MOUNT SNOW HITS A NERVE ON CONDITIONS REPORTS
What’s the best way to report snow conditions? Are acres and percent of terrain open better than trail counts? A recent forum exchange at www.saminfo.com provides some entertaining and even enlightening insights.

Back in late November, Mount Snow announced it would no longer list “runs open” in its snow reporting, and instead report “acres open,” as is the habit in the West. This was to “increase snow and condition reporting accuracy, and give guests a better feel for exactly what the skiing experience is at the mountain,” said Tim Boyd, president of Mount Snow’s parent company, Peak Resorts. “New England has a credibility problem when it comes to reporting open terrain. We’re trying to overcome that and be more transparent. An acre is an acre. There’s no gray area.” All other statistics, such as open mileage, new snowfall, base depth, etc., would be reported as usual. Guests would still be able to see exactly which trails were open (and groomed) by visiting Mount Snow’s website or referring to on-site snow reports. Boyd also promised to shrink the trail count for 2009-10, by listing top to bottom trails by one name only.

Here, we present some of the thread from the www.saminfo.com Breaking News Forum:


Posted 11/21/2008 by: Doc Tulin
Excellent
Excellent! It’s about time resorts did this. Perhaps you could convince SnoCountry.com to take a lead and get more resorts to do the same instead of waffling on the whole subject so much.


Posted 11/21/2008 by: by the numbers
think global ski local
Very good idea... acres are acres. Or is it hectares ... The marketing of “trails” can get out of control. Thanks for the honesty.


Posted 11/23/2008 by: Chuck S.
Skier
I applaud the attempt to come clean on open terrain; however, just posting skiable acres does not cut it. I think you need three things: number of trails, percent of mountain open and skiable acres. Everybody is well aware of the trail count game that resorts play by counting crossovers, connectors and access trails. Quite frankly, all the games that mountains play in this regard actually work against them. Same goes for the filtered weather reports that mountains tend to dish out. Folks have much more respect for accuracy and honesty than they do for marketing embellishments. If a mountain gains a reputation for accurate and honest reporting, that will carry a lot more weight and loyalty in the eyes of the customer than disappointment and aggravation brought on by half bogus reports. I doubly applaud the attempt to identify the actual number of trails a mountain has by coming clean and having the trails keep the same name from top to bottom versus the age-old practice of renaming a trail at every bend or twist in the road. For years, when I read mountain statistics and trail counts, I have taken the trail count number and divided by 3.5 to get a more accurate perspective.


Posted 11/24/2008 by: chris
Not exactly groundbreaking
Lets face it, resorts in the West have been reporting in acreage for years. And it makes sense when you have large open bowls. In the East I think it gets a little trickier. Five wide trails at Mt. Snow may be more acreage than 10 narrow trails at Mad River Glen, but who really has more terrain open? In addition to acreage and trail counts, you really need to consider miles of terrain open to really give the guest a sense of what they are getting. This seems more like another gimmick than “truth in reporting.”


Posted 11/25/2008 by: tom
more stats are better stats
Resorts—and many western ski areas already do this—should post the following: runs open (how many out of total), acres open (how much out of total), percentage of terrain open (how much out of total), and lifts open (how many out of total). Having both acres + runs + percentage of terrain gives a pretty good idea of what is open, throw in recent snowfall (day, week, month) and no one is going to be confused about the conditions on the mountain.


Posted 12/1/2008 by: James Fraser
Attorney
This is a refreshing change. Killington claims to have 200 trails (+/-), but that count includes upper, lower, middle, and so forth—it might even include the lift lines. The behemoth resort of Blackcomb-Whistler has roughly the same number of trails, even though it is many times the size of Killington. In my view, Killington is responsible for the trail-inflation in the East. It claims to have a ridiculous number of trails open, and quality resorts like Stowe and Jay Peak, which consistently have more snow, are forced to inflate their trail counts, simply to attract weekend warriors who rely on trail counts when deciding where to ski. Thank you Mount Snow for taking a step toward ending this madness.