What will help the sport of skiing grow?

[dbostedo]

Yup! There are over 30 ski areas in Colorado alone.

And the most of any state, surprisingly (to me anyway when I heard) are in New York - 43!

 

[LKLA]

And the most of any state, surprisingly (to me anyway when I heard) are in New York - 43!

I think it is closer to 50!

Michigan has around 40 ski areas, while Wisconsin and New Hampshire have around 30.

 

[dbostedo]

I think it is closer to 50!

I think you're right, but I'm seeing conflicting reports via Googling.

 

[LKLA]

I think you're right, but I'm seeing conflicting reports via Googling.

It matters little. Whether we have 370, 400 or 500 ski areas. Whether NY state has 35 or 55 ski areas. We have plenty!

It's a matter of investing in those areas, of people going to ski those areas, of the local communities embracing those areas, of legislation not being overly restrictive, of having smart/competent people managing those areas...

 

[Don Canard]

I wrote a comment in the dirtbag areas thread https://www.pugski.com/threads/best-dirtbag-ski-areas.13908/page-6#post-335602 prompted by memories of skiing in NY from the late 1970s on. It's long. Basically:

1. prices for day lift tix are insane
2. what's the product being sold ? an excellent on-snow experience with functioning amenities around it, or another disneyfied recreational activity that's all about giving away your money rather than recreating ? Varies by resort and market I'm sure.
3. if lift tix prices are appropriate to actual operating costs rather than disneyfication, the ski industry and skiers are in a pickle. If needed to fund disneyfication and looking for clientele willing to pay "upscale" prices in artificial retail villages to show their socioeconomic status, leave the disneyfication to disney and give us skiing.
4. whether intended or not, $120/day tix are creating an exclusion effect based on socioeconomic class. The income gravy train of the last 40 years isn't coming back (because the faliures of deregulated supply-side economics are becoming too blatant to ignore) even for those who got to ride it in the first place (not everyone...) so the clientele able to afford skiing will continue to dwindle in direct relation to the shrinking middle class. And we know that the rising tide that floated all boats since the end of WW2 was, a broad strong middle class, which is now under threat. We'll leave the politics of that for a separate thread.
5. there will always be rich folks willing to pay $160/day for concierge service, blah blah blah. Let them have their designer resorts. For the rest of us who actually keep the country running, a way needs to be found to create downward pressure on lift ticket prices while delivering an adequately comfortable amenities experience so that the sport remains accessible to a broad market.

We all discovered long ago that social class is a bad joke, yet many have rediscovered that Kool-Aid and are sucking it down, and via pricing, the ski industry is effectively participating in that idiocy, whether on purpose or unwittingly. It's a slippery slope (no pun intended - water injected ?) because a huge healthy middle class able to spend its money on quality of life activities that it can afford, spreads that wealth around much more effectively than trade in products only affordable by a putative elite.

 

[Wilhelmson]

I wrote a comment in the dirtbag areas thread https://www.pugski.com/threads/best-dirtbag-ski-areas.13908/page-6#post-335602 prompted by memories of skiing in NY from the late 1970s on. It's long. Basically:

1. prices for day lift tix are insane
2. what's the product being sold ? an excellent on-snow experience with functioning amenities around it, or another disneyfied recreational activity that's all about giving away your money rather than recreating ? Varies by resort and market I'm sure.
3. if lift tix prices are appropriate to actual operating costs rather than disneyfication, the ski industry and skiers are in a pickle. If needed to fund disneyfication and looking for clientele willing to pay "upscale" prices in artificial retail villages to show their socioeconomic status, leave the disneyfication to disney and give us skiing.
4. whether intended or not, $120/day tix are creating an exclusion effect based on socioeconomic class. The income gravy train of the last 40 years isn't coming back (because the faliures of deregulated supply-side economics are becoming too blatant to ignore) even for those who got to ride it in the first place (not everyone...) so the clientele able to afford skiing will continue to dwindle in direct relation to the shrinking middle class. And we know that the rising tide that floated all boats since the end of WW2 was, a broad strong middle class, which is now under threat. We'll leave the politics of that for a separate thread.
5. there will always be rich folks willing to pay $160/day for concierge service, blah blah blah. Let them have their designer resorts. For the rest of us who actually keep the country running, a way needs to be found to create downward pressure on lift ticket prices while delivering an adequately comfortable amenities experience so that the sport remains accessible to a broad market.

