Killington/POWDR - how much does bad PR cost them per year in lost revenue?

Bubbartzky · Mar 19, 2012

snowmonster said:
I seem to recall the griping about ASC and how K people were so relieved to see them gone. Those were the days when this board had a lot of references to the phrase "eat what you kill." Now, people are looking back at the good old days of ASC. Be careful what you wish for, I guess.

For my part, I can never understand why K skiers dump on their mountain and its management on a regular basis. Unless you are tied to the mountain because you made an investment, the obvious solution is to ski some other place if you hate K so much. From what I can observe among the VT resorts, the Bush, Jay, Magic, MRG and Stowe seem to be doing right by their respective client bases. Why not go there? Arguing from a "it was much better then" perspective won't really cut it. The days of Pres Smith and skiing 'til July are over and they're probably never coming back.

I used to ski K in the ASC days. In fact, it was the closest I had to a home mountain. When ASC broke up, I chose to ski Sunday River partly because of the positive vibe among the patrons and the fact that management seemed to listen to us. Never regretted that decision. I sometimes get the urge to ski K on my blackout days and see the old stomping grounds. But, since all I hear from patrons is how much of a dump that place is now and how it's so lousily run, I've decided to steer clear. After all, if the natives are so restless, something must be amiss. Why share in the misery?

I believe Sugarbush has picked up around 50,000 visits in years since Powdr got here. Jay has been increasing as well. Killington clearly has lost market share although, this year, they have probably regained some due to being open earlier and with more terrain than most others.

Bubbartzky · Mar 19, 2012

dangah said:
Your comments on our marketing campaign is certainly a matter of opinion and it probably doesn't make much sense to debate it. My feelings are only a little hurt. :smile: What I can say is that since the launch of that campaign, skier visits at Killington are out-performing the state of Vermont as a whole. For example, last year, VT was up in skier visits year over year by about 4% whereas Killington was up about 12%. While skier numbers won't be up this year in the Northeast, it appears that Killington is faring much better than the state. Is part of that because of a marketing campaign? Hard saying. Is Killington in a skier visit "death spiral"? Certainly not.

Happy spring skiing and riding y'all.

Is that 12% Killington alone or Killington and Pico combined? Seems to me you market them separately so you should discuss them separately.

Personally, I think you've done an excellent job of marketing Pico. I'm not so sure about Killington.

Bubbartzky · Mar 19, 2012

Geoff said:
Enjoy your mandatory furlough.

15 yards for unnecessary roughness.

They do the mandatory furlough every year although I understand this year it's going to 5 weeks from the usual four, at least for some staff.

AdironRider · Mar 19, 2012

Mandatory furloughs are very common. My wife goes through 2 weeks in the spring and 2 weeks in the fall. To hold that against Powdr is dumb, when it pretty much a given in the industry.

deadheadskier · Mar 19, 2012

Hell, when I worked for Intrawest, I WISH I had a furlough at Snowshoe. They kept one hotel and restaurant open during the off season and the managers were required to work in the restaurant. All staff were let go during the off season, including waitstaff making $2.15/hr. Thing was, I was managing their conference and banquet operations that still required 40+ hours per week of my time. So, I'd do my "real: job, then have to go bartend 3 nights a week in the restaurant. So, I was working 65 hours a week even during the off season.

The bosses sold it to us that it was extra money. After working 80+ hours a week all season long, making extra cash wasn't what I wanted to do. I wanted to work a normal 40 hour week. Needless to say, I and most of the other middle managers at the company left that spring for better employers. My next employer (Wisp) did the exact same thing. Haven't worked in the ski business since and never will again.

Highway Star · Mar 28, 2012

So, this came up on K-zone, which reminded me that I forgot to answer my own question:

Bubba said:
My understanding is that Sugarbush has picked up about 50,000 skier visits since Powdr's arrival at Killington.

Stormchaser said:
Wonder what their take per skier visit is? What's Killington's take per skier visit? Be interesting to know how much money Killington has sent their way and how much Killington has lost just to Sugarbush...

Yield per skier visit? In the ballpark of $75 to $95....so call it $85 per skier visit. That works out to $4,250,000 in lost revenue per year. Just to sugarbush alone.

Poor publicity, resulting from poor decisions about cost cutting/pricing/services/etc, has lost them in excess of 100k skier visits per year on average, probably costs them in the realm of $10,000,000 in lost revenue per year.

