Season Pass Savings

[drjeff]

If they blast you for a good post then so be it. We've seen highwayStars' posts and your no highwaystar. Wannabee maybe.:smash:

:lol: :lol: :lol: Just wish my knees day in and day out were as limber as his must be to get way back into the "backseat" position he's in during the turn in his avatar pic!

 

[hammer]

I have no problems with drjeff's post either...

The way I look at it, I can't blame a ski area for trying to maximize profits...they're a business, not a charity. As much as we all dislike it, ski areas are entitled to charge prices that the market will bear.

As a consumer, however, I can't be blamed for trying to get the best deal possible...even if it takes shopping around, haggling, etc.

 

[Greg]

I have no problems with drjeff's post either...

Certainly not. I, for one, appreciate realistic viewpoints.

 

[nycskier]

If you as an avid pass user really want to help keep the pass prices where they are(in the reasonable range), every now and then(especially if you get your cost per day for the season under $20) spend a little on the food and beverage side instead of brown bagging.

What the resort operators really look at isn't just ticket cost per day on the hill, but revenue generated per visit(i.e. ticket cost + food/beverage revenue + rental/lessons expense + misc items{on mtn ski shop purchases, family photos, NASTAR races, etc} and the grand daddy of them all(if applicable) lodging fees)

Bottom line, everyone likes a bargain, but bills need to be paid inorder for places to not be added to NELSAP

That's why I always buy a beer at the base lodge bar after a long day of skiing. I really don't want to drink but I feel I owe to the resort. Hey that's why I drink. Not because I want to but because that is how much I care!!!!

 

[drjeff]

That's why I always buy a beer at the base lodge bar after a long day of skiing. I really don't want to drink but I feel I owe to the resort. Hey that's why I drink. Not because I want to but because that is how much I care!!!!

The mark of a truely dedicated ski area consumer! :beer: :flag:

 

[ctenidae]

That's why I always buy a beer at the base lodge bar after a long day of skiing. I really don't want to drink but I feel I owe to the resort. Hey that's why I drink. Not because I want to but because that is how much I care!!!!

I like the cut of your jib, sir.

 

[BeanoNYC]

What the resort operators really look at isn't just ticket cost per day on the hill, but revenue generated per visit(i.e. ticket cost + food/beverage revenue + rental/lessons expense + misc items{on mtn ski shop purchases, family photos, NASTAR races, etc} and the grand daddy of them all(if applicable) lodging fees)

Bottom line, everyone likes a bargain, but bills need to be paid inorder for places to not be added to NELSAP

I still brown bag it, but make up for it in beer at the lodge.

 

[riverc0il]

If you as an avid pass user really want to help keep the pass prices where they are(in the reasonable range), every now and then(especially if you get your cost per day for the season under $20) spend a little on the food and beverage side instead of brown bagging.

What the resort operators really look at isn't just ticket cost per day on the hill, but revenue generated per visit(i.e. ticket cost + food/beverage revenue + rental/lessons expense + misc items{on mtn ski shop purchases, family photos, NASTAR races, etc} and the grand daddy of them all(if applicable) lodging fees)

Bottom line, everyone likes a bargain, but bills need to be paid inorder for places to not be added to NELSAP

This is not a logical argument for several reasons. First, let me state that on my first year as a season pass holder, I spent more money for food on mountain at Jay Peak than I ever have before in my entire skiing life time at on mountain food stands. The reason was not to feed the coffers but rather convenience. When you don't "pay" for a lift ticket in the morning, it gives the illusion of having more money to spend so you spend a little more freely. Now then, arguing that you should drop money to help the resort stay off NELSAP is not a good argument. Areas go on NELSAP because of many reasons but often poor management is the number one reason recently now that most of the smaller local feeder areas have been weeded out. I am not supporting corporate skier paid welfare to support bad business decisions. Fact is, the ski area set the price of a season pass independent of food prices and there is no correlation. Total per skier yield is not going to be largely effected by a few season pass holders giving the resort more money at lunch "just because." Often times, we let our passion for the activity and its unique circumstances cloud our thoughts. We must remember that this is a business and business owners that run sound practices need not worry about going under because customers will buy the product. Buy a lunch if you want to and if it is convenient and smells good enough, no way should any one buy a lunch just to "support the cause" of a for profit business.

