HSS and PMTS growth

[HarvardTiger]

Greetings, all:

I posted a general question over on the EpicSki forum and was kindly invited (by John Mason) to post it over here. Sounds good--I am certainly interested in your views.

I have learned that the ski industry, in general, is experiencing flat growth. And you cannot help but notice the friction between the "wedge" and "don't wedge" instructional camps.

I have read Lito's book, Breakthrough on the New Skis, and have gone through the Harb Ski Systems website rather completely. The ideas expressed are impressive to me. I am a skier who lives nowhere near a mountain; indeed, I have to travel quite far and plan for a full week to have a decent skiing trip.

Too, I see that the HSS instructional camps fill up early. I also see that only three or four ski mountains "officially" teach PMTS. That along with a small group of accredited instructors at other mountains.

Given the breakthrough nature of the HSS techniques, why isn't it growing faster?

My motivation for asking is simple: My business, in terms of both vocation and avocation, is understanding how "new things" penetrate markets and displace or augment the status quo. And as I wrote over in the other forum, I sense real value that is going unrealized by both HSS and the ski resorts.

Your thoughts?

[tommy]

Hi HarvardTiger, and welcome!

Few thoughts on your question:

- what's "good" (or better/best), i.e. has some intrinsic, objective quality, is rarely the same as "what's popular". Examples: junk food, MS Windows, soap operas, VHS, C++ etc. Or like the saying goes: "millions of flies can't be wrong, eat sh*t..."

- Any paradigm shift (and to me,PMTS is a paradigm shift, from TTS) will take time in order to gain public main stream acceptance.

- The vast majority of recreational skiers go to the mountains not primarily for improving their skiing, but for the "environment", i.e. having a nice day (or a few hours) outdoors, and then having a good time dining and wining. They don't have the time nor interest to research alternatives to what the std. ski schools offer.

- The idea that in order to improve your skiing (or actually, improve your anything), you have to make a serious effort (study & practice), seems not very appealing to a majority of recreational skiers. Most just want to be able to get down the mountain together with their friends, while having a good time. PMTS requires that you spend time with the basics: balance, drills etc. So, a total beginner who wants to learn PMTS can't expect going to the top of the mountain day 1 and "ski" down without having practiced the basics. In TTS, a beginner can, after having learned the wedge, slowly slide down the mountain pretty quickly. But is that skiing....?

So, my take is that PMTS is the choice for the "serious" skier who's willing to invest time and effort to improve his/her skiing technique. Until the majority of people going to ski resorts are sufficiently serious about their skiing technique, PMTS will not be mainstream.

Cheers,
Tommy

[John Mason]

Tommy - what would happen if PMTS was taught at the resort based ski schools to retention rates. Right now with the TTS being taught the retention rate is 17 %. That means 83 percent of skiers never ski again. They bought a lesson, tried out skiing and decided they are never doing that again.

That means ski instruction is broken. What is solvista's retention rate?

[*SCSA]

I gotta give up this posting stuff.

Hi Harvard,

Here's my worthless opinion, I'll add it just because I can.

Their business is growing, I know that for sure. I haven't been to the shop when it hasn't been busy. HH claims he's my buddy, but it takes a week to get answers from him sometimes. It's not like the "old days" when HH would pick up the phone. . I don't seem to get any "buddy" discounts any more, either. So yeah, they're real busy.

Regarding the limited # of instructors and ski areas teaching it, Harald will have to answer that. I know this. Harald would rather have 1 great instructor and teach one great lesson, then have a zillion average instructors and teach a zillion lousy lessons.

For me, it comes down to following the best -- I want the best. I've pretty much taught myself to ski using HH's stuff. 300 days later, let's just say that every day I go to the hill, I feel like I have....a foreign object in my glove (that's for all you Pro Wrestling fans out there).

It's a great feeling.
later,

[Jim Ratliff]

Some random thoughts.

