I don't know if it is the same for every resort, but I read an article discussing that Sugarbush did not receive anything for being a part of Ikon (other than the hope to sell food/beverage/rentals/retail etc from the skier visits).
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Epic Pass just got more Epic
- Thread starter gmcunni
- Start date
I don't know if it is the same for every resort, but I read an article discussing that Sugarbush did not receive anything for being a part of Ikon (other than the hope to sell food/beverage/rentals/retail etc from the skier visits).
Interesting. I find that rather difficult to believe...
Jully
Active member
Link to the article?
Trying to search for it, it was some sort of interview with Win Smith... was before ski season when i read it and found it surprising.
Drove back to NJ from Burlington yesterday in a relatively minor snowstorm. Instead of the usual 5.5 hour trip, it was 8 hours. Granted it was the Monday of a holiday weekend and there's always a traffic jam on 87 South on this weekend.
Last edited:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
We waited that little storm out and left later in the day and the drive took the normal time. Almost 3" fell by the time it was over, and it was about as dry as snow gets. You could literally blow it off you car.
kingslug
Well-known member
It sure blew off the slopes...
machski
Well-known member
You missed a big nugget in that article. SB and all partner resorts on Ikon get $60 or 65 (can't remember) per visit of an Ikon guest. Obviously, they get nothing if Ikon holders don't show and even if they do, substantially below even their discounted day ticket pricing. I would imagine Epic is similar with their partner resorts.
Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app
slatham
Well-known member
Epic just got less Epic. A-Basin is pulling out of the Epic pass. Too many people on the Epic pass resulting in it being too crowded. This was always one of the issues people theorized would occur. Interesting to see if other areas over time make same decision.
I think I found it: https://vtskiandride.com/in-the-race-to-buy-ski-areas-who-wins/
Here's the quote from that article:
The quote is interesting and at least to me a bit vague. At face value, you could take "no revenue from Ikon Pass sales" to mean they get nothing just because a pass is sold. That makes sense. It doesn't say anything about what they get when it is used at SB though. Win saying the value is "exposure" could imply that they really get nothing per use, but it could also just be him saying he sees the exposure as a benefit of joining and not meaning they really get no direct revenue sharing from usage.
If it is the article I found that you're thinking about, then I don't see that part either. What you're saying makes sense though (although in reality those numbers seem pretty high to me as it could really bite Alterra on the ass if someone used all their partner resort days). In the East alone there were 35 potential partner days for the full Ikon. At a $900 cost, that's only around $25/day they could shell out and leaves Alterra with nothing for running the pass and nothing for usage at their own resorts (never mind if someone used it days out west too). Personally I'd think the revenue sharing is more dynamic based on usage. For example maybe Alterra says 50% of Ikon revenue is theirs and the rest is split between partner resorts based on percentage of use. So if overall 5% of partner days were used at resort A, then that resort gets 5% of the 50% shareable revenue. The more partner days used overall, the less each resort gets per use. If enough days were used, they could end up seeing only a few dollars per use. I have no insight into how this really works, but that's the type of model I would envision makes the most sense.
That is indeed the article I was remembering. Good detective work!
The first time I read it as taking it to mean they really get nothing per use, but as you mentioned it does not exclude the possibility of some revenue based on usage.
it may be different depending on the partner resort and what they have to offer / negotiate with. Powdr Corp (for example) could be in a stronger position with being able to offer both Copper and Killington than SB is as a true independent.
The first time I read it as taking it to mean they really get nothing per use, but as you mentioned it does not exclude the possibility of some revenue based on usage.
it may be different depending on the partner resort and what they have to offer / negotiate with. Powdr Corp (for example) could be in a stronger position with being able to offer both Copper and Killington than SB is as a true independent.
abc
Well-known member
Perhaps this is the beginning of the end?
I've always suspect it's too good to be true that we get to ski tons of mountains for one low price. That's why I take as much advantage of it as possible and as quickly as I can manage.
Everybody complained about the crowding at Vail resorts. But the price of the pass is so irresistible, well...
Then came Ikon, which exaggerated the crowding of many more mountains by an even larger ratio! They made a point, to Alta, to solitude etc...
If A-basin succeed in having a healthy season AFTER leaving Vail, some other mountains (Alta?) will probably do the same. Or they may model after A-basin, join for a few years to raise their profile. Then go it alone once they believe they had created a larger following...?
I've always suspect it's too good to be true that we get to ski tons of mountains for one low price. That's why I take as much advantage of it as possible and as quickly as I can manage.
Everybody complained about the crowding at Vail resorts. But the price of the pass is so irresistible, well...
