Epic and Iconic One Wasatch transit plans revealed - Page 7

AlpineZone

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 104
  1. #61
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,266
    Quote Originally Posted by slatham View Post
    Food for thought - is the amount paid by Epic/Ikon to a participating resort a FIXED amount per visit, or does it vary based on how much an individual skier has used from their pass? For example, someone pays $700 for a pass. They ski only 7 days. You therefore have $100/day to "distribute". While I doubt they actually pay out the full $100, I do wonder if they increase the payout for the 7 day/year guy vs. someone who skies 30 days. There is only $700 to distribute. Otherwise EPIC/Ikon have to take the risk that their "modeling" of the number of days the average pass holder skis is accurate. If wrong, then EPIC/Ikon could lose money. And I bet its easier to create a payout model passed on pass usage then it is to model the number of days the average pass holder skis. Of course, this would delay payment to the end of the season, to the benefit of EPIC/Ikon. Just wondering.



    Also, I will again state my view that I think the real issue with EPIC/Ikon is Saturday's (and Holiday's). I predict some form of limitation coming on pass usage on Saturdays (and more restrictions on Holiday's).
    Very interesting questions.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    Right. I acknowledged that. And I have never said that Ikon folks ski for free. My questions have always been, (1) how much revenue the resort gets per Ikon day, and (2) are Ikon skiers and riders buying enough other goods, food, services to make up for the discount in revenue?
    What discount in revenue? If the skier wasn't coming without Ikon, then there's no revenue loss by Ikon being "cheaper" (and if people are arguing that Ikon contributes to crowding, then those people must be also assuming those people weren't skiing at the resort without Ikon to begin with).

    If on the other hand the discount is vs someone that was coming previously but using a day ticket, then you could make an argument that the resort was over-charging those people anyway. Most people agree day ticket prices are too high. If day ticket prices were actually reasonable, then there really wouldn't be demand for a product like Ikon in the first place.



    But at the end of the day the resort is getting at the very least, and most likely a lot more, from the passholder who commits to their mountain. I'm factoring in food, lessons, souvenirs, etc.
    People make this argument often and I don't buy it. For every Ikon person that spends nothing extra at the resort, there's another that uses resort lodging and is eating every meal on mountain. And for every passholder that hangs out all the time at the bar for apres ski buying drinks every week, there's another that rarely eats on mountain and spends far less additional money on the mountain than some day/weekend trippers do. (Win may not like to hear it, but I fall in this latter category with my Sugarbush pass and know a number of others that do as well. I'd rather not go to the bar on mountain and save my money for a nice dinner out down in the valley at night instead)

    And how many passholders do you honestly know that ski 50 days at one mountain? Not too many.
    I'm regularly in the mid-40s at one mountain and know plenty of other regulars that have more days than I do on the mountain.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    And none of us know how much Alterra pays each resort for a day for their Ikon passholders. I HIGHLY doubt it is $50 or more. That's in large part because a lot of the Alterra resorts provide reciprocal discounts for the partner resorts (e.g. I just skied at Aspen/Snowmass for half-off using my Alta/Bird season pass.)
    Very true, although in another thread there was someone saying that Alterra was giving JH ~$80 per Ikon scan I think it was. I argued as well that seemed excessive to me, but the person said they had sources they trusted and also argued that JH was a premium resort so probably made more than other Ikon partners. Certainly plausible, although if true you would think it a bit unlikely they were giving JH 2x or more what they give a place like Alta.

    Quote Originally Posted by slatham View Post
    Food for thought - is the amount paid by Epic/Ikon to a participating resort a FIXED amount per visit, or does it vary based on how much an individual skier has used from their pass? For example, someone pays $700 for a pass. They ski only 7 days. You therefore have $100/day to "distribute". While I doubt they actually pay out the full $100, I do wonder if they increase the payout for the 7 day/year guy vs. someone who skies 30 days. There is only $700 to distribute. Otherwise EPIC/Ikon have to take the risk that their "modeling" of the number of days the average pass holder skis is accurate. If wrong, then EPIC/Ikon could lose money. And I bet its easier to create a payout model passed on pass usage then it is to model the number of days the average pass holder skis. Of course, this would delay payment to the end of the season, to the benefit of EPIC/Ikon. Just wondering.

