CT Ski Council 2010-2011 Bulk Buy ticket prices

[Tin Woodsman]

I think Jay has to charge a low price due to it's location, Stowe is owned by a company that almost went bankrupt and invested a huge amount of money on real estate just when the market hit the skids, they need revenue which equates to more guests, price points that balance their high SP/day tik price. Okemo is still paying for Jackson Gore and the purchase of Crested Butte. Okemo is now doing around 600,000 skier visits whish is pretty amazing IMHO. They need a pricepoint that will keep the bodies coming. Killington's new owners walked into a no-win situation IMHO. Skier visits are down to around 700,000 from over a million just a few years ago. They desparatetly need bodies, business on the access rd is way down as well. Stratton is owned by a company that actually did go bankrupt, the company that bought them is not doing great financially either. They need the revenue. I don't think the Bush falls into any of these situations.

Course, nothing will cure any resorts financial woes like a 300+ snowfall year.
As mentioned I think $56 is a good deal, Just my personal 2 cents

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now. Win is on here constantly exhorting us to bring friends so we can drive up skier visits and see more improvements. I'm pretty sure the GMX, new C-Rock double, snowmaking improvements, new groomers, and new base village didn't come for free, even if the latest bit does use other people's money. Don't kid yourself - they'd love to have more customers too.

I'm sure Win would love to finally move ahead with the VH double replacement. Or perhaps drop a few million into the snowmaking system so it's on par with the competition. Or maybe even execute some of the grandiose plans contained in the forestry health document they submitted to the USFS. That will all take money. Quite a bit of it in fact.

[gostan]

I think Jay has to charge a low price due to it's location, Stowe is owned by a company that almost went bankrupt and invested a huge amount of money on real estate just when the market hit the skids, they need revenue which equates to more guests, price points that balance their high SP/day tik price. Okemo is still paying for Jackson Gore and the purchase of Crested Butte. Okemo is now doing around 600,000 skier visits whish is pretty amazing IMHO. They need a pricepoint that will keep the bodies coming. Killington's new owners walked into a no-win situation IMHO. Skier visits are down to around 700,000 from over a million just a few years ago. They desparatetly need bodies, business on the access rd is way down as well. Stratton is owned by a company that actually did go bankrupt, the company that bought them is not doing great financially either. They need the revenue. I don't think the Bush falls into any of these situations.

Course, nothing will cure any resorts financial woes like a 300+ snowfall year.
As mentioned I think $56 is a good deal, Just my personal 2 cents

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now. Win is on here constantly exhorting us to bring friends so we can drive up skier visits and see more improvements. I'm pretty sure the GMX, new C-Rock double, snowmaking improvements, new groomers, and new base village didn't come for free, even if the latest bit does use other people's money. Don't kid yourself - they'd love to have more customers too.

I'm sure Win would love to finally move ahead with the VH double replacement. Or perhaps drop a few million into the snowmaking system so it's on par with the competition. Or maybe even execute some of the grandiose plans contained in the forestry health document they submitted to the USFS. That will all take money. Quite a bit of it in fact.

In my non-professional novice opinion, bringing friends to SB for ski trips helps to pay for such improvements by an infinitesimal denominator. The entire skiing industry is down numbers wise and has been for the past few years and the economy of today makes running any business, especially a ski mountain, even more difficult. Discounted ski tix programs like the subject here are certainly a good attempt to bring more skiers to the mountain. But the real answers for growth are: (i) snow, snow, snow; (ii) advertising and education and discounted learn to ski programs to bring new skiers to the sport, and (iii) continuation of enhancing the overall ski experience to gain more of the existing skiers from the competition.

A real concern is that the ski population is graying, balding, and growing older. Childrens' programs, college programs and any ideas of the similar ilk are a wonderful use of resources. But my real concern here is that the greater Boston area (as well as other NE metropolitan areas) , for one, is seeing the fleeing of the young adults due to high RE prices and cost of living and the diminishing job market, and this does not even bode well for keeping the newest skiers actively on the slopes for the upcoming future of the ski industry in NE. If high percentages of the college graduates (who are the real future of skiing in NE) are seeking jobs that do not exist in NE by relocating to other parts of the country, then, a methodology of bringing them back to SB and other NE ski areas, must be implemented.

[summitchallenger]

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now. Win is on here constantly exhorting us to bring friends so we can drive up skier visits and see more improvements. I'm pretty sure the GMX, new C-Rock double, snowmaking improvements, new groomers, and new base village didn't come for free, even if the latest bit does use other people's money. Don't kid yourself - they'd love to have more customers too.

I'm sure Win would love to finally move ahead with the VH double replacement. Or perhaps drop a few million into the snowmaking system so it's on par with the competition. Or maybe even execute some of the grandiose plans contained in the forestry health document they submitted to the USFS. That will all take money. Quite a bit of it in fact.

