 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
There might exist a multiverse with DG running the SCGB
|
...and their terms and conditions are clear and concise and second to none!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Having listened to it, I'm just surprised at how much they are burying their head in the sand. Nothing appears to be changing from the previous failed model. Rep lead skiing ( despite it's questionable legality ), Jobs for the boys funded by the rep led skiing as much as possible, and the shortfall from the money from selling property.
The only slight change is that the council have now appointed a puppet to put his head in the sand on their behalf.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| eblunt wrote: |
The only slight change is that the council have now appointed a puppet to put his head in the sand on their behalf. |
To put his head in the sand on their behalf? Are you sure it's not to put his head on the chopping block on their behalf if things are still going pear shaped in a year or two?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I'm not sure there is a market research answer to their question - ask a bunch of skewed questions about what skiers want then claim you are delivering them is one thing; honestly stating what you have to offer then assessing whether skiers are willing to pay for it is another.
There's a wealth of market research on this thread and others if SCGB weren't too proud to look
What would make SCGB work for me? A lite/low subscription model with a simple look up app to see which other members were around any resort I happened to be in and an informal no obligation understanding that we'd mutually be up for a ski together or whatever. Then maybe top up fees to ski with a rep/ILG if I was in one of the few resorts that accomodated it. What would that require - first and foremost a scale of membership of those willing to ski without the halo of a rep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| eblunt wrote: |
| The only slight change is that the council have now appointed a puppet to put his head in the sand on their behalf. |
 Perhaps there was only one question which the interviewer should have asked of the SCGB's "servant leader": "can I speak to the engine driver please?".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@philwig, the problem is there is no engine driver. The first class passengers believe that by shouting loud enough they will get the French tracks to bend and take them to where they want to go whilst getting the standard class passengers to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Dave of the Marmottes, "to see which other members were around any resort I happened to be in and an informal no obligation understanding that we'd mutually be up for a ski together or whatever"
More or less what you can do on this forum for nowt you mean ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
The point is not what you can replicate yourself but what others can't and don't want to organise for themselves. Maybe they want the companionship of other skiers of around about their level, maybe they don't know how to get what they want out of an instructor of guide they hire, maybe they fancy themsleves as serious seasoned offpiste skiers but haven't bothered to ever buy the kit (hence the appeal of tranny rental), maybe they want to take expensive holidays that are a cut above the hoi polloi. Maybe they genuinely don't know how they would cope with an unknown resort without a comforting nanny to help them.
I don't think all of SCGB is rotten to the core. It's clear though that leadership are masters of self-delusion and ostrich strategy and that anything other than more of (largely) the same risks the bleeding of yet more members. It's not what would be called an investable proposition at the moment but then maybe members don't mind taking a punt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
maybe they fancy themsleves as serious seasoned offpiste skiers but haven't bothered to ever buy the kit (hence the appeal of tranny rental)
|
Question: would you trust someone to rescue you from an avalanche who had never owned a transceiver, and simply hired one so they could tick the box that says "has transceiver" in the guide's risk assessment form? No amount of gold or purple badges would persuade me to ski with such a person...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| hence the appeal of tranny rental |
gives a whole new aspect to the USP of the club and maybe the LGBTQ+ market is one to target in the future as some TOs and resorts have done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@Pruman, A coruscating yet depressingly accurate summary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's been interesting to read all the comments on here. I realise there is history between Snowheads and the Ski Club, but there does seem to be a lot of vitriol. Surely if you're a member and you don't think it's worth it, then you just stop your membership? And if you do think it's worth it, but you're frustrated that it could be better, then maybe there's scope to give your input through the club? Maybe propose a focus group if you think market research won't deliver the answers?
I've never been a member, but I do know a few people who I respect who worked at the club, but were let go for unclear reasons. Then I learned of the MASSIVE loss, which is quite shocking and should have been nipped in the bud earlier. Spending huge amounts of money on the website sounded like a vanity project that went badly wrong.
