Problem? Well, maybe, say ski area operators. But ethics? No way.
“I really think this whole ‘ethics issue’ has to do more with perception — how we’re perceived by the media and the public — than with ethics and how we practice business,” said Mike Reynolds, executive director of Ski Maine. “I see it as more of an external problem or issue rather than an internal one.” Joe Parkinson, executive director of the Vermont Ski Areas Association, agrees.
“There seem to have been some recent concerns within the industry [about competitive strategies and practices], but hopefully,” Parkinson said, “the people involved will settle those concerns themselves. And that’s the way it should be. Members are doing whatever they have to do not to create or prolong any problems that have come up. If we have any problems along these lines they should be dealt with internally and not in the media. The more we talk about something, the worse we can make it.”
Added Doug Campbell, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association: “I don’t think we have an ethics problem. If we have a problem, I would call it credibility, not ethics.”
“As I listen to people and listen to their concerns, ethics is not something I’m hearing a lot of conversation about,” said Bob Roberts, executive director of the California Ski Industry Association. “Of course, all that could change if somebody decided to start a major price war. There are bound to be competitive pressures coming up that will put a lot of people’s ethics to the test. But right now, it’s not an issue. Everybody is pretty supportive of each other.”
“I attended the NSAA ethics seminar and thought it was interesting,” added Randy Montgomery, executive director of Ski Utah. “It sensitized me to the issue. It reminded me of the issue. But fortunately it’s not something that’s come up here. It’s not on the agenda. Nobody’s even talking about it.”
And even in a region like the Northeast, where the issue has come up, doesn’t seem to be on anyone’s agenda. When Ski Maine’s Reynolds called other state associations and ski areas to find out what topics would lure them to a New England regional trade show he is hosting at Sunday River Sept. 13-14, “not one person mentioned ethics.”
“People wanted a lot of business, a lot of marketing, empowering employees, finance, OSHA, internal control, but nobody even mentioned ethics,” he said.
One seminar that will take place at Sunday River is a new ski reporting educational initiative sponsored by the New England Ski Areas Council. Phil Camp, president of the ski reporting network, said the new ski report manual and series of educational seminars his organization is making mandatory for all members this winter is “not a defensive reaction” to any of last year’s negative coverage about ski area competition, ski reporting, and other topics.
“We’re very sensitive to the way this project is going to be perceived and reported,” Camp said. “We’re not reacting to anything. We’re just trying to create a body of knowledge for our members. We want to professionalize the process of ski reporting as much as we can. For 25 years, our whole mission has been about creating and maintaining standards. There’s nothing defensive about this new effort at all. For us, this program is just another day at the office. We’re not reacting to a bloody thing.”
Camp’s sensitivity is understandable. Ski reports are one of the most sensitive areas for ski resorts when it comes to their “perception” and “credibility” with the public.
It may or may not be a coincidence after last year’s hue and cry over ethics, but ski reports have also become a major agenda item in Oregon and Washington states this winter.
“One problem we have is with the AP wire service and some of the terminology it uses,” Campbell explained. “They use certain terms, for instance, which are used in the east but not used out here, like frozen granular.
“We have a lot of moisture here. A lot of temperatures around 32 deg. And it’s very important that the information be accurate and be reported accurately,” said Campbell, who has been meeting with Camp in an effort to come up with a new ski reporting format appropriate to the Northwest.
Getting out in front of the ethics/perception/credibility issue, whether it be exaggerated ski reports or cutthroat ski area marketing initiatives, has prompted two New Hampshire areas to come up with what they call “satisfaction guaranteed” promotions.
At Loon, any skier unhappy for any reason (hangover, sick, bad weather, poor conditions, etc.) can receive a voucher good at another time for an equivalent product, including lift ticket, rentals, or lesson.
Gunstock, meanwhile, promises to give any unhappy skier a full cash refund — no questions asked.
Alice Pearce, executive director of Ski New Hampshire, said the programs are not designed as “reaction” to anything, so much as “proaction.”
“If the public believes it can’t trust us, or we’re poorly perceived, it’s going to hurt all of us. It’s important to take the initiative on this issue.”
Among ski area operators and regional association heads, “ethics” is far down the list of priorities — if it’s on the list at all. And when it is on the list, it’s usually under the heading “perception” or “credibility.”