So, how much did all this budget cutting save......?

drjeff · Mar 28, 2012

Highway Star said:
So, this came up on K-zone, which reminded me that I forgot to answer my own question:

Yield per skier visit? In the balpark of $75 to $95....so call it $85 per skier visit. That works out to$4,250,000 in lost revenue per year. Just to sugarbush alone/

Poor publicity / poor decisions probably costs them about $10M per year in lost revenue per year, to answer my own question.............

If I do remember correctly HS, even you have said that Powdr's per visit yield is up over what it was with ASC, so therefore your figure likely isn't all as it appears.

If you're getting a net gain of say $10 per skier visit yield, over the course of the let's call it 700k skiers visits (feel free to insert whatever # you want), that's still a net gain of $7,000,000 which more than offsets that theoretical loss of $4,250,000

Tooth · Mar 28, 2012

I bet no one from England will ever go there again after this weeks fiasco. SR had to take all the Brits in for the upcoming invasion. Heard SR is going to go after these guys hard with all sorts of perks for them while they are in Maine. Good job Killington. Maine thanks you.

Highway Star · Mar 28, 2012

drjeff said:
If I do remember correctly HS, even you have said that Powdr's per visit yield is up over what it was with ASC, so therefore your figure likely isn't all as it appears.

If you're getting a net gain of say $10 per skier visit yield, over the course of the let's call it 700k skiers visits (feel free to insert whatever # you want), that's still a net gain of $7,000,000 which more than offsets that theoretical loss of $4,250,000

Except they lost at least 100k visits, but more like 200k really if you compare the average of the last 5 years of ASC vs. 5 years of POWDR.

If those people were still coming they would be spending at a rate similar to the average yield.....and I'd be willing to bet that most of them left for other reasons besides cost. They are literally giving up multiple millions of dollars per year.

You can fudge the yields all you want and compare vs. ASC. However, fact is they have lost alot of skier visits. A loss of visits of that size CANNOT realisticly be overcome with an increase of yield, which means a (possibly massive?) decrease in revenue. Look at all the continuing cutbacks - snowmaking, 8:30am start, lifts. As Geoff likes to say "they have lost critical mass".

drjeff · Mar 28, 2012

Highway Star said:
Except they lost at least 100k visits, but more like 200k really if you compare the average of the last 5 years of ASC vs. 5 years of POWDR.

If those people were still coming they would be spending at a rate similar to the average yield.....and I'd be willing to bet that most of them left for other reasons besides cost. They are literally giving up multiple millions of dollars per year.

You can fudge the yields all you want and compare vs. ASC. However, fact is they have lost alot of skier visits. A loss of visits of that size CANNOT realisticly be overcome with an increase of yield, which means a (possibly massive?) decrease in revenue. Look at all the continuing cutbacks - snowmaking, 8:30am start, lifts. As Geoff likes to say "they have lost critical mass".

The main point of my statement was just to point out the one sided rhetoric that you were presenting. There are usually atleast 2 sides to every story, and by just presenting one, you're fostering an agenda. If you can present information with both the point and counterpoint and then defend your point, now you're much more credible.

Coming from the scientific training perspective that I have, I'm trained to think in a way that not only looks at the apparent problem, but also all the other perspectives that I can think of, and then formulate a response(s) for that problem.

If you'd like to be taken more seriously, maybe even by people who actually make the descisions at K (since I think that we all know that some of them do lurk and occassionally participate here), try and make an arguement that can't almost immediately have some "holes" punched in it. You can, and regularly do, make some solid, educated GUESSES about K. And for that vast majority of us, that's all that we can do is make GUESSES about K. Very few people actually know their real, objective numbers. Those people, whether you like it or not, seem to be happy with those private numbers, and while you might not agree with those numbers, sometimes that how it goes in the real business world. Will Powdr continue to hold it's seemingly rigid managerial style that it has done with K?? Maybe yes, maybe no. Only time will tell....

Highway Star · Mar 28, 2012

drjeff said:
The main point of my statement was just to point out the one sided rhetoric that you were presenting. There are usually atleast 2 sides to every story, and by just presenting one, you're fostering an agenda. If you can present information with both the point and counterpoint and then defend your point, now you're much more credible.

Coming from the scientific training perspective that I have, I'm trained to think in a way that not only looks at the apparent problem, but also all the other perspectives that I can think of, and then formulate a response(s) for that problem.

