What's new at Alta

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2419518

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

"At 8,500 feet, that makes it hard for a lot of folks," especially
vacationers coming from near sea level "At 8,500 feet, that makes it hard
for a lot of folks," especially vacationers coming from near sea level"

I wonder what percentage of people actually come from someplace other than
Utah. The fact that Utah resorts don't offer many lift ticket deals for
locals makes me believe that their primary income is in fact Utah locals.

In Co I can always buy a lift ticket the same day in Denver and ski for
around 30, while in Alta its 47 a day.

"Walt" wrote in message
...

http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2419518

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Walt wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2419518


Quoting:
"Alta hopes to reverse recent trends that have seen its skier-day
numbers drop 3.4 percent over the past decade."

I suppose it will never occur to them that this drop in skier-days
coincides with their so-called improvement activities?

The whole dam ski industry has been going to hell in a handbasket,
starting exactly the instant they started calling skiing an "industry."

Bunch of wuss business school grads. Evil *******s.

There are other reasons for them dropping as well that should be of a
concern to Alta but is not necessarily within their control.

And this is not a bash on skiing or boarding or Alta or trolling, just an
analysis of the data.

According to the ski area associations and the sporting good associations,
there has only been about a 4% increase in skier/boarder days in 10 years.
In 1994 their were 10.6 million skiers, last year 6.8 million (a 8.5% drop
from the year before). Snowboarders grew to 6.3 million (an increase of
12.9% from the year before). I can't tell from the data whether the increase
in snowboarding is due to new people taking it up or crossover from skiing.
In 2002 it said that 15.2% of skiers also boarded and 11.5% of boarders also
skied. Another interesting fact from the ski areas is that the retention of
new people is only about 15%.

Skiiers are dropping in numbers and skiing less number of days per season.
Boarders are increasing in numbers and are on the mountain more skier days
per season. The majority of new boarders are young, average age of skiers
30, boarders 23. Families taking vacations together are going to go to areas
that have both activities. My sister's family of 5 was all skiers, now just
the parents ski while the kids mainly board (ages 14-20).

Alta has significantly less skiers to attract over the past 10 years. So the
question for them is how do they gain a larger market share out of a
dwindling market. I guess they think it is through these upgrades.

More important, how does the ski industry (Oops, sorry to use the I word)
increase retention of new people that try the sport? Is it learning curve?
Cost of the sport? Evil ESPN promoting the X games?

Good news - If you want to meet women ski 60/40 male/female, boarders 77/23.
Household income $50K plus 83.4% skiers, 65.1% boarders. $35-$50K 6.7%
skiers, 15.4% boarders. So about 10% of skiers are ski bums, and 20% of
boarders?







"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2419518


Quoting:
"Alta hopes to reverse recent trends that have seen its skier-day numbers
drop 3.4 percent over the past decade."

I suppose it will never occur to them that this drop in skier-days
coincides with their so-called improvement activities?

The whole dam ski industry has been going to hell in a handbasket,
starting exactly the instant they started calling skiing an "industry."

Bunch of wuss business school grads. Evil *******s.

lal_truckee wrote:
I suppose it will never occur to them that this drop in skier-days
coincides with their so-called improvement activities?

The decline directly coincides with Otto taking over from
Morton. Another complicating factor is that the Alta hard cores don't
have a great reputation among tourists, or even locals from other
resorts. The decline is exactly what they've been shooting
for. They've bitten the hand that feeds them. How many stories have
you heard about incidents on the high traverse on powder days? Or look
at the comments Wasatch Back skiers get from the Alta crowd. If you're
going to be elite, you're going to have to pay elite prices. Even Deer
Valley figured that out. I think that issue is a bigger detriment to
getting tourists than a twenty foot vertical climb to the lift. If a
tourist can't handle a 20 foot vertical climb without getting out of
breath, what the hell are they doing skiing? Maybe golf would be more
their speed.

-klaus

Root wrote:

I wonder what percentage of people actually come from someplace other than
Utah. The fact that Utah resorts don't offer many lift ticket deals for
locals makes me believe that their primary income is in fact Utah locals.

Hmmm. I've always found it pretty easy to get discounted lift tickets
in SLC. Or do you mean that they don't offer many lift ticket deals to
locals without offering the same thing to everybody else? As it is
anybody who wanders into the local Smith's Grocery or Gart Sports can
buy discount tickets to SLC resorts.


In Co I can always buy a lift ticket the same day in Denver and ski for
around 30, while in Alta its 47 a day.

Where do you find those, and what resort are they good at? Or is this a
"locals only" perk?

--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

Kurt Knisely wrote:
In article , lal_truckee says...

Bunch of wuss business school grads. Evil *******s.

I work w/ a bunch of 'em. MBAs from local Universities. I think they clone
them? The propeller head computer geeks have to keep them in line. They're
always categorizing everything w/ accounting codes...bean counters all of them.

