or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The matter of marketing - Page 2

post #31 of 103
I took a lesson at Stowe in my first year of skiing, and even with ski school's lift line priority, it was so crowded, we only got about 3 runs in for the entire class! :

I do understand that does not necessarily mean that the resort is making big money, but when you are paying that much for lift tickets, and spend most of your time waiting on line, its hard to have much sympathy.

I never went back again.

This year, my New England ski days were down considerably from the past 2 years, because the few times I went, it was about as relaxing as skiing through Grand Central Station. It becomes a question of value. Unfortunately, with prices so high, people are going to expect perfection.

Inner city kids may spend over $125 on their Nikes. But they keep those shoes for 3 months to a year, plus they get year round use out of them. In some places, one day of skiing can cost more than that if you factor in equipment and lessons.
post #32 of 103
Thread Starter 
I believe I have gone through quantum changes as an instructor. Birds of a feather tend to flock, and those in my circle are not slouches.

I agree that organization time is glacial and improvements incremental.
post #33 of 103

I understand the frog analogy, but I'm not sure the water is ever going to boil.

The ski "industry" takes in a lot of territory. From ski resort ownership (the guys/gals who actually own the lifts and provide the tickets) through lodging, travel, restaurants, real estate, lessons, etc.

Resort *ownership* seems to somehow keep muddling along, cutting trees, buying more lifts and groomers, raising lift ticket prices, etc. In many cases, they make their money selling real estate and "lifestyle" to second-homers who may spend more time there in the summer than the winter.

From my complete bystander perspective, it seems that ski instruction, and therefore instructors, are the afterthought of the afterthought in this chain. I know that you and so many others are instructors because you love the sport and love helping people enjoy it, but the ski "industry" (I'm not referring the PSIA or any other instructor group here) isn't doing much of anything to improve your situation. Maybe there's a message there if you care to look for it.

As far as your argument about golf, I don't do it anymore. As far as making tee times to ski at Snowbird, I solved that one several years ago. It's called Scarpa boots, Ascension skins, and Fritschi bindings.

That's actually one of the reasons I like spring skiing so much. I skied Snowbird last Saturday in super conditions. I had to share the mountain with a whole hundred or so people.

My whole point, I guess, is that your interest group (ski instructors) needs to somehow convince a higher percentage of existing skiers to take more lessons (market share) rather than relying on an overall increase in skier numbers to create more students.

post #34 of 103
somewhat pertinent...

my home mountain does not make snow, a factor which, in the southern california "market," brings you to the plate with two strikes already in the ledger.
they seem to scour the folks in the orange vests with trash bags in their hands on the shoulder of the freeway for their lift-op crew.
they barely advertise. (what budget?)
they've been operational for 50 years, though one wonders how.

but their clientele consists of a very hard core group of skiers, baldy devotees, who wouldn't change a plank in one single slow-as-frozen-molasses, rickety chair, if it meant becoming more like the the hills tons of skiers pass baldy to get to. the terrain rules WHEN there's snow, and it's fine with me and plenty of others if no one ever hears about it. (i'm still surprised when i ski elsewhere and, when asked where i ski in southern california, and i say baldy, no one's heard of it, though they know all about the big bear resorts and mountain high. and i'm including people who live here.)

i think it's safe to say that the skier's sensibility code (which includes, nolo, much of what you began this thread with - flow, zen, extension of self, etc.) does not easily mix with that shared by those who might also ski but whose primary job is to market/push skiing.

perhaps my attitude reflects selfishness but it's a selfishness many skiers share, perhaps best exemplified by powder day behavior, when further marketing is about the last thing on everyone's mind. what's in it for skiers, if skiing grows? lower prices? no. forget it. is NOT happening. and i'd be dubious about growth, whatever form it takes, resulting in better pay for instructors. the last thing a ski resort is worrying about is the instructor group becoming disgruntled and leaving or threatening to. (i could be wrong, but i think you might find signage suddenly lighting up, showing you the most direct path to the door.)

to say you're readily replaceable would be to understate. just because it's skiing doesn't mean those who teach it are the most important parts of the whole. not to the ceo you aren't. i mean no disrespect here AT ALL; i'm just trying to paint a picture i think comes close to the situation being discussed.
who goes to a ski mountain for the instruction? some, sure, but what percentage? and even then, it's for THE instruction, not, generally, because of The Particular Brand of instruction at a particular mountain. for most folks, hey, lessons are lessons and, again, NOT the primary draw to the hill.

i contend people ski for the feeling of skiing. (and one can obviously feel very good while at the same time skiing very poorly.) and the feeling of skiing - that good feeling - is not diminished because you and your buds have the whole mountain to yourself. THAT is a GOOD thing. we like that. we don't - well, I don't - give much of a hoot if that happens to also mean less traffic at the ticket window.

the dichotomy, or have i missed the point entirely? (it happens.)
post #35 of 103
I think I need to stop in and make a few turns with Your Highness next year.

