Dr Surge: Skiing Numbers Continue To Decline

Get at least a 100 spam comments a day on the blog. For some reason this one caught my eye. Maybe it was this snippet that was posted:

... but with a 14% decrease in season pass rates from 2009-2011 ($959 to $825) Whiteface sees a 12% gain in revenue. With a 3% increase in season pass rates from 2010/11 to 2012/13 we see an 8% drop in skier visits ...

A link to an article on why skiing and snowboarding are going down the tubes.  Not sure who the hell Dr Surge is. Bonus points if you read or skim the full article. Follow the money:

Skiing And Snowboarding Numbers Continue To Decline
Posted on September 5, 2013 by Dr. Surge
A Once Thriving Industry Shoots Self In Foot, Blames Gun

Ironically, late summer is a great time of year in the ski community. I hope you’re enjoying it. It only lasts for a couple of months. It’s the only time we don’t have to listen to the ski resorts bemoan their fate as an industry in decline with fewer and fewer people hitting the slopes every year. All the while they profess that the biggest cause of the decline is not prohibitive pricing, but instead the effect of climate change on annual precipitation. We hear it all the time. If we’re not talking about the state of the economy, we’re discussing our inevitable, greenhouse of doom. For years we’ve heard that skiers follow the snow. Period. More snow, more skiers. Less snow, less skiers. So, climate change must be the cause of the faltering ski industry, right? The answer consists of many factors but the biggest one, while undeniably simple, is not Mother Nature. You need only cast aside false idols to see the truth.

Full Article:

http://skitheglobe.com/skier-lifestyle/skiing-and-snowboarding-numbers-continue-to-decline/

Wow. A $129 lift ticket.

It's the economy stupid

Skiing is an expensive sport and this article clearly shows that pricing affects where people decide to ski.  Very interesting data he laid out.

It is wicked expensive and they are shutting out many potential customers with the pricing of lift tickets, food, parking, etc.

I am blessed to live in close proximity to many great skiing venues and yet very few people that I know in my community ski even once or twice a year let alone on a regular basis.  I can assure you that cost and the perception that the slopes are filled with a bunch of rich, city snobs both play a big part in the reason why.  Most people in my town do not have the disposable income to invest in ski gear and buy day tickets (forget about season tickets, they're just too much for many of the locals around here).

For what it costs to ski a family can get a lot more bang for the buck pursuing many other activities.  I have a family of five and we love skiing, we ski together and we ski as often as we can.  That meant about 7 days skiing together as a family last year, 2 or 3 just my wife and I and 35 for me alone.  In order to do that we had to make a full commitment to it, sacrifice doing other things and shop around for deals.....all things that many families are not willing to do.  We would love to do much more but that's all we can manage right now (it stinks that a family activity that we all love is actually a financial burden.)  We are definitely part of a very small group up here and it gets discouraging at times.  We ask friends, parents of the kid's friends, etc. to join us and there is little to no interest (and I can tell you for sure that money comes into play based on my knowledge of the financial status of many).

My wife and I have discussed this many times and we just don't understand why the local resorts don't do more to attract new, local skiers.  I live in Warren County, NY and many of our youth grow up with dreams of getting out of here and many do just that and never come back.  I'm not going to get into a discussion as to why that is but we think there is at least one thing that could be done to get them to come back at least occasionally:  Why doesn't a mountain like Gore offer special deals and incentives to local residents?  Get them on the mountain without breaking their bank accounts.  Nurture a love for the sport and the outdoors.  These people and their children would return and if their children chose to relocate they would still be skiers and hopefully would want to continue to be AND share it with their children.

Just my thoughts on the matter.  I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but I don't think that it would hurt.  As things stand right now I see very little being done by most resorts to develop their future clientele.

Snowhunter wrote

It is wicked expensive and they are shutting out many potential customers with the pricing of lift tickets, food, parking, etc.

I am blessed to live in close proximity to many great skiing venues and yet very few people that I know in my community ski even once or twice a year let alone on a regular basis.  I can assure you that cost and the perception that the slopes are filled with a bunch of rich, city snobs both play a big part in the reason why.  Most people in my town do not have the disposable income to invest in ski gear and buy day tickets (forget about season tickets, they're just too much for many of the locals around here).

