New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Debate these

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
PSIA/CSIA needs SAM in order to conduct and grow it's business.

SAM does not need PSIA/CSIA in order to conduct and grow it's business.

PMTS has no advantage over either PSIA or CSIA in producing a "product" that is desired by SAM.
post #2 of 21
What do you want a 1200 post thread? You have three 400 poster threads in one thread. This is a September thread. I ain't bit'n yet.
post #3 of 21
Nice summary of one possible economic interpretation of the ski sport, although I am genuinely suprised that there is so much opposition to pedagogical innovation here at Epic Ski when all the other sports that thrive in the US are constantly innovating techniques and teaching methods. 1) The real question is whether SAM has the right strategy to increase its business. Relying on high end strategies, like the massive condo and home construction idea of tht '90's, did not pan out like they planned. 2) Park City can't afford to support the early WC ski races anymore. Why? No fan base. Why? Too expensive of a sport. 3) PMTS is simple, biomechanically sound, and standardized. PSIA instruction is, by contrast, all over the place. 4) SAM may not think it needs PMTS, but learning skiers respond very well to it. Established business interests always ignore the innovative idea. In 1980, CNN was the object of media industry derision. Who's laughing now?
post #4 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by niceturns
PSIA/CSIA needs SAM in order to conduct and grow it's business.
Yes it does.

Quote:
SAM does not need PSIA/CSIA in order to conduct and grow it's business.
Yes it does not.

Quote:
PMTS has no advantage over either PSIA or CSIA in producing a "product" that is desired by SAM.
Yes and No.

post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcat
In 1980, CNN was the object of media industry derision. Who's laughing now?
Conservative FOX Cable News.

PSIA/CSIA laughing in 20 years?
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by niceturns
SAM does not need PSIA/CSIA in order to conduct and grow it's business.
Let me see, my mountain sells a one hour private lesson for $70 and then pays me $14 to deliver it, they don't need a dept that delivers an 80% profit margin??????????????????????????????????:
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
Let me see, my mountain sells a one hour private lesson for $70 and then pays me $14 to deliver it, they don't need a dept that delivers an 80% profit margin??????????????????????????????????:
No Stache you would be their even without PSIA/CSIA. You can't quit, slaves are always sold.
post #8 of 21
Short term thinking. Long term failure??
This past season they gave first assignments to "offshore outsourcing" south american college kids paying them only $6.25/hr (These are NOT the South American Professional Ski Instructors of old). I heard many complaints from customers who could not understand (english as a second language without the local or US colloquialisms) and/or did not benefit from the poor quality lesson. Delivering a poor quality product does NOT stimulate growth of demand for that product.
Ask Dave Thomas "Why are Wendy's hamburgers square?"
post #9 of 21
Stache you are only re-enforcing what I said with respect to SAM,s position on PSIA. Now mind you, PSIA will be the one's held responsible for the poor lessons received by those customers not SAM. The PMTS guys will be quick to capitalize on that.
post #10 of 21
SAM doesn't care about PMTS, PSIA, or any other quality control measure. All they can think about is this season's profitability and to hell with any future $$$. We will deal with next season next season.
post #11 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
SAM doesn't care about PMTS, PSIA, or any other quality control measure. All they can think about is this season's profitability and to hell with any future $$$. We will deal with next season next season.
Now that we have settled on fault we can debate whether SAM is responsible for the short term thinking or the tax, finance and trading rules in the USA are directly responsible for forcing SAM into this posititon that is counter to logic and the true well being of the industry? The blame can go very high indeed. PMTS only sees PSIA.
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stache
SAM doesn't care about PMTS, PSIA, or any other quality control measure. All they can think about is this season's profitability and to hell with any future $$$. We will deal with next season next season.
It's not SAM. SAM is only the intermediary. The correct question is to what entity does SAM answer. If the entity is a for-profit large corporation answerable to stock holders, then we must realize and accept that what pleases the stockholders is what drives the directives to SAM.
post #13 of 21
I disagree, Pierre. Discussions about PSIA, PMTS, and SAM are liveliest in the spring when the spirit yearns for renewal, rebirth, and change. Ski instructors do not think with their brain in the fall but with their itchy feet, and so they make poor negotiations. As my friend the guru Weiss is fond of saying, "Instructors just want to go zig-zag, and as long as that's all they want, that's all they'll have for their troubles."