We all discovered long ago that social class is a bad joke, yet many have rediscovered that Kool-Aid and are sucking it down, and via pricing, the ski industry is effectively participating in that idiocy, whether on purpose or unwittingly. It's a slippery slope (no pun intended - water injected ?) because a huge healthy middle class able to spend its money on quality of life activities that it can afford, spreads that wealth around much more effectively than trade in products only affordable by a putative elite.

Liftopia. https://www.liftopia.com/find-tickets/new-england?utf8=✓&start_date=2019-03-09&days=1

 

[Goose]

I wrote a comment in the dirtbag areas thread https://www.pugski.com/threads/best-dirtbag-ski-areas.13908/page-6#post-335602 prompted by memories of skiing in NY from the late 1970s on. It's long. Basically:

1. prices for day lift tix are insane
2. what's the product being sold ? an excellent on-snow experience with functioning amenities around it, or another disneyfied recreational activity that's all about giving away your money rather than recreating ? Varies by resort and market I'm sure.
3. if lift tix prices are appropriate to actual operating costs rather than disneyfication, the ski industry and skiers are in a pickle. If needed to fund disneyfication and looking for clientele willing to pay "upscale" prices in artificial retail villages to show their socioeconomic status, leave the disneyfication to disney and give us skiing.
4. whether intended or not, $120/day tix are creating an exclusion effect based on socioeconomic class. The income gravy train of the last 40 years isn't coming back (because the faliures of deregulated supply-side economics are becoming too blatant to ignore) even for those who got to ride it in the first place (not everyone...) so the clientele able to afford skiing will continue to dwindle in direct relation to the shrinking middle class. And we know that the rising tide that floated all boats since the end of WW2 was, a broad strong middle class, which is now under threat. We'll leave the politics of that for a separate thread.
5. there will always be rich folks willing to pay $160/day for concierge service, blah blah blah. Let them have their designer resorts. For the rest of us who actually keep the country running, a way needs to be found to create downward pressure on lift ticket prices while delivering an adequately comfortable amenities experience so that the sport remains accessible to a broad market.

We all discovered long ago that social class is a bad joke, yet many have rediscovered that Kool-Aid and are sucking it down, and via pricing, the ski industry is effectively participating in that idiocy, whether on purpose or unwittingly. It's a slippery slope (no pun intended - water injected ?) because a huge healthy middle class able to spend its money on quality of life activities that it can afford, spreads that wealth around much more effectively than trade in products only affordable by a putative elite.

Good post imo.
Its certainly the commons in the end that has the greatest impact on most everything. They/we are the ones most heavily supporting the services and products and industry. The commons will do and buy what they can as long as they are fed correctly. In turn that creates jobs and revenue flow for everything including taxes and of course big corp itself. Its a nice catch -22 upward healthy economic spiral but unfortunately its often ignored by greed. And so, as you say the middle class shrinks more and more which is a downward unhealthy spiral for everything. That all being said ,....skiing never really was exactly the "poor mans sport" . I mean once well modernized and established it has been a recreation which require disposable resources of time and money.

So imo it was really always more for those who afforded both. While many people were/are able to dabble in it , there was never a real steady participation among individuals within the commons. The resources required just are not there. There was and probably still is always the "ski bums" who live/lived for it and came at the cost of most anything else. There were/are always a percentage of "the locals" to ski resorts who grew up with it being their major choice of recreation and were/are able to do it with less time and money resources vs non locals. As for the rest of the general populations especially non local 'commons", it was always only a small percentage. never the "poor mans recreation". Plus the weather and simple lack of interest or lack of awareness about skiing as a choice of recreation.

it was always a recreation that was unique. And mostly favored the upper middle and wealthier classes. Participating in the recreation for most non local middle class families is something done only minimally. Its very hard to do on a consistent steady repeatable basis for the reasons given. And i think it was always that way for the most part. And like most everything else when it comes to the shrinking middle class, it becomes harder and harder as the disposable resources of time and money become less and less available.