For what it costs to ski a family can get a lot more bang for the buck pursuing many other activities.  I have a family of five and we love skiing, we ski together and we ski as often as we can.  That meant about 7 days skiing together as a family last year, 2 or 3 just my wife and I and 35 for me alone.  In order to do that we had to make a full commitment to it, sacrifice doing other things and shop around for deals.....all things that many families are not willing to do.  We would love to do much more but that's all we can manage right now (it stinks that a family activity that we all love is actually a financial burden.)  We are definitely part of a very small group up here and it gets discouraging at times.  We ask friends, parents of the kid's friends, etc. to join us and there is little to no interest (and I can tell you for sure that money comes into play based on my knowledge of the financial status of many).

My wife and I have discussed this many times and we just don't understand why the local resorts don't do more to attract new, local skiers.  I live in Warren County, NY and many of our youth grow up with dreams of getting out of here and many do just that and never come back.  I'm not going to get into a discussion as to why that is but we think there is at least one thing that could be done to get them to come back at least occasionally:  Why doesn't a mountain like Gore offer special deals and incentives to local residents?  Get them on the mountain without breaking their bank accounts.  Nurture a love for the sport and the outdoors.  These people and their children would return and if their children chose to relocate they would still be skiers and hopefully would want to continue to be AND share it with their children.

Just my thoughts on the matter.  I could be wrong (wouldn't be the first time) but I don't think that it would hurt.  As things stand right now I see very little being done by most resorts to develop their future clientele.

I read the article.  What seemed crazy to me was the $129 lift ticket.  Why would they need to be charging that much for one day.  My dad and I just bought Six Flags season passes for $100 each and then you get a whole season at any Six Flags park.  For the part about pursuing other activities for less, this is a screaming example of it.  $100 for a whole spring, summer, and fall at Six Flags or, $129 for one day skiing.  Any family faced with that decision would probably choose Six Flags if they weren't dedicated skiers.

Mountains closer to where I live do offer special deals to get people on the mountain.  Mount Peter has free beginner lessons on every Saturday, Sunday, and holiday.  Mountain Creek has the Triple Play Pass which gets you 3 days of skiing for $70.

Yeah I read the whole article.  Between the article and the thoughtful comments above, there are so many directions one can go for a comment.

The $100+ lift ticket and global warming go hand in hand.  Snowmaking isn't cheap.  An xc operator I'm acquainted with calculated that it cost him $10,000 to cover 1.5 km of trails with manmade.  How does that translate to a place the size of Hunter or WF?  Add in the cost of liability insurance and salaries.  Fuhgeddaboudit.  Several VT cross-country ski areas have invested in significant snow making.  I haven't visited them yet, so I don't know what they charge for a trail fee.

@ Snowhunter, my mother's family is from Warrensburgh and I know just what you're talking about.  Many years ago, several VT alpine areas gave natives a discount on lift tickets:  Just show your driver's license.  Perhaps that's a tack that WF, Gore etc could try out.

Here's an addendum.  Back when I sold wine wholesale, I had traveled one day with a brand representative from one of my company's vendors.  Guy was around my age.  During the course of the day, I learned that he also liked skiing, he skied alpine.

"Have you taught your kids to ski?" I asked.

"No, it's too expensive."  This was back in the late '90s.

It killed me.  How can you not share the stuff you love with your kids?

Peter, That's exactly what I'm talking about.  I mentioned my commitment the reasons I think some don't commit and how to possibly get some people to pass the passion down.  It sucks when costs prevent people from doing and/or experiencing something.  At the same time I do not want to deny any resort, company, etc. from providing a service, catering to a clientele and make money on their investment, etc.  I've experienced the big time resort, all the amenities, perks, etc. and it is awesome!   BUT it costs them and they have every right to recoup their investments and make a profit.  I just wonder where their future customers are going to come from.  They have to find a happy medium, otherwise we're going to pay more and more and then one day they're all going to shut down because there is no more demand.  There is money to be made from the little guy too!

I started by saying yes skiing is expensive and i think that the areas selling over priced tickets are killing the sport as the thread stated.

i really think orda as done a great job of making it as affordable as possible.  The season passes are reasonably priced.  There are very low cost local youth commission programs at Whiteface I don't know about Gore.  Still the the majority of local kids on my sons sports teams that don't ski.  

