3 Ways to Skier Growth
One of the more gratifying developments in our industry has been the arrival of a concensus that something needs to be done about skier growth. Nobody has to lecture anybody else about the need to do something, because individual areas are already doing something, as are many area organizations. The industry is crawling with promotional plans, packages and programs. This is magnificent, and bolsters one’s faith in the efficacy of good old Yankee hustle and ingenuity in the private sector.
It is this, perhaps, more than anything else, that spelled the doom of the Glendinning program. Our industry was, in effect, already ahead of the outside marketing consultants who were telling us what to do. (Not that the Glendinning report was a waste or an exercise in futility! The mere act of creating a broad ski industry marketing program helped bring about the concensus that we are now talking about, and the the report itself is a useful building block for our industry to use.)
There is no one magical way to develop more skiers, but we do believe that there are three national programs underway which are doing — or will do — a lot of good for our industry.
The first is a redesigned Coca Cola program. Final details are being hammered out by the Coke officials and NSAA, but the broad outlines involve a promotion that is concentrated in time (two weeks, late January/early February), rather than season-long. Mistakes from last year’s efforts are being identified and corrected, and sufficient lead time is being built in so that everything will be ready to go—all collateral promotional materials—when the time comes.
The impact will be big, and of the right kind. The program should be given the widest possible support and should enjoy the widest possible participation by areas. It does not supplant individual area promotions or those of regional associations. It does, however, constitute a powerful national program, with promotional clout that our industry alone could not begin to match.
Secondly, we are impressed by the campus program that Skiing magazine has under way. (See Page 38) This does something that is fundamentally sound: instead of saying, “Hey, come on up to the mountains and let me introduce you to our great sport,” it takes the ski sport and brings it to the best single reservoir of market potential, the student. No matter how much we say, “You can learn to ski at any age,” (and it is true!), and no matter how hard we try to re-capture the old ski drop-outs (also worthwhile), the fact remains that we will get the best return from students.
Now in its third year, the Skiing program is a tested one, and it works. Indeed, one of their biggest problems is turning down campuses that want the ski caravan, but cannot be accomodated. This year the program is being expanded to include a number of high-density shopping centers, and this should prove effective. Particularly praiseworthy is the fact that the caravan invades the south for its last three weeks in a move that General Sherman would surely have relished. Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas—there is no hiding place for the eligible non-skier. A tip of the hat to Skiing and to the Harry Leonard organization for a far-reaching and effective program.
Thirdly, we point to another program that takes the same fundamental approach of, “Let’s not wait for people to discover skiing and find us; let’s take the sport to where the people are.” And people are in cities and suburbs.
The program, then, is to help create new ski facilities—not Vails and Killingtons, but basic ski facilities in the parks and recreation areas across the country. Some, of course, exist, and have existed for some time. Others could—and should. The parks and recreation officials across the country are under pressure to provide increased recreation opportunities to an expanding population in a period of chronic fuel shortage. There is a perceived need to get better utilization out of the existing public lands. The situation creates a vacuum which in many cases will be tailor-made for the ski sport.
To this end, Ski Area Suppliers Association is going to exhibit at the 1975 Recreation and Parks Congress in Dallas this October, and will attempt to promote the viability of snow sports for this market. A ski facility on a municipal golf course—to cite a modest example—may not seem like much, but it is a plus to our industry. It will create new skiers—skiers who will not long be satisfied with a hundred feet of vertical, and who will find their way very soon to the mountain resorts. Without that facility, those people might never have become skiers.
In 1976 the Congress will be in Boston, and a major ski presence is planned for that. In addition, a strong educational program is underway to reach out to the parks and recreation executives and give them the sound, factual data on which to evaluate their ski potential.
The ski industry is on the right track. We’re moving, and we’re showing promotional hustle. Let’s keep it going.
A SAM editorial
Thanks, Cal
When Cal Conniff took over as Executive Director of NSAA the affairs of the association were in a mess, and there were hard feelings and divisions within the organization.
As he leaves to take over as general manager at Stratton, NSAA is in fine shape. Much of the credit for this turnaround belongs to Cal. There was no sleight of hand; just hard work, sincerity and straight-forwardness. Cal did not play politics, and we hope his successor doesn’t.
Thanks, Cal, and good luck.
