What we have learned
Part of our crash course in maturity involved a peek in the mirror, and we saw ourselves a little bit as we are seen. We saw how small we are. When we talked about potential unemployment in our industry we were reminded that layoffs had already started in other fields that made our potential problems insignificant by comparison. We were reminded of the plight of Wichita, Kansas, where the heart of the private airplane industry is. And of Winnebago, Ill. And others. We learned it was better to be strong and resourceful as we shared in the national problems than it was to simply cry.
We got a bit of a shock when we were cast as one of the “heavies” in the energy situation. Early in the game, a network TV program ran a special report on the ski resorts as fuel guzzlers, using Mammoth Mountain as their example. We asked ourselves whether outdoor lighting for night skiing would be appropriate. And how would the public feel seeing precious fuel being used to make snow? To make snow? We started getting image conscious.
Sociologically, we heard ourselves stigmatized as “elitist.” “Obviously we can’t arbitrarily go on assigning resources to a certain form of recreation,” said Wallace Stickney of EPA at a symposium organized by Sno-engineering in late October. He went on to say that destination ski resorts tend to be elitist serving, and that recreational services are needed by larger populations nearer to home. Stickney added that ski resorts designed for automobile use are already outdated in terms of future construction. Zap!
Then we started to ask ourselves about some of our wasteful practices that are part of our public image. “Six inches of new snow on 34-inch base. Excellent. All lifts running. But should they all be running? “Open October through May.” But should we be?
We will probably soon learn that by trimming our past excesses to meet the challenges of the times we have done a world of good for our P&L.
We are learning a little bit about how lazy we have been. We have built areas, opened the doors, issued our snow reports, gone to the ski shows, maybe run a couple of ads and waited for the skiers to come. By and large they came. Many areas even had to limit ticket sales. Fine, but not a good class-room for the practice of energetic marketing when it is needed. Only a few resorts have been coming out of the hills, rounding up the skiers in the cities and suburbs, packaging them and bringing them back to ski.
Our industry has also started to learn that it is indeed an industry, complete with a product and a payroll and an economic impact. We started to learn that, like any industry, we needed self-knowledge. Such market data as were available or hastily put together were invaluable for NSAA’s successful lobbying in Washington. But we need more, Much more. And we need the statistical input on a continuing basis. With proper industry preparedness, that television special on ski areas as energy guzzlers would not have been aired. With proper industry preparedness we would not have had to apologize for using energy to make snow any more than the brewer or frisbee manufacturer has to justify his energy use.
What else did we learn? We learned the value of collective effort. NSAA was truly the spokesman for the whole ski world — skiers, ski manufacturers, ski retailers included. And they did, and continue to do, a fine job of speaking up for the ski world. We learned some political savvy, and we learned that we need to acquire much more.
Hopefully, we are starting to learn that we should be looking to long-range planning in addition to the immediate tinkering that is necessarily going on. Skiing will become an increasingly important part of the outdoor recreation field, but only if we think in terms of 1980 and beyond.
This magazine disagrees with the thinking of Fred Andresen, president of SIA (see his statement on Page 31). We feel the future lies in broadening the participation base of the sport, and that this inevitably involves reducing the cost of skiing, not increasing it. The sport will continue to appeal to the economic elite, but we cannot survive on this stratum alone. We cannot afford to isolate ourselves from a much larger market of outdoor recreationers who will otherwise opt for less expensive activities.
Well, as we said, we’re learning. And we think there are all sorts of good opportunities ahead for those of us in the ski industry who are willing to learn, willing to adapt and willing to build a future that will never be like the good old days of what is only yesterday.
A SAM Editorial
Area for sale
We found the following news release that came to us both plaintive and haunting:
“Enchanted Mountain in Jackman, Maine, is for sale, according to Will Lefavour of Wilmington, Mass., president.
“The area is one of the most northerly major ski areas in New England. It is about 15 miles south of Jackman, just off Route 201. It is about 2½ hours from Quebec and 1½ hours from the Maine Turnpike exit at Waterville . . .”
Efficiency from discipline
The self-discipline required of area management to operate under severe restrictions in energy use will result in substantially improved operating efficiency, better marketing techniques and more conservative use of financial resources. Essential in any successful business, these results are especially imperative in high-risk industry. This applies significantly to the management of ski-business.
The public image of this industry begins to change for the better with the impact of the problems confronting us. A vast variety of commercial enterprise dependent upon income directly derived from ski areas become concerned about their own survival.
States and local governments are reminded of revenues that could shrivel with drastic curtailment of ski operations. Employees look to their own livelihood as approaching a state of jeopardy.
Ski-business is now beginning to build some organized support at various levels of Government, even in the Congress and the executive office of the Governor in ski-oriented states. It is high time that the ski industry be better understood across the country. Along with concern about its health and stability should be added the understanding that skiing actually is a major contributor to the physical fitness of millions of Americans. Until recreational skiing caught hold, winter for those millions was a season from which to escape. Instead, it is now a season to anticipate.