I agree, ORDA has done a good job of keeping costs down, especially when compared to other mountains.  I called out Gore because it is the closest major mountain in my area and because I haven't seen them reach out to the local community.  I'm not saying that they haven't but if they have I don't know how....we are locals and we have for now stopped sending our kids to Gore for lessons and switched them over to Oak Mtn.  (Not that there was anything wrong with the quality of lessons at Gore, we thought that they were great, but we just couldn't afford it).  Our children attend local schools and the only ski program offered in the past has been at West.  My wife was the town youth director for the past 4 years and when she attempted to arrange for town trips/a season session, etc. she found Gore to beyond the means of our local residents (even with town subsidies).

I'm not asking mountains to give away their services, I'm just suggesting one small way that they might get some new skiers into the pipeline.  Significant discounts to locals would probably have a very minor impact on their bottom line BUT could pay off in cultivating a crop of future skiers.

As I said though, this is just one suggestion.  The industry needs to do other things too.  I lived in NYC for most of my life and there was never a push of any kind to get people involved in skiing.  The most you saw was a couple of rare TV commercials and the occasional billboard posted in the more affluent communities.  You have a huge pool of potential skiers in places like NYC but there are many things working against the industry:  Cost, travel distance and perception (having lived there I can tell you that many New Yorkers see skiing as something that rich people and people living in the west or Europe participate in and that it's not something geared towards them).  The industry needs to change this and to make people believe that it's worth the time and effort to travel to experience skiing.  Making it more affordable will make it more attractive.  Again, when I lived in the city I went on a number of organized group ski trips and in my chats with those on the trips I found that many were put off by the expense and many only went once.  There lies many questions...Why did they go only once?  Was it they just didn't like it?  Was it the cold?  The distance? The cost?

I believe that we all have to be concerned with the decline because it is going to affect all of us eventually.  I hope that someone comes up with an answer and that things change.

Let's face it, there's a huge double wammy happening that may very well severely hurt the ski industry as we know it: The Boomers dying off (and getting too old to ski in the process), and a steady erosion of our standard of living. I'm experiencing it in my own life (the old part). An injury last winter may be my first serious "old person" takedown, making me rethink my retirement plans centered around skiing. How would my life be if I actually moved close to a ski area in retirement, and then got injured? What then? I'd rather be in a community that is much better prepared for an old guy like me to limp around, then some ski condo in the mountains. I'm negotiating for a "retirement" condo down here in Ct., in a great town that is walkable and has numerous senior citizen services, and a great hospital down the road. I can always rent in the mountains for a longish period. And, the road biking, which I spend many more days doing, and I think I will be able to do until almost the end, is much better down here. Then there's the fact that the Boomers, who hold a great majority of liquid investments, don't really have any savings, if that makes sense. They will spend their late lives surviving, not skiing. So, that doesn't bode well for the 20-30 somethings, who have no assets to speak of, and a whole lot of debt. Student debt is over a trillion alone, which the average bill about 23 grand for each student. And, it's not as though most of those kids are finding good, solid, reliable jobs.

Benny Profane wrote

Then there's the fact that the Boomers, who hold a great majority of liquid investments, don't really have any savings, if that makes sense.

Benny, sorry to be dense can you explain this to me?  

Liquid means cash or easily transferred, bought or sold?  I understand not having any savings. Doh.

One thing that still keep the dream alive (spending old age in the mountains) is nordic skiing (and walking in the summer).  A great way to stay in the game IMO.