 

[snoseek]

i've been known to spend a buck or two at the bar... but usually i bring the bar with me!

 

[drjeff]

Total per skier yield is not going to be largely effected by a few season pass holders giving the resort more money at lunch "just because." .

Not quite. Lets take our 30 ski day per pass scenario that started the thread here. For even numbers sake, lets say that 30 days on a pass works out to $20 a day for even numbers sake, so you've spent $600 for a pass then vs. say $60 for a day ticket. Lets say that the resort has 3,000 season pass holders.

At $60 a day, you're likely not skiing 30 days for the season(neither are the other 2,999 folks), and after charging the $60 on the VISA that AM, you're more likely to think twice about $10 for a burger and beer in the lodge that day. Your yield to the ski area may end up in the $700-$750 range for the season, and the "brown bag" factor likely goes up.

Now, after paying the $600 for your pass in say June, you're determined to get those 30 days in, and the charge on the VISA for $600 is paid off and not as upfront in your mind on the days you goto the hill. Now lets say that you then spend that $10 for a burger and a beer, as do the 2,999 others. Those 3,000 pass holders skiing/riding for 30 visits a season is 90,000 visits. If they then hit the cafeteria/bar for the food/drink at $10 a day, thats an extra $900,000 for the ski area, and a yield of $900 per skier for the season.

Call it corporate welfare if you want, but the reality to attract and RETAIN good employees in this day and age, it takes $$. Perks are what will keep a good employee in many instances, and the better the employee, the greater the chance of a customer having a good experience and the greater the likelyhood of that customer becoming a repeat visitor. As an owner, to retain that employee, you need the $$ to do so. That equals medical/dental insurance (the premiums I pay for my employees has consistantly gone UP an average of 13% over the last 5 years), that equals retirement plans, that equals other "goodies" to such as health clubs, more paid vacation, etc, etc, etc. Then as an owner, you have the energy costs to deal with in this day and age. So, if you see an area saying that they are investing say 3 million in capital improvements for a coming season, with other employee perks, that increase in costs to that area for the year may be closer to 3.5million.

A few burgers and beers for high volume/low cost season pass customers can make a significant difference in revenue for what can be a very volitile revenue generating business

 

[riverc0il]

The employee benefits thing doesn't really work out. Even places (especially places) that are high margin big bucks ski areas like Vail are importing work from immigrants because locals don't want the low paying jobs (same with ASC and many of the other big name corporations in New England). I don't care what the skier yield is, these companies aren't going to pay more than minimum wage for entry level jobs, unless they truly can't find competent work, which most areas have by looking outside the proverbial box of local help. I don't agree with the practice, but the whole "start them at minimum" thing isn't exactly strictly a Wal*Mart issue, every entry level position in the service sector starts help at minimum. Creating a good working environment and having good managers and supervisors is the key to retaining good employees that put a good front on the business. Increased margins don't make low pay go up for entry level service sector workers. They get no more pay whether a company loses or makes a ton of money.

I mentioned a few pass holders would not make a big difference, but you want to factor in an amazing 3000 for what may constitute an entire ski resorts pass population, which I find rather unreasonable. Lots of people get a season pass to make skiing more affordable, not less. buying that $10 burger and beer (can you honestly buy a burger and beer at a major area for that little?) for 30 visits? $300 for food on what could have been a season long $30 bag lunch program. Some people have that money to throw around just support the cause of a business, others don't.

It sure is a volatile business that has trouble generating revenue sometimes. But there are a lot of such businesses out there. When else do you think "well, I don't need to buy this item, but it will help out this business to make a profit, so why not!?" I do not understand this reasoning. As mentioned before, if the business owners and managers are good at what they do and have a good product, the finances will take care of themselves. The volatile aspect of the industry depends on snow for good years, but good managers and owners will prepare for the bad years but putting aside extra funds during the good years to compensate. I do advocate for areas that are worth skiing and on the edge not because of bad management (indeed, it is a wonder of good management or lots of owners that some areas on the edge are still open!), but rather on the edge due to lack of visibility and low skier visits. I can not condone the consumer act of ponying up money for a service just to add to the bottom line. If a business is having trouble meeting the bottom line, they need to do things to improve their operations, pricing structure, etc. I would hope to never see the day that ski areas might ask customers to buy something not because it is a great product or worth paying for but rather to help increase the ski areas revenue.