If you'd like to be taken more seriously, maybe even by people who actually make the descisions at K (since I think that we all know that some of them do lurk and occassionally participate here), try and make an arguement that can't almost immediately have some "holes" punched in it. You can, and regularly do, make some solid, educated GUESSES about K. And for that vast majority of us, that's all that we can do is make GUESSES about K. Very few people actually know their real, objective numbers. Those people, whether you like it or not, seem to be happy with those private numbers, and while you might not agree with those numbers, sometimes that how it goes in the real business world. Will Powdr continue to hold it's seemingly rigid managerial style that it has done with K?? Maybe yes, maybe no. Only time will tell....

Huh........."scientific training".......you sound like a dentist or something.

Riddle me this, dentist. Assume a drop from 900k to 700k skier visits (5 year average). Next assume a $75 yield per visit which is about industry average for large resorts. With their reduced visits, they would now need to make a $96.42 yield per visit to mantain the same revenue. Is that particularly realistic? Pass the sniff test? Or is the reality that they have lost a large chunk of revenue and are cutting accordingly?

Gilligan · Mar 28, 2012

drjeff said:
The main point of my statement was just to point out the one sided rhetoric that you were presenting. There are usually atleast 2 sides to every story, and by just presenting one, you're fostering an agenda. If you can present information with both the point and counterpoint and then defend your point, now you're much more credible.

I did not realize that we were supposed to be so fair in our arguments here. Does everyone else know about this? :lol:

Ski the Moguls · Mar 28, 2012

I have always considered HighwayStar to be fair and balanced - just like Fox News!

my poor knees · Mar 28, 2012

Ski the Moguls said:
I have always considered HighwayStar to be fair and balanced - just like Fox News!

I'm still new here but I appreciate his passion for skiing and he obviously loves the mountain. I don't mind him at all. In his mind he probably thinks of it as constructive critisism. But If I was running a business that he didn't like, my opinion might be different

Nick · Mar 28, 2012

I don't either just wish he'd condense a bit more lol

steamboat1 · Mar 28, 2012

I hope they keep doing what they're doing.

Less skier visits to K works for me...:beer:

Ski the Moguls · Mar 28, 2012

steamboat1 said:
I hope they keep doing what they're doing.

Less skier visits to K works for me...:beer:

It was easy to find short lift lines this year, even on Saturdays. The limited terrain made for some crowded trails, though.

UVSHTSTRM · Mar 28, 2012

Highway Star said:
Huh........."scientific training".......you sound like a dentist or something.

Riddle me this, dentist. Assume a drop from 900k to 700k skier visits (5 year average). Next assume a $75 yield per visit which is about industry average for large resorts. With their reduced visits, they would now need to make a $96.42 yield per visit to mantain the same revenue. Is that particularly realistic? Pass the sniff test? Or is the reality that they have lost a large chunk of revenue and are cutting accordingly?

Did you factor in that Killington during it's last year as an ASC resort had sold numerous All For One passes? They were dirt cheap and got you into three resorts. Now Killington charges a little bit more for the same pass and doesn't split the pie with SR and SL. You must factor those in as a reason for a drop, which really isn't any fault of Killingtons.

All that said Killington has been my home mountain for the past 8 years and am not a big fan of the ownership, but still a big fan of the mountain....the only thing that really matters to me.

Hawkshot99 · Mar 28, 2012

Highway Star said:
Huh........."scientific training".......you sound like a dentist or something.

Riddle me this, dentist. Assume a drop from 900k to 700k skier visits (5 year average). Next assume a $75 yield per visit which is about industry average for large resorts. With their reduced visits, they would now need to make a $96.42 yield per visit to mantain the same revenue. Is that particularly realistic? Pass the sniff test? Or is the reality that they have lost a large chunk of revenue and are cutting accordingly?

Were is it that you get your #'s from for the industry? I know many of the $ #'s at another mtn, and have to say that you are not very accurate, on your "guesses".

Highway Star · Mar 28, 2012

Hawkshot99 said:
Were is it that you get your #'s from for the industry? I know many of the $ #'s at another mtn, and have to say that you are not very accurate, on your "guesses".

Various reading around on industry studies. $75 overall per skier visit for large areas is an accurate industry average.

Killington/POWDR - how much does bad PR cost them per year in lost revenue?

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Moderator

Active member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Member

Member

Administrator

New member

Member

New member

Active member

Active member

Similar threads