With a really bad recession coming (US Housing has never declined until now), visitor numbers are going to be down a bit next year - so you need to pick up more revenue from Colorado skiers.
And Colorado skiers should be paying more - a lot more - for their skiing. It's unsustainable.
I know a lot about ski area pricing - and did a lot of work as an MBA student to help bring down ski lift ticket prices for 2004/05. Alpine Meadows - any day at $40. And it was the right model - and prices have stayed near $40/day. So I feel vindicated.
And $40 is a great price to promote.
This is what local Colorado skiers should be paying at least. Otherwise you need to extort from another segment with $90 tickets - and there are more families than jet-setting bankers.
Comes across as a bit of a rant below which is not really what I had intended, but oh well, it's written and might get some lively debate going?
Sounds like we could have a long discussion on business models, pricing and marketing. From my view, less about entitlement than frustration that so many ski areas still 'just don't get it' and concern that Vail Inc was sliding back to immediate/today greed only motivation (powdr corp/Killington anyone? "what can we get away with?"). My references to Vail Inc and AltaBird below are illustrative, and really represent any of several ski areas/corporate groups in various regions.
The price pass 'war' in Colo started in 1998 at $200 per person for a pass :!: . The economics still work just fine and are quite sustainable 10 years later... Actually @ over $400 now, Vail has gotten away with >8% annual increases. In fact, the economics are better for this model than the AltaBird, etc.. model (heck Vail Inc installs ~2-3 new HSQ's every year at various resorts, etc... and has only been unprofitable once in that time - due to a bad snow year when the locals didn't bother going skiing). Vail Inc also gets a big cash infusion in the spring to help pay for summer projects, invest to make interest on, etc...instead of waiting another year to see how it goes, or borrowing the cash like the older business model. Vail Inc model is also more sustainable long term, drawing a larger, more diverse group out to the hill and become skiers.
In a down US economy, Vail will rely more on locals and international tourists (due to the $$ plunge) than destination skiers from east, mid-west, etc... So they actually need to consider flat or lower pricing to entice front range skiers to come up and buy more burgers, lessons, etc... more frequently for next season. (the toll road loop in denver recently said not enough people were driving it - and thus paying tolls - so they promptly raised prices. And thus dropped their # of users even more. Not smart business. Discretionary spending is very price sensitive).
The AltaBird model is all about 'how much can we get away with charging for a pass' and is not a thoughtful way to look at their overall profitability or long term business. I would note that the Colo model (instigated by Winter Park actually) allows many more people to enjoy the sport and encourages new participants - the long term health of the sport. The AltaBird model is about keeping or taking the sport to 'rich' folks only (whether consciously or not). It limits its market, its potential for overall profitability, etc... over the long run. If not for migrants to SLC area like a lot on this forum, over time, AltaBird would see a long slow slide in local skiers. They are the ones essentially keeping the AltaBrid's from having to change or re-think things. Only since the Colo pass wars erupted and were occasionally mimic'ed elsewhere, have the skier visits nationwide begun to climb again after a couple decades of flat to falling.
Day ticket prices (particularly at Canyon Sports, REI, etc. with no restrictions or advance purchase requirements) are way lower in Utah than Colorado.
I'm not sure why Vail Resorts feels the need to offer the super cheap passes at Heavenly when they don't have a multi-area competitor like Intrawest in the Tahoe region.
The day ticket pricing is the one item I can't quite figure out. It is so much cheaper to buy day tickets in Utah vs Colo and opposite pricing in passes. It takes a ton of days to break even against utah pass pricing, but only 8 (in theory) for Colo. As for Heavenly, it is meant to be a big disruption in the market place and to drive huge numbers to Vail Inc and away from all other resorts. I wonder though, given how status, image and name conscious so many Caifornians can be (certainly not all, by any means, but a pretty big percentage) if it will really drive enough more to Heavenly vs say Squaw.
The final piece of this however, is unintended consequences. I-70 traffic jams and overcrowding the slopes during the major holidays. I have not heard in a couple years, but according to marketing types at Vail from back then, the numbers work out something along the lines of: 200,000+ passes get sold, ~10,000 passes Never get picked up at all :shock: , the average usage is ~6-8 days with the vast majority less than 20 days.
If you see my previous post I shoot for ~10-12 days which is a bit above to a bit below $40/day.
Ok, ok. Too much and too long and too rant like, I know.
Interestingly, so many people from the front range had the same reaction I did and swamped Vail Inc with questions, Vail just sent out another blast email today saying that all their 'normal' passes will be back again too, with specific announcements on those passes April 2nd...
