On regional trade shows
As Cal recognizes, the key to success lies in the original site selection. If it is too remote, or if the facilities don’t lend themselves to integrated indoor/outdoor display areas, or if meeting rooms are totally out of the traffic flow with respect to display areas, then the best will and best intentions in the world won’t make the show successful for the exhibitor.
To this end, NSAA has come up with some eminently sensible guidelines for site selection. They clearly are responsive to the legitimate requirements of the suppliers who go to considerable expense to exhibit.
Still on the subject of regional trade shows, we concur with the concensus feeling that the state of the market today calls for fewer trade shows. This could change — either way — but we think NSAA is getting the proper input for making the best possible decisions. It was not always thus, and we are pleased it is now!
A SAM editorial
On the Glendinning Report
Elsewhere in this issue is a “Review” of the Glendinning report — much as a book, movie or play might be reviewed. It describes the report and gives the reviewer’s ideas as to its strengths and weaknesses.
This, on the other hand, though written by the same person, is where we state SAM’s position, and we want to go on record as heartily endorsing the broad outlines of the Glendinning recommendations. If the ski industry joint marketing efforts are to be successful, the elements of that industry — manufacturers and importers of ski clothing and equipment, ski retailers and ski areas — must pull together. SIA can, and should, provide much of the financial muscle. But that muscle cannot effectively be brought to bear if there is not virtually universal cooperation by ski areas where the first-time skier gets initiated to the sport. Nor can the industry get the still larger financial muscle of consumer industry partners without those partners being assured of broad ski area support.
Right now, the ski industry is in a state of euphoria. We are making it, even while the national economy creaks, groans, wheezes and rumbles. But this could be a fool’s paradise. We must broaden the base of the skier population, and to do this we must find ways to get more people to sample our product.
The Glendinning Report report recommends one such way, and if they can put it together we will all benefit.
A SAM editorial
Some recommended reading
There is a treatise that should be required reading for serious students of the ski industry and where it is going. We were sorely tempted to print it in SAM, but space does not permit. The next best thing is to identify it and tell you how to get it.
It is a study by Ted Farwell on the “Future of the Ski Indistry in Colorado.” He addresses himself to three critical questions: 1) Is there a demonstrated demand for new ski areas? 2) What is the environmental impact of developing ski areas, thus creating new resort communities? and 3) Are ski areas currently economically feasible operations?
Bear in mind that Ted is concerned here specifically with Colorado alone, and his conclusions must be similarly constrained. However, the logic of his case, and the compelling way it is developed, make it a model for everyone planning a new area or expanding an old one. It is also a powerful tool for everyone up against diehard no-growth elements.
For a copy, write Ted Farwell, Box 578, Steamboat Springs, Colo., 80477. To defray Ted’s own costs of xeroxing and postage, we ask you to enclose $1.00
A SAM editorial
An insurance threat?
Are ski areas going to be faced with an increase in claims activity under Workmen’s Compensation? There have been two recent court decisions brought to our attention which lead us to believe that in the near future, all areas are going to be faced with claims presented by volunteer ski patrolmen and injured employees skiing on passes or tickets paid for by the employer.
In the case of volunteer ski patrolmen, the New York State Compensation Board recently ruled -Ann Gothler vs. Easton Mountain, April 17, 1974, -that a volunteer ski patrolman injured while skiing was entitled to collect Workmen’s Compensation from the policy in effect for Easton. A summation of the Board’s findings is as follows:
Carrier contends that claimant was not an employee of Easton Mountain Year-Round Resort. (WCB Case No. 57202525)
Claimant testified she was a volunteer ski patrolman, her duties consisting of injury prevention and first aid to skiers. On January 27, 1972 she had been covering the Easton Mountain Year-Round Resort ski area and was skiing to the lodge for lunch when injured. She had been signed on by Bud Adams and Fred Hunsiker, was under Bud Adams’ supervision and had reported to him that morning at Easton Mountain. She received no remuneration, but was allowed to ski free at the resort. She was required to be there first thing in the morning, remain until the area closed and not go to lunch until relieved. Joseph Adams testified he is a member of the National Ski Patrol, a volunteer non-profit public service association, and as patrol leader, he makes all assignments. There is a paid patrol as well as a volunteer patrol, but there was no paid patrol at Easton Mountain Year-Round Resort. The resort has the right to hire or fire a paid patrolman but not a volunteer patrolman. The management supplies the first aid rooms and necessary equipment. It costs $5.00 a day to ski at Easton Mountain and $7.50 on weekends and holidays. Each volunteer is required by the ski patrol to put in one weekend day and one weekend night, or be dropped by the Patrol.
