or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Give the First Day Away - Page 2

post #31 of 51
Thread Starter 
I hope people will sling ideas like they matter! They really do.

Forty per cent less skiers today than in 1988, 206 less resorts...maybe the details are sketchy, Frank, but the big picture is rather clear. What do you think will be the first areas to close? The little ski hill down the road? We have several within 200 miles of my place that are tenuous at best.

When the little ones go, where will the enthusiasts who used to go to the little area go? To the bigger area, making the bigger area just a bit more crowded and congested.

If we follow the downward spiral a few years longer, maybe the only resorts will be like Disney and Six Flags and the country will be served by a few mega-resorts that serve up snow sports for the masses.

Yuck! I think it matters very much and that everyone down to the recreational enthusiast should take it personally. If we can save the webfooted snoutdigger, or what have you, surely we can save our snow sports from sliding into oblivion like whist and the waltz.
post #32 of 51

the trend you speak of is the downside of capitolism. supply and demand is what drives businesses in the united states. ski areas can't continually operate at a lose.

some areas will close, people will go to the bigger mountains, a few will re-open... eventually it will balance off. tis' an unforutunate aspect of every industry in america; including the ski industry.

for a new england prospective on smaller ski areas closing, consult the New England Lost Ski Areas Project web page, which features hundreds of former N.E. ski areas that have closed. with three more N.E. areas added to that list this season, i think the trend may unfortunately continue.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 27, 2001 05:13 PM: Message edited 1 time, by riverc0il ]</font>
post #33 of 51
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by nolobolono:
Forty per cent less skiers today than in 1988, 206 less resorts...maybe the details are sketchy... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sketchy??? That's an understatement. Did you even read my post? Try to keep up. 1988 is a completely different era in skiing. How about telling us how things are since 1998. I'm sure you feel like I am unnecessarily attacking you, but if you are going to use statistics and "facts", you should be held accountable. How about a source? Where did you find these stats that show that the end of the skiing world is upon us.
post #34 of 51
Thread Starter 
NSAA Model for Growth and SIA Intelligence Report 2001 are two sources.

Let's see, in 2000 the Rocky Mountain states were down 40%, according to National Sporting Goods Association stats--the latest travel data show that Colorado may see 38% less business this year due to 9/11 and the recession.

You may purchase these reports from the web sites of these organizations. I'd love to have a "real" statistician verify their methodology.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 26, 2001 08:22 PM: Message edited 2 times, by nolobolono ]</font>
post #35 of 51
I'm gonna be solid with my opinion about what ski areas should do [img]smile.gif[/img]

Basically, I feel that the smaller ski areas and less known ones (atleast in CA) are doing a phenomenal job in promoting more snowsporters. Backcountry tours, cheap tickets, cheap season passes, packages, free stuff, etc. Homewood does a good job with those discounts almost on a daily basis for one thing or another. (ladies ski for half off, 2 for 1, cross dress, etc).

On the contrary, alot of the "bigger" resorts in CA tend not to offer discounts and stuff. Kirkwood point and case. You can't find any deals from there...slidingonthecheap.com doesn't have anything, snowbomb.com doesn't have anything etc. No places in the bayarea I've been to offers any discount tickets either. If the larger places were to discount stuff quite a bit like the 2 for 1 deal offered at some places in CA, i think skiing would be revitalized quite a bit. Like most of you probably noticed, people tend to gravitate towards brand names...places are like brand names as well, and i think a similar gravitation towards those more well known ski resorts would occur [img]smile.gif[/img] More ppl = more skiers.

Just out of curiosity, do any marketing people from the resorts frequent this message board?

post #36 of 51
Why are there less skiers today then 10 years ago?

Okay here is the secret answer...

Americans are becoming fat fu*king pigs! You have to pry us off our couches and from in front of our computers with dynamite.

Kids are failing the presidential fitness tests in school by the boat loads, causing the administration to work on enacting manditory gym classes again. We are fatter now then ever before in the history of our country, deaths from heart disease, diabetes and high blood pressure are at an all time high, along with obesity. Just walk into Walmart some time and take a random sample of the first 10 people you see. Count how many are over weight.

Let's face it, the resorts aren't deserting us, we are staying away from them because once you get past all the hype, skiing is really a lot of work for most people.
post #37 of 51
Thread Starter 
Three thoughts:

The Canadian Air Force did a study and found that overweight people could lose up to a pound by spending two hours in cold temperatures.

Even the guy who rips the backcountry got there by way of some time at a ski area somewhere, learning the skills.

In 1919 Hannes Schenider said, "If everyone skied there'd be no wars."
post #38 of 51
Well... I think that there are a few reasons.
Two have already been posted here. They are:
"eight dollar cheeseburger!"
"Americans are becoming fat fu*king pigs!"
those posts are RIGHT ON the mark.