Harv, most of the Boomer's net worth is tied up in the house, and, we all know how well that's been playing out the last five years. Not very liquid, especially now, since so many are underwater and can't sell. Even if you do, what then? You have to use that cash to buy another home, or, rent. Most will buy, and, most will not see a huge "profit" if they downsize. Certainly not enough to live on. And, from a site I found: "Three quarters of near retirees (ages 50 to 64) have annual incomes below $52,201, with an average total retirement account balance of $26,395 ." and "Individuals with incomes over $52,201 per year have more in their retirement accounts, but their balances are not high. Their average retirement account balance for this income group is $105,012. Because only a few people have very high balances, the median balance is much lower; 50 percent of people ages 50-64 in the top 25 percent of the income distribution have retirement account balances of only $52,000."  http://www.economicpolicyresearch.org/guaranteeing-retirement-income/528-retirement-account-balances-by-income-even-the-highest-earners-dont-have-enough.html  That's your "liquid" savings, funds that can be accessed to live and play on, and, it ain't too much. Even then, that money is probably 90% in IRAs or 401ks, which means it isn't totally liquid cash - it's taxable income. (I'm finding that out the hard way.) Only those with pensions on top of all that will live comfortably. Or, they'll just continue working until the end. You see that happening in the job statistics - the amount of people 65 and older working is steadily rising. Spending money on expensive sports like skiing will be hard, if impossible.

So, after all that, the Boomers actually own like 80% of all liquid assets. Which means that anybody younger REALLY doesn't have squat. Only those with really good jobs or don't have to work will ski.

OK I get that now.

I've pretty much assumed since I started saving at 32 years old that I was screwed, but also figured that if I saved pretty hard all the way then at least I wouldn't be beating myself up in retirement about it.

Funny to be considered "near retirement" at 54. Gulp.

You'll do fine if you started at 32, and are saving that much. You're way ahead of most. Good luck.

Jeez someone get Benny a drink.  Serious buzz kill.  He is going live in an old folks home in CT while the sky' s falling and he is too old to ski.  Yeesh.

Cheer up skiing is only a few months away.

Heh, I even stopped drinking (a lot) to take off 25 pounds. Halfway there, but biking season is near it's end. It's tough getting my girlish figure back when I'm so old.

Snowhunter wrote

As I said though, this is just one suggestion.  The industry needs to do other things too.  I lived in NYC for most of my life and there was never a push of any kind to get people involved in skiing.  The most you saw was a couple of rare TV commercials and the occasional billboard posted in the more affluent communities.  You have a huge pool of potential skiers in places like NYC but there are many things working against the industry:  Cost, travel distance and perception (having lived there I can tell you that many New Yorkers see skiing as something that rich people and people living in the west or Europe participate in and that it's not something geared towards them).  The industry needs to change this and to make people believe that it's worth the time and effort to travel to experience skiing.  Making it more affordable will make it more attractive.

FWIW, the last few years - I'm not sure how many - there have been a learn to ski, or ski promo, or whatever you want to call it in Central Park or Prospect Park in NYC.  I haven't participated as it usually conflicts with the Lake Placid Loppet, the holy grail of ski marathons.  But ORDA has been down there exhibiting/promoting WF and Gore, to the best of my knowledge.

While I don't have hard evidence to support my argument, I gotta wonder if the ski business would be healthier if more local mom and pop mountains still existed. Sure they may not have the vertical or the amenities, but they'd make it way easier to get out.

I think Gore has done a reasonable job trying to keep the cost down for families. Just compare a youth pass at Gore to a similar product in VT. But even so, it is still extremely expensive for a a family. For non-locals, there is lodging, equipment and passes. And the prices are even higher during the holidays when the kids don't have school. Compare the cost of spending presidents week skiing vs. a week in July at the beach. If you're watching your pennies, the choice is pretty clear.

We have also seen the demise of the smaller, less expensive resorts over the last 10-20 years. The ones with the biggest and best snowmaking seem to be doing better. WHen you consider the overall cost of a weekend skiing (or a whole week) and the fact that most families have to plan well in advance, spending a few extra bucks for a lift ticket at a mountain with great snowmaking makes for cheap insurance. Would you really plan for a trip to Magic for Christmas week now (assuming there were not other options neaby)?

Finally, Benny has a good point about injuries. My dad gave up XC skiing 7-8 years ago due to knee problems, but he still rides his bike regularly. And biking and XC skiing are much much cheaper than downhill.

tom

Ha! didn't even read this thread, but I was thinking about similar issues lately, mostly due to a nice series of articles on slopefiller.com. Here's my take:

http://skiequalsmc2.blogspot.com/2013/09/why-skiing-should-be-more-like-bowling.html

Basically, skiing needs to be cheaper and more accessible. I'm calling for the return of local and hyperlocal areas, with cheap prices and more beer. Dynamite Hill + a bar would be great for a lot of small ADK and New England towns.