USIA — Unfulfilled And In Need of Something!
Not everyone in the industry remembers, but this is the year when United Ski Industries Association (USIA) is scheduled to cut the last vestiges of its past. In October, the two organizations that merged to create it — National Ski Areas Association (NSAA) and Ski Industries America (SIA) — either allow their union to become permanent after the three-year trial period, or back away and return to their former entities. The assumption has always been, and still is, that there is no turning back.
It must be said, however, while there is still time for calm reflection, that USIA approaches this moment without a whole lot to cheer about. But before these thoughts develop here, I should make our position clear so you, the reader, can know where this editorial writer is coming from.
It is no secret that we disagreed with merger, though we never actively opposed it or lobbied against it. Events have, we feel, vindicated our judgment that it would be a glum little marriage, and though a diffident majority was cobbled together to pass it three years ago, it would be hard to find many today who would say they are better off because of it, whether programmatically or in promised cost efficiencies.
But this doesn’t mean we favor dissolution of the union. Indeed, we have consistently urged its continuance, and reaffirm that now. However, that does not mean we urge “business as usual.” Not at all. Minimally, USIA must get a new compass; it must hold a mirror to itself and refocus; it probably should restructure and downsize. It badly needs member input.
Merger itself is not the problem now. There are practical, pragmatic solutions for the Pushmi-Pullyu difficulties of entities with little in common except the word “ski.” No, the problem lies with the role USIA is supposed to play. Here there is no clear vision, because the leadership — staff and elected — has neglected to go to the membership to find out what members want. It has mistaken the regrettable apathy and diffidence of members as approval.
Now let us step back to ask ourselves why we even need a national association in the first place — a useful exercise for clearing the vision.
On the supplier side, the basic need is the capability of organizing its trade show(s). For that they don’t need the areas. On the area side, would the industry survive without a national association? Yes. A mechanism would have to be found to manage B-77, but that’s about the only program that is indispensible. The others are functions that, with varying degrees of intensity, we have come to want, and with varying degrees of enthusiasm, are ready to pay for.
Knowing we could do without USIA enables us to get perspective on the fact that we want USIA — in some form or other. What is needed and overdue is an honest and fresh look at what we really want and are willing to pay for in a trade association.
You’ll get no blueprint here, not even recommendations; but here are a few ideas that bear exploring.
- Reconstitute the USIA board as two smaller and separate boards, one dealing with area concerns, one with supplier concerns, and meeting jointly only once a year on universal matters. A recommendation along these lines was offered by one board member last year, but (incredibly!) it was never even discussed. Many (most?) board members say privately that current board operations are perfunctory, deadly dull, closed to new thinking and a waste of time. This is surely correctable.
- Adopt an operational philosophy that USIA work with and through regional associations as the preferred m.o. As a corollary, ask each state and regional association to schedule serious discussion during the year about ski trade associations — what functions and responsibilities for which associations and with what funding. Grass roots input.
- Restructure the USIA directorate by having regionals elect their own directors to the USIA board, thus energizing the board and giving the regionals a real involvement in making USIA responsive to member needs. (There must be a better way of getting directors than the Byzantine maneuverings of a few power brokers.) The shuffling going on now means we lose the bright, resourceful, creative Irv Naylor, whose ownership of two small ski areas gives him that valuable perspective. In easing him out, “they” have loaded up the line of leadership succession with executives from Mammoth Mt. and Snowshoe — both fine individuals, but representing the largest resorts in their regions, and who join Chris Diamond of the huge Mt. Snow/Killington/Bear Mt. group. What message are “they” sending?
- To reduce bureaucratic overhead (administration currently runs an awesome and scary $1.5 million — scary because they think they are running on empty!) by subcontracting out many of the functions, such as B-77. Another example is USIA’s role in the Ski Mechanics Tech Training workshops: it lends its name, gives its blessing and spends not a penny.
- Reconstitute the American Ski Federation (ASF) to give it clear line responsibility in certain areas, such as government relations and environmental matters.
- Seriously consider moving USIA to somewhere in “snow country.” (The “Washington presence” would be through ASF.)
- Downsize national marketing — at least until rational, field-tested, effective programs can be launched on a timely basis. (There are now too many ego-driven, untested marketing initiatives that bomb, undermining USIA’s credibility.)
- Since the supplier side of USIA needs its trade show, that function remains a natural one for USIA to handle for the area side.
As we go to press, the biggest item of board agenda was a probable dues increase. Chairman John Stahler (Tecnica USA), has espoused “dues parity” — a principle of equalized dues obligations that the merger-bound NSAA and SIA boards agreed to. Achieving it now would involve raising area dues by some 25 percent — a prospect seen by many as courting disaster.
The fear is there would be serious defections among the major areas — those paying in the $20,000 to 40,000 range — whose dues are critical and whose membership is even more critical for credibility:
In the meantime, it is expected than an “upward adjustment” will be substituted, whereby no area would be faced with more than a $2,400 dues increase. As members come to rely more on state and regional associations, to what extent — and in pursuit of what services — do they want to fund USIA? In order to know that, they will need to understand what their USIA dues buy, which in turn requires the sort of line item budget information they used to get from NSAA, but which USIA regrettably does not now supply.
All of which leads us back to a final exhortation to our apathetic membership: It’s your organization. Don’t complain about it unless you’re willing to find out about it and show some interest in what it does, how it spends your money. To borrow the army’s slogan, let’s help make it all that it can be!
— A SAM editorial
Five cheers, one boo
First, thanks U.S. Ski Team. You dared a lot and did better than we all had dared hope. It bodes well for Lillehammer in 1994.
Second, congratulations to USIA and Mt. Snow on the January trade show and seminars, which were outstanding. It was all so upbeat. It was great! The only negative: my team came in dead last in the slalom. I can’t get no respect.
Third, congratulations to Steve Cohen, executive editor of Ski, whose long article, “High Tech Snow” in the March issue will go a long way toward educating the skiing public about the snowmaking and grooming “miracles” our industry routinely performs.
Fourth, congratulations to Snow Country editor, John Fry, whose column in the March/April issue, “Persuading People to Ski” should provoke thoughtful reflection by area CEOs and marketing directors among our readers.
Fifth, congratulations to David Cleary, Esq., whose legislative strategies for our industry’s liability problems were given credit in the following, excerpted from an article in the N.Y. Law Journal: “Simply put, personal injury lawyers did what they could to exploit the ski industry as a steady source of injured plaintiffs. Absent legislative intervention, litigators and their clients would have sued the industry back into the stone age — with unscrupulous practitioners utilizing the usual amount of fraudulent claims to accomplish the devastation. Happily, that did not happen. The ski industry was able to protect itself with a successful effort, led by its own attorneys, to have equitably protective legislation enacted throughout the country.”
As for the “Boo,” it goes to whomever is responsible for the skier gift packs handed out at a major New England resort-owned hotel. The candy bar and hot chocolate were fine, but what sort of a message were they sending about our sport with the balance of the packet: samples of Tylenol, Medi-Flu, Advil, Benadryl-Plus Cold Formula, and N’Ice sore throat and cough lozenges?
— A SAM editorial