Then came Ikon, which exaggerated the crowding of many more mountains by an even larger ratio! They made a point, to Alta, to solitude etc...
If A-basin succeed in having a healthy season AFTER leaving Vail, some other mountains (Alta?) will probably do the same. Or they may model after A-basin, join for a few years to raise their profile. Then go it alone once they believe they had created a larger following...?
Do we really think Ikon contributes more to crowding at mountains than Epic? I would have thought sales of Epic passes were above the sales level for Ikon passes. And Ikon has far more limits for partner resorts (A-Basin was unlimited on Epic as a partner vs a max of 7 days if they were on Ikon). I'd be curious to see if A-Basin joins Ikon or maybe Mountain Collective. Their CEO already said they would be talking with other resorts and resort groups about opportunities. Could they also work to create some new smaller multi-mountain pass with only a select number of other resorts?
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
It's an interesting dynamic that reminds of the Yogi'ism, "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded".
That said, if the revenue sharing from skier visits (I'm making a big assumption that this is how it works) isnt substantial, I can see how being on one of these gigantic passes could backfire for smaller areas whose bread-and-butter is not being crowded, not having terrible parking issues, and not having long lift lines (Arapahoe Basin & Solitude come to mind). So perhaps in that vein it makes logical sense for Arapahoe Basin to pull out of EPIC. Given the wailing and gnashing of teeth I've seen from long-time Solitude loyalists on social media, I wonder if it perhaps doesnt make much sense for Solitude to be on IKON. Incremental revenue is great, but not if it comes at the expense of alienating a majority of your most important customers.
That said, if the revenue sharing from skier visits (I'm making a big assumption that this is how it works) isnt substantial, I can see how being on one of these gigantic passes could backfire for smaller areas whose bread-and-butter is not being crowded, not having terrible parking issues, and not having long lift lines (Arapahoe Basin & Solitude come to mind). So perhaps in that vein it makes logical sense for Arapahoe Basin to pull out of EPIC. Given the wailing and gnashing of teeth I've seen from long-time Solitude loyalists on social media, I wonder if it perhaps doesnt make much sense for Solitude to be on IKON. Incremental revenue is great, but not if it comes at the expense of alienating a majority of your most important customers.
abc
Well-known member
Or it could be as simple as A-basin wanted an increase in their share of revenue sharing than Vail was prepared to give.
A-basin’s partnership agreement was done long time ago. The industry had changed now. And with Ikon new on the market, A-basin may just want to play a wait and see game.
A-basin’s partnership agreement was done long time ago. The industry had changed now. And with Ikon new on the market, A-basin may just want to play a wait and see game.
drjeff
Well-known member
I also think that many mountains will start to look at the data along the lines of is the "benefit" for their core customers/passholders of being a part of a multi resort pass worth the inconvenience that having more people at that resort over the course of the season and how it may have affected their core customers experiences during the season.....
On a similar, albeit smaller level, I know that many of my regular Mount Snow friends, while we enjoy the lower cost of our Peak passes, wouldn't mind paying a bit more like we did a few years ago when Mount Snow was available on a much more limited basis to other Peak Resort passholders unless one bought their top end product that had unlimited Mount Snow days a season. We've had many a spirited discussion on the lifts and at various apres establishments about being a regular at a top tier resort on a multi resort pass and is the $$ we save on a lower priced, unlimited reciprocal privileges within the pass resorts, and how it's added to the crowds? Now maybe if Peak bought Jay, and some of the Peak pass crowd went there instead of Mount Snow.......
On a similar, albeit smaller level, I know that many of my regular Mount Snow friends, while we enjoy the lower cost of our Peak passes, wouldn't mind paying a bit more like we did a few years ago when Mount Snow was available on a much more limited basis to other Peak Resort passholders unless one bought their top end product that had unlimited Mount Snow days a season. We've had many a spirited discussion on the lifts and at various apres establishments about being a regular at a top tier resort on a multi resort pass and is the $$ we save on a lower priced, unlimited reciprocal privileges within the pass resorts, and how it's added to the crowds? Now maybe if Peak bought Jay, and some of the Peak pass crowd went there instead of Mount Snow.......
Smellytele
Well-known member
If a mountain is making more money then those that think they are the core skiers may not be their core skiers anymore. They may think they are but are they?
Here's a question with regards to crowds as a result of these cheap and/or multi-mountain passes...
Where are these crowds coming from? According to stats, skier visits are down a bit from 10 years ago and about level with where they were 20 years ago. We keep hearing growth is relatively flat.
