Some positive thoughts
We have good news from Meteorology Professor (Emeritus) Hurd C. Willett, of M.I.T. Citing his studies of 24-year weather cycles and the occurance of double sunspot cycle reverses, Professor Willett tentatively predicts a cold winter for the east and central parts of the country, and more snow than normal west of the Appalachians and in the south. The prediction is “tentative” because this summer’s readings had not been fed into the computer at presstime.
It’s been a grim year — energy crunch, snowless east, double-digit inflation, materials shortages, impeachment proceedings, recession, bankruptcies, crumbling market, orbiting interest rates, margin calls, sheriff’s sales and the like. And if it takes Professor Willett to blow away the gloom, then we’ll drink to him — and to his double sunspot cycle reverses. Whatever they are — they sound like a bit of gridiron razzmatizz — they are most welcome.
An average-to-good snow year in the east and midwest will do wonders for the ski economy, the nation’s economic ills notwithstanding. (We are not being geographically partisan: we just assume great snow for the west!) But, as the whole ski industry is now acknowledging, it is going to take more than that to get things really turned around.
The “It’s Get Ready to Ski Time” promotion scheduled for November 14-24 is a good start in the direction of enlightened self-help. Co-sponsored by Ski Industries America, Ski Retailers International and Ski Retailers Council, the program is designed to get skiers buying earlier and to attract new converts to the sport. SIA has also taken the lead toward creating a nationwide marketing program to get more people on skis. A pilot study, financed by SIA, was undertaken by Glendinning Associates to identify some of the opportunities that exist for a comprehensive action-oriented marketing program.
These are all worthwhile and sound programs provided they don’t end up with the industry talking to itself. There must be new and creative thinking that shouldn’t get bogged down in the doctrinaire approaches of the past. (The list of prime movers looks very establishmentarian to us; we would feel happier if some of the industry’s free thinkers and mavericks were also involved.)
We hope that not all the efforts will go towards programs that bring instant and measurable results, important though these are. We would like to see creative thinking directed at some of the root causes of our problems: the cost of skiing, the inaccessibility of skiing and other nuts that are tough to crack.
An example of a root cause successfully tackled is to be found in ski instruction. Until very recently it was sort of a trial by fire to learn to ski. You had to suffer if you were ever to learn, and only through suffering could you truly belong in the magic fraternity of skiers. People like Clif Taylor and his Ski-in-a-Day gospel or Walter Foeger and his instant parallel were the butts of jokes. It seems extraordinary that we were considered heretical such a very short time ago when we espoused the short ski method for beginning instruction. The public’s message eventually got through: Teach us quickly so that we can have fun, and make it fun to learn. Thank goodness this lesson has been learned.
But there are others to be learned, and the traditionalists will be hard to move if they see “the character of the sport” changing. But if the sport is to grow then it must be responsive to what the public wants.
There is lots of work to be done, and it should be pretty interesting. In the meantime, though, let’s hear it for Professor Willett and his positive thinking!
A SAM editorial
Consulting & Confusing
Public land managers, private developers, and area managers face a common problem which results from a need that has risen too fast.
The winter sports industry has endorsed the need for long-range planning — and, in fact, have joined with the Forest Service to produce “Planning Considerations for Resort Development.” The National Environmental Policy Act makes interdisciplinary planning a law of the land. Developers and operators are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars nationally on planning. How much of it is any good?
Who are the planners and consultants? What are their credentials? Who is to say? What requirements must they meet to qualify to “hang out their shingle?” The answer is simple. There isn’t any quality control whatsoever!!
Planning is vital. It is expensive. Replanning is even costlier.
Yet, we set no criteria for qualifying a “planner” or consultant. Actually this has only recently become a problem. When we were small, everyone pretty well knew everyone else — and their ability. Now with new corporate structures entering the industry, and major land-developers considering winter sports for a part of their development, a rash of “new experts” have sprung up. If their plans contain errors and are actually developed, the operational and environmental costs can be significant. Even if errors are caught in the planning stages, re-planning is an unwarranted burden on developers and reviewers alike.
What is needed is a system to certify the capabilities of ski area consultants! The industry that created the need, is best qualified to determine the criterion — before mediocracy wins by default!
Roy W. Feuchter
Acting Director of Recreation
Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
…consulting — an answer
In reply to Roy Feuchter’s well-written comment regarding consultants, I’d like to start off by saying that he has raised some very good questions. We totally agree with his call for sound, long-range, interdisciplinary planning, and we say that there is “a system for instituting quality control and establishing criteria for qualified consultants to the mountain resort industry.”
In fact, those precise needs were the driving force behind our initial efforts in 1968 to formulate the Association of Ski Area Consultants, ASAC, which was formalized in 1971 with a roster of 14 members and four prospective members covering a wide range of disciplines.
ASAC has a constitution and by-laws geared to increasing and extending the knowledge of mountain resort planning, continuing education, dissemination of information, and the establishment of a code of ethics and standards of professional competence. Applications for membership are screened by an informed committee, and full membership is made available only to consultants considered to be well qualified. Our membership is closed to anyone who sells a product, and ASAC members cannot accept remuneration of any sort (directly or indirectly) from any person or company from whom services or materials are procured on behalf of a client.
We of ASAC are deeply concerned with the rash of new “experts” flooding the field with flashy techniques, promises of a “go” project, and a total lack of credentials. They come, they go, and they usually leave a path of financial woe. We also are concerned with the influx of college professors (non-risk takers) who hold out the promise of a low fee and then turn a group of eager-faced young college students loose on your project for use as a laboratory.
Members of ASAC are committed to total objectivity, full disclosure, and complete reporting. We feel that ASAC is the vehicle for guaranteeing a more honest approach by qualified personnel to the urgent need for better consulting practices in this very unique ski industry.
Anyone interested, including Roy, can obtain a copy of our charter, code of ethics, and membership list by writing to Bob James, Secretary, ASAC, Kissing Bridge, Glenwood, NY, 14069.
James Branch, President
Sno-engineering
Thoughts on ski publishing
The coming season will see some changes on the publishing front. NSAA is dropping its magazine — which had been losing money and losing competitive ground — and is switching to a nine-issue-per-year tabloid newspaper. Certainly something had to be done, because it was clearly unacceptable for the association to run red ink in a publication at a time when members — both areas and suppliers — are struggling with very tough market conditions.
We, of course, are not exactly objective, but we thought it was an absurd move when the directors got NSAA into the commercial publishing game a year-and-a-half ago. And we told them so. It struck us as being a big ego trip for then-president Frank Snyder and then-Executive Director, Dick Garis. That we were right about it being an unsound business venture became painfully, embarrassingly and increasingly obvious to NSAA directors.
Business reasons aside, we are not convinced, either, that it was right for NSAA to go into competition with one of its dues-paying members, Ski Area Management. We felt just like an independent, tax-paying ski area operator who suddenly finds a state or EDA-financed area going in around the corner.
And we still feel that way!
But, apart from our own ox-goring, we still wonder why NSAA insists on venturing its members’ money on still another publishing venture when they haven’t yet paid for the last. “Communications” is always given as the answer because it is one of those motherhood words that one is not supposed to question. But we don’t find it is compelling. Timely and straight-forward newsletters would do the job excellently. (The Eastern Ski Areas Association newsletter, Mountain Monitor, is an outstanding example of a real membership service.)
Furthermore, we offered to carry five pages of NSAA material in every issue of SAM at no cost to the association. We even offered to help NSAA with a share in our advertising revenues. The combination of newsletters and the five pages in SAM would surely have provided excellent “communications,” but it was not to be, and so be it.
Still, we would commend to NSAA directors the fine example of Ski Industries America. This powerful, effective association representing the ski equipment and clothing manufacturers and importers, was frequently tempted in its early days to publish its own trade magazine. Certainly they wanted communications, and the prospects of making a profit were a lot better than NSAA’s today. But they wisely resisted the temptation. They saw that a good job was being done by the existing independent magazines (Ski Business and Skiing Trade News), which were members of SIA. Furthermore, they understood that it is best for a shoemaker to stick to his last — that they shouldn’t get into the commercial world of publishing.