*Gonzo, the quotation marks are stylistic--I am paraphrasing from memory.
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
I disagree, Pierre. Discussions about PSIA, PMTS, and SAM are liveliest in the spring when the spirit yearns for renewal, rebirth, and change.
I suspect you are probably right on that one. By August there is only one right way to ski, business takes care of itself.
post #15 of 21
Not to diminish the nuances and analytical distinctions made above in this thread, many (or most) of which I understand and agree with, the 800 lb gorilla in this whole issue, touched on by Nightcat above, is simply this: 70 bucks to ski at a really big mountain, scaled down to 50 for a big mountain, to maybe 42 for a medium to 32 for a small. How can a sport grow with those supply-side realities?

JoeB
post #16 of 21
Not to diminish the excellent nuances and analytical distinctions made above in this thread, many (or most) of which I understand and agree with, the 800 lb gorilla in this whole issue, touched on by Nightcat above, is simply this: 70 bucks to ski at a really big famous mountain, scaled down to 55 for a less famous big mountain, to maybe 42 for a medium to 32 for a small.

A sport is not gonna grow with supply-side price realities like that regardless of teaching philosophy. Conversely, if it were growing, there would, IMHO, be plenty of room for friendly, healthy and mutually beneficial competition between PSIA, PMTS, and anyone else, which would be to the long-term benefit of teachers, learners and the industry.

As with any industry, a contraction of resources and opportunity elevates (and even potentially exaggerates) perceived risk and tends to starve the system of entrepreneurial innovation. And then the very natural risk-averse motivations of SAM take over, and those motivations are unlikely to have anything to do with the cultivation of teaching philosophy.

Let's face it: we do this work because, due to our makeup, we can't not do it--none of us minds teaching never-evers, but we want to be appreciated for our ability to provide Cadillac, top-of-the-line teaching service. SAM is in it for the very natural purpose of making money. Hey, I'm in business, FWIW, and face every day the pressures of profitability. If I tried to survive on selling my Cadillac top-of-the-line service to the small market segment that could appreciate it, I would be out of business. This is, IMHO, why MRG is a successful shareholder operation, despite the ridiculous consumer economics of the single chair.

JoeB
post #17 of 21
The PMTS spin-off brought new options to light and created some degree of both public and professional awareness to the fact that there were valid alternatives to traditional ski teaching/learning methodologies that had been evolving at the rate of reptiles. While the tanker has taken a decade to begin to turn, it appears to be slowly doing so. Some opinions suggest apparently more driven more by pressure front line instructors for more current thinking than any origional vision of top down leadership. Anyone knowledgable of the inner game between these organizations would probably agree that "percieved competition" from PMTS (valid or otherwise) has encouraged PSIA step up and get to work on creating a more current product that better relates to contempory skiing and the options for learning technology has created. This bears fruit to the axiom that competition results in a better product.

In an industry that continues to fight against loss of growth in the face of ever increasing external competition from alternative activities and far less expensive vacation options, I'd suggest that every internal component really does need each other if we are to respond with a better overall product with which to compete.

Will we ever get to the point where all the oars are coordinated and pulling the same direction? Who knows, till then the boat makes marginal headway, and risks spinning aimlessly.
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcmeister
Who knows, till then the boat makes marginal headway, and risks spinning aimlessly.
Tanker propellers create dead fish.
post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 

What's missing?

It seems to me that SAM could get along just fine without PSIA/CSIA - stache, I didn't say get along without instructors - just without PSIA, CSIA, PMTS... whatever, as Pierre pointed out. Anybody can be an instructor, if we come right to the reality of it.

PSIA, CSIA, PMTS don't really differ radically from one another. It's almost 100% technical stuff - simply put, this does not make more money for SAM.

When I asked the question: is the CSIA considering any business education modules in the future? directly to the prez himself, the answer was pretty clear - NO. Maybe PSIA is different, I don't know. My guess on PMTS is that they too are more concerned with the function of the baby toe than the function of the resort bottom line. Like it or not, area operators are most concerned with that item, not the new "perfect turn".

I am of the opinion that the bodies that certify instructors these days need to broaden their perspectives.
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcat
Nice summary of one possible economic interpretation of the ski sport, although I am genuinely suprised that there is so much opposition to pedagogical innovation here at Epic Ski when all the other sports that thrive in the US are constantly innovating techniques and teaching methods.
I believe you might be able to note that I do NOT teach or coach skiing for a living and to me pedagogical innovation sounds very interesting and tempting.

I think the time is ripe for ski areas to open their doors to competitive ski instruction on their hills. different types of instruction for different types of skiers with different types of goals.
post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo
*Gonzo, the quotation marks are stylistic--I am paraphrasing from memory.
'sokay by me, madame. I believe I may have heard similarly at one time or another.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching