The Big Question: Do Skiers Always Want Bigger & Faster?
November 29th, 2011
I’ve touched on this subject before, and have tried starting a post around this idea a few times, but today, I hope to get the words out right. No “how to” post today, more of a deeper thinker than anything else. The question I keep asking myself is: why do resorts always try to expand? That has two sides. First, are resorts expanding capacity at a rate that is faster than skier numbers are growing? Second, in marketing mode, does a bigger, faster, and stronger resort always make for a better, more attractive skiing product?
I’m not pretending to have the answers, but what I find fascinating is the debate from both sides and what that is teaching me about how skiers think. One such movement that is picking up a lot of steam in the industry is Mountain Rider’s Alliance. As a skier it intrigues me. As a marketer, it’s revealing some very interesting insights into how skiers regard the industry.
How it Works
It’s pretty simple, these guys focus on sustainability and the skiing. So, their flagship ski area, Manitoba Mountain, is designed with surface tows and renewable resources to get skiers to some pretty incredible terrain. At 1,000 skiable acres, it’s hardly a giant as far as areas go. Here are a few of the rules their “mountain playgrounds” will live by:
- Strategically placed lifts
- Free parking with quick access to lifts
- An updated, real-time website that provides information about lift operations and weather conditions
- Alternative off-the-slopes activities for those not interested in being on the hill and/or bad weather days
- A reliable eco-friendly shuttle bus system
- A clock at all lift stations
- The ability to purchase membership shares and have a voice in your own mountain playground
- Shareholder and member privileges
The Momentum
I first caught wind of this organization this summer, loved the idea, and even pitched in with some design and development work, but I really wasn’t sure how they would be received in the industry. So far, they’ve had some incredible coverage and responses:
- Skiing Magazine
- Powder Magazine
- Ski Area Management
- ESPN
- Teton Gravity Research
- First Tracks
- …full list »
The consensus seems to be that this isn’t just a crazy idea cooked up by altruistic skiers, this is an extremely smart idea cooked up by altruistic skiers that is starting to resonate in the hearts of all snowsport enthusiasts. In other words, many do believe less is more when it comes to the product of skiing.
More Intriguing Debates
Canyons Resort and Solitude recently announced a proposal to link the resorts with an 8-passenger gondola. As a huge fan of Solitude on powder days, my jury is still out on whether I like the idea, but if you skip past the “unbiased” media coverage and read the comments here, here, and here, you get some pretty interesting insight into how skiers and boarders are viewing the proposal. Among other comments, lots of skiers are questioning Solitude’s brand.
What Does it All Mean
Beside the end result, the one thing I will be watching is how skiers on both sides argue their cases. When trends like this emerge, there may not be a right and wrong, but just the act of debating the reasons for supporting or ignoring something like Mountain Rider’s Alliance or the Canyons / Solitude interconnect would provide volumes of insight into how skiers think and behave. I’m not one to read comments on news sites, but it’s like a public focus group for these ski proposals. Free market research anyone?
Facebook 
Twitter 
RSS
SlopeFillers is run by marketer and skier / snowboarder, 
I'm a believer that bigger doesn't always equal better. My local ski area is a mom and pop operation in the PNW, it has great snow and NO crowds. When I travel I usually opt for resorts like my local area because tickets are usually cheaper and I get more fresh tracks. That is a quality day by my standards.
Interesting thoughts. In the 90's I was a ski bum at Squaw Valley and had arogance and disdain for any small resort…I considered Sv the best mountain due to it's huge terraine and six pack fast lifts. I made fun of the little resort and called it flat star. Well 10 years later and three kids with husband later I finally got back to skiing. Northstar (a small hill of a mountain) had the best price for late passes so i decided to give it a go. Well it dumped and stormed non stop after a dry spell last winter..every day I skied it was a pow day. This little resort had the most INSANE tree runs..where compared to my old resort which had three trees on west face (one could hide when nuclear winds were blowing) and a couple of trees here and there (try squatting as a woman with your bareness out there with skis on and no coverage). The treeslines were so tight you had to ski sideways…a run was never the same! As the wind and storm picked up this mountain stayed protected and got better and better. Due to the smallness of this mountain THERE WAS NO ONE THERE and TOURISTS STUCK TO GROOMERS… I never had to wait in line..it was me and about 10 other guys farming the fresh pow and being tree trolls all day. The big storms shut down the big mountain..there was about 200 hundred people on KT lift line and it took an hour to get one line. (least that what my frinds were telling me). So this natural little mountain began to grow on me quickly..the quaintness of the lodge, free ski/board lessons offered everyday (sweet to have an instructor with me on the big days where the tree wells were 7 feet), a 2 dollar draft beer-yeah I know the holy grail has been found and an insane terraine park. Here I was 17 years later at the little resort that put smiles everyday on my face. I am going back to big bowls next year (SV had the cheapest pass) But if i have to wait in line and deal with peoples swooping on my line I might go back to my hill for more untracked snow. Most of the time I would roll in at 10 and smile because there was still powder to be had.
I'd compare Ski Resorts assuming skiers always want bigger and faster to the US Government using the GDP as a barometer to gauge happiness.
IMHO, the reality is that it's not so black and white as big vs. small. There is a lot of gray area in the question of "Do Skiers Always Want Bigger & Faster?" I think by adding the word "Always" the question is being posed as one or the other when in reality it can be both. Additionally, by posing it as one vs. the other, it's oversimplifying the issue.
Some people do want bigger resorts with more amenities while others are content with smaller resorts that are not expanding. Personally (translate – very small focus group that is not representative of the larger population), I know
skiers in the mid west and east cost that ski as small local hills that are family business. Then once a year they make a trip with their family to some where out west or in Europe. When they go on these trips they might ski a small resort 1 or 2 days and a large expansive resort like a Whister, Vail, Squaw, Park City, Val-D'isere the rest of the time. Point being that there is room for both and neither of them are right or wrong, just different.
Every industry segments their customer base accordingly. Airlines have a first class cabins and hotels have suits for a reason. The Auto industry has companies such as Kia and Mercedies both with clearly different target audiences.
This basic principal applies to the ski industry too and therefore the big question should be more along the lines of: Can the skier population support both large and expanding corporate ski areas and small business (mom & pop) ski areas?
Aaron, I have to admit, I almost stopped reading when I saw your comment started with "IMHO" ;) But really, thanks so much for the comment, you make a great point. When I said "skiers", we of course can't discuss what each individual skier wants, I was referring to some unnamed form of a majority.
And in reply to your question, "Can the skier population support both large and expanding corporate ski areas and small business (mom & pop) ski areas?", for an economic or industry-wide perspective, that would be spot on. What I was trying to get at with this post was a marketing perspective: do we, as marketers, need a mountain that is constantly expanding to have an attractive product to market. Is a bigger, faster, fancier mountain what skiers "want" or "demand" or is that what we think they want?
As you pointed out, some skiers prefer smaller. Some prefer bigger. Others don't care. With that being the case, we can then ask, a) how big is each group, and b) why do some skiers fall into one group and not the other? The latter is a discussion that I've been watching and learning a lot from.
Thanks again, Aaron!