What will help the sport of skiing grow?

[Rod9301]

(First off I didn't read 12 pages of replies but I will) I am 37 so considered a Generation X but I will say this....there are a few reasons why I believe the sport and industry needs to change to today's generation.

First is cost, Airfare from Florida to say Denver is around $300 plus Hotels nightly cost around $200 and rentals and lift tickets a day will cost you around $150 so for the first day you are already at least $650. For 4 days of skiing that is $600 plus food and drink put that at least another $200. If i go to my friends and say heyyy who wants to go skiing for 4 days it will only be around $1500, so a family of 4 is at least more than likely I will be going by myself.

2nd is Society. Credit Cards were not introduced until 1958 so today's older generation usually got from their family a nice chunk of change or a house in their will from when they passed cause people were not able to have credit card debt. Today's generation from day 1 are told to get credit cards....BUY NOW PAY LATER...Look at barbie dolls it even comes with a credit card, from day 1 its cool to shop shop shop and spend spend and for the rest of your life pay to get out of debt, most people don't have the luxury of putting money away now cause now its going towards 30% interest rates ($300 for every $1000 spent ouch). (Yes everyone's individually responsible but we have all racked up some debt in our lives and school's don't teach kids how to be smart with their money)

3rd College debt is crazy my sister who is 36 is a doctor and she has over $400k in debt.

4th There are so many options out there now for kids to do things....go to Dubai go to London go to Paris...hey charge it on your card pay back later, can't lose memories but you can lose your life by being in debt for the rest of it. There are just so many other things to do now activity wise.

400 k college debt is crazy.
This is the American for profit education at its best.

Instead though, you could get a medical degree in the EU, and most of it is free (except UK, I believe).

Or engineering, or whatever, maybe not law though, but I don't know.

 

[NateR]

Absolutely cost. Lowering the cost of entry, to at least get a taste of what skiing is like, would greatly increase the numbers of people starting the sport.

Where I grew up, I could see a ski resort from our house, but I never went there because it was so expensive (and without a taste, I wasn't ready to invest a load of money into it). Where I live now, my local ski resort, Bogus Basin, has it right (but they are a non-profit after all). They've got something called the Passport Program. For $300 (it was $200 when I did it a year and a half ago) you get:
-4x 1hour 45 minute beginner group lessons
-lift tickets for those lessons, then receive a season pass upon completion of lessons.
-Rentals during lessons, and unlimited rentals for remainder of season.

They've gotta be cranking out life-long skiers like crazy up there... they certainly got me hooked with that program.

 

[Goose]

Absolutely cost. Lowering the cost of entry, to at least get a taste of what skiing is like, would greatly increase the numbers of people starting the sport.

Where I grew up, I could see a ski resort from our house, but I never went there because it was so expensive (and without a taste, I wasn't ready to invest a load of money into it). Where I live now, my local ski resort, Bogus Basin, has it right (but they are a non-profit after all). They've got something called the Passport Program. For $300 (it was $200 when I did it a year and a half ago) you get:
-4x 1hour 45 minute beginner group lessons
-lift tickets for those lessons, then receive a season pass upon completion of lessons.
-Rentals during lessons, and unlimited rentals for remainder of season.

They've gotta be cranking out life-long skiers like crazy up there... they certainly got me hooked with that program.

that's an amazing deal. Now that's a business investing in its own future.

 

[Jacob]

Many here seem stuck on indoor facilities as a big help in introducing skiing to many more people. For those who been following the thread closely you know my opinion of having such places in major cities like the one that may open on the edge of NYC. Imo that would be (for reasons Ive given) more a negative experience than a positive one. However, I don't feel that way when talking many other places throughout the country. I think in many places they could be positive experiences and fun thing to do. But I still don't think it creates as many long term skiers (or ski families) as you think it would. I think some yes, but just don't see any sort of substantial influx into the sport because of such places. Though I wouldn't be against them at all. Some is better than none I suppose.

Reasons are many. Firstly even when in places (other than NYC) where it would work more pleasantly there would still be most who are simply just looking for the "event" of it with no true desire to ever become involved to a significant degree. Involving themselves further into the sport still requires time, money, efforts, travel, equipment, etc, etc. It still a daunting task for the average family/person to take on. And so they still have to be willing to want to take that on.