A SAM editorial
Ted Farwell speaks out on Government and ski lift ticket prices
Denver, Colorado, May 16, 1975 — Hoping to eliminate the secrecy which surrounds decisions on tow rate increases for ski areas operating on public lands, Senator Floyd Haskell said today he will hold hearings in Colorado this fall on the matter. . . .
“Tow ticket prices have risen to the point that it is very difficult for a family to ski on any kind of regular basis,” Haskell said. “Yet the public does not know whether fees charged by companies operating on public land — for private profit — are justified. It is absolutely essential that all of us have access to this information, and that includes profits ski areas may be making, whether these profits are too high, too low or just right.”
Does this press release scare you? It should!
It was only a few short years ago when governments were building access roads, constructing parking lots, granting business loans, insuring low interest loans and even providing grants to encourage private capital to invest in the ski business. Today, profit and please note here “private” profit — as if there were any other kind — is some sinister method for lining the pockets of ski area operators. Never mind the historical fact that ski areas have been notoriously poor business risks with years of losses to way offset the few very legitimate and welcome profits of recent years. Now that demand has reached a point where it is possible to earn a return (profit) commensurate with the risk, the ski area operator must face the challenge of government seeking to make his most critical business decision.
I am appalled that the same government that is recommending deregulation of transportation rate control can seriously consider ski lift ticket pricing a legitimate area of interest. Are ski areas public utilities? Is skiing a necessity? Is skiing a monopoly?
Forest Service permits issued to ski areas generally provide that: “The rates charged, if necessary in the public interest, shall be subject to regulation by the Forest Service. . . . provided that no reduction in rates shall be required that would be below a point necessary for a reasonable return on the investment. . . .”
Until recently, the “return on investment” by the great majority of ski areas was not only unreasonably low but generally negative. Thus, the question of rate control has been academic. The ski industry is now, however, faced with yet another roadblock to divert precious energy.
In an April brief to the Colorado ski industry, the U.S. Forest Service states: “It is deemed in the public interest to maintain a healthy and viable skiing industry and to induce capital investment by the private sector to provide needed public alpine skiing opportunities on public land.”
The theory of pricing and price control is based on obtaining optimum use of finite resources. Gold has value because it is scarce, water is generally free because it is plentiful. Here in our country private individuals and businesses may own and develop our nation’s resources because we have discovered that this system of supply, demand and pricing has achieved the most efficient use of these resources. When prices reach levels beyond the ability of consumers to buy, the substitution mechanism is triggered; i.e., a trip to the oceanside replaces the Colorado ski vacation.
If, as Senator Haskell says, the fees charged skiers must be subject to public hearings, and the rates subject to regulation by the U.S. Forest Service because the ski facilities are on public lands, then, by the same principle, prices paid for beef grazing on public land, lumber harvested on public land and minerals extracted from public land should be subject to control by government.
Ridiculous! The matter of ownership of Government land, (“stewardship” is a better word, since we the people own the land) is not the principal point. The crux of the situation is the right to use resources, which in our case are the slopes, location and snow cover.
Senator Haskell seeks jurisdiction because ski areas seek profit from the use of public land. The use of the land by skiers is free. The cost to skiers is for the use of the lifts, installed at great cost by the private sector. In addition to lifts, the private sector has cut trails, installed water and sewer systems, provided warming huts, a ski patrol, parking lots and access to the land. Further, the ski area operator pays a fee to the public sector for the use of the land.
Government as steward to the land and overseer of the environment has a legitimate duty to protect, preserve, conserve and physically manage the land for the people. They err grossly when they exercise control through economics, whether by ruling on the existence of demand and/or the price of services.
The health of our ski industry as a legitimate and viable part of the private sector demands that we vigorously seek to join the current tide in Washington toward less government economic controls. Specifically we must seek legislation to: 1) Establish the principle that pricing of skiing is not a proper concern of government, and to eliminate any requirement that the U.S. Forest Service regulate rates; and 2) Establish the principle that the evaluation of supply and demand is a concern of the private sector and eliminate any requirement that the U.S. Forest Service must consider need in their review of Winter Sports site designations.
President Ford’s Director of the Domestic Council, Jim Cannon, in speaking of the “encroaching bureaucratic control” in the June 9 issue of Time, puts it beautifully: “When one’s freedom of action is so restricted, when the right to pursue excellence is so heavily curtailed, then the enthusiasm for doing things is diminished.”
