or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Magazine = SUCK - Page 3

post #61 of 63
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
Hey Whiteroom,

First, this is a RANKED test, not pass fail.

Second, how do you know the scores of the 9 categories where Alta didn't place in the top 10? You don't. You're guessing.

I'm not saying that we should be ranked #1, what I'm say is that there is no way that things add up based on math.
Yes, I am guessing. I think my guess is fairly accurate, and it would explain why Alta dropped in the OVERALL ranking, wouldn't it?

If it was Pass/ Fail, you would pass (with my hypothetical scores)...since it's a graded comparison the very low scores for 'resort' amenities drag the overall score way down. Based strictly on MATH the rankings make good sense. If you based it on the quality of the ski experience instead of 'resort' experience then it makes NO sense. SKI bases it on the resort experience and math. Alta didn't do bad at all...for a ski hill.
post #62 of 63
We all know that alta isnt even the best in that canyon, and the snow quaility is a sham. They allways get more that comes out of the sky at first than anyone in the wasatch but thier exposures suck compared to the North faceing front side of snowbird.

I think SKI's ranking are right on for who they market too. If someone want to truly beleive Deer Valley is the best place in the entire world let them go there and stay away from our resorts. We lost them the minute they looked up dalton draw or high boy anyways.
post #63 of 63
Asking those polled what they care most about and weighting those categories more in the scoring might reflect the reader's preferences more accurately.
They do ask (I've responded to that survey 4 times). I wrote them a year ago and asked them why they didn't utilize the importance responses of their readers for weighting instead of weighting the 17 categories equally. Needless to say, I never got a response.

Whiteroom's analysis is correct. Alta probably gets scores of 0-2 in its weak categories while Deer Valley is getting scores in the 4-7 range for terrain quality, snow, etc. So Deer Valley wins the math contest, as set up by SKI's editors. If they used the importance weightings as I suggested, the math weightings would probably correspond rather closely to the overall satisfaction scores.

In one of these discussions in the past someone had a reference to SKI and SKIING magazine demographics. Both averaged something like 85K income, mid-40's age and ~23 ski days per season.

Does the corporate owner want to differentiate the magazines to cover a broader range or readers? I'm sure they do. For the past decade SKI has moved in the direction of the late Snow Country, copying the latter's real estate section almost exactly for example. Meanwhile SKIING has moved toward Powder, with frequent contributions by former Powder writers like Steve Casimiro and Rob Story. The polls are constructed so they will favor the areas of each respective magazine's desired demographic. As we know from other examples (certain luxury car companies) the actual demographics of a product's customers can differ radically from the consumers desired by the manufacturer.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion