 Poster: A snowHead
|
A very interesting and comprehensive survey of the snowsports industry 2003 - 2004 from our friends the Ski Club
Loads of graphs, charts and numbers for stat heads to mull over. Sources quoted. Most areas showing snowsports continues to grow. The only sad part is the section on Scottish Skier Days which makes depressing reading. But without snow what can you do ??
May I just make a plea that we don't go over the website 'unique hits' business again. R.I.P.
16 page glossy full colour adobe file.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Sun 5-12-04 12:23; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
So according to them, 60% of all British skiers and boarders visited their web site last year. Sorry, make that 58.59%.
Yeah, right!
It seems to me a waste of members money doing reports like this and that the inclusion of figures like this on the front page just seem to imbue the whole thing with more than the faintest whiff of cowdoo. (IMO)
Lies, damned lies and statistics? QED!
(IMO too)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Sorry I Saques, I know my eyesight is not so good these days but I have read the pdf forwards and backwards and can't seem to find that 58.59% figure anywhere. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction?
In any event, by suggesting the figures are "cowdoo" (or worse!) are you expressing a subjective opinion based on gut feeling or are you disagreeing because you have the same raw data and have arrived at a different statistical analysis?
Before m'learned friends get excited I think we should be told ! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Alan Craggs, 700,000 highly dubious and much debated 'unique visits' to the SCGB web site divided by 1,205,000 snowsports participants = 58.09 %. I suspect that's how I Saques derived it.
I knew these SCGB web site stats on Page 3 were going to raise their ugly head again. Can we discuss some other parts of the report, maybe, just for once? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Andorra gets an impressive fraction of the market, particularly given it's size.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
kuwait_ian, well if that's the case I don't think the SC claim that those visitors were all from the UK so the reasoning of I Saques is flawed and he should perhaps withdraw his allegation.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Sun 5-12-04 18:09; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
706,000/1,205,000 = 0.58589
Since half(sarcastic estimate) their own members don't seem to know what a bloody computer is, I think it's a little far fetched don't you?
Maybe that's just another strength? They reach 59% of all British skiers through their website PLUS they have their 18,000 members. PLUS their email goes to 87,000 non-members PLUS magazine circulation of, well, not much really.
I'm sure with a little effort they could quite easily lay claim to be reaching 150% of all British skiers which would only be slightly less believable: come on SCGB, you're not trying hard enough here.
Sorry kuwait_ian, I know you said to just ignore them but if the girls at the club will insist on getting their stats out on page 3, people can hardly be expected not to look.
Ok ok, I'll look at another bit. Oh, there's a couple of pretty pie charts. Hmm so 'online' sales have only increased from 7% to 8% but 'email' sales have increased from 3% to 7%! Well what's email if it's not 'online'? I know mine generally is. Maybe their 'e' stands for 'Elephant'? Yes, holidays sold by 'Elephant mail' have increased substantially, that'll be it.
Fine, fine, I'll try to find something nice to say: well done girls, it's a very pretty report, I liked the pictures of skiing.
Look the SCGB's all very nicey nice and I don't have a problem with it per se but why must the executive waste time and resources doing reports like this when numbers and stats are obviously not their strong suit?
"See you in the bar darlings, race you down!", that's what I want to hear from them but they're just so uptight these days with their silly numbers, they're no fun anymore 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am now given to understand from someone who attended the AGM that the Club does indeed claim that the 700,000 unique visitors were all from the British skiing (snowing?) population. I must say I find that hard to believe myself but apologies to I Saques for questioning his reasoning.
However, unless he has proof that the figure is incorrect I would suggest that he qualifies the comment by saying that in his opinion it is cowdoo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Oh, and Ian Hopkinson's right by the way 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well one stat that springs to my attention is the drop in the schools market. Estimate of 120,000 last year compared to (a predicted) 550,000 from 1980. If there is any accuracy in the figures at all then that is quite a drop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| kuwait_ian wrote: |
Loads of graphs, charts and numbers for stat heads to mull over. Sources quoted. Most areas showing snowsports continues to grow. The only sad part is the section on Scottish Skier Days which makes depressing reading. But without snow what can you do ??
|
Could we stop repeating the myth, that Scotland doesn't get any snow on this website. Even in bad winters there are runs in most resorts with skiable snow on them.
We can hardly criticise other people (or websites) if we don't get the facts straight here.
Note also that by looking at the stats snow cover has very little impact on the number of visitors. I mean the numbers are falling even in the decent winters. I'd suggest that the availability of cheap flights and the constant drip drip drip of negative publicity have had more of an impact than the actual conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Hmm. This Scottish Executive Central Research Unit paper makes dry reading, but para 2.11, bullet points 2 and 3 suggsests things are not going well for skiing north of the border.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lager, your plea for accuracy is just ever so slightly undermined by ignoring most of the actual quote you reproduced. Skier days he said, they are reduced, it's a fact.