In relation to James Gambrill (Declaration: I have never worked with him directly, but I've known him for 20 years), I'd personally give him more than a few weeks before making any judgements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
@iainm, It's not really vitriol. Obviously there is history because snowheads owes its very existence to rank and file ordinary skiers being ejected from a forum if they hadn't paid their tithe to the their great and mighty organisation. So undoubtably a bit of schadenfraude that they have been so particularly inept at their own digital strategy.
Beyond that it's an interesting case study in an activity we all care about of how to fail, including the cyclicity of failure-reboot broadly the same - sink more costs- fail again - reboot.... If James hasn't by now had at least a couple of decent rows with Council then I doubt he's the right man to fix it. He may only have been there 6 weeks but he doesn't have the luxury of time - if they are launching into this dubious rep programme this coming winter he'd better have the answers on legality for instance.
And though I've said it before I'd be willing to give SCGB a shot if I thought it had anything for me - but it doesn't seem to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| iainm wrote: |
| Surely if you're a member and you don't think it's worth it, then you just stop your membership? |
I was and I did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| iainm wrote: |
It's been interesting to read all the comments on here. I realise there is history between Snowheads and the Ski Club, but there does seem to be a lot of vitriol. Surely if you're a member and you don't think it's worth it, then you just stop your membership? And if you do think it's worth it, but you're frustrated that it could be better, then maybe there's scope to give your input through the club? Maybe propose a focus group if you think market research won't deliver the answers?
I've never been a member, but I do know a few people who I respect who worked at the club, but were let go for unclear reasons. Then I learned of the MASSIVE loss, which is quite shocking and should have been nipped in the bud earlier. Spending huge amounts of money on the website sounded like a vanity project that went badly wrong.
In relation to James Gambrill (Declaration: I have never worked with him directly, but I've known him for 20 years), I'd personally give him more than a few weeks before making any judgements. |
Just listened to the Podcast and a couple of things really impressed me
1. James has 'been working' in the ski industry not just 'been' in the ski industry for a substantial amount of time. His CV and and successes would suggest he's the right man for the job. If he's allowed to do it.
2. The honesty of stating they don't know everything
3. The realisation that they're not for everyone.
That's a solid foundation in my eyes.
If they can utilise and leverage the undoubted expertise, experience and numbers within the membership then they can succeed.
For example a membership / subscription offering behind a Paywall much like newspapers such as The Times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Mike Pow, you mean something like a private forum?
In all honesty, they've had the ability to do that for some time, and they've failed at it spectacularly because they just don't have any way of monetising the results to justify the amount of effort required to build it. Their new app is the latest attempt, but I can confidently predict that it will also fail, and for the same reasons - if members wanted peer to peer skiing, they've had Facebook groups for years which could allow them to do that, but it hasn't really taken off apart from in 1-2 places where there's an active community pushing it. Making it available through the app doesn't guarantee that it will be used, and bearing in mind the ageing demographics of their membership, I wonder how many will have ready access to a grandchild or great grandchild to install it for them and run them through how to use it, or maybe to explain why they need something better than a Nokia 5210 to be able to use it.
In reality, it seems that their organisation is simply orbiting the plughole. You know that it will vanish down it eventually, but it's not entirely clear yet when that will be. The bath water ("cash") is running out though, and you can make a pretty good estimate of the maximum time based on the remaining level. There's always the chance that it will dive down well before the water is all gone, but that's the fun of watching...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I'm not sure you can call knowing that there is a problem, but not its extent a 'foundation' - If they can establish what an archetypal SCGB member is or should be and what they can offer that person, then perhaps that's a start of what the clubs next iteration can be.
Gambrill did seem to grasp the issue, once he got over the "A Tradition of History - A History of Tradition" smoke and mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@Mike Pow, you mean something like a private forum?
In all honesty, they've had the ability to do that for some time, and they've failed at it spectacularly because they just don't have any way of monetising the results to justify the amount of effort required to build it. Their new app is the latest attempt, but I can confidently predict that it will also fail, and for the same reasons - if members wanted peer to peer skiing, they've had Facebook groups for years which could allow them to do that, but it hasn't really taken off apart from in 1-2 places where there's an active community pushing it. Making it available through the app doesn't guarantee that it will be used, and bearing in mind the ageing demographics of their membership, I wonder how many will have ready access to a grandchild or great grandchild to install it for them and run them through how to use it, or maybe to explain why they need something better than a Nokia 5210 to be able to use it.