So selling tickets at a loss will pay for expansion plans and expenses? How do you figure that?

[Tin Woodsman]

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now. Win is on here constantly exhorting us to bring friends so we can drive up skier visits and see more improvements. I'm pretty sure the GMX, new C-Rock double, snowmaking improvements, new groomers, and new base village didn't come for free, even if the latest bit does use other people's money. Don't kid yourself - they'd love to have more customers too.

I'm sure Win would love to finally move ahead with the VH double replacement. Or perhaps drop a few million into the snowmaking system so it's on par with the competition. Or maybe even execute some of the grandiose plans contained in the forestry health document they submitted to the USFS. That will all take money. Quite a bit of it in fact.

So selling tickets at a loss will pay for expansion plans and expenses? How do you figure that?

Who besides you says that they are selling tickets at a loss?

As SRO so helpfully detailed, resorts like Okemo, Stratton and Stowe have made massive investments in recent years or are owned/run by bankrupt companies, yet their prices for this program are cheaper. Does SB have the highest cost structure in all of VT?

What doesn't make sense to me is why SB is pretty far out of step with its market positioning on the pricing of this product as compared to its standard day and season pass products. They've been more aggressive in increasing prices than any other resort participating in this program, which is a shame. I don't think there is any problem pointing that fact out but I'm certainly not advocating selling tickets at a loss.

Besides, in light of the massive fixed costs in running a ski area, I'm not sure how they could sell a ticket at a loss anyway. The incremental cost of serving one individual skier on any given day is infinitesimal. The fact of the matter is if Win could somehow bring in 100,000 extra skier visits at $40 a head, the vast majority of that would flow right to the bottom line and I'm sure he'd do it in a heartbeat. Maybe they'd need to pay the parking lot guys a few extra hours, but they're not going to keep the food service places open longer. They're not going to make more snow. They're not going to run the lifts longer. They're not going to groom any more. I guess I just don't see the base that someone needs to go and hold a bake sale for Summit Ventures if they sell these tickets at $50-52, consistent with their market positioning, vs. $56.

[summitchallenger]

As SRO so helpfully detailed, resorts like Okemo, Stratton and Stowe have made massive investments in recent years or are owned/run by bankrupt companies, yet their prices for this program are cheaper.

Yes they may be cheaper, but ever wonder why they are in financial trouble?

Does SB have the highest cost structure in all of VT?

No, but they are aiming to be a sustainable business.

What doesn't make sense to me is why SB is pretty far out of step with its market positioning on the pricing of this product as compared to its standard day and season pass products. They've been more aggressive in increasing prices than any other resort participating in this program, which is a shame. I don't think there is any problem pointing that fact out but I'm certainly not advocating selling tickets at a loss.

So all this complaining is about one discount program that probably benefits a relatively small group including you? Sorry to hear that the price went up for you. Have you considered the (a) Season pass route; (b) SugarCard Route; (c) Promo Route (all January midweeek days at Mount Ellen were $39 IIRC) or (d) just buying on Sundays? I understand that this one program is not cheap anymore, but as to the logic, only Win and company can answer that. If this option is too much, consider other routes.

[summitchallenger]

And though the price went up, be glad that you get a discount. There's nothing that says that you are entitled to it. If enough people complain about this and do the proverbial "look the gift horse in the mouth" then there might not be a deal next year. Beyond that, I guess you should contact Win or someone to express your concerns.

[chuck]

+1 and Well said Summitchallenger

[vonski]

Ellen pass was only $525 or so with tax before 5/2/10 if you ski more than 8 days it is paid for if you pay full price. Discount tickets equate to 10 times. With the ability to ski at LP prior to Ellen opening why even consider the CT council tickets for Sugarbush. If your a 20 day skier, that likes variety, then get the cheaper tickets for the other places but still get a pass. You can ski vacation week at Ellen without out any lines, or any day for that matter.
It even gave one a discount at Ski Sundown in Ct last year. I skied several nights for under 20 bucks last year.
I try to ski 30 days and still don't get bored with Ellen!
So, I guess if you consider the other deals available at the bush it is very affordable!
Just my two cents!

[Tin Woodsman]

Yes they may be cheaper, but ever wonder why they are in financial trouble?

Come on man - really? Is it really your supposition that Stowe is in trouble due to underpricing this product by $4 instead of the fact its corporate parent, of which it represents less than 1/10th of 1%, wrote billions of dollars of exotic mortgage insurance contracts it didn't understand? It's Stowe's fault?

Do you similarly believe that Intrawest went bust b/c of losing out on a few dollars from the CSC product rather than the fact that its private parent borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to finance the purchase of Intrawest and was leveraged heavily to the vacation real-estate market when that sector hit the skids?

