In my opinion Mr. Lund did not fully address his task: “How Instruction Methods can make or lose money for ski resorts”. Instead, Mr. Lund took the opportunity for his typical defense of GLM methodologies; reasons for its current demise; and to ferment the continuing misunderstanding of ATM.
Mr. Lund’s most salient points concerning ATM were (1) “Instructors want to have everyone carve”, (2) “Instructors like to teach carving and in fact do not like to teach sliding” (sic), (3) “there is almost no training for instructors in making the sliding turn work on steeper slopes …”
Mr. Lund continued the attack in: “Why American Teaching Method is Not Working For More Pupils”.
What Mr. Lund failed to do was demonstrate or put forth a bona fide argument as to how instruction methods affected the profitability of ski schools, therefore lift ticket sales.
Mr. Campbell’s article more closely addresses the issue. To quote: “Any ski instructor worth his salt knows that he must respond directly to each student’s fundamental question, ‘How are you going to make me ski better?’ When a good teacher reaches into his bag of tricks to help another skier, strict methodologies and progressions usually get thrown to the wind anyway. That’s when students learn, go away happy … to return for more”.
Campbell is right that Lund is wrong that ATM is an exclusive carving philosophy. Campbell is right that Lund is “right on” about a two-track approach to satisfied ski school customers. No trickery about it! It is a system of instruction designed to accommodate the vacillations of the skiing customer.
If I may, then—The ski area is an arrangement of departments. Each is a revenue or expense center dependent upon the fiscal responsibility or philanthropy of its directors to determine the overall profitability of the resort. What each resort ultimately offers is service: skiing terrain, lift services, food services, rent and repair services, ski instruction, lodging, alternate recreation services, etc. They each create, on their individual merit, the recreation environment, the atmosphere which sells.
Some ski areas develop extensive ski school programs to attain and hold profitability. Some resorts resort to gimmicktry to attain skier activity. Other resorts could care less about the presence of a ski school—they may be unique in their mountain complex and ski schools are of secondary importance. Few resorts attain the balance in services that areas like Stowe, Aspen, Vail or Heavenly have.
If a ski school—regardless of its methodology—is to draw customers, it should be as Stu Campbell describes: (1) creative, distinctive, publicity oriented, with well credentialed instructors; (2) a viable identity—not a lower echelon department (ski schools can draw skiing customers); (3) an understandable product demonstrating continuity throughout the entire course of lessons; and (4) a sound product—able to withstand the misunderstandings of the non-understanding.
I’m sure that Mssrs Lund and Campbell are grateful for SAM and the opportunity to express their philosophies. But, in my opinion, if the product is the best it will stand the test of time and profitability. Mr. Campbell, I believe, has an answer.
David R. Stewart, Mountain Manager
Angel Fire Ski Area
Note: David Stewart, a former member of the PSIA Board of Directors as VP Communications, is currently the Mountain Manager of the Angel Fire Ski Area, a 5.1 million VTFH ski area in Northern New Mexico.
