Our Vermont Sandbox maybe changing

[random_ski_guy]

[quote="Tin Woodsman"]

My post from last night on this subject from the other thread:

Thought #1

I can't help but guess that Intrawest/Fortis is kicking the tires on Stowe. I have no facts to back this up, just pure speculation. I wonder, are the sales at Stowe there to match the product that has been released thus far? Their product, while grand, its very pricey for the east coast second home ski market. I wonder, how long can AIG keep this expensive and risky real estate project & ski area on its books now that Hank Greenberg isn't around to protect it. I think AIG has done a good job with the mountain. I wouldn't be cheering for a change in ownership here. Stowe + Whistler = Something? Anything. Dunno.

I doubt if Intrawest is kickign the tires on AIG - if it's even for sale. They are already have a heavy exposure to EC skiing in the form of Stratton, Tremblant, Mountain Creek and Snowshoe. Besides, there isn't much in the way of real estate opportunities left at Stowe. As the marketing swag screams, this will be the last mountainside real estate opportunity ever at Stowe.

[quote]
Thought #2

I hear you about the lack development opportunities at Stowe devaluing the acquisition. But my premise is this; with Hank Greenberg out at AIG, how long can AIG dabble in operating a ski area with a $250M+ development in northern VT? Its pretty far outside the box for an insurance company. If sales are slow and you've just plopped down $100M to get it started, the red ink will start to run. When the ski area calls pappa bear AIG for $ to fund the deficits, will the new mgmt at AIG consider a sale? Hey, if sales are on track, then AIG keeps the mtn.

Anyways, the article says the other sale would be a surprise....Stowe would indeed be a surprise. What's your guess on the surprise sale?

[HowieT2]

That would be a very reasonable explanation for why there are no billboards for SB in Rutland. Thank you, I never knew that. I guess the signs I see on my drive are all in NY.

[smootharc]

K-mart can plan/build/restore 'till the cows come home and it will never appeal to the same market as SB. The genie is out of the bottle in Rutland and there isn't anything they can do to make it like the MRV. There are many people who like what they have going there, probably more than enjoy the MRV. The more K-Mart builds, the less attractive it will be to the those of us who love the MRV.

Kind of my thoughts with regards to Summit Ventures needing to quake in their boots at this prospect.

Does a nice restaurant quake in it's boots when another Mickey-D's gets crowded onto their local strip ? Probably not. Sugarbush seems to be about building on the core valley lovers, attracting new clients who didn't really know there was such a sweet "simply sweeter" option (to the McMountain world), and re-attracting those who skied here growing up, faded away as SB's luster faded, but would be excited to see all the positive changes (and who now have families of their own). That mission seems to be well in place and moving forward nicely.....and recent press and word of mouth seem to be reflecting a positive buzz about the place.

[tymoguls]

I have a vague memory from my youth about a guy who would roam the highway-side cutting down billboards with a chain saw. Ring any bells with any one?

[Tin Woodsman]

K-mart can plan/build/restore 'till the cows come home and it will never appeal to the same market as SB. The genie is out of the bottle in Rutland and there isn't anything they can do to make it like the MRV. There are many people who like what they have going there, probably more than enjoy the MRV. The more K-Mart builds, the less attractive it will be to the those of us who love the MRV.

I would caution against this type of complacency. We all know that SB offers a superior product to K-Mart, but we already drank the Kool-Aid. It's the fence-sitters and non-believers you need to convince in order to make the emerging LP base village a success. Let's face it - if there were hundreds of people lining up for real estate at SB, Clay Brook would be full already. It isn't The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of perfectly fine ski areas (in the yes of the typical skier) between SB and the major population centers (K-Mart and all of NH for the Boston metro and the Berkshires, Catskills, and all of Southern VT for the NY metro). When you have kids, and you aren't super dedicated, it takes a LOT of convincing to drive that extra 60-90 minutes north. Why do you think Okemo is so successful? By any reasonable metric, it has lousy terrain, marginal natural snow, and a fairly uninspiring town at its base (Ludlow). But it provides a consistent product and a lower price point than Stratton. Because it is within reachof the NY metro and CT skiers, it does very, very well.

