Let's see if this has any legs!

[abc]

So you think the business would suffer by allowing snowboarding? The niche market would be compromised?

Whether the business will suffer or benefit, it'll all be speculations. I, like many others, think the difference is insignificant either way. This is supported by what Taos finding out a year after they allow boarder access.

What's indisputable is the "niche market" part. Any business wants to stand out. Only 3 not allowing snowboarders, that's "niche" enough.

Just like some pro football player deliberately cultivate a "bad boy" image to capture publicity. MRG and Deer Valley, and to a lessor degree Alta, are having a lot of free publicity they didn't need to spend a penny to generate! Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity. However much snowboarder get mad till they foam in their mouth, it's skiers these resorts are trying to attract. There's no negative on that!

In short, I believe the resorts gets net benefit from the "skier only" niche.

 

[deadheadskier]

You call it a "niche"

I call it being prejudice.

 

[abc]

You call it a "niche"

I call it being prejudice.

I can understand anyone who's not part of the niche consider it prejudice.

 

[BenedictGomez]

:lol: :lol: You're funny. Go learn something about how the movers and shakers make things happen. Who makes up the 300 members at Augusta? Which gender has the largest purchasing power right now?

Oh, you GOOG the fact Augusta National has roughly 300 members?

Great, now GOOG who they are and a little bit about the history of the tournament and perhaps you'll gain a sense of how foolish you sound.

You call it a "niche"

I call it being prejudice.

As opposed to all the great niches of the world representative of majorities?

And you still havent addressed (several times) whether you personally believe MRG could have financially survived all these years without said niche.

 

[twinplanx]

I can understand anyone who's not part of the niche consider it prejudice.

Which is weird cause he's deadheadSKIER, not deadheadSNOWBOARDER?!?

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

 

[steamboat1]

careful marc. I wouldn't mention "marriage" in a discussion of two males around steamboat. you might send him over the edge......

I'm well aware. Same for NY, much to the dismay of steamboat.

Wow you're F'd up.

Lick my balls.

What's that called teabagging......lol

 

[wakenbacon]

Terrain wise, from what ive seen, I would love to ride mrg. I really dont understand why skiers dont want to share their slopes with me, but if they own the mountain, let them do their thing. Alta, on federal land, not allowing one plank, I do not respect.

 

[deadheadskier]

And you still havent addressed (several times) whether you personally believe MRG could have financially survived all these years without said niche.

I don't know and neither do you. Happy?

You believe the lack of snowboarders is what has allowed the mountain to survive over the years. MadMadWorld (a five year season pass holder there) believes the opposite would be true, that snowboarding would bring in business levels that the facilities can't handle.

Fact is, nobody knows what would happen unless they allowed snowboarding.

 

[deadheadskier]

Which is weird cause he's deadheadSKIER, not deadheadSNOWBOARDER?!?

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

What's so weird about a skier being against an anti-snowboarding policy?

 

[Nick]

I don't really have strong opinions as there are so many great places to ski but if there was a resort that didn't allow skiers, I don't think it would bother me in the least.

Now, if there were 50 resorts that didn't allow skiers, I would probably be irked by it, because it limits selection. But there are so many other places to go.

I have to think though that Alta being one of the only remaining ski-only places probably definitely attracts people there for that reason specifically. I'm sure a portion of their visitors are people who go specifically to avoid snowboarders. I don't know what that says about those skiers... I know there was that youtube video floating around a while ago .... but I just don't see it as such a huge deal. Personally anyway.

 

[twinplanx]

What's so weird about a skier being against an anti-snowboarding policy?

I just don't understand why it bothers you so much?

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

 

[MadMadWorld]

Whether the business will suffer or benefit, it'll all be speculations. I, like many others, think the difference is insignificant either way. This is supported by what Taos finding out a year after they allow boarder access.

What's indisputable is the "niche market" part. Any business wants to stand out. Only 3 not allowing snowboarders, that's "niche" enough.