1. I don't believe that ski resorts are generally in the business of making money from skiing. They are in the business of making money from vacations and real estate sales. However, I usually only see numbers about skier visits or skier days. Is your "flat growth" (is that an oxymoron?) based on skier visits or some larger number that reflects real profitability?

2. Skiing is different than most sports in that there isn't any implicit competition. In tennis/golf/volleyball/diving/etc. there is a fairly explicit measure to determine who plays well, and this has resulted in a heightened awareness of what 'good' form is. This is missing from skiing, and it's absence eliminates the need for a large number of people to get better. My guess would be that a MUCH larger number of golfers take pro lessons than is the case with skiers. A common theme through this forum and Lito's writings is the concept of people who have internally recognized that they want to improve and that the common lessons haven't been providing improvement. I believe this 'internal drive to improve' exists in a fairly small subset of the skiing public (but I don't know how to create an external motivation to improve). How do you get Mabel to say to Lynne, "Wow, you've got a pretty bad skid in your turn?"

In fact, I would postulate that a lot more people judge skiing by whether or not they have "this year's hot ski" than by really skiing better.

Witihin this subset, I believe that Harald's approach is far superior, but it's not clear that it is a paradigm shift. Shaped skis are a paradigm shift, but even that pales when compared to the snowboarding influx. PMTS is a great answer, but it is to a question that most people aren't concerned enough to ask.

3. It seems to me that boarders, on average, are even less skilled than the average skier (whatever that might mean).

4. I don't know that most resorts/ski schools really have a bottom line profit motive for their classes. The goal isn't to help them break their golf handicap, it's merely to help them hit the ball somewhere down the fairway. I wonder how many skiers really see the instructors as the "pro" of the sport. I think most people probably have much more respect for the ability of the ski patrol.

As far as 'how new things replace old' the most common is spending enough on advertising to either 1) educate the consumer or 2) make up the consumer's mind for him/her/it (copyright SCSA). Unfortunately, 1) is much harder to do.

No conclusion, just thoughts. If you had a million dollars, would you invest it in trying to improve the quality of the skiing experience. Do you believe that your million would generate better returns than putting that same million into a restaurant or resort hotel or golf course or unique off-season activity?

[Guest]

Excellent thoughts, Jim. Let me see if I can work through some of them with you...please feel encouraged to reply with your thinking.

Some random thoughts.

1. I don't believe that ski resorts are generally in the business of making money from skiing. They are in the business of making money from vacations and real estate sales. However, I usually only see numbers about skier visits or skier days. Is your "flat growth" (is that an oxymoron?) based on skier visits or some larger number that reflects real profitability?

Most likely very true. Looks like skiing is the loss leader--or break-even leader. My "flat growth" is based on numbers between 1992 and 2002 where the number of skiers as a percentage of the population steadily declined from 4.5% to 3.0% along with skier-days.

2. Skiing is different than most sports in that there isn't any implicit competition. In tennis/golf/volleyball/diving/etc. there is a fairly explicit measure to determine who plays well, and this has resulted in a heightened awareness of what 'good' form is. This is missing from skiing, and it's absence eliminates the need for a large number of people to get better. My guess would be that a MUCH larger number of golfers take pro lessons than is the case with skiers. A common theme through this forum and Lito's writings is the concept of people who have internally recognized that they want to improve and that the common lessons haven't been providing improvement. I believe this 'internal drive to improve' exists in a fairly small subset of the skiing public (but I don't know how to create an external motivation to improve). How do you get Mabel to say to Lynne, "Wow, you've got a pretty bad skid in your turn?"

True. But is does involve a skill. SCUBA diving is not a competitive sport, but it involves a skill. Of course, you can't SCUBA without a certification, so that creates a built-in demand for--at least--entry level instruction. Other than that, SCUBA has a lot of the same problems. It's generally difficult to sell additional training and there are strong rivalries between schools of instruction.

In fact, I would postulate that a lot more people judge skiing by whether or not they have "this year's hot ski" than by really skiing better.

