That's what I've read as well. But if that's the case, then why can't they afford to blow snow? :-D Ok, it 'cuts' into profits, but does it cut to the point that it's a loss?
-
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!
Skiing, Boarding, and the current climate
- Thread starter tcharron
- Start date
That's what I've read as well. But if that's the case, then why can't they afford to blow snow? :-D Ok, it 'cuts' into profits, but does it cut to the point that it's a loss?
ctenidae
Active member
Probably.
Then why would peak resorts swoop in and put in millions for snowmaking?
ctenidae
Active member
Product differentiation, advertising, etc.
Take snowmaking spend hype with a grain of salt. How much of whatever the number is is made up of normal budgetted capital expenditures? What's the value of announcing a big number, and what does it do to the advertising budget/metrics? Does having the "best" snowmaking offer an advantage over having adequate snowmaking? Not sayign that peak isn't doing good things, but how much is new good things, and how much is things that needed doing anyway?
I don't know that it's possible to say that seasons are shorter. You'd have to get stats by year and mountain, then work out a control for weather, finances, etc. Might be interesting to days against skier visits.
In the short term, 06/07 skier visits were down 6.5% from the prior year. In the long term, skier visits have been up and down between 46.7MM and 58.9MM (with a mean of 53.5MM) since 1985, with no definite trend. The average skier visits of the past 11 years are slightly higher than those of the prior 11 years, but not by a huge margin (55MM vs. 53.7MM).
The number that is more of a concern to the industry right now is the total participation. Skier participation has been dropping rather steadily for some time now. In fact, in the past three seasons alone, it has dropped by nearly 600,000 skiers. Ski participation peaked around 1988 at 12.4MM (with around an additional 1MM snowboarders). It is now 6.4MM. Of course, snowboard participation accounts for some of this. However, snowboard participation also peaked at 6.3MM in 2003, and has since dropped to 5.2, landing us with 11.6MM total participants in the 06/07 ski season. That's a total of a 1.8MM drop since 1988. May not seem like much, but considering the fact that numbers have been dropping steadily in recent years is reason for concern.
Total participation is more of a concern than skier visits because it represents how many people are skiing and spending money on skiing. "Skier visits" represents a lot of season pass use and multi day ticket use. Total participation only counts the number of people participating, so is not biased or affected by those people skiing many days on the same pass.
GrilledSteezeSandwich
New member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 17,569
- Points
- 0
Maybe there can be a First-Ski program for kids in the ghetto...kind of like Tiger Woods first Tee program..if the kids are hooked young they might become lifelong participants and it might keep them off drugs and off the streets..but transportation would be needed...just an idea..
Can you tell me more about this Snowmaxx?
Out of curiosity, does anyone publically publish and maintain these numbers? It would be VERY interesting to look at the trends themselves.
A 15% dropoff in your customers is *huge* in my opinion. And it may account for why it's no longer econamical to put as much effort (read, cash) into servicing when your income is also down by 15% for those time frames. This is also assuming that people are actually skiing more, but using deals which allow them to do so (season passes, etc..).
Snowmax is a snowmaking additive (made by York Snow) used to increase the nucleation temperature. In other words, by injecting Snowmax into your snowmaking water, it allows the water to freeze at higher temperatures.
In order for water droplets to become snow, they need a particle (or nucleator) to form around. Snowmax is essentially a high temperature nucleator. It is made from Pseudomonas Syringae, a bacteria that infects many plant species.
In snowmaking systems that draw water from a source that already contains ample dirt/dust/particulate, Snowmax is all but worthless. At $80/bag (to treat 100,000 gallons), it's money better spent on other improvements. However, in snowmaking systems with purer water or mostly low-temp nucleators, Snowmax can quite effectively improve snow production by ensuring that more droplets actually freeze.
That's the quick answer.
I honestly don't buy that reason, simply because the money is spent by Peak specifically on 'big guns' which are expensive to run, but at the same time, can produce a massive amount of snow in a rather short period. I suppose to a point it could be replacing older broken down equipment and the such, but many of us have physically seen what Peak is doing as far as new, big guns being installed.
As far as the length of the season, in my opinion seasons are shorter, the larger question is, are they shorter simply because areas don't try as hard to open early and stay open later.
To my defense I suppose, I only started actively skiing allot over the last few years, so my perceptions could be WAY off base.
Thanks!
DOH! The fun one to read would cost 400$ per year of interest.
'Tis the nature of the beast. That's the public price. I don't blame them, considering the amount of effort that gets put into those surveys and reports. Of course, member ski areas get them at a very significant discount. But for the public, they've gotta do what they've gotta do.
Did find some places that had some of the information.
http://www.nssra.com/2001/nssra/index.asp?centre=stat§ion=stat
One thing of note is the average skiier age between 1997-2000. 26.8, 27.6, 28.2, 30.1. Also, the average based on income, 51% at 50,000+ in 1992, 72.7% in 2001.
That almost points twards someone elses point that as the price rises, participation falls on the lower income side. It's masked when you say total number of visits, because on average, the higher income people are also going skiing more.
So, we've priced the middle income guys out of the market, but we can't stay open longer because it will cost us more, and since we've already raised the cost so the lower income family we don't have part of the market who could be there to PUT people on the slope.
And therein lies a problem... one that needs a fixin'.
threecy
New member
During off peak electrical hours in ideal temperatures. IE a minority of the time in New England
Similar threads