    Also, I will again state my view that I think the real issue with EPIC/Ikon is Saturday's (and Holiday's). I predict some form of limitation coming on pass usage on Saturdays (and more restrictions on Holiday's).
    Interesting question, but I would say it is either a fixed amount per visit (which could very likely vary per resort) or it is a percentage based allocation depending on how many overall scans each resort gets. Some people using fewer days on their pass is exactly what Alterra is expecting to happen. I'm sure there's somehow that Alterra (and Vail) is eliminating that risk. Either they are giving fixed amounts that they know will still leave them plenty of wiggle room or they are putting contractual ceilings in agreements, etc. Doing a variable rate per individual skier based on that skier's usage is just far too complex and puts far too much variability into it from the perspective of the partner resorts. It doesn't make sense for Alta to be getting $100 for one Ikon scan but $5 for another Ikon scan from a different skier that used a ton of days at different resorts. I don't see them agreeing to that sort of model. Either a "percentage of the pool" or a "fixed rate" model would be far more palatable to each resort. (And also far simpler to calculate for everyone involved).

    For Saturdays and Holidays I agree to a point...Holidays are already pretty restricted at many resorts with the base Ikon pass and in fact resulted in many people saying their particular ski area was "less crowded" than usual during those times since Ikon passes were blacked out. Saturdays I think would be difficult to restrict though as any restrictions there would significantly limit the appeal of the pass.

    I can see changes down the line with the overall number of days or with perhaps some resorts having less days than others. But I think Alterra will want to see at least 2-3 years of usage data before making any substantial changes.

  4. #64
    Very well said. As a business, ski resorts will always welcome Ikon as long as it brings more total revenue. If the mountain is becoming more crowded because of Ikon, then it is likely that the business model is working out. I highly doubt the ski resorts would worry about crowding as long as it doesn’t hurt their long run revenue... but if people stopped coming because of crowd, crowding issue solves itself and people will come back....


    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    What discount in revenue? If the skier wasn't coming without Ikon, then there's no revenue loss by Ikon being "cheaper" (and if people are arguing that Ikon contributes to crowding, then those people must be also assuming those people weren't skiing at the resort without Ikon to begin with).

    If on the other hand the discount is vs someone that was coming previously but using a day ticket, then you could make an argument that the resort was over-charging those people anyway. Most people agree day ticket prices are too high. If day ticket prices were actually reasonable, then there really wouldn't be demand for a product like Ikon in the first place.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Skrn View Post
    Very well said. As a business, ski resorts will always welcome Ikon as long as it brings more total revenue. If the mountain is becoming more crowded because of Ikon, then it is likely that the business model is working out. I highly doubt the ski resorts would worry about crowding as long as it doesn’t hurt their long run revenue... but if people stopped coming because of crowd, crowding issue solves itself and people will come back....
    Reminds me of the old Yogi Berra saying..."No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

  6. #66
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,266
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    What discount in revenue? If the skier wasn't coming without Ikon, then there's no revenue loss by Ikon being "cheaper" (and if people are arguing that Ikon contributes to crowding, then those people must be also assuming those people weren't skiing at the resort without Ikon to begin with).
    As you said, you're making an assumption. There's not really any way to know one way or another.

    People make this argument often and I don't buy it. For every Ikon person that spends nothing extra at the resort, there's another that uses resort lodging and is eating every meal on mountain.
    That, again, is an assumption.