Witihin this subset, I believe that Harald's approach is far superior, but it's not clear that it is a paradigm shift. Shaped skis are a paradigm shift, but even that pales when compared to the snowboarding influx. PMTS is a great answer, but it is to a question that most people aren't concerned enough to ask.

3. It seems to me that boarders, on average, are even less skilled than the average skier (whatever that might mean).

Yes. But that may just be part of the boarding culture in general: Slacker-ing is cool.

4. I don't know that most resorts/ski schools really have a bottom line profit motive for their classes. The goal isn't to help them break their golf handicap, it's merely to help them hit the ball somewhere down the fairway. I wonder how many skiers really see the instructors as the "pro" of the sport. I think most people probably have much more respect for the ability of the ski patrol.

I don't think that the ski school necessarily needs to be a profit center. Rather, it needs to be sure that repeat visits are generated. That would be a major lever for the industry.

As far as 'how new things replace old' the most common is spending enough on advertising to either 1) educate the consumer or 2) make up the consumer's mind for him/her/it (copyright SCSA). Unfortunately, 1) is much harder to do.

It's more than advertising. It's understanding the specific target market and where they fall along an adoptability curve. That is, how open the segment is to, say, the Harb system and, then, how the Harb system is presented to them in terms of their definition of value. This is tricky--but very do-able.

No conclusion, just thoughts. If you had a million dollars, would you invest it in trying to improve the quality of the skiing experience. Do you believe that your million would generate better returns than putting that same million into a restaurant or resort hotel or golf course or unique off-season activity?

Short-term, probably in a hotel, etc. Long-term, I'd look at ways to build the skier community and brand layalty to my resort. And I would certainly recognize that the instructor who spends a couple of hours with my resort customers IS the face and personality of the resort.

Thoughts?

[HarvardTiger]

My reply to Jim above ^^

I forgot to log-in ... sorry,

HarvardTiger

[Jim Ratliff]

Sorry, by diving I was thinking of the local "platform" diving clubs with style points and difficulty ratings, etc.

Well thought out responses; good reading. Interestingly, I just realized that we think of skiing like driving a car. With a car, we need to get a license; beyond that few of 'them' know or care how competent they are.

I heard somewhere that "behavior doesn't change until the pain of staying the same is greater than the pain of changing."

I think your two most salient points were the first and the last. There really isn't growth in skiing, and it's interesting that the resort community response seems to be based on dollars invested in improvements, number of new grooming machines purchased, specific terrain features (in-bounds back country and terrain parks), and non-skier activities (tubing runs). None of their responses are aimed at improving the intermediate skiers sense of accomplishment/satisfaction with his ski experience. It's hard to believe that this focus isn't based on market research of some sort.

A commitment to skier improvement could be an option for the face and personality of a resort. If I were Vail Resorts, it would be a drop in the bucket to have Harald establish a Skier Improvement Center and provide meaningful instruction for free and make that an aspect of the "face" of the resort. What's the total cost of that vs. a new Bombadier xx39zz or two, and what's the respective return? But I still believe it would be lots of advertising to educate the customer/consumer as to why this is "good." Consumers accept that $14 million in on-hill improvements is good even if it doesn't affect their ski experience and can't recognize the satisfaction they could derive from just skiing better.

[Joseph]

Jim, having worked in a TTS ski school, I have the benefit of knowing that there is a real drive for the "bottom line profit motive". PMTS cuts into that profit motive though (in most cases).

First and foremost it takes little or no training to become a ski instructor at a ski school. For most schools, the requirement for hiring is a parallish type of skiing on blue terrain. In my case I was hired on the spot without even a formal interview or even any on snow assessment of my skiing ability--much less my teaching skills. I was a warm body, who less than a week later was teaching the general public at $60 and hour for a private lesson. Here's where the "bottom line profit motive" comes into play. Of the $60 an hour for my pathetic lesson time, I--the lowly ski instructor--saw $8 of it. That's the dirty little secret of every ski school around the country. Not only that, but I was only paid for the time I was actually teaching. There were days when I took home $24 before taxes for a day's work--from 8 O'clock line up to 3 O'clock lineup. On a great day I made $50 and some tips. The ski school, minus the cost of operating (which is almost nil) kept the rest of the money.