 

[Vortex]

I diagree steve. While at Loon (use to be cheap passes) Money was made in the bar and in food service/ski school, Seasonal programs. They have good food. People paid for it were happy and they made money.

You can pre buy a food card if you are a season pass holder at a 10% discount. All my family had resort charges tied to our season passes. $$$$$ I spent more money at the mountain on stuff than I did on my passes easily. Management had a set amount per skier they wanted to make. Without it there was a loss. A Season pass is a cover charge. Covers early opertation.

(Side bar this year they raised prices. They wiil not get 4 passes or the fluff money from me.) Not sure how many stubborn people like me there are.

 

[ctenidae]

Season pass revenues are used for summer time cash needs and to make sure there's something in the coffers come winter time (early season snowmaking is expensive, you know).

 

[riverc0il]

Bob, I am not clear on what you are disagreeing with.... do you buy food at Loon specifically to make sure Loon stays in business? Or because you enjoy the food, experience, convenience, service, etc.? I am only saying that I disagree that people should buy something with the main intent of padding the ski areas coffers. It sounds like you do not disagree with my point about not all people being able to afford eating at the resort since the pass prices went up and pushed you out of the market financially? My main point is only buy it because you want it, not because a business wants you to. FWIW, I have NO problem with this philosophy as a share holder of a Coop like MRG, just disagree about this philosophy for supporting a for profit business to help out versus actually wanting the product being purchased.

 

[snoseek]

i personally will make a point to spend money at a resort if they are open early or late just to help make it worth there while. also i really wish places like killington or sr (or any area that holds snow for that matter) would consider extending their season by expiring passes by a certain date and just selling tix. maybe offer passholders a dicounted price.

 

[bigbog]

Whiteface....a LOT nicer looking hill now that I ski;-)

Man O Man...
Came over to Old Forge, NYS to pick up a ww-canoe a few weeks ago. Scooted up to take a look at Whiteface for the first time since I've been skiing...(last time was in 1975;-))...What a nice piece of rock... Am definitely going to get over this coming season....

steve

 

[Jonni]

When I look at it and go to a ski area like Steve (river) said originally; I don't spend the money at the resort to keep them off of NELSAP, I spend money there more for the convenience than anything else. There are some places where the case is reversed and I do spend money there to help keep the place off of NELSAP. A great example of this would be the Lyndon Outing Club. Everybody tells me for the amount of times that I ski there that I should buy the $120 seasons pass for the place and I'll be all set. But to help support them in some way I usually just bite the bullet and buy the $12 ticket to ski there for the 3 hours a night that they are open. I usually even buy a hot coco in the lodge and maybe even a candy bar. Working that out, yes I do spend more there than I really need to and really should, but I do it because I want the place to make a little bit of money while I'm there. It's my way of trying to keep the place off of a website that I know all too well and love too much.

Getting back to the original topic, I do my calculations for cost based on price per run rather than price per day. My average price per run out of the 13 individual ski areas that I skied at this year was $3.26 per run for 280 total runs over 30 ski days. This factors in that 3 of those ski areas I skied at for free (Sunapee/Okemo Employee pass, and Stratton Snowday Ticket). Using just the cost for seasons passes and calculating it based on just days using those seasons passes would be:

All for One College East Pass - $375, used 8 days this season: $46.88 per day
Burke Mountain College Pass - $199, used 4 days this season: $49.75 per day
Overall Total Cost: $96.63

Basing the above passes on being used for 30 days:

All for One College East Pass - $375, used 30 days: $12.50 per day
Burke Mountain College Pass - $199, used 30 days: $6.63 per day
Overall Total Cost: $19.13

 

[riverc0il]

LOC is non-profit, so supporting the cause for a volunteer effort by spending more than one normally would is a noble effort.

