In the wake of the demerger of SIA and NSAA, opinions abound among ski area operators over what a new NSAA should look like, what its priorities should be and even how much it should cost to belong to the emerging organization.
Generally, camps seem to be divided between those favoring a strong national organization with weak regions; those who want more of a confederacy approach with a streamlined national office with most of the power resting in the regions, and those who want something in between.
“The major failing of the old NSAA before the merger was that it was starting to get too fractured,” said John Heiser, director of mountain operations at Alyeska, Alaska. “I’d like to see a more centralized organization with stronger leadership than we had in the past.”
“The main question is do we want to get serious about the issues facing us or do we just want to dabble in all this? If we are really serious, let’s put together in an efficient manner to form a new and stronger national organization that everybody can get behind and support. I don’t think there was that commitment in the past.”
Marshall Lewis, general manager at Boreal, Calif., has a different perspective about a reconstituted NSAA. “I think we should start conservatively and figure out what we can’t live without, and then go from there,” he said.
“The big difference between a new NSAA and the old NSAA is that the new organization is going to be dealing with several much stronger regional associations. Since NSAA has been gone, several regions have gotten very strong, very organized. The new NSAA is going to be a confederacy at best. I think that’s good. Many of us feel the regional associations are better in tune with our needs and what we need at the national level is a more streamlined organization.”
“A national convention is not necessary,” continued Lewis. “It’s a nice outing and it’s fun to get together and to go to a fun place. But it’s not necessary. The regional shows are much more important and more realistic for us. I can get many more people to a regional show.”
While conceding the regional associations have gotten stronger, Karen Brozek, director of skiing at Shanty Creek, Mich., believes “it would be a mistake not to have a national meeting.”
“I think it would be real discouraging to the industry as a whole not to have a national convention, especially in lieu of the economy right now. If all the exposure you have is regional, you’re not in touch with reality. As a whole, the business is not different from one region to another.”
Heiser agreed, “We need to be a part of a single voice that can address the problems common to all of us. Regional associations can’t speak with that single voice.”
Somewhere in between these two views is Michael Shirley, general manager at Bogus Basin, Idaho, who favors a “two-tiered approach.”
“What I hear from my people is that historically there has been a problem of continuity from one season to the next,” Shirley said. “We need a strong national organization with a strong national view and message.”
“Regional associations have their place”, Shirley continued, “but more as conduits for the national message. The emphasis should be national.”
“When we belonged to the Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association, the annual dues were almost as much as our USIA dues,” Shirley said. “We switched to the Inter-Mountain Association, which has very nominal dues and more participation from the ski areas themselves. That’s the way it should be. I think the professional organization ought to be at the national level, not at the regional level.”
What are some of the other major issues a new NSAA should be concerned with?
“Marketing certainly should be a top priority of a national organization,” Shirley said. “Skiing should be marketed generically on a national basis, maybe through institutionalized tools that we can use locally. And it has to be supported with research and surveys. You can only do that with a national campaign.”
“Marketing is so far down the list of priorities,” countered Larry Williamson, mountain manager at Grand Targhee, Wyo. “At the top of the list are the whole public lands and environmental-type issues — dealing with Congress on all these sorts of issues.”
The marketing issue, it seems, has split ski areas down the middle — and it doesn’t matter if the area is big or small. At Shanty Creek, which does about 100,000 skier days a year, Brozek wants “a national organization that’s going to promote the sport of skiing to the public throughout the nation.”
She also wants more research and statistics to back up that marketing. “What is the profile of the skier today? I’d like to find out what the skier really wants and then move our business in that direction to meet that need. Are we trying to provide what the skier wants? Or market what we’ve already got?”
Ski Beech, N.C., is similar in size to Shanty Creek in terms of skier days, but general manager John Costin wants no part of a national marketing program. “There is no place for marketing in a national ski areas association,” he said. “Marketing is something that’s got to be done at the local, grass-roots level.”
Costin wants a new NSAA to have one very clear focus: “targeting ski area management.”
“I want a service organization that will provide me with hands-on information about snowmaking, about grooming and all the other technology that will enable me to run my ski area more efficiently.”
Boreal’s Lewis believes “supporting the American Ski Federation should be the top priority of a national organization.”
“Marketing, education of staff — all that should be picked up at the regional level,” he said. “At the national level we also need a central clearing house to give information to the media. That’s important. We can’t expect media people to call every regional association looking for information.”
Dick Lempke, general manager at Buck Hill, Minn., agrees that marketing and promotion should best be left to the regional associations. “One of the problems with USIA is that it did so much marketing. What works in one region may not work in another region,” he said.
Lempke believes that training and education can also be picked up by the regions. “All the things NSAA used to provide — wage and salary studies, training manuals and so forth — are very important to the small ski area. There was a lot of nice stuff that was done, but I think it can just as well be done at the regional level.”
What does this leave for a national organization? “Less,” conceded Lempke, ticking off “legislative issues, lobbying, OSHA, working with PSIA, the National Ski Patrol, all the tramway activities — things that are more national in scope — things that affect all of us, no matter what size area.”
Alyeska’s Heiser sees the economy as the number one issue facing a new NSAA. “There are several areas of concern because of the economy that a new NSAA should be addressing,” he said. “The most important is getting the skier numbers up. We need new marketing strategies, new campaigns, new ideas. We need a cross section of ski area managers and owners to spearhead this effort on a national basis.”
“Another major issue confronting all of us is the wise development of areas in this economic climate. We need to know all the elements of running a profitable business. This is something a national organization can help us with.”
Over and over “small areas” said they wanted to be remembered in any new NSAA. Many managers said they had been left out or forgotten in the merger and they wanted their identity back — along with what they feel is a more equitable dues structure. “Under the USIA dues structure, bigger areas paid a smaller percentage of dues than smaller areas,” said Grand Targhee’s Williamson, a sentiment echoed by other small-area operators.
“I liked the feeling of intimacy the old NSAA had,” added Carol Lugar, president of Mohawk Mountain, Conn. “Small areas had an identity. I feel like I lost touch with USIA. Part of this was the emphasis on high tech. Not all small areas have computers and high tech. I had this sense that they had no idea how difficult it is to run a small area in this economy. There needs to be more input from small ski areas.”
While small areas want an identity and input in a new NSAA, many said they also wanted to be part of a strong centralized organization with clout.
“There are certainly issues that we have together, big areas and small areas,” Lugar said. “Insurance, lift safety, education and training of staff, marketing. Ski areas have different individual marketing needs, but it is something that we still need to address together as an industry.”
James Trepp, general manager at Shawnee Mountain, Penn., also wants to be remembered in the new NSAA.
“We used to feel that we could call the executive director of the NSAA and get some answers,” Trepp said. “I’d like to see that personal contact returned. The small ski areas need to get recognized too. I’d like to see more input from small areas in a new NSAA.”
While Brozek wants to be kept informed by a new national organization, she does not want to receive the number of mailings USIA sent. “About ten of us here were getting the same mailing,” she said. “We could just as easily have routed one mailing and saved money, not to mention the environment. Why so much paper?”
Whatever form the new NSAA takes, many agree they have a unique opportunity to “re-do the past.”
“We have the chance to take a look at all of the failings and all the strengths of the old NSAA and the old USIA and put together a new organization that takes advantage of that hindsight to better serve all of us,” said Alyeska’s Heiser.
Added Lewis at Boreal; “The split really happened at a rather opportune time. We’re a long way from our regional shows so we can kind of hit the ground running.”
Running — and no doubt talking.