So why then, as I improved to become one of the better instructors in the school, was I squeezed out? The simple answer, is that a warm body is worth far more to a ski school director than the creation of new skiers. The more warm bodies there are, the more money the ski school can take in. As I became better trained more requested, I commanded more money, thereby cutting into the profit margin. But the real reason that I no longer fit into a TTS ski school, was that I was no longer willing to ski for peanuts without the benefit of proper training to advance myself to the degree that I could make a living in the ski industry. Being one of the few ski instructors there, that (after 2 years) was actually having marginal success helping students to improve and enjoy the sport, I became outspoken enough to make some of the other warm bodies uncomfortable. If I had made 2 of them uncomfortable enough that they did not want to be around, regardless of whether they ever helped students improve--two of them could take in more money than one of me on a busy weekend. Therefore, I no longer fit into the equation.

So why not train the rest of the ski instructors properly? The simple answer is that most of the ski resorts in North America are segmented. They look at profits on a departmentalized basis. So within a resort, the ski school's profit margin is measured against the food and beverage department, the rental shop, the ticket windows and so on. If the ski school director decides to train everyone in any system, whether it be PMTS or TTS, he/she has to hire trainers--thereby cutting profit margins. It sure looks bad for the ski school if the food and beverage department makes more profit despite all of that overhead. So why pay for more trainers if the public is still showing up at the ski school desk and paying for untrained and low paid "professionals"? 17% keeps the ski school director happy, because he/she is not measuring their success in how many skiers improve--or even come back. They measure their success in dollar signs. If the school is still making more than the rental shop, that's good enough for the director--he/she keeps their job. We wouldn't want to rock the boat. Not with this PMTS stuff anyway.

The real reason that ski schools will never have real, qualified PMTS instructors or alignment technitions on hand at their ski school, is that now that I have been trained by Harald and Diana to really make a difference, no ski school could ever afford me. I'll never again work for less than I am worth. Now that I know what I'm doing, I'll never need to. I can make a living skiing, by helping skiers who are serious about skiing, to make real improvements through changes in equipment, technique and by tapping into students real motivations. You will never see that at ski schools, because warm bodies will never be able to offer that. Until resort managers wake up and realize that the dollar signs at the ski school desk could one day turn into dollars in real estate, season passes, dinners, lift tickets, ski shops at the resort ect... They will never see the need for PMTS at their resort and therefore never pressure ski school directors for anything more than 17%.

We at PMTS will never settle for 17%. That's atrocious and unacceptable. But take heart real skiers out there. Harald and I were at Copper a few weeks ago, and after reading a post by one of his supporters on this forum he made an incredible comment to me. He said, "Do you know that when I started this whole thing, I was the only one? The only one in the world who thought this way. But I didn't care, because I knew that I was right and they were wrong." Harald said this in response to someone posting and showing a clear understanding of PMTS and the value that it has for the ski industry. Now there are hundreds of us out there (and in here) that understand. Someday there will be thousands. Tides turn slowly, and only those of us discerning enough to see it and recognize it can appreciate it. One day though, it will become obvious to even those who are oblivious today, but it won't be seen at your local area's ski school desk. Real skiers are far too valuable to be on either side of that equation.

[Jim Ratliff]

This is "Harvard Tiger's" thread, but that was a well written response.

What the ski "establishment" can't/won't measure is the value of profit from this year's classes vs. the value of a captured and loyal customer who takes a class every year for the next 20. What you described is a pretty basic business dilemma. Short term profits vs. longer term investment in growing the business. Maximizing department profitability vs. maximizing long term corporate value (and one may not lead to the other). There are lots of cases where upwardly mobile managers milk the profits of their department to look good for their next promotion and leave the department in a mess for the next manager (and frequently get away with it).