We think it is a shame that none of these issues have been aired publicly with the membership at large. The feeling we get is that if they knew the issues involved, most ski areas would rather have their dues spent in ways that are of direct benefit to the membership and within the competence of the association. We doubt if most areas will jump with joy to see their association having a new fling with ski publishing.
But, as we said earlier, we can hardly be accused of being objective on the matter. We can only be accused of being independent, and proud of it. No matter how good NSAA’s newspaper may be — and we certainly don’t hope it will be bad — it will still be an “official organ” and we remain convinced there is a real need for an independent publication like the one you are reading.
A SAM editorial
For a stable insurance market
Several times in the past year we have made the point editorially that having strong regional and state ski area associations was just as important as having an effective national association. We still believe that, because so many problems are better solved at the regional level. But we’re not convinced that insurance is one of them.
We are a little concerned by the move of the Sierra and Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association to break away from the NSAA Insurance Plan. Competition is great, and we are all for it. And certainly nobody should expect an area to sign up with the NSAA program for loyalty’s sake. Any area would be foolish not to evaluate the whole market, and the NSAA program should be competitive.
But when it comes to a whole regional association breaking away from the NSAA insurance plan, we are worried. Because if there is further regional fragmentation, the national insurance stability would be shattered and the industry would be back to the chaotic pre-1964 days when it was not uncommon for an underwriter to issue blanket cancellations of their ski area business. There was no stability; there was no organized effort to fight the “right” cases in the courts; there were no efforts to reduce the accident rate as a means of reducing liability exposure; and lift inspection standards were not what they might have been.
We would hate to see a return to those days. We are sure the Sierras and Pacific Northwest associations acted in this matter after great thought, and we are obviously in no position to say they were wrong. We just want to express our concern from a broad, national perspective, and to hope that the NSAA Insurance Plan managers will do everything possible to lessen the likelihood of further regional breakaways.
A SAM editorial
“Caveat Emptor!”
As you know, general economic conditions and several marginal snow years back to back have caused the demise, sale, consolidation or what have you of a number of ski areas in the Eastern United States. Our organization is currently involved in the appraisal of several resort areas in the East, Midwest and Canada, and thus has had a chance to take a close look at the assets “going on the auction block.”
Many of the areas are changing hands on the basis of preservation of the entity as an operating unit, which is fine. But there are quite a few that are being sold piecemeal. It is to the buyer, or prospective buyer, of those assets that I would like to direct these comments.
Caveat Emptor! Those assets may not be worth what you think. In some cases there may be major equipment components which could not meet today’s codes but which are currently being allowed to operate under grandfather clauses. Once moved to a new location, all grandfather rights are usually lost. Moving major assets from one state to another can be a pitfall since laws in different states can vary significantly. What’s allowed in Maine may not pass in New York.
Also, that ski lift being sold at an incredibly low distress price will undoubtedly require a significant investment in engineering and redesign to fit the new location, if indeed it can be adapted at all. In some cases the total reinstalled cost could approach that of a new accident-free lift which has all the requisite guarantees and back-up from reputable manufacturers.
I would suggest that anyone considering buying large fixed asset components at forced sale first consult a specialist in the particular field to determine the appropriateness of the proposed venture, its legal ramifications, safety requirements, communications requirements and perhaps most of all, the actual physical condition of the asset in question. A lot of people have bought a “pig in a poke” simply because it looked good on the outside.
James Branch, President
Sno-engineering
Special Publisher’s Report
“. . . I have just spent an interesting hour reading the material in your file on ski areas. It certainly is refreshing to see that others have elevated their thoughts above traditional approaches in order to improve the profitability of ski areas.”
(excerpt from a letter from Matt Baker, of Great Gorge, N.J., to Warren E. Goodenow)
For some two years now, many members of our industry have been on the receiving end of an extraordinary flow of communications from one Warren E. Goodenow, of Cleveland, Ohio. With a letter-writing style of some grace, and with the cheerful and unabashed enthusiasm of the old carnival barker touting the wonders and delights that await the uninitiated Mr. Goodenow has claimed to have worked out systems which would completely revolutionize the ski area industry.
The claims made for this system tumble like gum drops from Mr. Goodenow. It is as though he could take a large candy store, turn it upside-down and deliver every goodie that ever an area operator dared dream of.