Everyone can't possibly be seeing "more crowds" at their resort if those stats are accurate. So...
A) Some areas are seeing less visits (who?)
B) Skier visit stats are not accurate (or are MORE accurate now but were not accurate in the past)
C) Less resorts to spread skiers out so the remaining resorts are absorbing crowds (personally not buying this too much as most resorts that have gone NELSAP are smaller ones and I don't see their loss as major contributors to crowds elsewhere)
D) Change in skier habits - i.e. more people skiing weekends while less are skiing midweek
E) Other - something else I'm not thinking of at the moment
F) We're going to see a sizeable increase in skier visits when this season's stats come out
Where are these crowds coming from? According to stats, skier visits are down a bit from 10 years ago and about level with where they were 20 years ago. We keep hearing growth is relatively flat.
Everyone can't possibly be seeing "more crowds" at their resort if those stats are accurate. So...
A) Some areas are seeing less visits (who?)
B) Skier visit stats are not accurate (or are MORE accurate now but were not accurate in the past)
C) Less resorts to spread skiers out so the remaining resorts are absorbing crowds (personally not buying this too much as most resorts that have gone NELSAP are smaller ones and I don't see their loss as major contributors to crowds elsewhere)
D) Change in skier habits - i.e. more people skiing weekends while less are skiing midweek
E) Other - something else I'm not thinking of at the moment
F) We're going to see a sizeable increase in skier visits when this season's stats come out
Last edited:
abc
Well-known member
I'd pick A: Some areas are seeing less visits (who?)
The majority of the population are living east of the Mississippi. A small drop on each of those gazilion tiny resort can add up to be a "crowd" in A-basin/Alta/Solitude (or I-70, Cottonwood approach access).
D could be in play too. Not on purpose but a result of demographic changes. When an ice-coaster finds a job at SLC, he went from skiing a week (5 mid-week days) in Alta to skiing a bunch of weekends!
In the east, A is definitely in play. Just look at ourselves. How many who used to ski many days in smaller resort are not skiing in the "mega" resorts just because our pass include it?
Myself: before Vail/Max/Ikon include any eastern resorts, I split my time between Plattekill/Pico/Jay. Their lower cost day ticket has a lot to do with my choices. Last few years, I've skied mostly in resorts included in my pass. Last year, I didn't ski at Plattekill even once! That's really rare for me.
Frankly, at $80/day at Stratton skiing with all the crowds and stuck at lift lines, I'd take $50 at Pico or Plattekill any time! But flip those numbers around: $0 at Stratton finding some window to avoid the crowd, or $50 at Plattekill with guarantee 0 crowd... It's not so clear cut any more.
Since I only have so many days available to ski each winter. I'm not skiing more because I can ski for free (actually, I do, but up to a limit without losing my job) The days I'm skiing at Stratton is the day I'm NOT skiing at Plattekill.
The majority of the population are living east of the Mississippi. A small drop on each of those gazilion tiny resort can add up to be a "crowd" in A-basin/Alta/Solitude (or I-70, Cottonwood approach access).
D could be in play too. Not on purpose but a result of demographic changes. When an ice-coaster finds a job at SLC, he went from skiing a week (5 mid-week days) in Alta to skiing a bunch of weekends!
In the east, A is definitely in play. Just look at ourselves. How many who used to ski many days in smaller resort are not skiing in the "mega" resorts just because our pass include it?
Myself: before Vail/Max/Ikon include any eastern resorts, I split my time between Plattekill/Pico/Jay. Their lower cost day ticket has a lot to do with my choices. Last few years, I've skied mostly in resorts included in my pass. Last year, I didn't ski at Plattekill even once! That's really rare for me.
Frankly, at $80/day at Stratton skiing with all the crowds and stuck at lift lines, I'd take $50 at Pico or Plattekill any time! But flip those numbers around: $0 at Stratton finding some window to avoid the crowd, or $50 at Plattekill with guarantee 0 crowd... It's not so clear cut any more.
Since I only have so many days available to ski each winter. I'm not skiing more because I can ski for free (actually, I do, but up to a limit without losing my job) The days I'm skiing at Stratton is the day I'm NOT skiing at Plattekill.
Last edited:
BenedictGomez
Well-known member
I touched on this, but IMO the additional revenue would need to be great in order to alienate your customer base significantly. Is that likely? We dont know, but I doubt it.
The reality is these pass partnerships are transient & potentially not long-lasting. So if that is indeed a given mountain's attitude, they better be careful whom they piss off in a frequently changing pass environment in which you do not retain sole decision-making power on property-mix, skier days, term, price, etc....
Similar threads