I actually believe you could give away (or sell at cost) ski lessona and pay the instructors a fair wage and have a greater positive effect on the resort's value. (Of course, I also think movie theatres could sell their drinks and popcorn for 30% less and make more money.)

But how do you get the "average" skier as interested in improving his/her/its' (acknowledging SCSA's terminology copyright) game as is the case with "real skiers"?

[HarvardTiger]

Joseph:

Excellent post. You may have confirmed what I have been thinking: That ski schools are viewed as cash cows by resort management. Not to bore y'all here and now, but I have several anecdotal pieces of evidence that seem to support that thought.

...snip...

Now there are hundreds of us out there (and in here) that understand. Someday there will be thousands. Tides turn slowly, and only those of us discerning enough to see it and recognize it can appreciate it.

There are ways to punch through this obstacle. And tides can turn very rapidly. Some examples: 3.5" disk drives, Minivans, iPods. But they don't turn on their own. It requires a real understanding of the target market (not just "real skiers") and how they segment themselves. Be very careful of the "we get it, they don't" trap. It leads nowhere, humbly I say.

One day though, it will become obvious to even those who are oblivious today, but it won't be seen at your local area's ski school desk. Real skiers are far too valuable to be on either side of that equation.

I understand your frustration...and optimism. But it is not true that the world will beat a path to your door if you build a better mousetrap. It takes effort--the right kind of effort. There are zillions of examples of this: Ingress databases, Betamax, Jesus, ESPN, Apple.

Thanks again for the time you took to write. It must be fun to get to be so close to skiing all the time and to enjoy your time with Harald.

I do have a question, however: Why does PMTS so roundly reject wedging?

[Harald Harb]

Thank you for the interest in PMTS and Harb Ski Systems.

There are a number of reasons why PMTS is where it is today in pace and size. Some are internal, PMTS as an organization decided three years ago to change its emphasis and move away from developing PMTS ski schools. .

Joseph makes very good points and he addresses many of the industry reasons within ski schools for the lack of development in general of ski instructors and ski instruction.

Here are some other reasons for present pace of PMTS instructor and ski school development.

The principles of PMTS are not pursuing growth because it would require accepting lower standards. PSIA instructors are used to passing certification levels without much substantive teaching ability or skiing knowledge. PMTS demands higher standards and higher standards are not required by ski schools.

Yes, you can figure it out, where is the motivation to become a better ski instructor, given it is unnecessary to be qualified (read Joseph?s experience in a ski school) and the pay scale isn?t influenced by quality instruction, this doesn?t increase instructor motivation for training and pursuing further education.

PSIA has control over most ski schools and its membership. They set the standards and certification agenda. They and most ski school directors are OK with where it stands.

PMTS has stopped its marketing to ski resorts, as the time involved in pursuing the efforts are better placed in other directions.

PMTS has penetrated some markets and royal battles have ensued between the establishment and those with the new revolutionary ideas. In Central Division it led to the firing of educational committee folks and dividing the Division. PMTS people and Harb Ski Systems instead began to focus on more beneficial pursuits, such as educating skiers rather than convincing unmotivated ski instructors and ski resorts.

The resistance isn?t about what material is better to teach, that is clear and has been well established and proven. The real reason that no new ideas are introduced at the traditional level is because of the group of controlling, fearful, individuals. Many are worried that they would lose their power, respect and positions if different methods such as PMTS were pursued. The established educational staffs, examiner staffs, level III instructors all the way through the system, would have to re-up their qualifications and standards.

The mission of PMTS states generally, that PMTS will educate and develop in the art of ski instruction and skiing, motivated skiers and instructors, one skier at a time. It was never had designs or been proportioned to become a national teaching organization. If Divisions within the USA want to teach PMTS Direct Parallel, PMTS will help them, but PMTS doesn?t see itself as the controlling organization.