The indoor facility is not really offering what its like to be out at a real natural mountain resort (big or small). You can never truly gain the feel of those surroundings nor experience that attractiveness. So for people who don't know what they are missing (which could be a persuasive and attractive wow factor) still will not experience that and still be in the dark about that. That element imo is a big part of the attraction (or for lack of a better term, sexiness) of the sport but just wont grab them because it doesn't exist inside a facility. You simply do not know what its like being out on a real ski mountain unless you actually have done it.

Most people who haven't are not bothered by missing that part (like we would be) because they are ignorant about it , don't have a true genuine interest, and wont know about it via being in an indoor facility. So that persuasive piece of the sport is still not experienced nor understood via the indoor facility. Imo that's a big attractive chunk about skiing that (when experienced) can leave people with the desire to then want to overcome the daunting tasks and efforts, time and money associated with getting involved. But an indoor ramp is not going to offer that attractiveness.

I think most people who would use an indoor facility are only going for the joyride of the moment without intentions of any long term commitments. And doing so in a time frame window. And in relation to my above opinion.....without the outdoors real mountain factors to experience may find the tasks involved less worthy of the return they are getting. Just not as rewarding nor attractive vs a real outdoors mountain/hill. Indoor facilities cant hurt anything and the sport may pick up some people but I really think it will be very few of them who then turn into avid skiers for years to come. Some are better than none I get it, but imo will never be a major player because in the end it still comes down to time, money, travel, and a real genuine interest to want to take on all that is involved to participate avidly in this cold weather sport. Build hundreds of these places and prove me wrong. I hope I am wrong. But then again lift lines, lodges, etc... around here are too crowded already..lol So be careful what we wish for cause I may get it

Just keep in mind that the two people giving feedback on this thread about what it's like skiing on indoor slopes are a Brit who learned to ski on dry slopes (i.e., a hill with something like astroturf on it) and has done a fair bit of skiing in America and an American who learned to ski by driving 10-12 hours to get to resorts in CO and now lives in an area with two indoor slopes within about 30 minutes of his house.

So here's the thing, the ski industry in America probably isn't going to boost the number of skiers coming from areas that are within a short drive from the mountains. They could probably increase the number of days skied if they made things more affordable. But if they want to see an increase in the number of different people skiing, especially in destination resorts, then they have to think of ways to bring in more people from areas that are not within day-trip distances from the mountains.

Yes, an indoor slope can't give you a true taste of the full skiing experience, but it can give you a taste of what it's like sliding on snow in cold temperatures with full snow gear, and that's fun even if it's only for short distances. Also, there are simple things you can do to improve the atmosphere, such as decorating the walls with huge panoramic photos of ski areas. For someone in a place like Dallas, for example, that's better than the alternative (sitting on your sofa trying to imagine what it's like to ski).

When I moved to the UK, I was surprised by the number of skiers and boarders there are from this part of the country given how far it is from the nearest ski resorts. And, I was surprised by how many of Britain's top freestyle skiers and boarders are from areas that aren't near ski resorts. I can't help think that has something to do with the number of outdoor dry slopes and indoor slopes there are all around the country. And, I have a feeling that, if such facilities existed where I grew up (Tulsa, OK), there would be significantly more skiers who improve more quickly and, possibly, go for more trips or maybe just longer trips to destination resorts than there are at present.

Edit: sorry, I didn't mean for the tone to sound so aggressive at the top.

 

[Wolfski]

Obviously the costs are number one biggest hurdle on getting and keeping new skiers. How can the Industry take away this cost for first timers i.e. lift tickets, rentals, and a lesson to start with and look at the other variables that go into this question because we all know that once you're hooked we'll pay just about anything to stay.

The biggest in my eyes are:

Locations, think of just about any sport and how far you need to commute to partake, many are close to feeder hills or resorts but the vast majority have to travel some distance for this free trial on snow. A couple hours of driving may not cost much but the costs climb rapidly past that distance when you factor in food and lodging.

Weather, is your freebie day on a bluebird day in Spring or in the middle of January? How about overcast, windy and a bit of snow? Oops, I forgot the cost of clothing needed in case the newbie isn't from a Snowbelt area.