But first I need an invitation.

[ April 30, 2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: SCSA ]
post #36 of 103
Thread Starter 

Is it the prospect of no lift lines and empty runs you seek, or to check the veracity of my turns?

Hey, let's make it a party! Gonzo could drive Jim over from Lost Trail--you'll fall over laughing at some of his yarns--Bob.Peters could come back home for a spell, I could finally meet that enigmatic Sitzmark...the idea takes hold.

You're all invited.

Let me know when...


I neglected to compliment you on your post. I thought this observation most astute:

skiing is itself a marketing tool used to promote other products
post #37 of 103
My whole point, I guess, is that your interest group (ski instructors) needs to somehow convince a higher percentage of existing skiers to take more lessons (market share) rather than relying on an overall increase in skier numbers to create more students.

again, very well said Bob.

Zorro, your doomsayer prophecy is nonsense at best. We don't need "growth" for the sake of conversion. Obviously you're not following things very closely. A fair number of top amateur boarders are going back to being two-plankers. They've realized what I saw the first time I was on a tongue depressor - it's a short road to snowboard skill stagnation at the top level. In any event, "growth" will not change whether areas will let people ski. Not every ski area exists as an exemplar of capitalism. Some exist to offer skiers a place to ski. How about Mad River Glen, Bridger Bowl, Lost Trail? Those spring to mind immediately. Created by skiers, they will not be likely to eliminate skiing.

NB, you and I will have to disagree here. Anyone who goes into instruction with the idea of making the same wages that I do in my job needs to wake the hell up. Remember, instructors CHOOSE to be instructors, they aren't forced to do so. The solution is not "more people on the snow." Rather, it's to make a decision. I look at full-time instructors and coaches as "true believers" -- the same kinds of people who practice public interest law for about $20k a year instead of the $2 million they would make as partners in large corporate firms.

You will NEVER hear me complain that I need more people to be harmed physically or economically so that I will have more legal work to make me rich. I think that's obscenely selfish. I would rather that I am put out of business as a result of people becoming less litigious and more self-reliant.
post #38 of 103
I'm up for a gathering at the MT area of NB's choice... my vote would be Bridger Bowl or Snowbowl, but I leave that up to NB

As to bringing JW along, we'd have to give him big advance notice and a bit of cajoling. He is a full-time rancher and does his coaching merely because he loves it. If we all met at Lost Trail, that would give JW an excellent opportunity to gather with us. However, the terrain and the chairs' lack of speed at Club LT would probably dissatisfy the yuppies like SCSA!
post #39 of 103
Your Highness,

It would be an honor to make some turns with you. I'm in.

I just spoke with Harald. I think you and him should have discussions. Can I give him your email address? And, he's coming thru MT. in May on the way to his fishing trip. He said he'd love to stop in and "think out loud" with you.

Cheers Your Highness,
post #40 of 103
Thread Starter 

You tend to make hyperbole of my humble offerings. I said a living wage, not the princely sum that lawyers and doctors earn.

But wait a minute, didn't Jimmy tell me he charges by the hour whatever his student charges by the hour in his profession? And yet I hear you pay him by stringing wire and cutting bulls into steers. A good man must be hard to find.

I became a ski instructor so I wouldn't go stark raving loony out here when the wind howls and the snow blows. It turned out to be the perfect complement for my otherwise useless education in the humanities. I make better money than I did translating Russian, that's one small comfort, and hints at the lengths I have gone not to make money.

I have learned that not everyone on this thread agrees that skiing needs to be marketed more aggressively. Few seem to agree with the view that skiing is on the downslope of a sigma curve. I have pored over the statistics, but sometimes qualitative data sheds light on the numbers.

What you are saying is similar to what I heard from the Top Guns of the industry orgs: All's well in the world of snow sport. Investors are happy, management is happy, so what are you instructors crying about now?