As for Okemo, I never said they were in trouble. SRO implied they need the money b/c they're paying of Jackson Gore (unlikely - it's largely sold out) or b/c the Muellers are paying off their purchase of Crested Butte.

So one of you is saying that the other resorts need the money, so they are selling the CSC tickets at a lower rate. You are saying that the lower rate is why these resorts may be in trouble to begin with. While those positions are inherently in conflict, I guess the common unifying factor is that you feel it's OK for SB to be the most aggressive out of all VT resorts in pushing pricing up for those people who like skiing Lincoln Peak mid-winter but who can't afford a season pass.

No, but they are aiming to be a sustainable business.

Now you're moving the goal posts - where's your support for the notion that selling these tix cheaper would be done at a loss? Moreover, if the business wasn't sustainable as is, then where are they getting the money for all the improvements we've seen this year? By all accounts, they've enjoyed several banner years in the last 3-4.

So all this complaining is about one discount program that probably benefits a relatively small group including you?

What do you mean by "all this complaining"? I made one post about on this forum. What a rabble rouser I am! I've spent the rest of the time here just responding to wildly conflicting and highly improbable defenses of higher pricing for a sport where value opportunities are increasingly rare.

Sorry to hear that the price went up for you. Have you considered the (a) Season pass route (b) SugarCard Route; (c) Promo Route (all January midweeek days at Mount Ellen were $39 IIRC) or (d) just buying on Sundays? I understand that this one program is not cheap anymore, but as to the logic, only Win and company can answer that. If this option is too much, consider other routes.

Those options are, respectively, 1) far too expensive for how much I can ski b) not that great a deal c) can't make it up midweek when you have a job and d) why would I drive 5 hours each way from the NYC metro just to ski one day? A complete waste of time. You are right in that only Win and company can answer that. If he feels like doing so, I'm sure he'll chime in here. If not - no big deal. This board is a place for discussion of all things SB, so I thought it worth mentioning here. I honestly don't understand why it's so controversial to register disappointment about an increase in the pricing for this product that is dramatically more aggressive than all of SB's peers and competitors, including ones that have higher pricing for all other products.

[chuck]

It's not so controversial. Just nothing better to do in between conditioning workouts till the snow drops.

[Benski]

Yes they may be cheaper, but ever wonder why they are in financial trouble?

Come on man - really? Is it really your supposition that Stowe is in trouble due to underpricing this product by $4 instead of the fact its corporate parent, of which it represents less than 1/10th of 1%, wrote billions of dollars of exotic mortgage insurance contracts it didn't understand? It's Stowe's fault?

Do you similarly believe that Intrawest went bust b/c of losing out on a few dollars from the CSC product rather than the fact that its private parent borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to finance the purchase of Intrawest and was leveraged heavily to the vacation real-estate market when that sector hit the skids?

As for Okemo, I never said they were in trouble. SRO implied they need the money b/c they're paying of Jackson Gore (unlikely - it's largely sold out) or b/c the Muellers are paying off their purchase of Crested Butte.

Uhhh we are talking about a dollar difference with okemo and 3-5 with the other majors. Not a big deal either way.
Can we get some snow already?
So one of you is saying that the other resorts need the money, so they are selling the CSC tickets at a lower rate. You are saying that the lower rate is why these resorts may be in trouble to begin with. While those positions are inherently in conflict, I guess the common unifying factor is that you feel it's OK for SB to be the most aggressive out of all VT resorts in pushing pricing up for those people who like skiing Lincoln Peak mid-winter but who can't afford a season pass.

No, but they are aiming to be a sustainable business.

Now you're moving the goal posts - where's your support for the notion that selling these tix cheaper would be done at a loss? Moreover, if the business wasn't sustainable as is, then where are they getting the money for all the improvements we've seen this year? By all accounts, they've enjoyed several banner years in the last 3-4.

So all this complaining is about one discount program that probably benefits a relatively small group including you?

What do you mean by "all this complaining"? I made one post about on this forum. What a rabble rouser I am! I've spent the rest of the time here just responding to wildly conflicting and highly improbable defenses of higher pricing for a sport where value opportunities are increasingly rare.

Sorry to hear that the price went up for you. Have you considered the (a) Season pass route (b) SugarCard Route; (c) Promo Route (all January midweeek days at Mount Ellen were $39 IIRC) or (d) just buying on Sundays? I understand that this one program is not cheap anymore, but as to the logic, only Win and company can answer that. If this option is too much, consider other routes.

