In any case, we were alarmed to learn, in talking to a prominent ski area figure, that this publication “favored reducing lift ticket prices.” This is a gross mis-reading of our position. Permit us to re-state things.
We believe that one of the fundamental deterrents to the growth of the sport of skiing is the cost factor. Let’s not kid ourselves, it is a damned expensive sport. By the same token, we long felt that the ski resort facilities were underpriced, and we well remember not many years ago, when the highest day ticket in the country was $8, offering some sort of special award to the first ski area to go to $10. At the time we pointed out what the consumer was willing to pay for an evening at the theatre or an afternoon on the golf course, and we said that, in terms of value received and return on investment, skiing was generally underpriced. We still feel that way.
But, it would be foolish to be blind to what is happening all around us. It would be foolish to be blind to the apparent curtailment in skier growth. It would be foolish to be blind to the realities of why the growth curve has flattened—or worse.
We do not straddle this fence when we say on the one hand that areas must remain economically healthy by running profitable operations—if necessary with higher lift ticket prices—and on the other hand saying that we must find new skiers by making the sport more competitive with other leisure activities that cost much less. (At the risk of repetition, remember the attractions of the Caribbean as your competitor, and think about the ease, simplicity of equipment—bathing trunks? — and comfort of it all; and remember the attractiveness of a winter membership in an indoor tennis club as an inexpensive substitute for a ski vacation.)
No, for better or worse, many ski areas are extended to the point that only a combination of good volume and higher lift rates can make fiscal sense. To these operations, which have invested perhaps not altogether wisely, but lovingly and too well in the escalation of skier services and comforts, we can only agree that the return on investment is small and the price represents great value for the customer.
The next question, of course, is “How many of these people are there who can afford a $12 lift ticket in a period of economic uncertainty and recession—or market collapse and world-wide depression, if you prefer stronger language? The writer is no economist, but, short of being in the gloom-and-doom category, we still feel the ski industry is vulnerable. We fear that skiing is increasingly an activity that can be afforded by a dwindling minority of the rich people who are in the tax-exempt bond category of investor. And we fear the industry is losing touch with the people who represent our future potential.
Nonetheless, the economic indicators for this season look great. Just read the regional round-up on advance bookings and you will see that we are very much alive, and that we are apparently still blessed with plenty of people who can afford a ski vacation. But we should recognize that there is a finite limit to this segment of the population—a limit that is purely an economic one. It was never put more gracefully than by Chuck Goeldner, Director of the Business Research Division of the University of Colorado. In commenting on the “airline skier” he writes: “It would appear that, although a moderate and slightly above ‘average’ income does not preclude one’s taking a ski vacation in Colorado, a high to very high income certainly makes it easier to take advantage of Colorado’s winter amenities.” You don’t have to be rich, but . . .
In a severe recession, such as the one we are now in, the sport loses few, if any, from the ranks of the unemployed—no matter how serious that seven or more per cent looms as a national economic indicator. At the moment we lose little or no business from a blue collar stratum that may be tightening its belt in the face of inflationary pressures. And if we are not losing the rich, then it is logical that we stand to lose the most from the upper middle class and professional class—people who are not exactly in the poor house, but whose discretionary funds in times like these may be severely limited.
Even here, though, we are not as likely to lose them as we are to see less of them. Education bills skyrocket, loan money remains high, all the costs of running a household mount daily and the market stinks. Still, to skiers, that means cutting back on the number of ski trips, shortening or eliminating the ski vacation and sticking closer to home. But most will, we think, continue to ski—somehow, somewhere.
Where we are hit most, we suspect, is in attracting new skiers to the sport. And this is where we preach cost as one of the great inhibitors to growth. It takes a real act of faith (or considerable mating or other social pressure) to justify taking up skiing in the face of even modest start-up costs.
And this is where we lament our frustration as an industry. Ski areas are not able to roll back prices. Heavy debt service has put all-too-many areas into a kind of economic peonage, and profit is only possible with substantial volume. Perhaps we can still generate this volume at present lift ticket and ski vacation cost levels, but can we hope to build and expand the market at these levels? Because an industry like ours must be continually fed new blood just to replace drop-out losses, to say nothing of providing growth.
A skimming of our regional reports in this issue shows an unprecedented emphasis on group sales, and this is welcome evidence of some good, agressive marketing. The savings for the skiers who sign up are undoubtedly critical to keeping them active as skiers.
So, while all this is very much to the good, it may still not be enough. It may still only be hanging on to what we have without providing for the future.
Hopefully, the Glendinning study being released in January will give us a blueprint for action toward skier growth.
But, to return to the beginning of this editorial, we still have to maintain that cost is a deterrent to the growth of our sport. This is not the same thing as saying that ski areas are overcharging. We hope—and expect—that the equipment suppliers will stop the disastrous trend of recent years toward ever higher prices in equipment, and that their marketing will be less racer and elite oriented and more recreation skier oriented.
As we have stated before in these columns, we hope there will be a growth in recreational ski facilities close in to the urban centers. This is where growth can be achieved. Municipal and county recreation authorities may be involved, sometimes with, and sometimes without the private sector. Facilities need not rival those of the mountain resorts and lift ticket prices can be kept modest. Here the ski experience can be gained by tens of thousand of new recruits to the sport, most of whom will gravitate to the mountain areas to expand the experience.
Our thinking should be long-range, even though our action is of necessity short-term. If we have the successful season that early indicators promise, then we will have done it in the face of the most adverse economic conditions short of global war. And that will start us back solidly on the growth and market development route for the future. A pleasant and realizable prospect!
