2018/19 Skier visits - Page 3

AlpineZone

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 119
  1. #21
    4th best season on record as well. Not too shabby

    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


  2. #22
    Smellytele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Right where I want to be
    Posts
    7,496
    Quote Originally Posted by eastern powder baby View Post
    People also buy their passes before they know if it will be a good winter. This locks in a minimum amount of revenue that the operator receives and puts a floor on how bad lean winters get.

    Sent from my VS988 using AlpineZone mobile app
    This has nothing to do with skier visits and your making my point.


    Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
    2010/11 - 30days 2011/12 - 29days 2012/13 - 40 days 2013/14 - 39 days 2014/15 - 42 days
    2015/2016 -27 days 2016/17 - 51 days 2017/18 - 57 days 2018/19 - 75 days

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Smellytele View Post
    This has nothing to do with skier visits and your making my point.
    Even season pass-holder skier visits can substantially vary though depending on the weather. In a good year, season pass-holder skier visits can be significantly up (as is the case this year according to many resorts). In a bad year, you get a mix of results from pass-holders. Some will visit anyway "because I already paid and want to use it" while others may only use it enough to break even. You can argue that "well the pass is paid for so who cares whether they ski 1 day or 100 days", but it still does matter. Many pass-holders do spend additional money on the mountain on days they are there. Or if the season is really good they may contribute to other people visiting (i.e. maybe they go to work and talk to co-workers or call up friends saying "conditions are amazing. You should get out there and go skiing".) So you need to consider indirect benefits of season pass-holder visits being up as well.

    Today thanks to technology many/most resorts can get an accurate picture of pass-holder skier visits. Years ago when these annual skier visit numbers were generated, they would be pretty much just making an estimated guess on how many skier visits a season pass should count as. Today any resort with RFID or scanning can get a pretty accurate count.

    Skier visits, while certainly not a perfect metric, are still one of the key metrics to compare year over year performance in a pretty consistent manner. NSAA does produce some other interesting metrics too and someone that really wants to understand the full picture of industry performance would be reading the detailed report once it is released (and if they manage a resort would surely be studying their own internal numbers too).

    I honestly can't think of a single "better" metric to use to compare performance from one season to another. The next closest is probably the number of people participating in the sport (unique visitors). If that number goes down year after year, then you could have a major problem. But conversely it also doesn't help if that number goes up but skier visits as a whole goes down. Of course age is another key factor too from a long term growth perspective. But now we're again getting away from a "single" simple number to use for quick comparison and making things more complicated with multiple metrics that need to be looked at together.

  4. #24
    Smellytele's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Right where I want to be
    Posts
    7,496
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    Even season pass-holder skier visits can substantially vary though depending on the weather. In a good year, season pass-holder skier visits can be significantly up (as is the case this year according to many resorts). In a bad year, you get a mix of results from pass-holders. Some will visit anyway "because I already paid and want to use it" while others may only use it enough to break even. You can argue that "well the pass is paid for so who cares whether they ski 1 day or 100 days", but it still does matter. Many pass-holders do spend additional money on the mountain on days they are there. Or if the season is really good they may contribute to other people visiting (i.e. maybe they go to work and talk to co-workers or call up friends saying "conditions are amazing. You should get out there and go skiing".) So you need to consider indirect benefits of season pass-holder visits being up as well.

    Today thanks to technology many/most resorts can get an accurate picture of pass-holder skier visits. Years ago when these annual skier visit numbers were generated, they would be pretty much just making an estimated guess on how many skier visits a season pass should count as. Today any resort with RFID or scanning can get a pretty accurate count.

    Skier visits, while certainly not a perfect metric, are still one of the key metrics to compare year over year performance in a pretty consistent manner. NSAA does produce some other interesting metrics too and someone that really wants to understand the full picture of industry performance would be reading the detailed report once it is released (and if they manage a resort would surely be studying their own internal numbers too).