Think about how this dynamic changes when you have a mountain with real terrain (don't be fooled - K-Mart has some goods) that will grow by 25% (via the interconnect) and then adds a legit base village. All of this will be 30-60 minutes closer to where everyone lives. The attitude of "We're so good we don't need to worry about those wahoos down south" is extremely dangerous, IMHO. I think Win and his partners are smart enough to see through that smoke screen and strike while the iron is hot, if possible. SB may appeal to a more discerning, dedicated skier, but when the kids are screaming and bitching in the back seat after a 2 or 3 hour drive, that will break the will of many parents to continue heading North.

[random_ski_guy]

K-mart can plan/build/restore 'till the cows come home and it will never appeal to the same market as SB. The genie is out of the bottle in Rutland and there isn't anything they can do to make it like the MRV. There are many people who like what they have going there, probably more than enjoy the MRV. The more K-Mart builds, the less attractive it will be to the those of us who love the MRV.

I would caution against this type of complacency. We all know that SB offers a superior product to K-Mart, but we already drank the Kool-Aid. It's the fence-sitters and non-believers you need to convince in order to make the emerging LP base village a success. Let's face it - if there were hundreds of people lining up for real estate at SB, Clay Brook would be full already. It isn't The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of perfectly fine ski areas (in the yes of the typical skier) between SB and the major population centers (K-Mart and all of NH for the Boston metro and the Berkshires, Catskills, and all of Southern VT for the NY metro). When you have kids, and you aren't super dedicated, it takes a LOT of convincing to drive that extra 60-90 minutes north. Why do you think Okemo is so successful? By any reasonable metric, it has lousy terrain, marginal natural snow, and a fairly uninspiring town at its base (Ludlow). But it provides a consistent product and a lower price point than Stratton. Because it is within reachof the NY metro and CT skiers, it does very, very well.

Think about how this dynamic changes when you have a mountain with real terrain (don't be fooled - K-Mart has some goods) that will grow by 25% (via the interconnect) and then adds a legit base village. All of this will be 30-60 minutes closer to where everyone lives. The attitude of "We're so good we don't need to worry about those wahoos down south" is extremely dangerous, IMHO. I think Win and his partners are smart enough to see through that smoke screen and strike while the iron is hot, if possible. SB may appeal to a more discerning, dedicated skier, but when the kids are screaming and bitching in the back seat after a 2 or 3 hour drive, that will break the will of many parents to continue heading North.

Tin, I think you have nailed this. When it comes to selling the new base village real estate, you have to take every competitor south of you seriously. For a decade you have been able to ignore kton for the most part because they couldn't get their act together. A new owner could change all that. SB is very much competing against kton, okemo, stratton and others for the all important real estate & entertainment dollar. When you're about to spend 200k, 500k or $1M, you tend to look around. Whether its a group of college buddies organizing a ski weekend or a family thinking about a ski week, for most skiers, all these mountains are in play. Unlike the sophisticates who frequent this forum, the masses don't geek out like we do about skiing. Many times, they just go where the wind takes them.

So all I am saying is that you have to take the threat of a reorganized kmart seriously should it happen. For SB, I think that means that they just need to stay on course with their current plan/message. We all know that SB has great deal to offer that others could never duplicate.

[kcyanks1]

Of course SB would also have to change their marketing strategy:

"Fewer New Yorkers than any other Ski area in Vermont"

I think that would be an attractive campaign

Hey, be nice!

[MntMan4Bush]

I was wondering when someone would notice that. Just kidding by the way. As an avid Sox fan I need to take whatever oppurtunity I can, but everyone who makes Sugarbush their home (be it home away from home) is more than OK in my book. One of the guys in our house is from Manhatten. A New Yorker and a boarder, but we still love him.