 

[mister moose]

so the clientele able to afford skiing will continue to dwindle in direct relation to the shrinking middle class.

Yeah, maybe-not-so-much.

If your average middle class skier wannabe drove 8 year old cars, used 2 year old cell phones off contract and dropped their premium cable, there would be a lot more choices. Life is about choices, not having a heaping full plate.

For instance, my local 600' mole hill gets $60 for a full day weekend ticket, or you can get a 2 hour ticket for just $36. A midweek 12 pack is $25 per day, and that includes night skiing so you can go after work. If you live near Pittsfield, MA you can ski at Bousquet's on the weekend for $47, a night ticket is $20, and the Thursday night special is $10. TEN DOLLARS. No need for a log-on, coupon, Groupon, or Grey Poupon. Can't get any more middle class than that. I bet the Genny Cream Ale drafts there are $3.50 these days.

The bulk of us don't live near ski resorts, so why expect to ski at a resort very often? It's the local hills that provide true middle class skiing. The next option is a ski house share, or a ski club lodge, a cheap season pass, and ski in bulk. The cost per day there is very low as well. The Hartford Ski Club has a lodge at Mad River Glen.

If you're going to maintain more impulsive independence, and flit around from mountain to mountain 250 miles away and stay in hotels most weekends, then that doesn't sound very middle class to me.

Here in the East, the impulsive walk up rate at Stowe is $134, Killington is $124, Stratton is $125. That is NOT directed at the middle class family. If you want to ski Killington economically, you buy $45 advance Pico tickets in November and stay in Rutland on an off weekend.

 

[Goose]

Yeah, maybe-not-so-much.

If your average middle class skier wannabe drove 8 year old cars, used 2 year old cell phones off contract and dropped their premium cable, there would be a lot more choices. Life is about choices, not having a heaping full plate.

For instance, my local 600' mole hill gets $60 for a full day weekend ticket, or you can get a 2 hour ticket for just $36. A midweek 12 pack is $25 per day, and that includes night skiing so you can go after work. If you live near Pittsfield, MA you can ski at Bousquet's on the weekend for $47, a night ticket is $20, and the Thursday night special is $10. TEN DOLLARS. No need for a log-on, coupon, Groupon, or Grey Poupon. Can't get any more middle class than that. I bet the Genny Cream Ale drafts there are $3.50 these days.

The bulk of us don't live near ski resorts, so why expect to ski at a resort very often? It's the local hills that provide true middle class skiing. The next option is a ski house share, or a ski club lodge, a cheap season pass, and ski in bulk. The cost per day there is very low as well. The Hartford Ski Club has a lodge at Mad River Glen.

If you're going to maintain more impulsive independence, and flit around from mountain to mountain 250 miles away and stay in hotels most weekends, then that doesn't sound very middle class to me.

Here in the East, the impulsive walk up rate at Stowe is $134, Killington is $124, Stratton is $125. That is NOT directed at the middle class family. If you want to ski Killington economically, you buy $45 advance Pico tickets in November and stay in Rutland on an off weekend.

But what your speaking of is not at all always all there is to it. Some of what you say may be true and to some degree we may all be at least a little guilty of it as for many the things we do. But its not at all always as simple as you make that sound.

Everyone has very different lives. No one and I mean no one truly knows exactly how other people live the way they do. Nor do they know what is truly involved in the families and daily lives of those people. You cant just throw out generalizations that suggest if one simply did this or that couple/few different things they would then be skiing regularly. Everyone has different obs and stresses, and problems. So its not that simple and is really much more complicated than that for very many people. Choices are not at all always simple and many of them are made in sync with the daily workings of everyone's very different life and all that is involved.

And besides, most people don't live near enough anyway. I mean there are locals and then there are the outer bit still near enough populations. After that....is then where most the masses actually live. And even then no one can say just where exactly being local enough ends and non local begins. That is all at best only subjective and relative to the daily lives for that given person/family.

 

[raisingarizona]

The statement or sentiment that everyone’s situation is based solely on life choices lacks empathy, requires zero effort as far as exercising our critical thinking skills and oversimplifies what is often a complicated mix of very personal experiences and situations.