    I honestly can't think of a single "better" metric to use to compare performance from one season to another. The next closest is probably the number of people participating in the sport (unique visitors). If that number goes down year after year, then you could have a major problem. But conversely it also doesn't help if that number goes up but skier visits as a whole goes down. Of course age is another key factor too from a long term growth perspective. But now we're again getting away from a "single" simple number to use for quick comparison and making things more complicated with multiple metrics that need to be looked at together.
    How about how most companies/corporations measure success - revenue, gross and net profit, etc?


    Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
    2010/11 - 30days 2011/12 - 29days 2012/13 - 40 days 2013/14 - 39 days 2014/15 - 42 days
    2015/2016 -27 days 2016/17 - 51 days 2017/18 - 57 days 2018/19 - 75 days

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Smellytele View Post
    How about how most companies/corporations measure success - revenue, gross and net profit, etc?
    There are many privately owned ski areas that would never release such info. So you would only have partial information at best for the industry. Not sure how valuable it really is to judge the status of the ski industry with just the financial info for the publicly owned resorts.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    Even season pass-holder skier visits can substantially vary though depending on the weather.
    ...
    if the season is really good they may contribute to other people visiting (i.e. maybe they go to work and talk to co-workers or call up friends saying "conditions are amazing. You should get out there and go skiing".) So you need to consider indirect benefits of season pass-holder visits being up as well.
    I found it interesting that everyone treats season pass holders as "expense" as soon as they paid up for their pass!

    In my early day of career, I worked in a market research firm. I learned there, "customer loyalty" are assigned $$ values, because they're considered "influencers" in bringing in new customers. They're considered "advertising resources".

    My casual observation of ski industry confirms that view. A season pass holder typically don't want to pay to ski in other mountains. Make sense, right? So what happens if they have family/friends/visitors who don't already have lift tickets? They go the mountain of their host have a pass!

    Treat the brown-bagging pass holders as scums the rest of the season, you remove their enthusiasm in inviting others to come visit the mountain.

    In the marketing world, it's established it cost many times more to bring in new customers than retaining the existing one. It may not be a big deal for Sun Valley which has no nearby competition. But in the crowded world of the northeast, the mountains will pay for their arrogance.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Barto, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,516
    Does anyone have a rough idea of what the average number of ski visits for pass holders?

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Smellytele View Post
    How about how most companies/corporations measure success - revenue, gross and net profit, etc?


    Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
    Top line revenue would be a good metric, but as noted, not available.
    2019/20 = 23 Cut Short!
    2018/19 = 36
    2017/18 = 37
    2016/17 = 31
    2015/16 = Depressing
    2014/15 = 28
    2013/14 = 27

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by mbedle View Post
    Does anyone have a rough idea of what the average number of ski visits for pass holders?
    It varies quite a bit by region. This is one of the additional metrics NSAA does release in one of their yearly reports. For the 16-17 season it was 13.7 in the northeast, 10.9 southeast, 10.1 midwest, 9.1 rocky mountains, 9.7 pacific southwest, and 10.6 pacific northwest.

    Quote Originally Posted by slatham View Post
    Top line revenue would be a good metric, but as noted, not available.
    And the more I think about it, the more I don't think it accurately would reflect skiing itself anyway. Resorts have various revenue streams even during the non-ski season. For example some do a lot of summer activities or wedding events during the off-season. While those are great to help the resorts pull in more revenue, at the same time it would prevent you from seeing a true picture of how "skiing" itself is performing year over year. Overall revenue going up doesn't mean the ski industry itself is healthy if they are now starting to pull in more off-season revenue to compensate for a loss of skiers and ski revenue (not saying that is actually the case, just a hypothetical on why those numbers by themselves may not be a good indicator).

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    This is one of the additional metrics NSAA does release in one of their yearly reports. For the 16-17 season it was 13.7 in the northeast, 10.9 southeast, 10.1 midwest, 9.1 rocky mountains, 9.7 pacific southwest, and 10.6 pacific northwest.
    Surprises me it's that low given the average skier is at 6 days per year. I'd have thought a pass holder average would be much higher.

    Makes me wonder if IKON/EPIC are bringing that number down? More people buying a pass primarily for 1 week in Colorado or Utah, etc...
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



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 4:57 AM.