I find the lack of sympathy for instructors to be surprising. Do I detect hostility or is this just a way of saying, "get real!"?
post #41 of 103
Maybe it's something really simple. When they want to sell beach/sun/surf, they show pictures - everywhere- of people having fun doing those things. When they sell skiing, "people having fun" is something I've seen in European ads - people hanging at the mid-slope chalet having beers - but not in American ones.

Pictures of beginners learning to ski are not [sorry] inspirational or something others would want to "see and do". Same with experienced skiers - they look good, but are enough people going to identify to want to do "that" or should they be kept like North Face ads - to show what the best can do?

[ April 30, 2002, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: skis&snow ]
post #42 of 103
>>>the last thing a ski resort is worrying about is the instructor group becoming disgruntled and leaving or threatening to. i could be wrong, but i think you might find signage suddenly lighting up, showing you the most direct path to the door.<<<

Ryan, I don't know from where you get your information, but except for a handfull of large destination resorts, ski areas depend heavily on prepaid packages that include lessons.

Those little resort where Pierre eh! teaches with a 240 foot vertical have prepaid contracts with more than 300 schools which drop between 3000 to 4000 students off daily and all get a lesson for five weeks.

There are now 390 instructors and more will be there next season.

The ski areas could not exists without having that money in their hand before Thanksgiving and the schools would not sign up without the kids getting lessons. But those instructors have been paid better than most large resorts pay theirs, for forty years. Plus the benefit of free family season passes no matter how large the family is.

And that goes also for the 250+ volunteer ski patrollers, the family passes I mean.

The couple that owns the areas thinks of their instructors and patrollers as their primary asset.

No area could operate without, or even an understaffed ski school.

post #43 of 103
Thread Starter 
The problem we have in competing with the beach images is the T&A. Which ties this thread in with SCSA's note/rant, LisaMarie's dislike of baggy clothes, and PinHed's desire for a sexier sport (and pin-pointed the solution as Schoeller pants). It seems we have independently arrived at a significant barrier: clothes. Not what they look like. That we have to wear them.
post #44 of 103
ha ha!!! did you see this thread?

But seriously, ski areas need to be more concerned with not losing the customers they already have, rather than trying to find new ones. So many people I know who have skied for most of their lives, have given it up after snowboarding became popular... or after the lift prices became too high....or after the traffic near the hill was inbearable.....or they got food poisoning from an 8 dollar burger on the mountain....or the bimbo at the ski school desk never returns an inquiry phone call regarding lessons.
The list goes on. But if you're going to charge top dollar for a sport, you need to CONSISTANTLY supply top quality service.

IMHO, overcrowding the slopes, more so than they already are, is not going to enable this!
post #45 of 103
Thread Starter 
SKI INSTRUCTION marketing is currently a dead horse without a stable and a feed lot to nurture it.

Could we have found our focus?
post #46 of 103
Hey Nolo,


Skiing in Montana sounds fun and I'm sure not put off by small areas (hell, I was on staff at Pomerelle). I'll need quite a bit of advance notice, though, as I do a lot of International travel.

I know you "think" skiing all summer long, but what do you do recreationally? Fly fish? Mountain bike? Montana has to be a wonderful summer place.
post #47 of 103
I find the lack of sympathy for instructors to be surprising. Do I detect hostility or is this just a way of saying, "get real!"?

The latter.

I don't lack sympathy for instructors, in fact my feeling is the exact opposite. I empathize. But the cold, hard fact is that ski instruction is a grossly underpaid line of work, as is teaching in public schools, as is public interest lawyering, as is environmental protection. That is the source of my "true believer" comment. I admire anyone whose convictions lead them to a job despite the meagre pay.

All things in life are a balance. If you want bigger $$ you generally have to give up more of your personal freedom, that is, unless you are a Hollywood entertainer or professional football/basketball/baseball player... ahhh, errrmmm, BTW is there any difference between those two categories?

Too much free time spent pondering something with the wrong focus leads to erroneous conclusions. Worse, time spent pondering statistics is time very ill-spent.

Somebody please answer this: how will my skiing be improved by more areas taking the traVail/Dear Valet approach to skiing?
post #48 of 103
Thread Starter 
Okay, I'll affirm it. This thread has found its focus. (We had to rob from a few other threads, but dialog is all about two or more streams of thought coming together, so this is a good thing.)