I would caution against this type of complacency. We all know that SB offers a superior product to K-Mart, but we already drank the Kool-Aid. It's the fence-sitters and non-believers you need to convince in order to make the emerging LP base village a success. Let's face it - if there were hundreds of people lining up for real estate at SB, Clay Brook would be full already. It isn't The fact of the matter is that there are a LOT of perfectly fine ski areas (in the yes of the typical skier) between SB and the major population centers (K-Mart and all of NH for the Boston metro and the Berkshires, Catskills, and all of Southern VT for the NY metro). When you have kids, and you aren't super dedicated, it takes a LOT of convincing to drive that extra 60-90 minutes north. Why do you think Okemo is so successful? By any reasonable metric, it has lousy terrain, marginal natural snow, and a fairly uninspiring town at its base (Ludlow). But it provides a consistent product and a lower price point than Stratton. Because it is within reachof the NY metro and CT skiers, it does very, very well.

Think about how this dynamic changes when you have a mountain with real terrain (don't be fooled - K-Mart has some goods) that will grow by 25% (via the interconnect) and then adds a legit base village. All of this will be 30-60 minutes closer to where everyone lives. The attitude of "We're so good we don't need to worry about those wahoos down south" is extremely dangerous, IMHO. I think Win and his partners are smart enough to see through that smoke screen and strike while the iron is hot, if possible. SB may appeal to a more discerning, dedicated skier, but when the kids are screaming and bitching in the back seat after a 2 or 3 hour drive, that will break the will of many parents to continue heading North.

I don't agree with much of this Tin. A revitalization of Killington may very well translate into a revitalization of the Vermont ski industry and even the NE ski industry as a whole. Geographically, SB is never going to be as competitive as Killington for the NYC/Boston metro market. I'm sure Win and Co's business plan doesn't include some sort of reliance that competitive resorts will remain lame. There's not a lot they could do about it anyway. My feeling is if Killington sees a rebirth, it's good for Killington and good for the industry which is inherently good for Sugarbush. Sugarbush just needs to continue to offer a quality product at a fair price and it will all work out in the end.

[noski]

A revitalization of Killington may very well translate into a revitalization of the Vermont ski industry and even the NE ski industry as a whole. My feeling is if Killington sees a rebirth, it's good for Killington and good for the industry which is inherently good for Sugarbush. Sugarbush just needs to continue to offer a quality product at a fair price and it will all work out in the end.

I agree with these statements. It is similar to the "When the tide rises, all the ship go up" theory. Any generation of interest in winter recreation that results in increased overnight visits will be a shot in the arm of Vermont's economy. We just have to keep our focus and deliver a superior product and differentiate the MRV from other areas through service, value, and overall guest experience.

A revitalization of Killington may very well translate into a revitalization of the Vermont ski industry and even the NE ski industry as a whole. My feeling is if Killington sees a rebirth, it's good for Killington and good for the industry which is inherently good for Sugarbush. Sugarbush just needs to continue to offer a quality product at a fair price and it will all work out in the end.

I agree with these statements. It is similar to the "When the tide rises, all the ship go up" theory. Any generation of interest in winter recreation that results in increased overnight visits will be a shot in the arm of Vermont's economy. We just have to keep our focus and deliver a superior product and differentiate the MRV from other areas through service, value, and overall guest experience.

Right. And as a CoC Director, you understand this better than anyone. The "rising tide lifts all ships" quote is the perfect way to sum up my thoughts. Thank you.

[random_ski_guy]

I don't agree with much of this Tin. A revitalization of Killington may very well translate into a revitalization of the Vermont ski industry and even the NE ski industry as a whole. Geographically, SB is never going to be as competitive as Killington for the NYC/Boston metro market. I'm sure Win and Co's business plan doesn't include some sort of reliance that competitive resorts will remain lame. There's not a lot they could do about it anyway. My feeling is if Killington sees a rebirth, it's good for Killington and good for the industry which is inherently good for Sugarbush. Sugarbush just needs to continue to offer a quality product at a fair price and it will all work out in the end.

First of all, this dialogue is fun.

If SB loses just 10% of its skier days & overnight visitors, that hurts. 10% is probably 30k skier visits for SB (which is just 3% of Kton's visits). True, SB is gunning for a different market segment than Kton. But there is a great deal of commonality in the clientele too; too much commonality to turn the other cheek and look away. I myself might be considered a Kton convert to SB. I use to ski Kton 5 days a year or so. Now, one day at most.

