Unfortunately, the numbers we accumulate are not always accurate. And in some cases we don’t have enough data to make the right decision.
Consider: When skier visits hit 57.4 million in 2000-01, the winter sports industry benefited from a best-case scenario. Snow came early and stayed late in nearly all regions of the country, and holiday weather was favorable. As a result, the crowds came early and stayed all season.
In 2002-03, reported visits soared to a new record of 57.6 million—despite the worst winter in 30 years in the Pacific Northwest and the chilling effect of the Iraq war. Was this number possible? Many area managers were skeptical.
Now, for 2003-04, NSAA’s preliminary Kottke National End of Season Survey reports only a slight drop to 56.8 million visits—despite late snow in many parts of the country, weather issues over the holidays, a dismal season in the Northeast and a hot, dry March that cut business short for most areas west of the Mississippi. Skepticism increased.
With good reason. Following the NSAA convention, SAM spoke with managers and executives representing dozens of areas and concluded that the Kottke reports overestimates visits by season’s passholders by at least 2 million nationwide, and perhaps by as much as 3 million. As a result, a more accurate visit total for the 2003-04 season might be 54 to 55 million. That represents a solid season, given the many challenges resorts faced, but it shows a very different picture of the industry.
Why are passholder visit numbers inflated? The biggest reason is overly optimistic estimates of season pass usage. The average usage, as reported by areas to NSAA, is 18 times. The truth? A precise number is impossible to come by, since nearly half of the ski areas in the U.S. have no way of counting passholder visits. But most of the managers SAM spoke with do. These areas range from coast to coast, from large to small, and from destination resorts to day areas. And this broad cross-section of the industry strongly suggests that average pass usage is more like 14 days, or even 12.
The overcount is not completely intentional. There was a time when the average pass was used 18 days in a season—if not more. This time probably lasted into the late 1990s, when discounted season’s passes became increasingly popular. Since then, discounted passes, often in the $200 to $300 range, have vastly increased pass sales. Without exception, areas that track pass usage report that those who purchase discount passes use them less often, on average. Full-price passholders average 20 days or more (45 was the highest figure we encountered), while holders of discount passes average 8 to 10 days (5 was the lowest we heard, and 14 the highest).
Our survey revealed that there was little difference in these averages based on size or location. Average pass usage is almost always a bit above the break-even point compared to the ticket-window price for day tickets—skiers and riders buy a pass if they expect to use it often enough to make the cost worthwhile. For example, if the day ticket costs $50 and a pass costs $250, the average pass gets used about eight days (average cost per day: $31.25). If the day ticket cost $50 and a pass costs $1,500, the average pass gets used about 40 days (average cost per day: $37.50).
As discount passes have become common, more people have been buying them. That’s why the Kottke survey shows passholders accounting for 6 percent of visits a decade ago and 29 percent in 2003-04. But given the reported average of 18 days’ use, it appears that many have not adjusted their accounting formulas to reflect the decrease in the average number of passholder visits.
So here’s the math. According to the Kottke survey, passes account for 29 percent of visits—16.5 million out of 56.8. But about half of those visits—8.25 million—are estimated, at an average of 18 days per pass. If the actual pass usage is 14 days rather than 18, that 8.25 million of estimated pass usage shrinks to 6.4 million—and 56.8 million becomes 55 million. If the actual pass usage average is 12 days, the skier-day figure becomes 54 million.
Does this number matter? Very much. With fewer reported skier-visits, revenue per ticket increases. The increase in beginner lessons looks even better, and implies that the Growth Initiative began to take hold this past year.
Beginner Lessons Increase
Specifically, growth depends on bringing new skiers and riders into winter sports. Here, the Kottke report provides some tantalizing news on beginner (level 1) ski and ride lessons. Beginner ski lessons rose 2.6 percent overall, including 11.1 percent in the Midwest and 23.5 percent in the Pacific West. In all regions except the Rocky Mountains, level 1 ski lesson participation fared better than the overall visit comparison. That’s encouraging.
Even better, kids’ lessons increased 6.6 percent. The pool of potential big spenders for the future is growing. Alas, not enough areas track level 1 kids’ lessons as a distinct category to determine how many of these kids lessons represent newcomers.
On the downside, level 1 snowboarding lessons dropped by 3.6 percent. This slide in snowboard lessons, coupled with the slowing growth in snowboarder visits, suggests that this growth engine is sputtering. The industry must find a way to rev it up again or look to a new power source for growth.
Are Snowboard Numbers Better?
Just how stalled are snowboarding visits? The Kottke figures indicate that growth of snowboarding is slowing. In 2003-04, areas report snowboarder visits at 30.8 percent of the total, up from 30 percent in 2002-03—a paltry 2.8 percent increase.
Can we trust those numbers? At first glance, it seems that areas track snowboarder visits more accurately than passholder visits. Even areas that don’t scan tickets or otherwise count passholders tend to survey visitors in liftlines and cafeterias, and thus track snowboarder visits with some precision. Figures from these surveys show that snowboarding is, indeed, hitting a plateau. There’s even some evidence that kids are sticking with skiing, due in part to twintips and the popularity of skis in pipe and park.
But most surveys include only skiers and riders age 16 and up. And more than one area executive suggested that surveyors may shy away from interviewing snowboarders. There’s evidence to support that, too: The NSGA Sports Participation Survey reports that in 2003, snowboarder visits rose by 12 percent. The NSGA has also reported that nearly 30 percent of all riders are age 12 to 17, with the highest participation in the 12 to 15 age group. So the snowboarder count is most likely understated.
Furthermore, the NSGA study—which is based on interviews with 80,000 households across the U.S.—tracks the long-term decline in skier visits and rise in rider visits. The most recent survey shows that riders could outnumber skiers within a few years (see chart). While the NSGA survey consistently overstates participation, the trends are valid. These data suggest that there are either a lot of wannabe snowboarders (who claim to ride, but don’t), or that many snowboarders do not visit resorts (a possibility suggested by the NSGA in a separate survey a year ago). In either case, the NSGA figures tell us that interest in snowboarding runs high.
One common assumption—that riders are more frequent visitors than skiers, since riders show up early and late in greater numbers—may be false. The Leisure Trends’ National Snowsports Opinion Survey tracks number of days of participation for skiers and riders, and shows that riders visit, on average, less than a day more than skiers. The NSGA reports a similarly slight difference—but with skiers visiting more often.
What all these numbers prove is that the industry could do a better job of tracking its guests. If we don’t really know who’s coming, and how often, it’s impossible to determine how to serve them. We need better information to plot our future.