In reality, it seems that their organisation is simply orbiting the plughole. You know that it will vanish down it eventually, but it's not entirely clear yet when that will be. The bath water ("cash") is running out though, and you can make a pretty good estimate of the maximum time based on the remaining level. There's always the chance that it will dive down well before the water is all gone, but that's the fun of watching... |
Big differences between ability, desire and doing.
A different take then.
I'm a BMC Member of over 20 years standing.
I support their mission statement even if I don't avail myself of all their offerings.
I make use of their insurance.
I enjoy the magazine.
It's value for money as far as I'm concerned.
If the SCGB could offer that, I'd be a member.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
That's a solid foundation in my eyes.
If they can utilise and leverage the undoubted expertise, experience and numbers within the membership then they can succeed.
For example a membership / subscription offering behind a Paywall much like newspapers such as The Times. |
I really don't understand this - the Times has content that people will pay to access, I'm not sure what the SCGB has content wise that is unique and worth paying for? On the spot snow reports - well you can read between the lines of most resort official measures plus webcams and WePowder is good for stormchasing. Plus they are only really relevant if you are deciding between 2 or more resorts for the next day or possibly a trip at the weekend.
There will undoubtably be members who are very expert in their own particular resorts but how do you get that expertise shared for the good of all?
And how do you bundle up knowledge in a way that is attractive to the target market of aspiring intermediates without looking like "We're charging you £70+ to look at our website and our holiday brochure"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Dave of the Marmottes wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
That's a solid foundation in my eyes.
If they can utilise and leverage the undoubted expertise, experience and numbers within the membership then they can succeed.
For example a membership / subscription offering behind a Paywall much like newspapers such as The Times. |
I really don't understand this - the Times has content that people will pay to access, I'm not sure what the SCGB has content wise that is unique and worth paying for? On the spot snow reports - well you can read between the lines of most resort official measures plus webcams and WePowder is good for stormchasing. Plus they are only really relevant if you are deciding between 2 or more resorts for the next day or possibly a trip at the weekend.
There will undoubtably be members who are very expert in their own particular resorts but how do you get that expertise shared for the good of all?
And how do you bundle up knowledge in a way that is attractive to the target market of aspiring intermediates without looking like "We're charging you £70+ to look at our website and our holiday brochure"? |
See above
There are still enough people out there who enjoy reading on paper.
I'd look forward to reading current, up to date quality journalism along with retrospective stories of the industry and resorts accompanied by quality photography.
Both in print and on the web.
I subscribe here
https://readframes.com/
Open access digital info
Subscriber only digital magazines
Subscriber only print magazine
£14 month
Worth every penny as far as I'm concerned
Take this kind of idea, and combine it with for example
social skiing
industry leading winter sports insurance offering
opportunity to attend exclusive events
And you'll be on to a winner IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Mike Pow, which current members of staff would you have write this stuff, or are you proposing to recruit an editor and then contract out the graphical design, photography and articles to freelancers? Or recruit a 4-5 person team of part-timers to produce it? What would the budget be, on the basis of getting £1 per subscriber back from an online subscription service, or making it free to members? Who would want to advertise in it? I'm a keen skier, but I'm not interested in such a publication because I'd rather be doing it than reading about it. When I can't do it, a freebie would be flicked through and discarded fairly quickly unless the content was really good, but unfortunately most of the resort-sponsored puff pieces which professional publishing organisations put out in their weekly magazines is far from that, and I can't see a membership organisation managing that when publishers have spent the last 4-5 years closing down specialist skiing mags due to lack of interest.
Social skiing is already available to non-members, via this site, independent Facebook groups for individual locations, and good old fashioned talking to people. I did a solo 4-day trip to the Skiwelt a couple of years ago before Christmas when the whole place was still pretty dead. Through this site I met up with one person to ski with for one day, bumped into some people at a lift and was invited to spend the day with them, spoke to another in a bar and spent the next day skiing with them, and spent one day solo - but my intention had been to be solo throughout or for all bar 1 day, and the company turned out to be an unexpected bonus.
