And we do feel that USIA’s survival is important and will require commitment. We do not feel this will result from any flag-waving from here, but perhaps we can help by laying out the big scene as we see it.
Background is to be found in the convention coverage (page 22) and in Reports (page 16). What surfaced at Orlando and was subsequently addressed by a sober and somewhat chastened board, is certainly key to the future, but survival has to be viewed in more basic terms than the current organizational scrambling and earnest assurances of staff and board that “we are listening” — welcome though they may be.
An image comes to mind, that of a beached whale — splendid in a way, but very vulnerable. Well-intentioned, caring people are scrambling to save it by easing its bulk into the channel, but there is a gnawing realization that even if the maneuver is successful, the whale, perhaps incapable of learning, may beach itself again and die.
This is not the occasion for investigating how we got to where we are. There are theories galore, many passionately held, and fingers are poised for pointing at the offenders, whether individuals, institutions, economy, weather what-have-you.
No, it is more enlightening to go up to the lip and peer across at what our alternatives are should we allow USIA to die.
First, the old SIA side would just go back to status quo ante, cash reserves and real estate intact, and its operations immediately capable of throwing off a surplus.
Second — and it is key to our position — NSAA probably would not reconstitute. Sure, conventional wisdom says we have kept the corporate shell alive for just such an eventuality, but unlike SIA, we have no cash reserves, no buildings to move into. The costs would be considerable — and seen as much too great for the benefits that could be derived.
To imagine what would happen with no NSAA and no USIA, visualize what area needs are. For convenience, we’ll use a broad brush to sketch out the picture for four categories of current members.
I — There are probably about 30 areas whose principal needs are political. The big issues to them might be public lands ones, OSHA or ADA matters or issues of environmental regulation or opposition. They need access to the right buttons of power; they need clout; they need American Ski Federation. They justify their mega-dues to USIA as underwriting USIA’s funding of ASF. The blunt truth: they could use the same dollars to fund ASF directly. These players don’t really need the education activities or the advertising clip-art. Except for a small handful, they wouldn’t miss the big-time marketing.
True, many of the individuals involved enjoy the annual convention and the relaxed networking it encourages; to meet this need they might broaden the ASF mandate to include organizing some sort of annual convention. They might also give it a role of providing loose coordinating services between regional associations, somewhat along the lines of the Canadian Ski Council.
II — There are a lot of areas with gross lift revenues of $1 million or less. For this past season, over a half of the area members fitted here. It is also from this group that membership attrition has been greatest. The principal benefits of membership driving their decision to pay dues are, 1) access to benefits such as training materials, promotional ads etc.; and 2) a sense of belonging — of being a part of something good, big, important and national. Why the attrition? The “important” part may have them in doubt. Proportionately few find their way to the costly convention — regrettably, because they could benefit from the seminars and workshops.
What would happen to this group? Regional and state associations, to which they already belong, would pick up the slack.
III — Then there is the middle third of members — the core of the active area membership of USIA, and probably where the association has the biggest problem in meeting big, perhaps unrealistic, expectations. These are hustling, mid-sized operations which can be very profitable when things (mostly weather) go right. They want everything that USIA offers, especially help in staff training, valuable conventions and trade shows, practical marketing that can produce bodies. They have no slush funds; every dollar spent must work hard, must produce, and that includes a multi-thousand dues payment. Many of them resent what they see as inflated salaries of association executives.
Ironically, it is these areas which would miss USIA the most — ironic because it is these areas that are the most disenchanted with the association.
Without the NSAA or USIA, these areas would look to strengthening their regional associations. In the case of the Northeast there would probably be a back-to-the-future scenario of reconstituting Eastern Ski Areas Association which voted itself out of existence in the mid-1970’s because NSAA had made them redundant.
IV — The supplier (associate) members would reactivate Ski Areas Suppliers Association (SASA) — formed in 1973, but inactive since 1975 — and take over organizing and running trade shows. It would only be necessity that would force this on them, since they are perfectly happy with USIA, notwithstanding their complaining, which is more by habit and custom than from conviction.
Alternate IV — An intriguing thought: suppliers would stick with SIA and stage their big annual trade show in Las Vegas in conjunction with the SIA show. This would save them the hassle and expense of reactivating SASA. But would areas come?
Other functions? An umbrella administration would be found for B-77 (probably ASF or NSP/PSIA), and its functions farmed out, as they were some years ago, to a competent engineering firm. Training and education? Regional associations are already doing a lot of this (Rocky Mountain Lift Association, for instance) and this would expand. Training entrepreneurs like Mountain Management Services would beef up their efforts, perhaps subcontracting with SASA to provide that component of the trade shows.
In short, yes, the industry could and would function without the presently constituted USIA. Indeed, one could make the point that some, notably the long-suffering SIA folks, would be better off.
But, the hope here is that ski areas do not allow it to happen. There is no way it could be seen as progress, but rather as retreat. The alternative is workable, but is fragmented; it would never accomplish what a confident and healthy USIA could. The key question, then: is a confident and healthy USIA still a possibility?
In the wake of three frustrating and disappointing years it may be hard to summon up enthusiasm for the long job that will require both member commitment and, to be honest, some increased dues phased in before too long.
The new USIA structure (see page 16) in a way gives us back NSAA and SIA — of course, without being called such — operating under a USIA umbrella. It is strikingly similar to what we urged in these columns a year ago. The opportunity is there to make it work; the question is, how about the will? Is there the drive? Is there still the critical mass? (We are down to 282 paid-up member areas — down from 353 who were paid-up at the time of merger.) The trend is down. How many do we need to be viable and credible? And effective?
We like to think of the ski area industry as a fraternity of survivors, just as this magazine is a survivor. It would not be surprising if survivors pulled together to make their association survive. We hope so.