Learning curve, I'm surprised at the number of skiers that learned on wood with leather boots much less fiberglass/metal vintage/modern straights and solid plastic boots. Well that was better but the skis are too long so lets make them short, that'll make it easier, no wait, too short and unstable, back to the drawing board.

Now with current materials and technology the equipment has made the sport much more enjoyable for all and that's a huge step but the learning curve still will involve many falls, bumps and bruises but still, once they get it, we'll have them for life.

Mixing of abilities, if everyone in the group is starting fresh great, if not? Most every other sport there is a level or consistent playing field, Baseball, Basketball, Bowling, Golf, Hockey etc. where both beginner and expert can both play their game at the same time. Skiing tends to divide or split us up as the playing field is certainly not level. Can an expert have fun on a green circle? Of course, but can a beginner enjoy a double black?

Skiing as a sport also has a main competitor in Snowboarding and the jump from Skateboards which draws in the younger crowd to Snowboarding I'm sure has hurt the number of skiers.
I apologize if the OP included Snowboarders in this as I look at these as two totally different sports that share the Mountain like Hockey and Figure skating share the rink.

So, maybe the SIA (is there still an SIA?) pick one or two feeder cities and build or subsidize an indoor learning facility. Not an huge indoor artificial intermediate hill with snow, chairlifts etc. but a learning facility, a small hill short run with a surface that can mimic the feel of being on the slope without all the travel and weather so the beginner can demo the sport without spending a load of cash.

 

[RumbaRockette]

Skiing as a sport also has a main competitor in Snowboarding and the jump from Skateboards which draws in the younger crowd to Snowboarding I'm sure has hurt the number of skiers.
I apologize if the OP included Snowboarders in this as I look at these as two totally different sports that share the Mountain like Hockey and Figure skating share the rink.

Ultimately snowboarders do get more people on the mountain though to make these places more profitable. Snowboarding is much cheaper for people to start out in than skiing, which is why it's more attractive for millennials. Also snowboarding is generally easier to start out in and reach the intermediate level than skiing... someone's first day of skiing can be an absolute disaster if they don't have any previous experience from an ice rink in hockey or skating.

I mean just to look at costs alone... snowboarding starter packs can start at well under 1000 bucks. I can't think of any ski starter packs that do with boots included.

 

[TonyC]

Skiing as a sport also has a main competitor in Snowboarding and the jump from Skateboards which draws in the younger crowd to Snowboarding I'm sure has hurt the number of skiers.
I apologize if the OP included Snowboarders in this as I look at these as two totally different sports that share the Mountain like Hockey and Figure skating share the rink.

Snowboarding peaked nearly a decade ago at 29% of total visits and is leveling off at 23% per Kottke Reports. It's much more here in SoCal due to the perceived easier transition from surfing and skateboarding. At any rate, for the topic of this thread I think we are happy if both skiing and snowboarding grow, in whatever combination.

Also snowboarding is generally easier to start out in and reach the intermediate level than skiing.

The first day is usually tougher with snowboarding due to body slam falls. After that, the perception is that snowboarding progresses faster to an intermediate level. As for advanced/expert, my observation in both SoCal local areas and Mammoth is that the more challenging the terrain, the lower the proportion of snowboarders I see.

 

[RumbaRockette]

Snowboarding peaked nearly a decade ago at 29% of total visits and is leveling off at 23% per Kottke Reports. It's much more here in SoCal due to the perceived easier transition from surfing and skateboarding. At any rate, for the topic of this thread I think we are happy if both skiing and snowboarding grow, in whatever combination.

That's interesting about the percentage figures. I didn't know snowboarding was that low. I figured it would be around 33% at least. 90 percent of my skiing is done in CO too. Maybe it's just more visible than it seems.

The first day is usually tougher with snowboarding due to body slam falls. After that, the perception is that snowboarding progresses faster to an intermediate level. As for advanced/expert, my observation in both SoCal local areas and Mammoth is that the more challenging the terrain, the lower the proportion of snowboarders I see.

I'll definitely agree with that... more challenging terrain generally does see a smaller percentage of snowboarders. Terrain parks though I've generally seen few skiers in them.