Also In my opinion, another reason is: we're wrecking skiing, at least as we know(knew?) it! It used to be an adventure, something that people would get excited about. Now it's all McSkiing. Groomed trails. Heated high-speed space-gondolas. Homogenous corporate resort experience. Terrain parks. Comfort patrol.

It's turning skiing into A day at the friggin’ country club. And I hate golf.

Anyone remember the classic image of a guy sitting in a ski lodge, by the fire, with a cast on his leg? He was a stud. Now it's a sport for the "family". Anyone can do it. Much of the thrill has been groomed & lawyered out of skiing.

Now I'm not saying some of the changes in the last 20 or so years have necessarily been a bad thing, But I believe that they have affected the growth of the sport.

But then, I don't care! [img]smile.gif[/img] I would be way happier if everyone quit today. I have enough skiis in my closet to last me the rest of my life, as long as it still snows in the mountains, and I can drag my fatass up the hill, or buy gas for a snowmo, I’m happy,
But I guess that's too much for the general population.....
post #39 of 51
Nolo, I didn't think is was possible to be this bad at debating a point, but you are.

First of all:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Let's see, in 2000 the Rocky Mountain states were down 40%, according to National Sporting Goods Association stats<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Down 40% from what???!!! From 1999? Or are you still stuck in 1988? Statistical trends mean NOTHING without a reference point! You're throwing numbers out like we're all supposed to be so impressed by your use of them that we'll figure you MUST be right. But you never have anything to back them up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>-the latest travel data show that Colorado may see 38% less business this year due to 9/11 and the recession. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has absolutely nothing to do with your original point. (Why would you even put that in now?) Even if Resorts offered the "first day free", as you suggested, two things would come of that. 1) All the people who couldn't afford to ski because of the recession, would get to ski once and then wouldn't come back because they would still be effected by the recession! 2) All the people who are not skiing because of 9/11 would still not be willing to travel to the resorts, free or not.

: (*.....and shaking my head....*
post #40 of 51
Thread Starter 

Why the hostility? The trend is our friend, right?

The trend in snow sports is DOWN if in 1988 there were x many people skiing and snowboarding and in 2000 there were x-15% many people in the sport.

There were 50.2 million skier visits in 1978-79 and 51.6 million visits in 1999-2000. The industry regards this as a flat growth statistic. Those statistics are based on a measurement called "skier visits" which does not count individual skiers but how many days of skiing the individuals did.

The participation figures from the NSGA Sports Participation Study (a count of individual skiers) shows that in 1986 there were 9,736,000 people skiing. In 2000 there were 7,392,000 people skiing. The graph shows steady downward movement from 1988's high of 12,389,000 skiers to 2000.

What was the economy like then?

The annual average retention of new customers in snow sports is 15% nationwide. This figure has been stable for many years.

If we do nothing about increasing the number of newcomers to the sport or retaining greater than 15% of them, the industry can expect to see a drop in "skier visits" by 2015 to 37.9 million, a drop of 27%. This prognosis is made without considering economic factors, just trend analysis.

I'm not trying to dazzle you with numbers. The numbers are there for anyone to see and appreciate.

And your argument is?
post #41 of 51
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And your argument is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.....clearly being wasted on someone too thick-headed to understand it.
post #42 of 51
.....clearly being wasted on someone too thick-headed to understand it.


That's funny... are you arguing with yourself again?

Frank, I suggest you start over, from scratch. nolobolono would not be cruel enough to expose your flaws here, but I sure am! Quit attacking her. Please. :
post #43 of 51

The resort business is always a marketing challenge, with promotional pricing and other price points along with convenience being integral parts of it.... and that's No Bologne !!
post #44 of 51
Thread Starter 

First of all, thank you for sticking up for me. As you no doubt noticed, Frank is employing the last-ditch effort of the ad hominem argument: argue that because your opponent is a jerk, you have the better case. We don't need to go there.

It's snowing tonight, 12 degrees, full moon obscured by cloud cover. Could be EPIC skiing this week in the Big Sky.

Take a deep breath, Frank. It's just a message board. Statistics are just statistics, as you point out. Without a context they don't mean a whole hell of a lot. I agree with that.

The context. Micro: the U.S. participation in snow sports in the years 1976 to 2000. Macro: the socio-cultural-economic climate of the U.S. during that period.

By the way, if you truly are interested in the validity of this data, you can check out the SIA and NSAA studies for yourself.

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ December 28, 2001 11:23 PM: Message edited 1 time, by nolobolono ]</font>
post #45 of 51
Ok, I'll say it one more time. Making comparisons between the ski industry in the late '80s and now is irrelevant. That's like saying that airplane hijackings are down since the 1970s, so we shouldn't worry about it as much as we used to.