"Industry leading winter sports insurance" is something that the club thought it had, but membership numbers continued to fall. Now they have an insurance offering which is less than industry leading, I can't see that turning around. Worldwide or EU annual travel insurance with snowsports cover up to 30 days per year including off-piste without a guide is not something that the club can offer directly, and I can't see how they can persuade an underwriter to cut them a discount and a share of the proceeds for 10000 policies a year. We're not talking Direct Line here, with millions of customers for car insurance alone, but we are talking about an ageing demographic with lots of underlying health conditions participating in a risky activity with high costs likely if something goes wrong. If they could get it for under £40 per person, or £70 per person for full season cover, and with family cover at 2.1X that, it would be compelling and all of the other benefits would be insignificant, but they can't, and they've left some members uninsured and uninsurable in their attempts to reorganise and milk some more cash from the cow.
Exclusive events - where? For years they were criticised as being too London-centric, so the big midweek night out isn't really that attractive even for someone like me an hour away. Hemel, MK, Castleford, Braehead? Been tried, wasn't overly successful for them, and although Snowheads has its Octobertests, an attempt at a regular "club" night at Hemel after it opened fizzled out after about 6 months because - well, mainly because skiing in a fridge is expensive and boring, so many people see it as a necessary refresher or chance to work on technique rather than an excuse for a social meet up. Ski show? That's not exactly exclusive, and in all honesty neither is it even popular despite the huge numbers of free tickets available for it. In ski resorts? That's a nightmare to organise, and wherever you choose it will be the wrong place for almost everyone.
The comparison with the BMC is an interesting one - see https://membership.thebmc.co.uk/ - and bear in mind that "we currently have over 85,000 members, comprised of individual members as well as members of more than 250 BMC affiliated clubs", so straight off the top you have 4-5 times the membership numbers, it is a national representative body and governing body for competitive climbing, it has local clubs who meet regularly, the sport has over 400 climbing walls across the UK to attract people and provide a focus for local groups, they have huts in the mountains for members to use, and family membership is £35 per year. Their insurance offering is still 4X higher than my annual cover, because it includes climbing and related activities as standard. On the flip side, it has a lower number of participants as a sport, and over half of all participants are under 35 ( http://www.oursportinglife.co.uk/climbing-statistics-uk/ ) which is a demographic that the Ski Club would love to have, except that they couldn't then afford expensive skiing holidays.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| @Mike Pow, which current members of staff would you have write this stuff, or are you proposing to recruit an editor and then contract out the graphical design, photography and articles to freelancers? Or recruit a 4-5 person team of part-timers to produce it? What would the budget be, on the basis of getting £1 per subscriber back from an online subscription service, or making it free to members? Who would want to advertise in it? I'm a keen skier, but I'm not interested in such a publication because I'd rather be doing it than reading about it. When I can't do it, a freebie would be flicked through and discarded fairly quickly unless the content was really good, but unfortunately most of the resort-sponsored puff pieces which professional publishing organisations put out in their weekly magazines is far from that, and I can't see a membership organisation managing that when publishers have spent the last 4-5 years closing down specialist skiing mags due to lack of interest. |
I'm the ideas guy, James is the operational guy
They had a very successful and worthwhile magazine in the past. The expertise may have left the SCGB but it's out there.
Publication free to members as part of their membership package (much like the example I gave for Frames).
This would be a quality publication which members would like to keep.
Interviews and articles about / written by members would encourage readership.
Annual writing and photography competition for members
There are plenty of niche magazines out there doing well financially which haven't become advertorial catalogues.
| Quote: |
| Social skiing is already available to non-members, via this site, independent Facebook groups for individual locations, and good old fashioned talking to people. I did a solo 4-day trip to the Skiwelt a couple of years ago before Christmas when the whole place was still pretty dead. Through this site I met up with one person to ski with for one day, bumped into some people at a lift and was invited to spend the day with them, spoke to another in a bar and spent the next day skiing with them, and spent one day solo - but my intention had been to be solo throughout or for all bar 1 day, and the company turned out to be an unexpected bonus. |
True, and people like to interact with like minded people. There are plenty out there who have never heard of snowheads and wouldn't be interested in skiing with any of us.