100+ dollar lift tickets certainly aren't helping millennials either. Most of my friends always comment on how expensive skiing or snowboarding is first and foremost.

 

[Fishbowl]

Instead though, you could get a medical degree in the EU, and most of it is free (except UK, I believe).
.

It depends on how you define “free”.

With base income tax rates as high as 40%, 50% and even 60% in many European countries, you end up paying for your education at the back end, if not the front. Places like the UK even have 15% VAT on every purchase you make, creating a very high cost of living. Not free, just deferred.

 

[Rod9301]

Actually, France has a max tax rate in they like 40 percent, same as us, if you add the state.

And you get medical care and free education.

I don't want to start this discussion, because I know how brainwashed people are about health Care and education here.

But it sucks

 

[fatbob]

I mean just to look at costs alone... snowboarding starter packs can start at well under 1000 bucks. I can't think of any ski starter packs that do with boots included.

You used to be able to get a full snowboard set up from somewhere like Big 5 for under $300. And some of the boards weren't bad.

I don't think you can regard boarding as an entirely separate sport - they have more in common with skiers than anyone else and it's good for the soul to stNd sideways occasionally.

 

[Ken_R]

Much better learning / beginner boots and skis:

Boots: MUCH lighter, comfortable and easy to get in/out of and walk in.
Skis: Not much, maybe lighter and easier?

That should help besides many of the things that have already been mentioned.

 

[TonyC]

Boots: MUCH lighter, comfortable and easy to get in/out of and walk in.

That's why my younger son Andrew went to snowboarding full time at age 18. He has 12EE feet and couldn't get comfortable in ski boots. So yes, boot comfort is one aspect that is easier for beginner snowboarders than skiers.

 

[Tricia]

Here's a little different twist, comparing Colorado resort town visits in the summer to winter visits.
Visitation may be slowing in Colorado resort towns, but spending is soaring
Summer trend similar to strong winter spending in resort towns

 

[Goose]

Also snowboarding is generally easier to start out in and reach the intermediate level than skiing... someone's first day of skiing can be an absolute disaster if they don't have any previous experience from an ice rink in hockey or skating.
.

Snowboarding peaked nearly a decade ago at 29% of total visits and is leveling off at 23% per Kottke Reports. It's much more here in SoCal due to the perceived easier transition from surfing and skateboarding. At any rate, for the topic of this thread I think we are happy if both skiing and snowboarding grow, in whatever combination.
The first day is usually tougher with snowboarding due to body slam falls. After that, the perception is that snowboarding progresses faster to an intermediate level. As for advanced/expert, my observation in both SoCal local areas and Mammoth is that the more challenging the terrain, the lower the proportion of snowboarders I see.

I agree with TonyC, Boarding would be the much ore daunting task than skiing for the first timers. Getting on/off the lifts, constantly having to go down on the floor and up again, the body slams, etc... Having the legs bound together vs separate is just something that is not as natural and should be more difficult at first. Once past that hurtle (which could be quite some time, not just day 1) then the perception is that one can advance easier than skiing. But that initial hurtle is a big one. Not to say first time skiers got it easy at all. The whole process is daunting (not just the sport itself). But I think skiing is more difficult to advance to the next second level just as the perception would imply. Honestly I know several who have done/do both and are very good at both and they seem to imply this same as well. Harder to start boarding but easier to advance to the next levels. In fact its partly why they liked and continued to board. They were able to do more at a faster rate.

On another completely separate note I always felt skiing is a bit more family oriented while boarding a bit more individual oriented. I don't know if there is any real truth to that other than skiing was always a family thing for us as I grew up participating in the sport as a family in that manor. Just seemed as boarding became more popular it was sort of like the family skied together while the individual boarder somewhat separated from the fam. Again, any real truth to this? I don't know for sure but that's the perception I have imo.

Im not really a fan of boarding personally. Part of which tends to be a percentage of the demographic as for who boards. Its often a population which within itself has a higher percentage of teens and 20somethings who are not exactly the best behaved on the mountains (at least in my area). Not at all.. is it all (its certainly not) and not at all is skiing without its poorly behaved people. But I think as per the population of each, boarding has a higher percentage among its population fitting that bill. Perhaps its partly why I have a perception of skiing being more family oriented.