Here are the facts that matter:

Skier/Snowboarder participation in 1999 was 10,724,000 individuals. In 2000, it was 11,739,000. It looks like you can now finally sleep at night knowing that the sport is not doomed. Participation is UP! By 10%, no less!

Furthermore, skier-visits (which is defined as one skier/snowboarder visiting a ski area for all or part of one day) for the 1999-01 season, totalled 52.2 million. For the 2000-01 season, that number was up to 57.2 million. Another 10% rise!

These statistics are from the SIA Snow Sports Fact Sheet, which can be found at http://www.snowlink.com/newsresearch...00.shtml#Total

Nolo, I'm not saying you shouldn't be concerned about the future of the sport you love. I'm just saying that if you're going to use stats and facts to back up your point, make sure they are relevant and will stand up to the scrutiny of people who are not willing to simply accept your figures just because they sound good. That is not me attacking you. That is just good advice. The fewer holes your argument has, the more credible you are. And so far, in this thread, you've been serving up Swiss Cheese.
post #46 of 51
Thread Starter 
The problem with last year's stats is that 75% of the increase took place by the conclusion of the holiday period and is attributed to good early season snow. The remainder of the year's stats were not outstanding.

Trend analysis means what to you? To me it means looking at a longer term than last year.

I will grant you that if last year's increases are maintained or exceeded this year, we will need to consider it more than a dead cat bounce.
post #47 of 51
Stop arguing,

It's because we are all just getting fat.

Dammit, or is it just me that is getting fat. Oh to be 25 again.

Now where is that cheese cake left over from Christmas? Here Cheesecake, cheescake...
post #48 of 51
Good snow around the holidays last year? Where? Certainly not in Montana, last year or this year. I've been riding the mountains around Bozeman for 15 years and I've never seen worse conditions as I did last year. Granted, Montana is not the only place where skiing and snow exists, but I have many friends who live in Colorado who had a disappointing year last year, not as disappointing as Montana, but not as good as usual, but down from average nonetheless.

By the way Nolo, I'm not trying to argue a point here, just suprised that you were able to find stats that suggest that the increase in skiers last year was due to an increase in holiday skiers considering the fact that the snow was pretty bad last year during the holidays.
post #49 of 51
Thread Starter 
From last year's Kottke Report:

U.S. ski resorts reported a record number of skier/snowboarder visits during the 2000-2001 season. Strong early-season snowfall was a major factor contributing to a new national record--57.3 million visits--a jump of approximately 9.8 percent from the 5.1 million that took to the slopes the previous season, according to the final Kottke National End of Season Survey 2000-2001.

From the SIA Intelligence Report:

Skier visits nationally set a new record of 57.3 millions visits during the 2000/01 season, a jump of 9.8% (5.1 million visits) from the 1999/00 season of 52.2 million and an increase of 4.9% (2.7 million visits) from the previous record in the 1993/94 season of 54.6 million visits. All major regions of the country were strong, particularly the Midwest and Northeast. No single region set an all-time record for skier visits, although some came close. The combination of strong performances in all regions was a key factor in setting a new national record. Most of the increases occurred during the early-season and Christmas due to the strong early-season snowfall. By the conclusion of the holiday period, an estimated 75% of the total gain in visits was recorded. The remainder of the season was relatively strong, but not at a record-setting pace.
post #50 of 51
Ok Nolo, your last post had me second guessing my memory. (What was the point of this thread?) So I went back and read your original post.

You said, (not quoting here) that participation in the sport is on the way down (since 1988), and that the ski industry needed to do something to turn that trend around. You then suggested giving away the first day free.

Then this, from your last post:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Skier visits nationally set a new record of 57.3 millions visits during the 2000/01 season, a jump of 9.8% (5.1 million visits) from the 1999/00 season of 52.2 million and an increase of 4.9% (2.7 million visits) from the previous record in the 1993/94 season of 54.6 million visits. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So things were good in 1988, we had a record number of skier visits in 93-94, and then hit another record for skier visits in 99-00. Yet we're trending downwards?

Ok, ok, forget that for now.

How about this, also from your last post:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Strong early-season snowfall was a major factor contributing to a new national record--57.3 million visits--a jump of approximately 9.8 percent from the 5.1 million that took to the slopes the previous season <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So let me get this straight. When it snows, people go skiing, and when it doesn't, they don't. Oh yeah, the ski industry definitely needs to do something about that! They've been slacking off all these years that we haven't gotten 3 feet of snow in Vermont before Christmas! What were they thinking???
post #51 of 51
Thread Starter 
I understand your confusion, Frank.

The "skier visits" were great last year and in 93/94--both good snow years.

Remember, that statistic measures days skied, not numbers of skiers.

It's the graph of the numbers of skiers that is grim. The last five years have seen a drop from 10,466,000 in 1996 to 7.4 million in 2000. There were 12.4 million skiers in 1988.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion