up signs like, "We feature PSIA certified instructors," that would be wonderful. But, I don't think the NSAA members have a reason to do so. Unless we, as instructors, and PSIA as an organization can explain why it is that snow sports schools are not only a profit center, but, with greater experience, their best eyes and ears on the mountain.

I've had the opportunity to work in "factory" schools, where you take the first 10-15 students in the line and go, and other schools where private lessons are more the rule than the exception. IMHO, there is a difference in certification levels between instructors. And, I agree with Rusty that L3s are some of the most effective beginners' instructors. Experience and bags of tricks (along with my personal mantra, "Shut up and ski") really do make a difference. That difference should be the basis of the ad campaign to the grass-roots skiers/riders.

After all, how many times have each of you had a student that said, "My friends took me up to the top of the mountain, and left me there. I had to slide on my butt all the way down."
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki

I am from NJ, but my observations and comments are not directed at policies regarding Mountain Creek, Hidden Valley or Craigmeur, NJ's last remaining areas.
Yuki
Craigmeur closed the same year Intrawest took over VV/GG. Campgaw, Mountain Creek and Hidden are all thats left.
If you're ever looking to instruct again MC is a pretty good place to work. The pay is not bad if you have experience and certification. And the work is there if you want it. Uniforms are included. I've worked at Craigmeur, Hidden and MC. All good places but so far I'm happy with MC.
Sorry for the highjack.........resume normal posting.
post #16 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro
First of all, the "Go With A Pro" campaign is over... It's not new. That phrase was copyrighted before somebody in PSIA got their hands on it, and PSIA was threatened with a lawsuit for using it.
VSP,

Maybe we should call the campaign "Gone with the Wind"? What a shame. I hope they come up with a new slogan. They should at least take down the web page. BTW - this could be the copyright holder

I'm also sorry to hear that Vail is trying to kill the premium lesson concept. Well I suppose a level 3 professional is professional enough not let to the guest know that they are disgruntled. Otherwise the marketing slogan could be "pay more to get a pissed off pro". Hopefully they will see the wisdom in a share the wealth approach before this program goes live.

Folks - just because management is not always thinking enough to see the wisdom in working together does not mean PSIA should abandon their efforts to work harmoniously with them. Sometimes it only means you need to redouble your efforts to be nice. When management makes a decision that they know will piss you off, you really throw them off guard when you enthusiastically support the idea. The basis for your approach is the lowest common denominator where you agree (e.g. I'm excited about new products that have higher profit margins and will increase net profit for the school"). Of course at the end of your whopee response, you carefully whisper a few positively worded suggestions identifying the risks of the approach they are taking (instead of "this will never work", say "in order for this plan to be most successful, you need to have 'y' happen") and things you need to secure your involvement with the project (which they will gracefully decline because they never wanted you in the first place).

I've seen a few bad ideas croak on the spot simply by saying "Great - go ahead - I won't stop you". When the numnuts see that they can stop putting armor plating on their boat to protect it from criticism, they get forced to put it into the water. Then they quickly discover that their boat won't float. The trick is to not be on the boat when it gets put in the water (see :things you need" comment above) and to encourage the numnuts to keep the boat in shallow water (the faster they get going, the less they have invested in it - so it's not worth fighting it).

When they fail AND you've been positive, they are much more likely to listen to you in round 2. So let's start thinking about new slogans to replace "Slide with a Pro".
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
So let's start thinking about new slogans to replace "Slide with a Pro".
How about something like "Take a lesson from someone who actually DOES give a rat's arse." Or some words to that effect. You know what I mean.

Rusty - Your previous comment about rookie instructors having a less structured level 1 lesson is off the mark. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. A rookie only knows one way to teach. It is way too structured. Folks like you and me know how to customize the lesson flow based on what we see happening real time. Ever see a rookie realize they could take those couple of students in a DTP progession while the rest of the class sticks with a wedge progression? Nah. Skip boot or one-ski exercises because of high athletic ability? Spen an hour on straight runs because the Arab sheik needed it? Not concerned if they don't make two runs on the lift? No, the rookies only have (and quite frankly, need) a rigid structure.

VSP, that really blows, that they would charge premiums to ski with L3 instructors, yet not compensate you for it. That really flies in the face of motivating the L2 instructor to want to attain L3, and to retaining the L3s. If I were a L2, working toward my L3, I would seriously consider not going to the exam or to heading off to another ski area. That said, (Vail being Vail) I would be interested to see how much demand you get for L3s. I'm thinking it might be pretty high (assuming it is promoted heavily). I think it's a great experiment IF Vail would pass along a high percentage of the additonal costs to the L3 instructors. If demand is found to be high, it would be a fabulous motivator to attain a L3 cert.
post #18 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Rusty - Your previous comment about rookie instructors having a less structured level 1 lesson is off the mark.
John,
This was an observation I picked up from an examiner at Pro Jam a couple years ago. He related to the group that someone, somewhere had a done a customer satisfaction survey. They discovered that some of the rookies were getting better scores than some of the old timers and that a common factor was that the rookies maintained less control of their group while the old timers kept their groups highly organized (i.e. less fun).