You're going to need to explain your reasoning about snow cover and number of visitors, doesn't the graph show a 45% reduction on skier days? Are you saying that snow has reduced by more than 45% ? For the statement "snow cover has very little impact on the number of visitors" to have much meaning in a numerate world then I'd need to see snow cover reducing, say, 98% which would make a reduction of 45% in skier days to look pretty good.
All of which undermines the point you're making about cheap flights, although it turns out to be less of a good point than I'd have guessed. The trick with the numbers would be to turn the cheap flight numbers into number of skier days. I'd guess a cheap flight would be worth 4 skier days or more, the increase from 99 to now in skier days for cheap flights has about equalled what Scotland has lost. I find it hard to buy all that increase was displaced from Scotland, in fact given the bias of cheap flight to the south of the UK it looks a bit unlikely to put in mildly. If it turns out the average duration on a cheap flight is 6 or 7 days then the numbers aren't even close.
Not many people go and ski in Scotland, the figures speak for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| ise wrote: |
Lager, your plea for accuracy is just ever so slightly undermined by ignoring most of the actual quote you reproduced. Skier days he said, they are reduced, it's a fact.
You're going to need to explain your reasoning about snow cover and number of visitors, doesn't the graph show a 45% reduction on skier days? Are you saying that snow has reduced by more than 45% ? For the statement "snow cover has very little impact on the number of visitors" to have much meaning in a numerate world then I'd need to see snow cover reducing, say, 98% which would make a reduction of 45% in skier days to look pretty good.
|
I'll explain further. 2001/02 was a pretty good season. Despite that skier days fell quite dramatically at everywhere except the Lecht. The figures aren't much different between 2002/03 and last season when 2002 was just about as bad as it gets. So there is far more to the figures than simply snow cover.
It's worth noting also that Cairngorm shut up shop in mid April last season when there was still decent cover and in fact there was a good dump at the start of May which would have kept the season going on until the first or second week of May, but there isn't much point doing that if extending the season just means you are going to lose money.
Looking at bullet 6 on the document Nick Zotov linked to also sort of backs this up. The biggest changes in the snowline are occuring between 300-500m. Above and below that there is little change. The Daylodge on Cairngorm is at 600m and most of the skiing in Scotland is above 500m.
The point about cheap flights was this. Scottish resorts rely on people who can get into the car and go when the conditions are good. Now in the past that would include a large amount of people from the north of England. Why would they bother if they can simply do a couple of long weekends flying to Geneva, Zurich or somewhere else. As a result the catchment area for the Scottish areas has shrunk. Although looking at the figures again there doesn't seem to be as much demand for cheap flights as I'd have thought. It seems then that maybe people are just turning away from the sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Lager, but the numbers in the report don't bear out any of what you're saying do they? I doubt you're going to suggest that 100% of the growth in people taking cheap flights in the last five years is from people who previously had skied in Scotland. I also doubt most of the Easyjet etc skiers are actually there for the weekend, the vast majority will be out for a week or two, I'm guessing but it seems more likely to me and the figures show 81% of holidays are for 7 days.
In fact the ski club figures don't have the half of it, skier days in Scotland peaked at around 650,000 in the late 80's (funnily enough about when I last went), for the tax payer what's been the most depressing is that as the the number of skier days has nose dived the public investment has risen; around £30 million over the last 15 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| ise wrote: |
| ..the public investment has risen.. |
Have you noticed politicians don't spend your money - they invest it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I used to drive up and ski in Scotland for a few days more years than not in the second half of the 80s and very early 90s, usually to Nevis Range/Glencoe. There was always snow on all the runs, it just varied a lot in quality (frequently boilerplate due to high winds) but I also had great powder days. The last couple of years have been the culmination of a disasterous progression and I reckon, from reading the snow reports, that though there was a tiny bit of beginner skiing on the top run at Nevis they got only a week (or two?) of worthwhile skiing over the whole of each season. I was up there anyway at one point in mid season and went to have a little limited run around, but it was so limited I didn't bother (better at Milton Keynes). It may be that 2001/2 was good but I had probably stopped bothering to look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
| ..the public investment has risen.. |
Have you noticed politicians don't spend your money - they invest it |
and let's be quite fair, although I personally think it's been money down the toilet it's been better spent than most of government spending and a drop in the ocean compared to what's been wasted elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| ise wrote: |
| ..the public investment has risen.. |
Have you noticed politicians don't spend your money - they invest it |
Yes, and Enron executives went to jail for practising the same deceit on their shareholders!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I thought it was a pretty good report - bit thin on the details on what's in the data, but useful all the same. This kind of market research is always a little bit flakey, though - and one is often paying thousands of pounds to gain access to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