How can we market lessons?

Right now, generally speaking, I would say they are positioned as a "necessary evil" (which explains why so many general managers feel that instructors are a "necessary evil").

Maybe that overstates it a bit, but lessons are commonly perceived as something you have to take, not something you "get to have."

Back to LM's note about attractors and avoiders, and I ask your indulgence for stating this clumsily, but it's kind of hard to put into words: how do we make enjoyment of our product? That is, the motivation is attraction rather than avoidance. How do we make consumers see it as a treat, an oasis, a choice that is highly relevant to their quality of life?

I thank SCSA for the knock on the head. Yes, there is somebody home. The new technologies are attractors, but it takes finesse to unleash their potential for snowgasmic joy. Enter the knowledgable instructor, the maestro who has the whole package, all the moves, inflections, and harmonies. Better yet, the turn doctor--whose package is diagnostics, treatment, and professionalism. As in the medical profession, the turn doctors could specialize in pediatrics, geriatrics, gynecology, urology, sport psychology...

Pardon me if I have taken this too far, but please let me know if I am getting warm.

[ May 01, 2002, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: nolobolono ]
post #49 of 103
Thread Starter 

I appreciate your point of view. I believe it truly represents the important niche of traditional skiers. There are those who "get it" like you, and those who we should not judge, but whose idea of "it" is a dolled-up travesty of what we get from the sport.

I say, to each his own. I say, vote with your feet.

And, though I value the significant intangible returns from professional involvement in this sport and lifestyle, I want what's mine the same as anyone.

Finally, I thought I made it clear in another thread that I am just looking. Even if I find something I will not know if it's true or not. One follows a hunch, makes a hypothesis, checks it out, and on and on. I'm just trying to learn something.

I'm always learning something. I think that makes my skiing improve all by itself. It's like the guru says, it's not what you do but the person you are.
post #50 of 103
Ott (and Nolo),

i stand educated. and yes, i'm hardly "in the loop" as you are and have been. my point is that while the troops are necessary, i think there are plenty of troops to fall in line when any fall out. again, i could be way off. i'm not intending hostility or lack of appreciation toward instruction/instructors. just trying to coalesce all the elements in this equation.

[ May 01, 2002, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: ryan ]
post #51 of 103
Originally posted by nolobolono:
Okay, I'll affirm it. This thread has found its focus. (We had to rob from a few other threads, but dialog is all about two or more streams of thought coming together, so this is a good thing.)

How can we market lessons?

While I have posted something along this line a few times I would like to chime in again. I see very few if any resorts really focus on ski instruction/coaching/learning as a major component of their marketing and advertising approaches. I think this is a huge opportunity that can be taken advantage of to a much greater extent than anyone does now. Innovation in programming, structure, and content of ski instruction along with a commitment to marketing could have huge benefits for a resort and its instructors.

I see the image of a tennis club where many people commit to that club because of the programs, leagues, and personal instruction they can get. I see others who may not participate in formal programs but like to be in an environment full of people who are dedicated to and love tennis. I see relationships between instuctors and members even when members don't take lessons or participate in programs. ....

Applied to skiing I see a resort that offers a variety of innovative programs from group lessons, to privates, to progams that you can continue to advance through every time you visit, to ski a run with a roaming instuctor (if you have joined that program), get a free evaluation, etc. (I've got a number of additionaly ideas).

What are the results? A visible community of local skiers who better know each other and many (if not all) of the instructors (and patrollers!). Visiting skiers who return to the same resort because the learning and social environment truly enhance their skiing experiences. Other skiers who start to hear about this environemnt and decide to check it out. New skiers who, in spite of a few frustrating 1st day moments, see a community where it could be a lot of fun to work on their skill progression.

I think there is a great opportunity for instructors to really partner with their resorts to create an environment like this. I think it could lead to higher return visits and improved retention. This may not end up bringing in hordes of new "customers" but certainly some (sorry Bob and Gonz I'm with you but any successful marketing approach that focuses on instruction is bound to bring in and retain a few more skiers).

Even if this wasn't succesful in any way to bring in new skiers or improve retention I think it would be a blast to participate in such an effort and just produce a more enjoyable skiing and learning environment for all.
post #52 of 103
Si, I understand completely. My question continue to be a simple one...

