Annual Question - Why Doesn't Gore Have a Webcam?

CONTENTS DELETED

Should Gore Install Webcam?

Yes

No

Login to vote   

You cannot change your vote after voting.
You have to vote before you can see the results.

Yes, it's quite strange. But, as I've always said, that's what happens when politicians run ski lifts.

Harv, have you addressed this question with Mike Pratt in your interviews?
For the past couple of years I have stayed out of this discussion hoping that it was right around the corner.  

The lack of a webcam is a Gore marketing problem. Whiteface has a webcam. Almost every major ski area has a web cam including Campgaw in NJ.

Come on Gore - it is time to join the 1990s and put up a webcam.

My guess is the conditions are so bad and the skiers suck so much they don't want that as advertising  

Look you bunch of cry babies, you just got a new lift and now you want a webcam - geeez, you are a bunch of ungrateful losers. If they gave you a webcam you'd probably be crying for a waffle hut next.

Chris wrote

Harv, have you addressed this question with Mike Pratt in your interviews?

I haven't this asked this question in a published interview.  

I have done what I can to get a cam in place, including investigating putting one in at HQ as it is near 2000 feet which IMO would be a good elevation.  The issue at HQ is one of cost. I need a dedicated computer and a heated building to keep it in.  Would probably also need someone to kick start the modem every now and then.

As a marketing guy I see a significant upside to a cam.  It would drive a lot of traffic for the host.

Can I stream through DSL?  The connection speed seems to vary quite a bit. A still cam would be cool too, but streaming really gives you a good idea of what is happening.

The anecdotal evidence is that Emily, who is in charge of marketing, doesn't like the idea of a web cam.

That may very well be apocryphal, but it explains everything if it's not.

There is no excuse except laziness and weak leadership.      Management can pick who to blame, but should look in the mirror first.      

PeeTex wrote

If they gave you a webcam you'd probably be crying for a waffle hut next.

I'd like a waffle hut.

You do not need a PC for a webcam.....assuming you get the right one

Wait, isn't there already a waffle hut?

jeez, I gotta lay off the edibles.

skimore wrote

You do not need a PC for a webcam.....assuming you get the right one

Skimore I forgot this was in your area of expertise. Have your people call my people.

Spongeworthy wrote

The anecdotal evidence is that Emily, who is in charge of marketing, doesn't like the idea of a web cam.

That may very well be apocryphal, but it explains everything if it's not.

Is this Emily person a skier? Does she live more than twenty minutes from the mountain?

Spongeworthy wrote

The anecdotal evidence is that Emily, who is in charge of marketing, doesn't like the idea of a web cam.
That may very well be apocryphal, but it explains everything if it's not.

I asked a few years ago:

Jeff: How about a web-cam at the lodge or at the top of the gondola?
Emily: Probably not this year.
Link to interview

I'll play devil's advocate.  Until webcams provide a better image, I'd rather have a Waffle Hut.  Take WF's webcam for example.  You get 4 views:  the Face Lift, the Mtn Run lift, Valley, and the mid-mountain lodge.  Woohoo.  You can't see anyone actually skiing in any of those views and the you can't tell if the snow you're looking at is blower or glop.  Instead, I'd like to see some quality photos or videos from the current day featured prominently on the website.  Photos with more stoke than what currently runs on Gore's photo-of-the-day (which are often several days old as it is).  Yeah, that's more work than an automated webcam, but I think it'd drive more website traffic and stoke, plus you don't have the upfront cost of installing the webcam (whatever those costs are, I don't know).

Webcams just don't do that much for me.  When the best argument for one is that everyone else seems to have one, how exciting can that be?

Adk Jeff wrote

 Instead, I'd like to see some quality photos or videos from the current day featured prominently on the website.  Photos with more stoke than what currently runs on Gore's photo-of-the-day (which are often several days old as it is).  Yeah, that's more work than an automated webcam, but I think it'd drive more website traffic and stoke . . .

I don't know much about ski area marketing, but this seems right to me. If a different sweet picture came across my facebook feed every other day or so, I'd be more inclined to head to the mountain. I might even share the photo.

But, like I said, I guess I don't know anything about ski resort marketing. If you're looking for a good resource on all of that stuff, though, the slopefillers site is really good.

I've seen analytics for ski areas you know and love and the pattern is consistent.

Top Pages by Page Views:

Home Page (by a big margin)
Webcam
Weather
Conditions
Trail Map
Lift Tickets

This is not to say that an awesome photo of the day wouldn't rank. But it does seem to indicate that the public wants a cam.

As someone mentioned farther up, a cam is constantly producing new "content" with little or no effort.

Spongeworthy wrote

apocryphal

I had to look it up.  

Harvey wrote

As someone mentioned farther up, a cam is constantly producing new "content" with little or no effort.

With generally shitty images that do little to show the true conditions on the mountain.  In fact, webcam images almost always look drab. Maybe that's due to a limitation of webcam technology?

The answer is:

They'll get Whiteface's old one when some new technology comes around to replace it.

Who cares about looking at people on the hill. A webcam pointed at a snowboard, one of those giant rulers or some other object is telling. Much more so than the conditions report Gore posts