If the facility is there, and it's easy to use, some of the members will use it.
| Quote: |
| "Industry leading winter sports insurance" is something that the club thought it had, but membership numbers continued to fall. Now they have an insurance offering which is less than industry leading, I can't see that turning around. Worldwide or EU annual travel insurance with snowsports cover up to 30 days per year including off-piste without a guide is not something that the club can offer directly, and I can't see how they can persuade an underwriter to cut them a discount and a share of the proceeds for 10000 policies a year. We're not talking Direct Line here, with millions of customers for car insurance alone, but we are talking about an ageing demographic with lots of underlying health conditions participating in a risky activity with high costs likely if something goes wrong. If they could get it for under £40 per person, or £70 per person for full season cover, and with family cover at 2.1X that, it would be compelling and all of the other benefits would be insignificant, but they can't, and they've left some members uninsured and uninsurable in their attempts to reorganise and milk some more cash from the cow. |
Your numbers are laughable.
You want your annual insurance cost to be around the same price as ski carriage one way with some airlines. Wake up.
| Quote: |
| Exclusive events - where? For years they were criticised as being too London-centric, so the big midweek night out isn't really that attractive even for someone like me an hour away. Hemel, MK, Castleford, Braehead? Been tried, wasn't overly successful for them, and although Snowheads has its Octobertests, an attempt at a regular "club" night at Hemel after it opened fizzled out after about 6 months because - well, mainly because skiing in a fridge is expensive and boring, so many people see it as a necessary refresher or chance to work on technique rather than an excuse for a social meet up. Ski show? That's not exactly exclusive, and in all honesty neither is it even popular despite the huge numbers of free tickets available for it. In ski resorts? That's a nightmare to organise, and wherever you choose it will be the wrong place for almost everyone. |
Exclusive events can be held in the real world and online.
If there was a monthly series of presentations on all aspects of the winter holiday with recognised industry leaders, I'd log on. Zoom or podcast. Or both.
The growing audience for The Ski Podcast is testament to this.
Real world, harder to organise but not insurmountable.
I don't think every member expects to be able to attend every event and make use of every offering which membership affords.
| Quote: |
| The comparison with the BMC is an interesting one - see https://membership.thebmc.co.uk/ - and bear in mind that "we currently have over 85,000 members, comprised of individual members as well as members of more than 250 BMC affiliated clubs", so straight off the top you have 4-5 times the membership numbers, it is a national representative body and governing body for competitive climbing, it has local clubs who meet regularly, the sport has over 400 climbing walls across the UK to attract people and provide a focus for local groups, they have huts in the mountains for members to use, and family membership is £35 per year. Their insurance offering is still 4X higher than my annual cover, because it includes climbing and related activities as standard. On the flip side, it has a lower number of participants as a sport, and over half of all participants are under 35 ( http://www.oursportinglife.co.uk/climbing-statistics-uk/ ) which is a demographic that the Ski Club would love to have, except that they couldn't then afford expensive skiing holidays. |
It's a good model to cherry pick from
Ultimately this thread much like the Ski Show thread reinforces James' declaration that the SCGB is not for everyone.
And I suspect the vast majority on snowheads wouldn't be interested, many being SCGB refugees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If they could get it for under £40 per person, or £70 per person for full season cover, and with family cover at 2.1X that, it would be compelling |
Your numbers are laughable.
You want your annual insurance cost to be around the same price as ski carriage one way with some airlines. Wake up.
|
Ah, sorry - I must have dreamed the bit where I renewed my annual travel insurance at £120 for family cover in the UK and the whole of Europe plus Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Russia and Ukraine, including off-piste without a guide and for trips of up to 30 days at a time, with a well-known household name and underwritten by a multinational insurance company. Wake me up when you can find a SCGB offer which can match that, especially the bit about UK cover - the closest I can get on their quote is £198, which membership will reduce by £30. And yes, I've claimed with my current provider twice in the last 5 years, once for repatriation due to a dead car and once for a skiing accident involving emergency hospital treatment and an overnight stay, and I'm a happy customer.