There's a basic conflict here. They want the hill to make as much money
as possible. We want it to be a nice place to ski. Sometimes the
interests overlap, but when they don't guess which side wins? (HINT:
money doesn't talk, it shouts)


--
//-Walt
//
// http://cagle.slate.msn.com/working/040514/matson.gif

I live in Washington State but have taken several skiing vacations in Utah
with my teenage sons. I've skied every area from Odgen to Park City to
SLC -- except Alta and Deer Valley, because my sons are boarders.

nielsdt


"tg" wrote in message
...
There are other reasons for them dropping as well that should be of a
concern to Alta but is not necessarily within their control.

And this is not a bash on skiing or boarding or Alta or trolling, just an
analysis of the data.

According to the ski area associations and the sporting good associations,
there has only been about a 4% increase in skier/boarder days in 10 years.
In 1994 their were 10.6 million skiers, last year 6.8 million (a 8.5% drop
from the year before). Snowboarders grew to 6.3 million (an increase of
12.9% from the year before). I can't tell from the data whether the
increase
in snowboarding is due to new people taking it up or crossover from
skiing.
In 2002 it said that 15.2% of skiers also boarded and 11.5% of boarders
also
skied. Another interesting fact from the ski areas is that the retention
of
new people is only about 15%.

Skiiers are dropping in numbers and skiing less number of days per season.
Boarders are increasing in numbers and are on the mountain more skier days
per season. The majority of new boarders are young, average age of skiers
30, boarders 23. Families taking vacations together are going to go to
areas
that have both activities. My sister's family of 5 was all skiers, now
just
the parents ski while the kids mainly board (ages 14-20).

Alta has significantly less skiers to attract over the past 10 years. So
the
question for them is how do they gain a larger market share out of a
dwindling market. I guess they think it is through these upgrades.

More important, how does the ski industry (Oops, sorry to use the I word)
increase retention of new people that try the sport? Is it learning curve?
Cost of the sport? Evil ESPN promoting the X games?

Good news - If you want to meet women ski 60/40 male/female, boarders
77/23.
Household income $50K plus 83.4% skiers, 65.1% boarders. $35-$50K 6.7%
skiers, 15.4% boarders. So about 10% of skiers are ski bums, and 20% of
boarders?







"lal_truckee" wrote in message
...
Walt wrote:
http://www.sltrib.com/business/ci_2419518


Quoting:
"Alta hopes to reverse recent trends that have seen its skier-day
numbers
drop 3.4 percent over the past decade."

I suppose it will never occur to them that this drop in skier-days
coincides with their so-called improvement activities?

The whole dam ski industry has been going to hell in a handbasket,
starting exactly the instant they started calling skiing an "industry."

Bunch of wuss business school grads. Evil *******s.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:20:35 -0700, "nielsdt"
wrote:

I live in Washington State but have taken several skiing vacations in Utah
with my teenage sons. I've skied every area from Odgen to Park City to
SLC -- except Alta and Deer Valley, because my sons are boarders.

This is exactly what is going on. It's a simple matter of a very real
and significant demographic shift away from alpine skiing, and towards
boarding and backcountry (tele/at) skiing.

You talk to the skiers at other areas, and that's the reason
given...because they are with friends that board, or the kids are
boarders.

So, it's a two-pronged decline, a double loss; snowboarders, and the
skiers that hang out with the snowboarders (friends, family, etc.).

Any other reason given for this decline...these so called
coincidences, incidents, name-calling, fights on the high traverse,
etc., is just nonsense, or they are so insignificant that they are not
a factor in the calculation.

The fact of the matter is that boarding and the rise in the popularity
of backcountry skiing has taken skiers away from Alta. It's actually
*less* crowded than it used to be.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

Regardless, unlike many US ski areas, Alta operates in the black, and
will continue to do so for the foreseeable future...notwithstanding
these so-called upgrades and improvements.

IMO, the only way Alta will ever attract *significantly* more skiers
is to allow snowboards.

-Astro

AstroPax wrote:

Any other reason given for this decline...these so called
coincidences, incidents, name-calling, fights on the high traverse,
etc., is just nonsense, or they are so insignificant that they are not
a factor in the calculation.

Hmmmm.... how's Deer Valley doing on skiers days in that same
timeframe? If what you say is true, wouldn't they be down as well?

The fact of the matter is that boarding and the rise in the popularity
of backcountry skiing has taken skiers away from Alta.

Well, if we're going on data points of population one. I used to ski
Alta. I know why I don't anymore. And I know several people that feel
the same way. To discount it completely and offhand while Deer Valley
thrives is nonsense.

It's actually
*less* crowded than it used to be.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

Like I said before... It's what the Alta folks wanted. But the price
is gonna go up.

Regardless, unlike many US ski areas, Alta operates in the black, and
will continue to do so for the foreseeable future...notwithstanding
these so-called upgrades and improvements.

IMO, the only way Alta will ever attract *significantly* more skiers
is to allow snowboards.

So why don't they?

-klaus