 

[mattchuck2]

It sure is a volatile business that has trouble generating revenue sometimes. But there are a lot of such businesses out there. When else do you think "well, I don't need to buy this item, but it will help out this business to make a profit, so why not!?" I do not understand this reasoning.

Well, I see nothing inherently wrong with buying stuff at a mountain to support the business, just as I see nothing wrong with not going to Wal-Mart with the purpose of NOT supporting their business.

In both cases, I am using the power that I have, as a consumer, to help (ski areas) or hurt (Wal-Mart) a company's bottom line. Would I be better off (financially) bringing my own food and beer to a mountain? Probably . . . Would I be better off shopping at Wal-Mart for my daily needs? Probably . . . But I don't have to . . . and that is really the decision that these people are making.

It's true that ski areas should never ask you explicitly to buy goods at the mountain to ensure the mountain's survival (akin to a sports team demanding a tax increase to buy a new stadium or face the departure of the team), but I see nothing wrong with throwing a little money towards the mountain for an occasional beer . . . Like I said, personal preference.

Also, I take issue with the comment that the failure of Ski Areas is directly related to bad management . . . The ski business is a tough business to get into (just ask ASC). You'e right . . . a couple of lean snow years could send profits into a downward spiral . . . For a new owner (who has yet to accumulate a large amount of capital), those kind of years could be deadly (for the ski area). It's true that certain ski areas have been done in by dumb owners, but others have just seemed to go by the wayside (Why did Berthoud Pass out in CO fold?).

Ultimately, I think that the entire skiing community would be better served to have more open slopes, more choices, and more independant areas to better foster competition (which will keep prices low for everyone). So, more power to those who support their local areas . . .

 

[riverc0il]

mattchuck2, the distinction is between buying something you intended to purchase because you wanted something versus buying something just to support a business financially. Using the Wal*Mart analogy, you don't go to Wal*Mart and buy something you don't want to buy, you only buy things you want. Same thing with a ski area. You also don't go to Wal*Mart and give the store $10.00 for a $4.00 product, which is kind of like buying a lunch at a ski area instead of brown bagging it. If they have food and convenience you want, buy it!! But don't not bring a bag lunch and decide to buy ski area food just to pad their bottom line, that is my stance.

I certainly never suggested that the only reason ski areas fail is "directly" related to bad management. But the annals of lost ski area history certainly have a lot of areas that could have made it pending better management. And we see a lot of ski areas being bought, sold, reborn, etc. Look at Crotched as a prime example. Obviously, economic factors such as market saturation in a highly competitive marketplace are issues as is smaller operations not being able to afford snow making, etc.

I agree with the "power of the consumer" and I financially and vocally support business that provide good product and good service. This is not unique to skiing and applies to all business. I also agree the industry is served by more open areas and more ski areas and more competition. But I disagree that people should just pony up money for product to support the cause. As a consumer, I buy what I want and if the ski area has a good product at a good price that I want and satisfies my desires, they get my money. If their product is over priced, unreasonable, and not worth the convenience factor, I brown bag it with pleasure.

One interesting example to illustrate my point is closing weekend at Sugarbush for the 05-06 season. They had a rocking atmosphere at the mid-lodge by the Summit Chair, were playing tunes, had burgers cooked to order, and a very reasonably priced meal. Despite having a brown bag at the base lodge (required downloading), the atmosphere, price, and convenience were too good to pass up. I highlighted this in my trip report from that afternoon and no doubt gave Sugarbush some good free press. I wasn't supporting the area financially so much as indulging in my desires that the Bush enticed with all aspects of the product. Smelling a Hamburger and Fries inside a lodge and thinking "I want those BAD" merits paying the extra money. Thinking "I think these guys need more money so I will buy some food even though it would be cheaper for me to bring my own" just doesn't make sense to me unless it is a non-profit or community ski area.

I am not saying any one else is wrong here... just trying to clarify my argument because I think my folks are misreading my thoughts on this issue.