So, maybe you should wake up and realise that insurance is a numbers game, and specialist insurance is sometimes not worth the premium charged for it. If the SCGB can't undercut the public prices of mainstream providers in their offering for members, why offer it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also,
| Quote: |
The growing audience for The Ski Podcast is testament to this.
|
How would that audience change if it cost £5 per year to subscribe for access? There simply isn't a sustainable business model to support monetising this sort of thing, so it either has to be sponsor-supported, or done for the love of it. See https://theskipodcast.com/podcast/switzerland-tourism-extend-sponsorship-of-the-ski-podcast-2/ - I'm betting @iainm isn't planning to retire to the Seychelles on the proceeds anytime soon, even if he's getting free or subsidised trips to Switzerland. Good luck to him - now work out how the Ski Club of Great Britain could:
a. do it as well or better
b. make money from it or at least make it cost neutral
I would suggest that they would struggle with both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| ......Ah, sorry - I must have dreamed the bit where I renewed my annual travel insurance at £120 for family cover in the UK and the whole of Europe plus Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Russia and Ukraine, including off-piste without a guide and for trips of up to 30 days at a time, with a well-known household name and underwritten by a multinational insurance company....... |
Damn I've been robbed. I paid £135 for that cover.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@spyderjon, they offer a renewal discount for loyal customers - I sometimes wonder whether they're aware of how the rest of the insurance market operates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| Mike Pow wrote: |
| Quote: |
| If they could get it for under £40 per person, or £70 per person for full season cover, and with family cover at 2.1X that, it would be compelling |
Your numbers are laughable.
You want your annual insurance cost to be around the same price as ski carriage one way with some airlines. Wake up.
|
Ah, sorry - I must have dreamed the bit where I renewed my annual travel insurance at £120 for family cover in the UK and the whole of Europe plus Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Russia and Ukraine, including off-piste without a guide and for trips of up to 30 days at a time, with a well-known household name and underwritten by a multinational insurance company. Wake me up when you can find a SCGB offer which can match that, especially the bit about UK cover - the closest I can get on their quote is £198, which membership will reduce by £30. And yes, I've claimed with my current provider twice in the last 5 years, once for repatriation due to a dead car and once for a skiing accident involving emergency hospital treatment and an overnight stay, and I'm a happy customer.
So, maybe you should wake up and realise that insurance is a numbers game, and specialist insurance is sometimes not worth the premium charged for it. If the SCGB can't undercut the public prices of mainstream providers in their offering for members, why offer it? |
I'm awake and stood well and truly corrected.
With whom please? I'd love to get those kind of prices. Substantially cheaper than the BMC too.
And you're correct. If any organisation can't offer a comparable product at the same price or a more comprehensive product at a greater price then there's no point in offering it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
Also,
| Quote: |
The growing audience for The Ski Podcast is testament to this.
|
How would that audience change if it cost £5 per year to subscribe for access? There simply isn't a sustainable business model to support monetising this sort of thing, so it either has to be sponsor-supported, or done for the love of it. See https://theskipodcast.com/podcast/switzerland-tourism-extend-sponsorship-of-the-ski-podcast-2/ - I'm betting @iainm isn't planning to retire to the Seychelles on the proceeds anytime soon, even if he's getting free or subsidised trips to Switzerland. Good luck to him - now work out how the Ski Club of Great Britain could:
a. do it as well or better
b. make money from it or at least make it cost neutral
I would suggest that they would struggle with both. |
Cost neutral should be achievable.
Sponsor-supported very achievable if there are enough ears and eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
For me, it's difficult to see how the relatively tiny SCGB can compete in any commercial market with the big boys who can cover every niche more efficiently.
