Article in SKI magazine

[BushMogulMaster]

February 2007 article on the Bush (got a front-page slot!):

"Sugarbush, VT. Historic skiing with a bright future"

"Hamstrung owners and headstrong locals have long arrested development at one of Vermont's premier mountains. But current management, treading softly, is making great strides, and the resort is poised for a renaissance."

Overall a great article. Hopefully it will bring some people to the Bush... but keep them all at South so that I can keep ME for myself! :wink:

If you get a chance, you should pick up a copy of this issue to read the article. Good publicity! :D

[sugarboarder]

Hopefully it will bring some people to the Bush... but keep them all at South so that I can keep ME for myself! :wink:

Headstrong locals? Here? Naahhh...come on. :P

[BushMogulMaster]

Hopefully it will bring some people to the Bush... but keep them all at South so that I can keep ME for myself! :wink:

Headstrong locals? Here? Naahhh...come on. :P

:lol: My sentiments exactly!

[ScoobySnack]

Now perhaps next time, Ski Mag will give Sugarbush a higher rating than #13 in the East in their resort rankings (as in their recent resort issue). 13th??

[BushMogulMaster]

Now perhaps next time, Ski Mag will give Sugarbush a higher rating than #13 in the East in their resort rankings (as in their recent resort issue). 13th??

Unfortunately, it's the readers who vote for that (IIRC). That's really a shame. I guess we just all have to make sure we vote for SB next year!

[Tin Woodsman]

Now perhaps next time, Ski Mag will give Sugarbush a higher rating than #13 in the East in their resort rankings (as in their recent resort issue). 13th??

Unfortunately, it's the skiers who vote for that (IIRC). That's really a shame. I guess we just all have to make sure we vote for SB next year!

This subject has been beaten into the ground a million times. Yes, it's the skiers, not the editors of SKI, who rate the resorts. You should all know that the survey is fundamentally flawed due to having too small of a sample size. SKI crowed this year that they received a record number of surveys - about 5000! Assuming that they only receive ratings for the top 200 or so ski areas (the rest are Mom and Pops), that's a mere 25 responses per resort. When you consider that the number of responses for each ski area are likely proportional to their popularity, it stands to reason that the big boys like Vail, W/B, Aspen, Squaw Valley, etc... will have 40-50 each, leaving mid-tier resorts in the East or West with as few as 5-10 responses each. So what you're seeing in SKI is the opinions of perhaps a dozen people, at most, once you get past the top 25-50 resorts nationwide. That doesn't make for a very valid survey process, and is the reason that places like Hoiday Valley end up in the top 10.

Repeat after me - the SKI Magazine resort survey is fundamentally flawed and essentially useless. It is an embarrassment that any resort would reference it in their marketing swag given its built-in uselesness.

[BushMogulMaster]

Now perhaps next time, Ski Mag will give Sugarbush a higher rating than #13 in the East in their resort rankings (as in their recent resort issue). 13th??

Unfortunately, it's the skiers who vote for that (IIRC). That's really a shame. I guess we just all have to make sure we vote for SB next year!

This subject has been beaten into the ground a million times. Yes, it's the skiers, not the editors of SKI, who rate the resorts. You should all know that the survey is fundamentally flawed due to having too small of a sample size. SKI crowed this year that they received a record number of surveys - about 5000! Assuming that they only receive ratings for the top 200 or so ski areas (the rest are Mom and Pops), that's a mere 25 responses per resort. When you consider that the number of responses for each ski area are likely proportional to their popularity, it stands to reason that the big boys like Vail, W/B, Aspen, Squaw Valley, etc... will have 40-50 each, leaving mid-tier resorts in the East or West with as few as 5-10 responses each. So what you're seeing in SKI is the opinions of perhaps a dozen people, at most, once you get past the top 25-50 resorts nationwide. That doesn't make for a very valid survey process, and is the reason that places like Hoiday Valley end up in the top 10.

Repeat after me - the SKI Magazine resort survey is fundamentally flawed and essentially useless. It is an embarrassment that any resort would reference it in their marketing swag given its built-in uselesness.

The SKI Magazine resort survey is fundamentally flawed and essentially useless. It is an embarrassment that any resort would reference it in their marketing swag given its built-in uselesness.

[Tin Woodsman]

The SKI Magazine resort survey is fundamentally flawed and essentially useless. It is an embarrassment that any resort would reference it in their marketing swag given its built-in uselesness.

I've trained you well, young Padowan.

[BushMogulMaster]

The SKI Magazine resort survey is fundamentally flawed and essentially useless. It is an embarrassment that any resort would reference it in their marketing swag given its built-in uselesness.

I've trained you well, young Padowan.

Yes, Master.

[Lostone]

Marketing people (Yes... including those at Sugarbush. :shock: ) will always point to and advertise any good review from anyone. It is called marketing.

Let me know when you hear of any mountain that will say "We got the top in xxx mag, but their opinion is not worth too much." :?

It ain't happening! :wink:

[Tin Woodsman]

Marketing people (Yes... including those at Sugarbush. :shock: ) will always point to and advertise any good review from anyone. It is called marketing.

Let me know when you hear of any mountain that will say "We got the top in xxx mag, but their opinion is not worth too much." :?

It ain't happening! :wink:

But of course - I would expect nothing less. Still, it's weak sauce.

[sugarboarder]

The SKI Magazine resort survey is fundamentally flawed and essentially useless. It is an embarrassment that any resort would reference it in their marketing swag given its built-in uselesness.

Ommmmmmmmm...