Gore Advertizing Vertical?

Whenever I ski at Gore I see many signs that say "How big is your adventure" and they compare Gore's vertical to that of Okemo, Stratton, Jay Peak, Mount Snow, and Bretton Woods.  They have these everywhere so it appears that they are marketing it hard.  Why is Gore advertising vertical?  That is a Whiteface thing.  It says in multiple places on this blog that Gore skiers like Gore for the variety of terrain, the tree skiing, and the acreage.  I ski at gore on a regular basis for these things, not vertical.  I go to Whiteface for that.  They should advertise those selling points instead of vertical.  The places that they are comparing themselves to are on the smaller side in terms of vertical.  Gore's vertical drop is also misleading.  It takes 4 lifts to get from the ski bowl base to the summit and you have to take a lengthy run to go between them.  The run down to the ski bowl from the summit is usually a "one and done" for me anyway.  I would never lap it.  The ski bowl area was left to rot all of last year (except for 1 weekend) and this year it was only open 25-30 days this year out of a 140 day season.  When Burnt Ridge is closed as well the vertical is only 2100 feet.  Gore has so much going for it that could be advertised instead of vertical.

Snoloco... where did you see those signs?  I've seen a sign like that at the top of Little Whiteface, and I agree that is good marketing. I don't remember a similar sign at Gore.

I do think having a lot of vert — even if you can't ski it at once — is a good thing.  Especially in the spring.

Harvey44 wrote

Snoloco... where did you see those signs?  I've seen a sign like that at the top of Little Whiteface, and I agree that is good marketing. I don't remember a similar sign at Gore.

I do think having a lot of vert — even if you can't ski it at once — is a good thing.  Especially in the spring.

There is one at the top of the Gondola, one in the base lodge, and some of my Gore trail maps have them.  I have posted an image of one from the 2008 2009 trail map.

I never noticed it. Guess I got to look around a little more when I'm "in line."

I agree with your basic point. That Gore should stick to the "Steeps, Cruisers and Trees" angle. There is tons of variety at Gore, it's incredibly well rounded and that should be the angle.

I don't agree with those who say "it's not real vert if you can't ski it at once."  In that case Mad and Wildcat are among the vert champs. (Who else?)

You can ski 2000 feet of continuous trees at Mad. I could never ski that much without a break. Time for a poll - vert do you normally ski without a break? On 800 feet of vert I take at least one break.

When I'm free skiing a go around 800-1000 between stops.  Less than that earlier in the season

Harvey44 wrote

I do think having a lot of vert — even if you can't ski it at once — is a good thing. Especially in the spring.

That's ^^certainly an argument you can make (and I personally agree with it); however, advertising it up against other mountains whose claimed vert is continuous is pure marketing bollox -- and I've seen that Gore billboard on the Thruway. Similar to adding pre- and post-season snow to YTD totals.

I agree Gore has many assets beyond vert that they should emphasize first.  Let others talk about vert and stay out of it.

I don't know enough about those other competitors to know if their vert is continuous. Stratton, Loon etc. It's an interesting list. I know Mad River is "legit."

Snow totals: Should Hickory average in a zero for the last two years because they didn't open?  Gore plays by your rules James: they only report snow that falls between their first and last day of lift service.  Gore did release a total this year: 168 inches. So folks can use their number or ours (157) or any other source.

What good does advertising their vert at the hill make? Maybe it's to make people feel better that just coughed up $79 to ski there. Yeah, continuous vert can be a pita sometimes, like tramside at Jay, I love the place, but the runout at the bottom starts to suck after a while. That's one of the great things about Platty, the trails have constant pitch right down to the chair, no skiing flats for half a mile just to get back to the chair.

snoloco wrote

Whenever I ski at Gore I see many signs that say "How big is your adventure" and they compare Gore's vertical to that of Okemo, Stratton, Jay Peak, Mount Snow, and Bretton Woods.  They have these everywhere so it appears that they are marketing it hard.  Why is Gore advertising vertical?  That is a Whiteface thing.  It says in multiple places on this blog that Gore skiers like Gore for the variety of terrain, the tree skiing, and the acreage.  I ski at gore on a regular basis for these things, not vertical.  I go to Whiteface for that.  They should advertise those selling points instead of vertical.  The places that they are comparing themselves to are on the smaller side in terms of vertical.  Gore's vertical drop is also misleading.  It takes 4 lifts to get from the ski bowl base to the summit and you have to take a lengthy run to go between them.  The run down to the ski bowl from the summit is usually a "one and done" for me anyway.  I would never lap it.  The ski bowl area was left to rot all of last year (except for 1 weekend) and this year it was only open 25-30 days this year out of a 140 day season.  When Burnt Ridge is closed as well the vertical is only 2100 feet.  Gore has so much going for it that could be advertised instead of vertical.

Gore should advertise the vertical because 2537 vertical feet is one of the largest in the East! There are very few 2000 vertical feet mountains in the East where you can get the full vertical on one lift. The vertical is the purest and easiest way to understand the potential scope of an area.

Gore compares itself to the listed areas because it might see those areas as its competition.

As for being misleading - there are "flaws" with many ski areas in the East (and West too). The only way I can figure Stratton's 2003 vertical feet is if you ski down to a non-lift served parking lot. Killington has long flat trails to get to 3100 vert feet. Here are a few more - Sunday River, Saddleback, Burke, Smugglers and Sugarloaf. Even the mighty Whiteface has a long flat run out at the bottom.

Vertical is vertical.    Something has to be compared for those who care about that.  No big deal to me.   I pull a map and see what runs I want to ski and hope I don't have to go to the bottom where the masses frolic.     That's why I like Gore.      Let the Marketers do or say anything as long as they are profitable to maintain good snow and lifts .

IMO Gore's main competition is SoVT; and if it has over 2000' of vertical, it should advertise it to capture some of the SoVT market.  

snoloco wrote

Whenever I ski at Gore I see many signs that say "How big is your adventure" and they compare Gore's vertical to that of Okemo, Stratton, Jay Peak, Mount Snow, and Bretton Woods.  They have these everywhere so it appears that they are marketing it hard.  Why is Gore advertising vertical?  That is a Whiteface thing.  It says in multiple places on this blog that Gore skiers like Gore for the variety of terrain, the tree skiing, and the acreage.  I ski at gore on a regular basis for these things, not vertical.  I go to Whiteface for that.  They should advertise those selling points instead of vertical.  The places that they are comparing themselves to are on the smaller side in terms of vertical.  Gore's vertical drop is also misleading.  It takes 4 lifts to get from the ski bowl base to the summit and you have to take a lengthy run to go between them.  The run down to the ski bowl from the summit is usually a "one and done" for me anyway.  I would never lap it.  The ski bowl area was left to rot all of last year (except for 1 weekend) and this year it was only open 25-30 days this year out of a 140 day season.  When Burnt Ridge is closed as well the vertical is only 2100 feet.  Gore has so much going for it that could be advertised instead of vertical.

I agree that Gore’s vertical is misleading, but also think that marketing it is a good idea. Some people just like to see big numbers and are drawn in by them.

Verticle is misleading at most mountains, but it does indicate the size of the place somewhat. I think it's smart for gore to advertise the verticle to possibly draw in people that know little about the mountain.

Tom