Better to be a trusted source of information for, and voice of, the snowsports enthusiast and make money out of advertising and click-thrus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
@Mike Pow, https://uk.virginmoney.com/travel-insurance/annual-multi-trip - note that the winter sports cover is not for multiple trips of up to 31 days each, but instead covers a total of 10 (red level), 17 (silver), or 24 days (gold/black). Extra days can be arranged, but for anyone doing less than a season, there should be something there which _may_ be suitable. Season insurance is a completely different market, and I'd expect that to be £300+ per person. Then again, with a 90 day EU limit for UK travellers during any 180 days, that's no longer a problem I could have.
For me, 17 days has been enough for previous years, though I have hit 17 twice. Next season, with pent-up frustrations, saved holiday and saved cash, I will need to up it to 24 as I already have 19 days booked 
The Ski Club cover is for trips of up to 24 days, and no more than 45 days in total on the Platinum policy - at £282 for me. For their Gold policy, the numbers are the same, but the price is £198 due to lower payouts on several areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
The Insurance offering is a microcosm of the problems they have.
There will be true believers who say "Join the SCGB for our fantastic insurance" when really the process could be
-put together class leading insurance, at least competitive with the next best thing out there and with all skiers' common issues clarified
- make commission on selling it under the SCGB brand
- because you're on commission offer it to all skiers because it's money in the bank
- perhaps offer a discount (from the commission or part rebate of member fees) for members
- use the good insurance offer to cross market other benefits of membership to all the leads of the skiing population just captured
However when it comes to who cares enough that would depend on someone caring enough to genuinely put together class leading insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Cross-referencing their insurance offering with the podcast interview, I'm struggling to understand how an insurance offering which covers 45 days skiing at up to 24 days per trip ties in with their target market being later beginners to early-mid intermediates who are finding their way into skiing and would welcome a club to help them along. Why then no insurance offering for 1-2 trips per year?
The disconnect is that someone who skis for a week a year probably isn't going to join a club...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@Mike Pow, https://uk.virginmoney.com/travel-insurance/annual-multi-trip - note that the winter sports cover is not for multiple trips of up to 31 days each, but instead covers a total of 10 (red level), 17 (silver), or 24 days (gold/black). Extra days can be arranged, but for anyone doing less than a season, there should be something there which _may_ be suitable. Season insurance is a completely different market, and I'd expect that to be £300+ per person. Then again, with a 90 day EU limit for UK travellers during any 180 days, that's no longer a problem I could have.
For me, 17 days has been enough for previous years, though I have hit 17 twice. Next season, with pent-up frustrations, saved holiday and saved cash, I will need to up it to 24 as I already have 19 days booked
The Ski Club cover is for trips of up to 24 days, and no more than 45 days in total on the Platinum policy - at £282 for me. For their Gold policy, the numbers are the same, but the price is £198 due to lower payouts on several areas. |
Thanks
Will have a look
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
| The disconnect is that someone who skis for a week a year probably isn't going to join a club... |
People join local clubs and just ski abroad once or twice a year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@rjs, some people may well do, but not many. Certainly not enough to be a significant number, especially as clubs tend to be focussed on racing and therefore primarily on kids, rather than on social skiing. Those clubs are not affiliated to SCGB, because it has no relevance to them - unlike the BMC - so if they have an affiliation at all, it will be to SSE et al - e.g. https://www.hemelskiraceclub.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@Mike Pow, https://uk.virginmoney.com/travel-insurance/annual-multi-trip - note that the winter sports cover is not for multiple trips of up to 31 days each, but instead covers a total of 10 (red level), 17 (silver), or 24 days (gold/black). Extra days can be arranged, but for anyone doing less than a season, there should be something there which _may_ be suitable. Season insurance is a completely different market, and I'd expect that to be £300+ per person. Then again, with a 90 day EU limit for UK travellers during any 180 days, that's no longer a problem I could have.
For me, 17 days has been enough for previous years, though I have hit 17 twice. Next season, with pent-up frustrations, saved holiday and saved cash, I will need to up it to 24 as I already have 19 days booked
The Ski Club cover is for trips of up to 24 days, and no more than 45 days in total on the Platinum policy - at £282 for me. For their Gold policy, the numbers are the same, but the price is £198 due to lower payouts on several areas. |
Had a look and don't want to make this an insurance thread, but a couple of observations and questions if I may
-----
Virgin policy wording
We classify the following as winter sports activities
Cat skiing...off piste skiing/snowboarding (except in areas considered to be unsafe by resort management)...ski touring (with a guide), skiing, snowboarding
-----
My interpretation of that is you're covered for off-piste skiing on terrain within the resort boundary which is managed by the resort and which is deemed 'open'
But you're not covered for off-piste skiing beyond the resort boundary
And not covered for ski touring without a guide
Do you see it that way?
