Wow....Whiteface Greedy Much?

Excited for opening and to get ready for the season I figured I’d cruise the Whiteface website.

We’ve made extensive use of the snow sports school at Whiteface.  They’ve been great over the years.  We used to do the kids in the Kids Kanpus/Bear Den programs, and transitioned a couple of times to doing all day privates, because at $550 or so plus a tip it wasn’t much more expensive than 3 full day kids in Junior Advnture.  Because the rate included up to 5 people I could tag along and get some instruction, or one of the cousins could come, or whatever.  It was not cheap, but it was good, and well worth it.

Not anymore.....

Whiteface changed their private lessons.  They no longer offer a full day option, the rates went up, and there is now an add on for each additional person.

Bottom line....a full day private that covered up to 5 people and HAD cost me $550 (before tip) would now cost more than  $1,400 (before tip) for 4 people for 6 hours.  That’s upwards of a 200% increase.  Wow.  An then the instructor would probably expect a $225 tip as well!

It won’t cost me that ever, because if that’s the new setup I’ll never use the Whiteface Snow Sports School again!

HPD.....share that with management, they’ve lost their way!  I hope they re-evaluate the new structure at some point.

It’s not an ORDA thing.  Gore at least offers a full day option, but 4 people for 6 hours would run $825 before tip.  Crazy.  Bellayre only sells in 2 hour increments, and 4 people for 6 hours would run $1,320.  Crazy crazy.

For comparison purposes, you can get 7 hours of private instruction for 4 people for $759 at Squaw/Alpine.  Sugarbush offers a full day private, no additional person add on, for $580.

 It looks like the cost increase is coming when you add extra people.

What is the WF single person rate compared to the Sugarbush single person rate you cited?

Whiteface, single person, 6 hours, $578.  Last season it was close to that, but included up to 5 people.

I called.  Sugarbush is $580 for one person.  They have a $50 per person add on, so 4 people would be $780 for 6 hours, reasonably close enough to Squaw’s $759 for 7 hours for 4 people, and a little less than Gore at $825.

Gore’s single person rate at $330 for 6 hours is actually really good.

Whiteface is crazy greedy with a $139 add on per person per 3 hours.  That’s $278 to add a person for six hours, where Gore charges $165 and Sugarbush charges $50.

May be time to head back to VT!

I don't agree with the characterization "greedy." Maybe it's a poor business decision, maybe it is a good one.

The goal is to run Whiteface (Gore and Belle too) as profitably as possible. I don't know what the demand for privates is like at Whiteface, but if it exceeds the supply, you raise the price.  If the reverse is true, and supply exceeds demand, you lower it or accept limited sales.

If you're a capitalist (maybe you're not, just guessing) then pricing is something that will work itself out. I'd be surprised if the person(s) who made this decision is benefiting from the sale of private lessons personally.

I don’t think any particular person is benefitting from the decision to make this pricing change.  Yeah, they are probably trying to drive lesson sales in a particular direction with the new pricing structure, and half/full day privates probably generate less revenue than having that same instructor go out for an hour with 6 different clients, or better yet doing group lessons, so it’s a business decision.  I get that.

Sure, maybe greedy is the wrong word, but what better words would you chose for putting a pricing structure in place that makes a previously available product (that was offered at a reasonable rate) now cost twice what other mountains are charging?  Honestly, most average customers aren’t going to analyze profitability and dissect the business reasons behind making the change.  Rather, they are going to say “damn, they doubled the price!”, and I don’t think that ever wins over customers.  Kind of smacks of greed, even if it’s something else.

I suppose the real discussion should be centered on what kind of product/experience Whiteface is looking to offer, and should private lessons, an admittedly premium product, be part of that?  With their new pricing they won’t be attracting the premium crowd that is willing to shell out for private lessons, IMHO.  Maybe that’s a good thing.

I honestly believe that decisions based on the sharp pencil gang’s evaluation of theoretical bottom line profitability aren’t always the best ones.  I’m sure the cafeteria changes made by Centerplate a few years ago were based on such profitability analysis.  However, now the selections suck and I’ve got to buy a bottled drink out of a case, so I no longer shop there.  Heck, maybe Centerplate is making a slightly higher profit.  However, if it comes at the expense of customer satisfaction, and if dissatisfied customers start to take some of their business elsewhere......we’ll, the few cents extra profit might not have been worth it.

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Come on Z what's the skinny? I think it was   realized last  year people were utilizing the lessons in ways they did not intend. The  easy  fix it was to add a per person price. Fair not fair I'm not sure but I'm certain there's nothing cynical about it. Cloudsplitter program for kids if I had them that's what they would be in.

What was going on? If a loophole has been closed, no harm in sharing?

There was no loophole.  The full day price was clearly stated, and it clearly stated it included up to 5 people.  So people couldn’t have been using it in a way that WF didn’t anticipate and permit.  Like I said, a place like Squaw/Alpine, among others, operate similarly.  I could understand if WF concluded their price for the product they offered was too low they would raise the price.  However, to nearly triple the price to a level that is double what other mountains charge for the same thing?  Sorry, that’s either stupid, greedy, or an attempt to dissuade people from doing full day privates.

Don't worry. You will still have a good time. What about empire and/or snowball cards for your group and throw a guy like Mattchuck a tip?

JTG4eva! wrote

Sure, maybe greedy is the wrong word, but what better words would you chose for putting a pricing structure in place that makes a previously available product (that was offered at a reasonable rate) now cost twice what other mountains are charging?

I would call it a good or bad business decision based on the outcome.

Hey I'm not saying you have to like it. I was cranky as hell when Gore started charging for parking. Would you be happier if it was $10 a day to park in the River Lot?

I don't think greedy is the right word. In our company we are ALWAYS trying to figure out how to charge more for our services.  We weren't able to do it from 2009-2012 and our employees went without raises for that time.

We all want Whiteface to buy more snowguns, make more snow and be profitable too, I think.

This is the first I’ve heard of this.  I don’t recall it being covered in our preseason meeting.  I’ll ask the boss man about it.

From both perspectives I think the price was too cheap during the holidays when demand was super high and we would staff out. During non busy times the price should be lower more like airline pricing I guess.

 I also got some funky combos.  I like the parent ride along approach only if they are skiing the Mt and not at the lower levels.  I really don’t like being tag teamed by a disparate ability group.  Last yr I got booked for a long private with 5 little kids aged 3 to 7 and it was a nightmare.  

JT if you have 3 kids the way to go is a season long program Nysef or CC.  If you are dropping 550 a day you can afford it and they come with season passes for the kids.  

Z wrote

 I think the price was too cheap during the holidays when demand was super high and we would staff out. .

I think that if places paid employees more (or offered more innovative pay structures like "Teach a day, get a day ticket"), they wouldn't have problems "staffing out".

MC2 5678F589 wrote

"Teach a day, get a day ticket"

Cool idea.

Hey guys, thanks for discussing.  Listen, I’m not that upset about this.  The kids are good skiers, and we don’t do lessons much anymore, not like when the kids were younger.  It was just a nice option, if we did want to get some instruction, to be able to pay for the full day and have some flexibility with the group.  It was a nice family thing.  I just won’t use the Snow Sports School anymore because, while the instruction is good, there is no longer any value for the family group at $1,400 plus tip for the group.

Coach...would be interested in what the boss man says.  Surprised you hadn’t heard of this, because I think you will see less half/full day bookings.  Again, I get that a price increase may have been in order.....but nearly triple??

Harv....really.....in your personal life, you tell me if you really have any vendors/services/stores where you would actually pay triple what you are paying today and still use them.  You probably wouldn’t do it in your business, either.  So I think the “it’s just a business decision” view fails to recognize the practical reality that a three fold increase in price is just unrealistic......unless you don’t want customers to actually use the product, which is probably the case here.

Is a little surprising that the instructors haven’t heard of the change, at least the instructors who do privates.  The change regarding full day privates is likely an attempt to drive customer sales in a particular direction, but seems a little short sighted to have done it without soliciting some input from the instructors, the people who actually have contact with the customers and know what they want.

JTG4eva! wrote

Harv....really.....in your personal life, you tell me if you really have any vendors/services/stores where you would actually pay triple what you are paying today and still use them.  You probably wouldn’t do it in your business, either.  So I think the “it’s just a business decision” views fails to recognize that a three fold increase in price is just unrealistic......unless you don’t want customers to actually use the product, which is probably the case here.

I wouldn't, if I had other options that were equal in quality but cheaper. Personal or business.  If WF looses all of their "group privates" (or whatever you call them?) and they don't want that, they'll adjust right?

That's why I'm calling it a business decision. When Gore when to paid parking I thought, well I'm going to have to live with it. (I walk, not pay).  I have real estate and I don't want to move.  Some walk, some pay.  Gore has limited it to mid-season and holidays when demand is high. It's supply and demand at work.

I still don't like paid parking. When I see all the 8 mpg vehicles grouped together behind a rope, I get a funny feeling.  But I've accepted it as reality in a time of rising energy costs and shorter winters. As snoloco says, if you aren't open at Christmas you can't compete.