Ski-business provides the opportunity for experiences that often will be looked back upon as the best in their lives. For participants, job-holders and for related businesses and manufacturers and out-fitters, ski-business has emerged as one of the really major activities in recreational enterprise. Reason enough, then, for such support as will help it to weather the storm brought on by conditions over which it has no control. Ski-business, along with industry generally, is now doing its best to adapt itself to the needs of energy conservation and assuming its proportionate responsibility to achieve it.
Sherman Adams
Loon Mt., N.H.
A show worth copying
To be good, a market place must be right for both buyer and seller, and it is a pleasure to comment on one that was exactly that: the Ski Area Suppliers Association Exposition at Mont Gabriel, Quebec, in early December. It is worth isolating the elements—none original—that contributed to its success.
First, it ran for just two days. And that was plenty long enough. Secondly, there was the right “feel” to it—an informal atmosphere where buys in their work clothes could come and feel completely at home. There were no fancy cocktail parties—just free beer and coffee.
Finally, the price was right for the buyer: it was free. This made it attractive for the area operator to send his hill manager, vehicle foreman, snow-making superintendent and lift operator. These are the key influences in all buying decisions that management makes.
It is too bad that circumstances resulted in the cancellation of the regional trade shows that were scheduled across the country. But SASA’s Mont Gabriel Exposition, and its prototype, the prior year’s midwest trade show at Afton Alps, have shown the route to go for 1974-75.
A SAM Editorial
Prices to match our mountains?
As we go from phase to phase in the economic controls, one question that continues to arise is, “How high should the price of skiing go?” Consumers point to significant increases in the price of lift tickets in the last few years, while area operators enumerate the rapidly escalating costs of doing business and the inflexibility they have in making small changes in lift ticket prices.
Ski area operations, under permit on National Forest land, generally contain a clause in the permit granting the Forest Service the right to review and/or regulate the prices charged for public services. One school contends that the Forest Service should step in and regulate prices to “protect” the public. Another school argues that free enterprise, competition, supply and demand will operate in the market place to regulate prices without government control. Probably everyone interested in skiing shows some concern over the possibility of the sport being priced out of the market. On the other hand with rapidly escalating costs in other recreational activities as well as general cost of living, it is argued that there is no reason to single skiing out as one activity that might become too expensive for the consumer. The success of the large modern destination complexes seems to bear this out.
This is certainly not a situation that lends itself to a simplistic solution. Probably there will continue to be arguments and discussion regarding pricing for many many years. And of course, at the moment, phase-4 sets controls on the amount of increase allowable in ticket prices. But it has now been suggested that the Forest Service has an obligation to regulate pricing even within those controls, if profits seem excessive.
This leads to the question of what is reasonable profit.
Frankly, I cannot envision a profit ceiling if we are to continue to encourage the private sector to provide recreation facilities. Equally clear to me, however, is the need to demonstrate that the free enterprise system does not produce exorbitant prices. I believe this might be done by analyzing the quality and quantity of recreation experience in skiing as compared with the experience in some other somewhat related outdoor activity such as golf. Such an analysis could be made quite complicated, but I would start with a simple comparison such as cost-per-hour for a broad look. It would be necessary for such an analysis to be conducted on a national basis in order to eliminate regional variations and also differences in management ability.
I expect such an analysis may well demonstrate that the price of skiing is not unreasonable. If true, this would certainly be an argument in favor of minimum regulation and control.
Roy Feuchter
Assistant Director of Recreation,
Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
Who Should Provide Recreation Facilities?
If we can agree that outdoor recreation, including winter sports, is a desirable and needed form of public activity, then who should provide the opportunities for that recreation experience?
The Forest Service concept has been to let the private sector provide certain facilities when economics permit. With this approach, it has been possible to provide most winter sports facilities through the private sector with private funds. Generally, public funds are only used when the type of use, or experience level, to be offered does not present an economic package. It should not be assumed from this that some sort of relative importance is implied. Where the economics permit private enterprise to provide needed and desirable public service, we encourage that approach. By so doing, it is possible to significantly extend the amount of recreation that can be provided on the National Forests.
Historically, in the National Forest System, we have generally tried to keep the private sector efforts separate from those provided with public funds. However, there have always been proponents of federal subsidy for marginal situations. There are numerous examples where the government has provided facilities and then concessioned their operation. However, there are relatively few situations where the government and the concessioner have mixed their investment in fixed assets — and even fewer where such an arrangement has been successful either in terms of public service or satisfaction to the principals involved.
Perhaps even more important is the philosophical issue regarding the degree of government involvement desired in our private enterprise system. If government is to subsidize even part of a concessionaire’s operation, by perhaps furnishing the major non-revenue producing facilities, then certainly, there will have to be far greater involvement by the government in the internal and operational activities of the concessioner. This would be necessary to insure that the government contribution was not simply subsidizing poor management. I doubt that either party would be happy with such involvement!
Roy Feuchter
Assistant Director of Recreation,
Forest Service, Washington, D. C.