How does a "growth" in the number of skiers benefit ME as a skier?

Frankly, I don't see the benefit. As to improved instruction, that is a much better goal than a raw "growth" in skiers.

I have a coach who has more than enough knowledge, skill and technique to keep me improving as long as he wants to help me. I see no personal benefit from a "growth" in skiing via advertisement of instruction, etc.

NB, I guess you would know why I see no point in improved instruction advertisement - JW gives me all the help I need, and his coaching will not be changed by a Dear Valet approach to skiing.

Ryan, I think you were on the right track, and I agree that for every serious skier who falls away, another steps up to take her/his place. The lifeblood of skiing is not the occasional scenester who visits Dear Valet or traVail to be seen. It's the people who are passionate about skiing itself, for itself.
post #53 of 103
Thread Starter 


If I understand correctly, you advocate putting the instruction in front instead of hiding it out back.

That is a different but not entirely novel approach. Perfect Turn was headed in this direction. Ernie Blake successfully positioned the Taos Ski School in this fashion.

Maybe we should do a mini case study on Perfect Turn to find out why it didn't execute up to its potential.

Too bad Todd's left the building. Are there any ASC/Perfect Turn folks out there in Cyberville who'd care to jump in and clarify?
post #54 of 103
Gonz, I don't know if there would be any benefit from your point of view but there would be from mine. First, I think this change in orientation could provide some guarantee against any further slide in visit numbers which I don't think a lot of resorts can handle. Second, with increased revenue associated with instruction programs and skier visits perhaps (OK maybe I'm dreaming here) we could reduce the focus on real estate development and re-emphasize the focus on skiing.

Nolo, I don't know that Pefect Turn encompasses all that I am talking about here. It was mostly "content" based (from what I know of it). While content is an important part it is not everything. Programming, organization, supporting materials, and many other things are all important components of a ski instruction/coaching program. Taos was much more along the lines of what I am thinking about (as I've said in earlier threads). If you look at some of the most successful modern coaching programs (steep camps, adventure camps, PMTS clinics, XTeam, All Mountain Ski Pros, Extremely Canadian, .....) they are often run independently or semi-independently from resort based ski schools. I think that perhaps this is the case because the structure and organization of ski schools has become too stagnant and inflexible.

Another thing Taos had was a common approach with a book to go along with it (Ski Taos Style). Harb certainly has that going in his favor as does Lito. Eric D. also has a book coming out which I would suspect will support and compliment his programs through All Mountain Ski Pros.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is tremendous potential for changing ski instruction/coaching (I think coaching is actually a much more attractive and more easily marketable concept) in a fashion that would be good for the resorts, good for the instructors, good for the industry, and good for the skier. If I were an instructor I would be working very hard to convince resort management to buy into a new and innovative partnership for the benefit of all. One thing I fell sure of, only in partnership will ski instruction elevate itself from the current state of affairs that many here are bemoaning.

BTW, while the environemnts at small local hills may be much different (i.e. the environemnts described by Ott, Pierre, and others) even here there are great opportunities to develop common approaches, methods, and philosophies. This is certainly seen with an approach like PMTS or Perfect Turn which at least present an image of a teaching system that can be easily carried over from local hill to destination resort (with a supporting book/manual thrown in for good measure).

[ May 01, 2002, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Si ]
post #55 of 103
Gonzo you have already benifited from the growth of skiing.The growth from the 1930's to present has aided in development of better ski's bindings other safty gear ect. Stong ski and binding sales means more Money for R and D .R and D means for the most part better and safer products. The small Mountains that you prefer could not operate without at least making a small profit every once in a while.That means they have to have skiers.How many small mountains have gone out of bussiness in the past 10 to 15 years?Why have they gone out of bussiness I think it's due to an over all lack of skier days.A further decline in skier days would mean even more small skier friendly Mountains would be forced to shut down.Growth is always a two edged sword.Some growth is needed to keep the sport healthy. yet to much growth can be damaging to the spirit and soul of skiing.There is a place in skiing for Vail,Aspen and Deer Valley as well as Alta ,Bridger Bowl and The Mom and Pop family friendly ski mountains in places like Ohio. They all serve a need.Personaly I think that more of the mega resorts should support The small Mom and Pop ski mountains.A lot of those places are where people get thier first taste of skiing and many go on to become life long skiers Skiers that Dream of someday skiing The Big Mountains out west.And a few of them will even venture off to the small remote resorts in Montana, Idaho or somewhere else.Helping to Keep that small resort in Bussiness one more year.giving that lifty or ski instructor one more pay check.Skiing is a sport as well as an industry and business.Some groth is good for everyone involved in skiing.From the CEO of Vail to The Guy flipping burgers at Molehill Ski Mountain somewhere USA.
post #56 of 103
Well, being pretty much the "product" of the Perfect Turn system, I can jump in here. In the beginning, Perfect Turn was the difference between hating skiing and getting hooked on it.