    I'm regularly in the mid-40s at one mountain and know plenty of other regulars that have more days than I do on the mountain.
    Same here. But we're a small group relative to most of the season pass holder market.
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  7. #67
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,266
    Quote Originally Posted by Skrn View Post
    Very well said. As a business, ski resorts will always welcome Ikon as long as it brings more total revenue. If the mountain is becoming more crowded because of Ikon, then it is likely that the business model is working out. I highly doubt the ski resorts would worry about crowding as long as it doesn’t hurt their long run revenue... but if people stopped coming because of crowd, crowding issue solves itself and people will come back....
    Therein lies the rub.......
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    As you said, you're making an assumption. There's not really any way to know one way or another.
    You were the one that questioned whether Ikon skiers were generating enough ancillary revenue at the resort to offset the discounted revenue. That's an assumption as well. I was merely questioning your assumption that there's a revenue discount to begin with and providing one possibility that would refute that.

    Regarding my comment on some Ikon skiers generating secondary revenue via lodging, food, etc...I really don't see that as an assumption. It is statistically unlikely that NO Ikon skiers are using lodging and food. It is also an assumption on your part that resorts are getting more from passholders (looking at it on a per-skier visit basis). I'm a perfect example of why they aren't necessarily getting more from passholders. Right now even if you include the couple of times I ate/drank on the mountain and the handful of trips to the tune-up shop for a quick edge/wax, I'm still only generating about $20/day for the resort (and realistically that number will continue to drop if I get more days in). Yes, I'm just one example. But again, without numbers we just don't know whether I'm closer to the norm or whether someone that buys multiple drinks at apres every week is closer to the norm.

    Same here. But we're a small group relative to most of the season pass holder market.
    Do you know that for a fact? I see a lot of the same people on the mountain every week. Without access to the numbers, I'm not going to automatically assume I'm in the minority and that most people use their passes for fewer days.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-Ikon. I'm a passholder so Ikon has no benefit to me personally. I'm just often playing devil's advocate here when people try to blame Ikon for certain things with no facts to back it up. If Ikon isn't providing a revenue benefit to the resorts, then we'll see resorts drop it (or major changes to it) once the initial 2 or 3 year contract (or whatever it is) is up. If resorts stay in it beyond that point, then the logical conclusion is that the people with actual access to the data see it as a benefit.

    In conclusion I think the only "facts" we actually have so far are what the resorts themselves have stated (of course numerous people claim the resorts are lying which I think is a baseless claim and just people not happy that the message from the resorts doesn't fit with their own personal beliefs).

    A) Ikon is generating skier visits
    B) Season pass usage is up (some resorts state by a significant margin)
    C) Daily ticket sales are down

    Beyond that...it is mostly just conjecture from people with no actual data.

  9. #69
    thetrailboss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    NEK by Birth; Alta/Snowbird by Choice
    Posts
    27,266
    In other news...got this from J Hole. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

    IMG_5616.jpg


    Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
    Live, Ski, or Die!


  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by thetrailboss View Post
    In other news...got this from J Hole. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

    IMG_5616.jpg


    Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
    If Killington did this I'd buy a season pass tomorrow.
    2003-2004: 21; 2004-2005: 27; 2005-2006: 31; 2006-2007: 31; 2007-2008: 38; 2008-2009: 43; 2009-2010: 42; 2010-2011: 46; 2011-2012: 33; 2012-2013: 26 2013-14: 18; 2014-15: 17; 2015-16: 7; 2016-17: 14; 2017-18: 23

    2018-19 days - 32
    Sunday River: 11/13, 12/4, 2/18; Killington: 11/20, 3/24; Loon: 11/27
    Wachusett: 11/18, 11/19, 11/25, 12/20, 12/23
    Solitude: 1/13; Snowbird 1/14, 4/1; Deer Valley: 1/15; Alta: 1/16, 3/29, 4/2; Brighton 3/28; Jackson: 3/30, 3/31
    Sugarbush: 1/21, 2/3, 3/10; MRG 1/22; Jay 2/4; Burke 2/5
    Sugarloaf: 2/24, 2/25; Stratton: 3/5, Stowe 3/11, Smuggs 3/12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:16 PM.