First, the lift system. Among many other claims for it, the following were enough to excite Mr. Goodenow’s correspondents: 1) unlimited capacity; 2) no waiting lines; 3) total elimination of lift attendants; 4) have an operating break-even point of between 15-25 per cent of the line’s standard capacity.
Mr. Goodenow also promised “guaranteed skiing.” Quoting from one of his communications, “I know that from a physical standpoint I can absolutely and positively redesign every existing ski resort in the United States so that . . . every one of these ski resorts could provide skiers with a positive guarantee that they could furnish them with over 200 days and nights of near-perfect skiing each and every calendar year.” Mr. Goodenow goes on to concede that this might be more days than could presently be run profitably, so he predicates his planning on providing just 120 days of guaranteed near-perfect skiing.
As if all this were not enough, Mr. Goodenow says he can cut present snow-making costs by half, and double, triple or increase even more — depending on dollar investment — the rate of snow-making at any remodeled resort.
Mr. Goodenow has thought everything through, and knows all the weaknesses of our operations — our lack of profitability, our high costs, our dependence on weather — and he has developed solutions for each and every one, right down to the operation of ski schools. The solutions are couched in profit-oriented terms that stress such virtues as high utilization, reduced costs, pre-determined profits etc.
Mr. Goodenow’s correspondence has, understandably, created a good deal of interest. His portfolio is full of letters from highly-respected area operators, lift manufacturers and others wanting to know more. Mr. Goodenow, incidentally always makes it clear that he is neither an engineer nor an architect, and that his ideas would have to be developed in the framework of these and of other disciplines. He says there are many patentable ideas in his whole program, and that he would like to see them developed by the existing ski industry in a sort of joint venture with him.
The main problem then became a chicken-and-egg one: how to reveal details of his schemes that would convince ski industrialists (area suppliers and areas alike) to invest developmental funds, while still protecting himself from having his ideas stolen. To this end he proposed an elaborate plan to Sherman Adams of Loon Mt., N.H., whereby two mutually acceptable bank presidents would act as intermediaries to determine the viability of his ideas. This was rejected as being too cumbersome.
It was then that Mr. Goodenow agreed to describe his whole program to Ski Area Management. We agreed to evaluate his ideas for publication, but without divulging details that would hurt his patent potential.
We met Mr. Goodenow in New York in early August, and spent about four hours exploring his ideas. Mr. Goodenow, who looks younger than he is, is physically a large man, and has ideas that match. Let it never be said that Mr. Goodenow thinks small! When he told the Caterpillar Tractor people that his ideas would involve a lot of earth moving, he wasn’t kidding. He is right up there with the Pharaohs when it comes to terrain modification.
At the end of the session we told Mr. Goodenow that he should do some more homework on skiers and ski resorts, and that this would result in a much sharper focus on any of his ideas that might have merit. It was our feeling that his lack of familiarity with ski areas in operation (he has never been to one) and with skiers has resulted in many of his ideas being rooted in basic misconceptions. It wasn’t that his ideas were bad; in the abstract they were logical and perhaps provided answers for the ski areas and skiers of his imagination. But many just didn’t apply to the real world of skiers and ski areas.
Some of Mr. Goodenow’s ideas have been around for some time. For instance, the “guaranteed skiing” that he promises is a version of the enclosed skiing concept that has been analyzed, costed and experimented with for many years.
At the heart of Mr. Goodenow’s plans is his “people-mover.” We urged him to seek second and third opinions, because one negative evaluation — and a non-engineering one at that — was not conclusive. Our opinion, though, is that his plan for uphill transportation would be astronomically expensive (he disagrees), and more importantly, that skiers — especially at relatively small hills — would not want to take off their skis for every uphill trip.
Mr. Goodenow has a practical business background and at one time owned a number of hardware stores. He is a sincere man, and, we feel confidant, an honest one. Like Matt Baker, we applaud the futurists of our industry. We are impressed by the unshakable conviction with which he underpins his ideas. Unfortunately, we were not convinced ourselves.
Fortunately for Mr. Goodenow, we could be wrong.