Those options are, respectively, 1) far too expensive for how much I can ski b) not that great a deal c) can't make it up midweek when you have a job and d) why would I drive 5 hours each way from the NYC metro just to ski one day? A complete waste of time. You are right in that only Win and company can answer that. If he feels like doing so, I'm sure he'll chime in here. If not - no big deal. This board is a place for discussion of all things SB, so I thought it worth mentioning here. I honestly don't understand why it's so controversial to register disappointment about an increase in the pricing for this product that is dramatically more aggressive than all of SB's peers and competitors, including ones that have higher pricing for all other products.

[ski_resort_observer]

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now

Of course the Bush or any other business, except maybe Flatbread on a Sat night, wants more customers. The point of the post is about what is done to bring those guests to your resort. You can charge a cheaper price than the others, you can earn more business with superior customer service or quality of product, give a better value.......lots of things. Never said the Bush didn't want more customers.

[Tin Woodsman]

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now

Of course the Bush or any other business, except maybe Flatbread on a Sat night, wants more customers. The point of the post is about what is done to bring those guests to your resort. You can charge a cheaper price than the others, you can earn more business with superior customer service or quality of product, give a better value.......lots of things. Never said the Bush didn't want more customers.

So is the Bush is bringing guests to the resort via better value or whatever unmeasurable metric you want to use, then why is that not reflected in the prices that most people pay - i.e. the season pass price and day lift ticket rate?

[ski_resort_observer]

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now

Of course the Bush or any other business, except maybe Flatbread on a Sat night, wants more customers. The point of the post is about what is done to bring those guests to your resort. You can charge a cheaper price than the others, you can earn more business with superior customer service or quality of product, give a better value.......lots of things. Never said the Bush didn't want more customers.

So is the Bush is bringing guests to the resort via better value or whatever unmeasurable metric you want to use, then why is that not reflected in the prices that most people pay - i.e. the season pass price and day lift ticket rate?

Thanks, the unmeasurable metric I personally use is the fact that in the 3 jobs I have had at Bush I get to talk to alot of guests everyday, I don't take a survey but what I hear on a regular basis is great customer service. Just today a customer was amazed that when someones lost disc(disc golf) is turned in we call them to let them we have it.

It's the product, the terrain and we do have some great values in SPs. The College Pass +1, the fact that if an adult buys a SP they get a free pass for their 12 or under child, The Mt Ellen Plus pass, The Sugar Direct card, all the discounts connected to the Adult passes for food, rentals, retail shop are good values.

All this is well and good but the ultimate decision as to whether the Bush meets the requirements, budgets, expectations and preferences is the real unmeasurable metrix.

The snowfall amount is an important factor as well but that, of course, is measurable.

[Tin Woodsman]

What - and the Bush doesn't need to keep the bodies coming? Come on now

Of course the Bush or any other business, except maybe Flatbread on a Sat night, wants more customers. The point of the post is about what is done to bring those guests to your resort. You can charge a cheaper price than the others, you can earn more business with superior customer service or quality of product, give a better value.......lots of things. Never said the Bush didn't want more customers.

So is the Bush is bringing guests to the resort via better value or whatever unmeasurable metric you want to use, then why is that not reflected in the prices that most people pay - i.e. the season pass price and day lift ticket rate?

Thanks, the unmeasurable metric I personally use is the fact that in the 3 jobs I have had at Bush I get to talk to alot of guests everyday, I don't take a survey but what I hear on a regular basis is great customer service. Just today a customer was amazed that when someones lost disc(disc golf) is turned in we call them to let them we have it.

It's the product, the terrain and we do have some great values in SPs. The College Pass +1, the fact that if an adult buys a SP they get a free pass for their 12 or under child, The Mt Ellen Plus pass, The Sugar Direct card, all the discounts connected to the Adult passes for food, rentals, retail shop are good values.

All this is well and good but the ultimate decision as to whether the Bush meets the requirements, budgets, expectations and preferences is the real unmeasurable metrix.

The snowfall amount is an important factor as well but that, of course, is measurable.

To be clear, I think the Bush does a fantastic job trying to meet or exceed both customer expectations and industry standards in terms of service and overall guest experience. If I didn't think that, I'd take my business elsewhere. I truly love this place and hope to raise my kids here. But we don't need to bend over backwards to make excuses for things that may rub us the wrong way. You point out some of the great things they do - they can always get better, right? Did they rest on their laurels when they built the new GH lodge and it was clear the bar and storage area were way too small? I was laughed at here when I pointed that out. Did they decide they have nothing to learn about their snowmaking production plan before reconsidering on getting North Lynx open sooner? I was met with a blizzard of excuses and apologists when I raised those issues and while I'm sure I didn't influence the decisions on those fronts, they are human and make mistakes. Habitually defending them even when they are making what seem to be poor or ill-considered decisions doesn't do them any good. I just have a hard time understanding why they've been the most aggressive on the pricing front with this program. There's no need to make stuff up about other resorts' possible motivations or selling lift tickets at a loss in order to engage in a discussion on the issue.