Just like some pro football player deliberately cultivate a "bad boy" image to capture publicity. MRG and Deer Valley, and to a lessor degree Alta, are having a lot of free publicity they didn't need to spend a penny to generate! Remember, there's no such thing as bad publicity. However much snowboarder get mad till they foam in their mouth, it's skiers these resorts are trying to attract. There's no negative on that!

In short, I believe the resorts gets net benefit from the "skier only" niche.

I honestly don't think MRG continuing the ban on snowboarding is to maintain a niche. Maybe it was at first but I don't think that's the case anymore. I could be wrong though.

 

[SnowRock]

So these places get more business from being skier only and appealing to that niche, but couldn't handle more business with snowboarders being allowed to ride? They can't handle boards on their trails but do fine with everyone that rocks 100+ under foot?

There is nothing wrong with the bans.. businesses can choose to do what they want as long as its legal. I think its pretty clear that they exist to appeal to smug elitists who believe their chosen method of winter mountain recreation somehow makes them a better person or at least doesn't include a certain undesirable sort they prefer not to share a mountain with. Just own it, its silly to try explain it away and looks foolish.

 

[deadheadskier]

I just don't understand why it bothers you so much?

Sent from my SCH-S735C using Tapatalk

Look, I still ski there. I've said they can run their business how they choose. If I was really THAT bothered I wouldn't spend money there.

I just feel that everyone should be able to enjoy the slopes at those mountains. The fact that there are people who are still prejudiced against snowboarding in 2014 blows my mind. I think it's wrong.

 

[abc]

There is nothing wrong with the bans.. businesses can choose to do what they want as long as its legal. I think...

There's also nothing wrong with anyone to have an opinion about anything... they can even put their wallet where their heart is, by not patronizing those few resorts.

 

[Hawkshot99]

So if the only reason that the bans exist is "elitists" how do you feel about the hermatige club or yellow stone. Obviously they are looking down at the poor people who cant afford to be there.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

 

[SnowRock]

So if the only reason that the bans exist is "elitists" how do you feel about the hermatige club or yellow stone. Obviously they are looking down at the poor people who cant afford to be there.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

They are and it's fine. I was a member of the UL when I lived in NYC. Nothing wrong with these sorts of things just own what it is.

 

[C-Rex]

So if the only reason that the bans exist is "elitists" how do you feel about the hermatige club or yellow stone. Obviously they are looking down at the poor people who cant afford to be there.

Sent from my SGH-S959G using Tapatalk 2

Interesting point, and perfectly valid. I'll admit that it's a sort of double standard. However, the reasons behind having a private mountain are much more logical and understandable, even if it sucks for those without the income to partake. The desire to have very low numbers on the trails and lifts alone is understandable. And in order to create that experience, they need to charge outrageous amounts to make up for the lack of volume. Plus, those without the money to join can still ski/ride there if they have a friend or family with a membership. It's not like they check your W2 on the way in.

There is nothing wrong with the bans.. businesses can choose to do what they want as long as its legal. I think its pretty clear that they exist to appeal to smug elitists who believe their chosen method of winter mountain recreation somehow makes them a better person or at least doesn't include a certain undesirable sort they prefer not to share a mountain with. Just own it, its silly to try explain it away and looks foolish.

Thank you!!! My point exactly. It's perfectly legal to be a pompous a-hole, just own it.

 

[abc]

Interesting point, and perfectly valid. I'll admit that it's a sort of double standard. However, the reasons behind having a private mountain are much more logical and understandable, even if it sucks for those without the income to partake. The desire to have very low numbers on the trails and lifts alone is understandable. And in order to create that experience, they need to charge outrageous amounts to make up for the lack of volume.

I don't see what the difference is! It's a special experience they try to maintain. Whether it's empty runs or better shaped moguls!

Plus, those without the money to join can still ski/ride there if they have a friend or family with a membership. It's not like they check your W2 on the way in.

Anyone can SKI at Alta.

I'm told if you hand them your board, they'll even give you a pair of skis for free!

 

[deadheadskier]

Better shaped bumps? Last I checked the resort that most hardcore bumpers believe to have the best bumps in the east, Sugarbush, is right down the road. Allowing snowboarding certainly hasn't ruined the bumps at the Bush.