If Kton is not stealing skier visits from SB and SB not stealing a little bit from Kton, then where do the visits come from? It’s well known that skier visits have been virtually flat for a decade. Sure most of the growth in visits for the large ski areas over the past 30 years has come from the lost feeder hills and mid sized mtns (Maple Valley, Mt Tom). Now that most of those mtns are gone, where to you go to grow your visits?

I see you are envisioning a great awakening of the dormant eastern skier from a revitalized Kton. I hope you are right, it’s a nice vision. In the meantime, man your marketing battle stations.

[random_ski_guy]

A revitalization of Killington may very well translate into a revitalization of the Vermont ski industry and even the NE ski industry as a whole. My feeling is if Killington sees a rebirth, it's good for Killington and good for the industry which is inherently good for Sugarbush. Sugarbush just needs to continue to offer a quality product at a fair price and it will all work out in the end.

I agree with these statements. It is similar to the "When the tide rises, all the ship go up" theory. Any generation of interest in winter recreation that results in increased overnight visits will be a shot in the arm of Vermont's economy. We just have to keep our focus and deliver a superior product and differentiate the MRV from other areas through service, value, and overall guest experience.

Right. And as a CoC Director, you understand this better than anyone. The "rising tide lifts all ships" quote is the perfect way to sum up my thoughts. Thank you.

Could Susan really respond to this issue in any other way in a public forum?

[Tin Woodsman]

I don't agree with much of this Tin. A revitalization of Killington may very well translate into a revitalization of the Vermont ski industry and even the NE ski industry as a whole. Geographically, SB is never going to be as competitive as Killington for the NYC/Boston metro market. I'm sure Win and Co's business plan doesn't include some sort of reliance that competitive resorts will remain lame. There's not a lot they could do about it anyway. My feeling is if Killington sees a rebirth, it's good for Killington and good for the industry which is inherently good for Sugarbush. Sugarbush just needs to continue to offer a quality product at a fair price and it will all work out in the end.

I'm sorry, but the data simply doesn't support your thesis. The skiing industry in the northeast peaked, in terms of skier visits, in 86/87 at 14.745MM visits. It has been flat to down ever since (avg. of 13MM over the last 5 years), with those lost skier visits migrating to the Rockies and Pacific Coast. K-Mart didn't really start its downhill slide until the mid-90s, so it's hard to support the notion that there's any significant correlation between the fortunes of K-Mart and the NE skiing biz as a whole. The inescapable conclusion of the numbers is that the remaining NE resorts are competing for a larger slice of a shrinking pie. The extent to which a revitalized K-Mart prevents fence sitters from exploring further north is a MAJOR potential issue for SB. Let me put it this way - if K-Mart didn't exist at all and the closest competitor to the south was Okemo, don't you think SB would be in a much better position? If we were talking about Smuggs vs. Stowe or MRG vs. SB or even Bromley/Magic vs. Stratton, then I'd buy into your thesis. Visitors drawn to one would inevitably want to explore the others nearby. That really isn't the case here. Mind you, it's not a binary relationship or anything, rather a resurgant K will simply act to siphon off some potential SB skiers and condo buyers. The customers of any business form a continuum. Some are devotees such as ourselves who wouldn't really consider going elsewhere. Some have an affinity for the place, but would try elsewhere. Some are there just by convenience. As long as K-Mart has been plagued by deferred maintenance, poor employee morale, and retarded season pass pricing, they have likely driven away the more marginal customers to the benefit of places like SB and Okemo. When they get their act together, that dynamic reverses. SB will still have its niche, but K-Mart is three times bigger in terms of skeir visits and owns a tremendous, if ailing, brand.

SB must indeed stick to its knitting. With a well-capitalized ownership group and an eye to local sensibilities, SV can certainly be a success. But a resurgant K-Mart will be a headwind. There is no rising tide to lift all boats in the northeast skiing industry.

[noski]

Could Susan really respond to this issue in any other way in a public forum?