PMTS is not in a rush to infiltrate ski schools because the culture is so resistant. PMTS has had many CEO and board members of major ski corporations interested in the product, but when they see the cultural upheaval that would ensue within their organization if they forced such a change, the process would be too disruptive.

PMTS is gaining more participants each year, skiers are learning about it through Harb Ski Systems and from the many skiers who have benefited from PMTS instruction.

We continue our efforts to educate instructors where the motivation is strong. In one location this year in particular, the ski schools in and around Madison and Milwaukee are growing their teaching knowledge and pursuing PMTS. PMTS is also holding its first Canadian based accreditation this March.

PMTS does not have many instructors but the ones that are current and teaching are spread around the world and enjoying themselves more than ever. We have seen numerous interested Harb Ski Camp participants become PMTS accredited. They are either teaching skiing regularly, helping friends or starting their own businesses within the ski industry.

Since Diana, Rich, Mel, and I are the primary trainers and examiners in PMTS, we want to work with people who are motivated by being better and learning more about skiing and ski instruction. These skiers are finding us and we are having fun developing their skills, as they are motivated and enthusiastic.

This is a non-for-profit organization and no one will become rich by training and certifying ski instructors. We do it because we have a valid, valuable product that some people want and we enjoy distributing the excitement it brings to instructors and skiers. For further info have a read at: http://www.pmts.org/ind_who.htm

[Joseph]

Hahvad Tigah,

There are many reasons why the wedge is a counterproductive step in the development of a skier.

1. It is a paralyzer. Students become so dependant upon the wedge that they fail to learn any new (useful) skiing movements.

2. PMTS and expert skiing in general depend on balance. Balance is the cornerstone of all expert skiing. One cannot learn to balance well in a wedge. It becomes a crutch, whereby the student stays evenly weighted on both feet and stable. The wedge is stability and it is incredibly difficult to coax a student from a position of stability to a place where they have to begin to learn balance. This is why you see so many wedge skiers stuck and not improving.

3. The wedge automatically places the student in a wider than natural stance. This makes for poor alignment and difficulty tipping either foot in any other direction than in.

4. Expert skiing takes place on 4 edges. An expert utilizes the big toe edge and the little toe edge simultaneously in one turn and the opposite edges in the other turn. The wedge utilizes the two inside edges of the skis. This never takes place in expert skiing, with the exception of a mistake or absence of an alternative.

5. PMTS utilizes the most efficient movements to produce the best possible result from the ski for any level skier. Flexion of the inside leg, combined with tipping of the inside foot, are the most efficient way to turn a ski. Wedging produces a skier with two everted feet on opposing edges. This makes it almost impossible to tip the inside foot to the little toe edge. This is probably the most inefficient way to produce a ski turn (if you really want to call it that).

6. PMTS teaches the three phases of a transition from the very beginning. The release, transfer and engagement of the skis are vital for any skier at any level--especially the beginner. Wedging leaves out two of these steps, thereby leaving out two of the cornerstones of skiing--releasing and transferring. Wedging is skiing without releasing. If you never release the skis, you aren't really skiing; you're snowplowing down the hill. Some wedgers may get some semblance of a transfer, but it really does them no good without the ability to release.

7. It produces a feeling of separation between true beginner skiers and everyone else on the mountain. People look around and see everyone else skiing parallel, and wonder why they are learning how to ski in a manner that they don't want to ski and will strive to discard ASAP.

8. Finally, we don't teach the wedge because we don't have to. Unlike many other ski teaching systems, we recognize that it is unnecessary because we can actually teach people how to turn.

9. Oh yeah, and chicks definitely do not dig it.

Is that enough?

Joseph

[Guest]

There are many reasons why the wedge is a counterproductive step in the development of a skier.

1. It is a paralyzer. Students become so dependant upon the wedge that they fail to learn any new (useful) skiing movements.



Joseph

so how did the thousands of ski racers who began in a wedge in europe and the USA ever free themselves from this paralysis?

[Butthead]

Hey, Hey, Dude they took lessons from Beavis. He rocks with the Phantom bunghollio.