The majority of the Board panel finds that the claimant, as a member of the Ski Patrol, rendered services of benefit to the Easton Mountain Year-Round Resort which, in exchange therefor, extended skiing privileges to the claimant and such privileges had economic value to the claimant. The panel further found in view of the consideration between the above mentioned parties and the supervision exercised by the Easton Mountain Year-Round Resort through the Ski Patrol leader that there was an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the resort and that the accidental injury arose out of and in the course of said employment.
In our opinion, this decision has even further implications. Suppose the volunteer patrolman was injured while skiing free, that is, on a day whereby he was not actually patrolling, but because of previous time spent patrolling, was given free skiing privileges. It would seem logical that the Board would rule that again this was a compensative injury and would be covered under compensation since the person was receiving benefit from work performed for the ski center. Think about this for a while and the implications it could have.
If, because of this decision and others which undoubtedly will be forthcoming, you, the ski area operator, will be faced with additional Workmens Compensation premium, as well as a deterioration in your claims experience. Since, for the most part, all compensation policies are experience rated — that is, the premium is geared to the past premiums and losses paid over a three-year period — the consequences of this decision could be severe. The additional premium will undoubtedly be collected by the insurance company’s auditor by determining the number of volunteer patrolmen on duty each day and using the ticket price as remuneration for that particular day. Depending upon the state and the area, additional premiums could be substantial.
Another problem which appears to be as severe as the case of volunteer ski patrolmen becoming eligible for Workmens Compensation is the case of the ski area employee skiing on a pass provided or paid for by the employer. If such an employee is injured, he may claim coverage under Workmens Compensation and could be eligible for coverage.
This recently happened in Colorado and could set a precedent, whereby other states will follow suit. The basic reasoning behind the Workmens Compensation Board’s decision in ruling for the employee was that the ski pass was part of the employee’s compensation.
The ramifications of this decision could be far reaching as this could be interpreted to mean that the employee has seven-day, twenty-four hour Workmens Compensation coverage. A strong possibility exists that the ski corporation, through the issuance of such passes, could be giving the employee free hospitalization, as well as free disability income protection for any ski accident for as long as the snow holds. Perhaps the time has come where legal counsel representing all areas belonging to the National Ski Areas Association should investigate the above situation and voice an opinion as to how best the ski area operators can protect themselves from such claims.
George F. Gohn, VP
Associates of Glens Falls, Inc.
The Forest Service and rates
We are disturbed by the decision of the Forest Service to disallow the lift ticket increases previously announced by Apen and Vail. Philosophically—since we have no standing to discuss the matter from a legal viewpoint—we think their position is questionable, and should indeed be questioned.
Of course we recognize the custodial obligation the Forest service has to the public at large. That rightfully includes concern for public safety and health, proper forestry, assuring non-discriminatory public use of the facilities and so forth. We doubt if the government’s mandate should include the permittee’s pricing.
If the government were contending with a giant monopoly and the public were clamoring for relief from that monopoly’s price exploitation of the public, well, that would be one thing. But does that shoe fit the Aspen Vail situation?
Aspen’s Darcy Brown put it well in a SAM editorial two years ago: “The concept of profit control, while often valid when applied to service station and restaurant concessions which operate as local monopolies, should not be applied to ski areas which operate in a highly competitive free enterprise environment.”
A SAM editorial