But as for supporting the sport boarding has certainly added a lot of lift ticket sales and there is no denying this.

But the expense of skiing just keeps getting higher. I mean I just found killington has upped to 115 now for weekend lift. Really? 115? I mean skiing or boarding, the cost for a family of 4 is just ridiculous. Yea I know you can save 20 bucks perhaps with a little efforts but still...115? Cheeeze man. I mean at these rates you start to question......is the sport really hurting where as they want to attract more people but need to charge that much to survive? . Or are they just greedily price gouging in an already profitable market?

 

[QueueCT]

I think we're being silly focusing on Millenials. Annual days on snow ebb and flow based on what period of life the skier is in. The key is to build the young skiers and let that natural ebb and flow take place. At a young age, time on snow is the biggest problem. For kids who live more than 3 hours from a ski resort, unless you have a wealthy family that takes multiple ski vacations a year, the odds are low in building lifetime skiers. So the focus should be where it always has been: families within a reasonable driving distance of a ski area.

That doesn't mean starting kids at 5 years old. That's really only going to happen where the parents either ski or are interested in skiing. It means getting the 10+ year olds on skis where the parents don't have to spend all day at the mountain sitting around in old lodges doing nothing. So, transportation to the mountain, chaperones/instructors, reasonable lift tickets. Take a Westchester kid and send him to Thunder Ridge or Mohawk. Take an Oakland County kid and send her to Brighton or Pine Knob. It's a 45 minute to an hour trip, lets parents do what they like, and lets kids hang out with friends on the mountain with a one hour lesson.

If you can provide transportation, lesson and lift ticket for under $100 per Saturday over 8 weeks then it's a model that works. Throw in another $100 for season rentals and it's <$1,000 per season excluding clothing.

 

[SSSdave]

Will repeat in Halloween colors what I wrote at the end of Post #42 on Page 4:

For West Coast region resorts, they need to target fit healthy urban young people people with higher paying jobs and college students that will eventually be making enough money to be able to afford skiing. The majority of those people have of course never ever participated in snow sports so don't know what they might be missing. To pry them away from cellphones, video games, and all manner of other urban leisure entertainments will require a different carrot than ski marketing people have ever offered. In Tahoe they (resorts) could use the reality that mid week slopes are mostly empty to their advantage. By offering special week days with subsidized bus service with almost FREE skiing and equipment rentals to select hi tech companies and colleges, especially those students and workers with athletic orientations, they would find modest numbers of them would then discover skiing and pursue the sport. And I would suggest offering not just one day during the winter but rather say 3 that would give such unfamiliar people a better chance to reach the minimal skill level to be able to see the light.

 

[New2]

I've been periodically following this thread, but it's long and I probably missed sections, so sorry if this is a repeat. But Lee Canyon's free lessons approach seems like a good one. From a bigger writeup in Ski magazine last year:

The resort has also realized it has a problem trying to get desert dwellers to come up and ski—no matter how good the snow—and it has put itself on the forefront of ski instruction to get people on the hill. Here’s how it works: Instructors wait in an area at the base of the lift, and interested skiers and snowboarders simply approach them and tell them they want a lesson. Then they head out for as long or short a time as they want. There’s no booking lessons or paying for a full day if you don’t want to, and even experienced skiers can take a teacher out for a run or two just to work out a kink in their form. It’s been a huge success for the area, which had its best season ever last year and is creating customers who keep coming back.​

I haven't heard of any other areas doing this, but it seems like a good approach.

Another thing I think would be helpful is if ski areas offered some sort of all-inclusive, no-planning-needed, hassle-free first time experience. "All you need to bring is your glasses/contact lenses if you need them, and we provide the rest" and then really follow through with everything a first-timer would need. And price such a package so that it's attractive.

 

[LKLA]

"From the golf industry statistics, we know that rounds are down," Matt Powell of the industry-research firm NPD said in a video in 2016. "We know that millennials are not picking up the game, and boomers are aging out. The game is in decline."

While millennials have created new fitness crazes, like SoulCycle and barre classes, golf has failed to capture their interest in the same manner.

 

[raisingarizona]

Ski areas sure seem awfully crowded these days.

Why do we want it to grow?