The Lake Placid Olympics
Like everyone else, we are proud that the Winter Olympics will be returning to the U.S., and we congratulate the persistent and resourceful Lake Placid organizers on their successful pursuit.
But we must admit to being mildly unenthusiastic—mostly because we are not convinced about the benefits for our industry. There will be those who oppose the Lake Placid Olympics on the basis of costs, and others on environmental grounds. But we will view them from a very narrow ski industry viewpoint.
Skiing was king at the Squaw Valley Olympics in 1960, and the whole sport and industry got a big shot in the arm as a result. We do not see that this will be the case in 1980.
One must understand the economy of Lake Placid to understand why the town sought the games. Figure skating is one of the real keys to the year-round economy of the town. Very simply put, Lake Placid badly needs a new ice areana to replace the small and outdated facility that was built for the 1932 Olympics. But these things are expensive, and the town is too small to float that sort of a bond issue. Hence, the Olympic bid. And we don’t fault this. It’s damned smart. On the other hand, just because the whole package will be wrapped in the stars and stripes doesn’t necessarily mean we have to salute it.
Even the renovation of the bobsledding and luge facilities looms larger for the economy of the Lake Placid community than does the skiing. All of the costly improvements that will be showered on the state-operated Whiteface Mountain ski area will not, we suspect, greatly enhance its prospects as a destination resort.
We see no real benefits for the many ski areas of New York State (there are more than in any other state of the union); indeed, it can be argued that, for the private ski areas that have to compete with the lavishly underwritten state areas (Gore and Whiteface), the additional tax dollars spent to improve Whiteface amount to insult added to injury.
We don’t mean to say that having the Olympics at Lake Placid will be bad for the ski industry. Of course not. But we do feel that the return for the ski area industry from this vast tax dollar investment will not be that great.
Salute to a new start
When you are a publisher by trade you do not enjoy seeing the end of a sister publication — even if it involves the demise of your competition. In the battle for survival, we are naturally happy that we didn’t lose, but we take no pleasure in the death of Skiing Area News (or National Ski Area News, as it was changed to less than two years ago when it was bought by NSAA). Founded in 1964, SAN was always a distinguished editorial product and made lasting contributions to our industry. We salute it!
We are also pleased that a constructive “new” relationship has been forged between SAM and NSAA. We put quotes around “new” because actually it is a return to the very origins of SAM. We were founded in 1962 at the same time as NSAA itself. We started off as an independent publication working in close cooperation with the association. (So close, in fact, that the publisher of one married the executive secretary of the other, but that’s another story.) We devoted ourselves as best we could to the best interests of the industry we served, because, obviously, what was good for the industry would surely be good for us.
We take pride in having authored the statement of purpose contained in NSAA’s by-laws, and we affirm our support of it: “To foster, stimulate and promote skiing and safety in skiing; and to further and protect the legitimate interests of the ski area operator.”
Henceforth SAM will carry a regular NSAA news section, prepared and edited by the association which will supplement NSAA’s regular Newsletter mailings to the membership. This in no way alters SAM’s position as an independent publication; nor does it imply “official publication” status for SAM. It does mark a return to close, constructive and mutually supportive cooperation between NSAA and SAM. We are, incidentally, also close geographically, since North Salem lies on the Connecticut border not far from NSAA’s West Hartford offices.
It is with great satisfaction that we salute this agreement.
International Ropeway Congress
The International Ropeway Congress is the “World Series” of the worldwide ropeway transport industry. It brings together the leaders (administrative and regulatory authorities, designers, manufacturers and operators) from all over the world.
The Fourth Congress is scheduled for Vienna, Austria, June 23-27. (The last one was in Switzerland in 1969.) It is organized by OITAF, the Rome-based International Organization for Transportation by Rope. The Congress is technical in nature, and papers will be presented, reviewed and discussed under three categories: 1) Design, construction and operations; 2) Legal and Administrative; and 3) Economics of ropeway operations.
Representatives from the recently-formed North American Continental Section (NACS-OITAF) are planning to attend, at which time this new satellite organization will be formally recognized.
We commend Chuck Dwyer of the Forest Service for all his hard work in making sure that our North American industry will not only be represented, but will be heard. This is a wonderful continuation of the important work the late Bob Kinney did.
The aerial passenger tramway industry in North America has come of age. We are no longer dependent on Europe or others for our ideas, equipment and engineering. We have a contribution to make to the world-wide industry, and we should be doing just that.
Anyone interested in attending should contact: OITAF Sekretariat, Postfach 109, A-1013 Vienna, Austria. There are already 12 going from North America. We hope there will be more.
It’s bouquet time
It is end of year bouquet time, and we would be remiss if we didn’t tip our hat to outgoing Ski Area Suppliers Association president, Phil Savage, of Hall Ski-Lift. Few know the long hours and the long trips undertaken by Phil in helping to shape industry affairs, and the enlightened trade show arrangements with which we are now blessed are in no small measure a testament to Phil’s hard work and dedication.
And that leads to a bouquet to Cal Conniff of NSAA for putting together a trade show package that is fully responsive to the wishes of suppliers and ski area operators alike. It is a crying shame that the state of the economy and other factors beyond the control of all concerned may make it tough for these shows to really show what they can be. We think the concept is excellent, and those who can attend will certainly get a lot out of them.
And logically, we want to salute the new president of SASA, Don Waterman, of Valley Engineering. We think he is an excellent choice, with the right blend of pragmatism and vision, toughness and reasonableness. His determination to work harmoniously with NSAA bodes well. And, assuming that Bill Norton of Cannon Mt., will be the new president of NSAA come May, we can see plenty of cooperation. These two northern New Englanders talk the same language. And what if the rest of us can’t understand what they are saying? It’s action that counts!
