When I first proposed the story on radio snow reports that Ski Magazine published last December (“Does Truth Take a Powder?”), I thought it probably would wind up a humor column. Years of expanding “infomercials” dedicated to mentioning the names of ski areas paying for them had convinced me there probably was not a skier left who took ski reports seriously.
My perceptions were—and still are—that they are a kind of winter’s alpine elevator music of the air. After you hear one, your impression of the skiing at your favorite area is about as memorable as the last song heard on the way to the 23rd floor. Moreover, it seemed to me the people who hawk ski reports, and the media that air them, not only understand all this but are quite happy with it. After all, the just-mention-my-name elevator music has proven to be lucrative.
Certainly, today’s ski report has been the right combination to keep radio stations happy: professionally produced, short, delivered on time and sufficiently bland and nondescript to trigger few complaints. For ski areas, needless to say, the reports have proved an excellent media “buy” in terms of numbers of “impressions” made for dollars spent.
The primary question remaining, however, is the kind of “impression” being made. If the response to the Ski article is any kind of reality check, it’s not too good. Frankly, I figured we would probably get a quiet yawn rather than any outpouring of disgust at ski reports. But almost two-thirds of the 18 letters received, which were in addition to responses via telephone and in person, came from irate skiers in both the East and West. (The remainder were from people connected to the industry, and one was from the Federal Communications Commission—FCC.)
Each skier’s comments—angry, mocking or both—stand in sharp contrast to lengthy defenses of the quality and accuracy of ski reporting offered by the industry. Here are some comments. (As a courtesy to those who wrote to Ski, only initials are cited here.)
“When I hear the beginning of a ski report I immediately reach for the search button on my radio…What really annoys me is the way ski areas are now getting real ‘cute’ with…special little names for the broadcasters, or classifying solid icy conditions as packed powder with a granular surface…Please give me a break!…Let’s mandate that all paid ski reports be disclosed as such, and let the consumer decide whether the paid report was fact or fiction.” —M.E.S., Bedford, N.H.
“…while you marketing people are getting the ‘best spin’ on your marketing dollars, the consumer is getting the ‘worst spin’ on your icy, frozen granular ski trails…I would support an independently produced telephone or fax snow report. And yes, I demand the media obey the Federal laws and indicate who is paying for ski reports.” —J.P., Plymouth, Mass.
“Credibility of ski reports is in the tank. I ski 20-plus days a year.” —T.J., Whippany, N.J.
“We need a new measurement—the total depth of packed snow on the trails where we actually ski…What we all want to know is: can we ski without hitting rocks?…I’d pay a dollar or two a minute for an honest telephone report.” —J.G.D., Ouray, Colo.
“In Southern California I’ve always assumed the quoted snow ‘depth’ is really the ‘width’ between the bare spots and rocks. Seems to work here.” —L.S., Claremont, Calif.
“By 10:30 I counted seven people asking for refunds due to the incorrect ski report…If those [ski area] people were selling securities, they would be in jail.” —G.P.Jr., Louisville, Ky.
“…ski reporting in my opinion as an avid skier for over 35 years, and founder of two ski clubs and co-founder of a ski council, never has been worse, at least regarding the Northeast.” —K.H., Port Chester, N.Y.
“The majority of ski reports are either way off the mark or so vague I can’t tell how much snow I’ll really find…A commission should be set up to ensure the ski areas publish their [real] conditions and not the ones we want to hear.” —M.P., Morristown, Pa.
The article in Ski outlined what led to today’s dominance of radio ski reporting by the ski industry. That’s all history, and perhaps the industry can afford to be satisfied as it hears so many ski reports droning across the nation. Certainly, the media ad directors seem to be satisfied, as they play off the feverishly competing ski reporting services to score points against each other.
The deals fly back and forth, including quid pro quo agreements by some areas to advertise on their highly desired stations. Then there is the escalating cost for an area to protect its flanks by buying “guaranteed coverage” on different ski reporting services. There is no way all of this cannot affect the integrity, and thus the quality, of ski reports. The public may be numbed, but it isn’t fooled.
Marketing directors can only hope that the new agreement for Sno Country Reports “to absorb” most of Morrie Trumble’s ski reporting service and database will have a beneficial effect on this spiraling race for media exposure. SCR is headed by Phil Camp, who is also executive director of the New England Ski Areas Council (NESAC), a membership organization which in turn is a major player in the ski reporting game. But many observers will remain skeptical as to the net benefit where it would count—in the quality of coverage.
A couple of other questions touch upon the law and ethics. Radio stations like the sound of exclusivity. They often insist that ski reports on areas that are paying for them sound as if they are the station’s. But not disclosing who is paying for them is against Federal law. (Among ski reporters not paid by areas, only CRN’s Ski Watch and a few independents remain.)
The lingering questions are: How long will disregard of the law by an avaricious media and lax oversight by the FCC be ignored? Already the FCC, with limited resources, has been investigating television “infomercials.” Granted, we’re talking about mere ski reports. But could there eventually be some kind of embarrassing clamp-down on the media that enjoys these veiled benefits from ski reports paid for, but undisclosed by ski areas?
Or will ski areas be wise and fair enough to insist the reports they pay for be so identified? Early “official” reports actually were, and a few still are. That’s honest and open—an image the public has rightly held of the ski industry since its earliest days. It seems foolish and somewhat sad to allow that good will to be tarnished by paid reports on ski conditions that are undisclosed and self-serving.
It’s time to clean up the act.
SAM comments: We recognize that both the media and the area marketing departments are reasonably happy with the system as is. But we worry that anything that has as many abuses built into it—kickbacks, paid “editorial,” coercion—cannot basically be healthy. We worry also that the system discriminates against the smaller areas which don’t have the currency—cash or tickets-for-barter—to compete. Dana Gatlin is right, and we hope our industry will quietly but firmly seek ways to clean up its act before it is done for us.