So get your ass back in line and shut up.

and bend your knees more too.
post #19 of 28
Thread Starter 
It occurs to me that when one runs across an idea that is just patently stupid, it's far more likely that one does not have all the facts. In Vail's case, I'd be happy with no extra pay for the premium lesson if the level 3s were already paid extra to begin with and that the system does not cut down hours taught. Given the hiring ads I've seen for CO resorts, it looks like the difference is at least $2-3/hour. Not having some additional incentive for pros would be just plain stupid instead of being patently stupid. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
post #20 of 28
So there seems to be a little confusion here. VSP is half right. There was a program that had been started by the Rocky Mountain division that was using the Go With a Pro slogan. It came to the attention of the RM BoD that we might not have had the right to use the slogan. It was decided to let the program fade and not reprint any more stickers.

National then decided to create a Go With a Pro marketing package. Mark Dorsey has told me that they have the copyrights needed, as slogans are industry specific.

So there is a current marketing package available on the national web site. It does use the Go with a Pro slogan. I don't think it does the best job of promoting PSIA/AASI members as the people to ask for. But atleast it's a start.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
So get your ass back in line and shut up.
I think I just burst out laughing in my office when I got to this line.

I guess maybe there are some "old timers" that get stuck in a rut or don't want to be there and end up getting a bit robotic. Not me! Noooo. I LOVE level 1 lessons. Especially with 30+ students.
post #22 of 28
Lisamarie,
Please don't belittle your posts. They reflect your personal achievment, growth and challenges met. They remind me of why I ski (for the same experiences) and why I teach (to help others have those experiences)and what my students may be thinking.
The best reward is the grin on the students face after they've accomplished something new, no matter what the skill level.

Why great lessons from the aspiring L3? They are trying harder? They are still striving to grow as an instructor? Their skills are freshly honed as opposed to someone that achieved but is now coasting.
post #23 of 28
Thread Starter 

Ah, err, cough, um, oops

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vailboarder
So there seems to be a little confusion here. VSP is half right. There was a program that had been started by the Rocky Mountain division that was using the Go With a Pro slogan. It came to the attention of the RM BoD that we might not have had the right to use the slogan. It was decided to let the program fade and not reprint any more stickers.

National then decided to create a Go With a Pro marketing package. Mark Dorsey has told me that they have the copyrights needed, as slogans are industry specific.

So there is a current marketing package available on the national web site. It does use the Go with a Pro slogan. I don't think it does the best job of promoting PSIA/AASI members as the people to ask for. But atleast it's a start.
The gowithapro.com web site has skier and rider pros. I suspect that qualifies as conflicting use.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by therusty
The gowithapro.com web site has skier and rider pros. I suspect that qualifies as conflicting use.
You are making the assumption that this group (gowithapro.com) owns the copyright. They may not. Or do you know that they do?
post #25 of 28
Thread Starter 
John,

I did not make the judgement about who owned it, just that there was conflicting use. They have a 2005 copyright notice on their pages. PSIA started this in 2004 (prior use). If Google is any guide, the PSIA stuff comes up higher on a search.
post #26 of 28
Concerning ownership of "Go With a Pro", PSIA shows it as a registered service mark (that little "SM" in the corner of the logo). This search at the Trademark Office shows the ownership of PSIA with the logo and the ownership of the plain character version. I'm assuming that this other owner is the one for the athlete booking agency.
post #27 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro
"Premiere Lesson"? Get this- Vail Resorts is seriously considering a plan which will charge MORE for L3 instrs. And no doubt, it will result in an INCREASE in price at that level, not a DECREASE in price for less certified pro's.

What will that do to the work load? Obviously for any consumer on a budget, it will mean that less certified pro's will end up with more work then L3 pro's. This will also result in more profit for the ski resort, as less qualified pro's get paid less then L3's. But the same amount of revenue is being generated. And for the record, the staff here are very much against this plan! (There was no corresponding wage increase for L3's included in this plan.)
I don't think that it's a bad idea to charge more for L3 (and above!) instructors as long as the market can bear it. There is an aspect of this that makes the value greater in the eyes of the buyer, and that could be good. I know the struggle, however (I have been told for years that I charge between 30% and 50% of what I should for my consulting fees, but it's really hard to believe that increasing my rates will increase my overall revenue!).

That said, it is rediculous for the organization to charge the consumer more and not pass that on to the instructor that is generating that increased revenue. That's patently idiotic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vail snopro
Marketing Ski Instruction is always a crap shoot- should it be done by the pro's themselves, or by the resorts, or by PSIA? Never has this issue been dealt with by all three groups together. But at various times, each has taken a stab at it. Until all three sit at a table, and develop a unified approach, it will always be sporadic at best.

Because they are so closely affiliated, but each having separate desired outcomes, it will take some creative planning to make this work.
I am one who strongly believes that, although they have different primary (obvious) objectives, that the objectives are actually compatible. It does not follow that paying instructors more reduces total instructional profit, for example. The need is basic non-confrontational communication. My expectation is that the various groups have for some reason made this far more difficult than it needs to be.
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisamarie
Does anyone else see an interesting correlation between the low return rate of first time students, and the fact that in most cases, the least experienced teachers are teaching the least experienced, and often most frightened students?
while that may be the case in summit county, where I teach (Eldora), learn to ski/board students (adult and children) are just as likely to be taught by certified instructors of all levels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Why should I "go with a pro"?