And I couldn't see anything about helicopter airlift off the slopes and/or to hospital.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ousekjarr, I have seen plenty of cases where kids will ski every week with a club but their parents just do it on an annual club holiday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@Mike Pow, yes, that was my reading of it, but as always the key thing about insurance is to ask for clarification in writing if you have any doubts. In terms of touring, if you skin up a random hill with no lifts on it and have an accident, I'd see that as being outside of the policy, as well as being much higher risk.
For airlift from the slopes, the General Exclusions clauses in the policy document includes this:
| Quote: |
Search and rescue costs
Costs that are charged to you by a government, regulated authority or private organisation connected with finding and rescuing an individual. This does not include the costs of medical evacuation (by the most appropriate transport) from a medical emergency which is covered under section B - Medical and other expenses. |
(my emphasis)
Section B says nothing specific, but if a medical evacuation by helicopter is deemed to be necessary, I would expect it to be covered. If on the other hand you are offered the choice of a skidoo ride down to a waiting ambulance or a helicopter ride, the skidoo costs are what the policy will cover. The helicopter becomes your choice, and is not essential.
Note also that if you were skinning up a random hill and needed a 20-man search party to find you and then a helicopter to rescue you because you became too tired to continue, got lost and are now stuck on a ledge halfway down a cliff in the dark, none of that would be covered. Common sense has to apply at some point, and for 99.99% of people taking out a policy, this is irrelevant because they'll never be in that situation.
My claim was for a severe cut from a ski edge ( https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=150033 ) and involved a short skidoo ride to the top of the main slope, and a download in a gondola accompanied by a medic, then an ambulance ride 15 miles to the hospital. €216 bill from the lift company was settled without fuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ousekjarr wrote: |
@Mike Pow, yes, that was my reading of it, but as always the key thing about insurance is to ask for clarification in writing if you have any doubts. In terms of touring, if you skin up a random hill with no lifts on it and have an accident, I'd see that as being outside of the policy, as well as being much higher risk.
For airlift from the slopes, the General Exclusions clauses in the policy document includes this:
| Quote: |
Search and rescue costs
Costs that are charged to you by a government, regulated authority or private organisation connected with finding and rescuing an individual. This does not include the costs of medical evacuation (by the most appropriate transport) from a medical emergency which is covered under section B - Medical and other expenses. |
(my emphasis)
Section B says nothing specific, but if a medical evacuation by helicopter is deemed to be necessary, I would expect it to be covered. If on the other hand you are offered the choice of a skidoo ride down to a waiting ambulance or a helicopter ride, the skidoo costs are what the policy will cover. The helicopter becomes your choice, and is not essential.
Note also that if you were skinning up a random hill and needed a 20-man search party to find you and then a helicopter to rescue you because you became too tired to continue, got lost and are now stuck on a ledge halfway down a cliff in the dark, none of that would be covered. Common sense has to apply at some point, and for 99.99% of people taking out a policy, this is irrelevant because they'll never be in that situation.
My claim was for a severe cut from a ski edge ( https://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=150033 ) and involved a short skidoo ride to the top of the main slope, and a download in a gondola accompanied by a medic, then an ambulance ride 15 miles to the hospital. €216 bill from the lift company was settled without fuss. |
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
I went on to their 'info and advice' section, for that is one area the new GM thinks they score, and it's woeful. In the section on Seasonnaire Life they don't even suggest it might be a requirement to have an EU passport, even though that was 'news' 6 months ago. That's because there is nobody there who cares enough or is responsible for keeping the massively expensive website updated and fresh. What was the figure? £450k? If you were a shareholder in a business like this there would be blood up the boardroom walls.
.