I had tried at Killington 12 years prior, and absolutely despised it. One reason was the somewhat Nietchian "Skiing for the Obermann" approach, that many here bemoan the loss of.

The Perfect Turn system did have a way of integrating itself with the entire mountain experience. And from level 1-3, it really works!

But something happens, starting at level 4. For a reason I can't put a finger on, it becomes more of a question of the individual instructor, not the system. It almost seems as if the system was designed from level 1-3, and they did'nt quite know what to do with it.
Having worked with Todd, he seems to use stuff from every school of thought. Same with Linda and Natalie at Sugarloaf.
post #57 of 103
Utah49, I think you might not understand the local ski hill in western Montana. My 3 local ski hills are Snowbowl (Missoula), Marshall Mountain (East Missoula) and Lost Trail (south of Sula at ID/MT border), with Discovery (Anaconda) at a distance & time equal to Lost Trail. None of these areas is enjoying a booming business. In fact, Marshall recently was confiscated and sold by the IRS for tax delinquency. The new owners are contingent owners, with the prior owners retaining a redemption right contingent upon payment of tax arrearage. Lost Trail operates at a thin profit (if any) merely because its owners want to keep the lift tickets cheap. They could make it a "resort" simply based upon its snow quality and terrain available, but that's not their business plan. It's run less like a business and more like a facility for skiing.

Snowbowl constantly struggles economically. It too could benefit from re-creation as a "resort," but at that point, it would cease to be the Snowbowl that we all know and love. I won't say any more about it. It's a great ski hill and I would just about die if it became a "resort."

Discovery has had 3 or 4 "drought years" in a row and was stretched VERY thin last year. Somehow, they found some new capital and are expanding their terrain this summer, to keep up with Lost Trail's new expansion. But I wouldn't expect Disco to go toward "resort" design in any case.

The idea that "growth" in skiing has inured to my benefit is conjecture at best. I think a pure scientific/logical analysis would disprove your claim. I began skiing at age 9, and in the 32 years that have passed since then, I have seen change, but not astronomic or explosive change. Instead, I've seen a natural progression. I don't think it's any different elsewhere.

The biggest changes have been at the resorts like traVail, Dear Valet, Son of Valet, Pig Stye, etc. where condos are more important than the skiing terrain and snow quality. Thank God for the small mountains that refuse to "go resort."
post #58 of 103
Thread Starter 

I don't get it. Ski areas in your neighborhood are going bankrupt, have tentative ownership, shaky financing, etc., and you don't feel personally affected?

Have you ever been to Turner Mountain, Bear Paw, or Teton Pass (Chouteau)? Better go soon. These guys make Marshall's operating arrangement look attractive.

Erosion begins at the margins.


I don't know a lot about Perfect Turn, but it started out positioned front and center of the ASC resort operation. However, I believe the corporate inventors saw the coaching as a loss-leader for the real estate sales, and expected coaches to promote real estate along with the perfect turn.

That's what I have gathered was the problem with Perfect Turn.
post #59 of 103
NB, I disagree. The margins don't dictate anything. Most of the "marginal" areas are marginal by choice. I don't see your connection.

I seriously doubt whether any of the areas I described ever had "boom times" of repeat banner years -- IMHO, if they had, they wouldn't be in such dire straits now.

My point is that these "marginal" areas don't want to be big "resort" cash cows. Thus, your connection seems illusory.
post #60 of 103
Thread Starter 
My point is that these "marginal" areas don't want to be big "resort" cash cows.
Perhaps. But the big destination resorts need all the marginal areas to be healthy in order to develop enthusiasts who take ski vacations to the big resorts. It's a small fish-big fish ecology thing.

I concede the argument to you. There is no reason for you to be concerned. There is reason for investors in big destination resorts and hard and soft good manufacturers to be concerned.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching