Near the end of the Public Comment session, a question was raised by two NH State Reps, including NH State Rep Paul Terry who was present in the audience, as to why Gunstock Mountain Resort wasn’t part of “the Indie Program”? I take it that this is an “independent Mountain” marketing push in that smaller ski areas have formed a pact that each would honor the ticket holders of the others. That allows them the ability to draw in customers with the promise of a variety of experiences and terrain across those areas participating. Sounds like a good idea to me as GMR is NOT one of the humongous private ski areas that do have lots of trails all on their own. But in listening to the answer as to WHY GMR doesn’t participate, I heard the word “punish”. It gave me thoughts:
Jade Wood asked a great question – why not? And the person off camera is NH State Rep Paul Terry providing more detail and asking the pregnant question of why Belknap County resident, who own what used to be called the Belknap County Ski area (if not officially then by de facto usage), don’t receive a discount?
Good question – generally “owners” get perks from time to time, right? Tom Day started to answer the question (“it doesn’t fit with our model”) and threw it over to Robin Rowe for an answer. I was rather surprised at the answer (in part):
“…We did some analysis and realized that so many pf our pass holders, in fact, were Belknap County residents, so rather than punishing the small percentage that were not Belknap County residents, we decided to maintain a very low pass price that benefits everyone.
So it’s not that we’re not discounting Belknap County folks, we just not charging extra to those living outside of Belknap County.”
Seriously – “Punishing“??
I find the logic there rather….different. First off, who pits one set of customers against another with such language. It comes across as “we value our outside Belknap County skiers more than you.” Such a marketing move – sure, let’s alienate our largest customer base by inferring that you don’t deserve anything better (even as we go begging to the County for money which is raised by raising MY COUNTY TAXES??).
That’s totally backwards. And asinine to boot.
Again it raises the question, as it does for most Government services, who benefits? If Belknap County residents own the area, if I flip her argument around, aren’t THEY the ones being punished? After all, if they are the majority of the skiers (by her own words), shouldn’t they be receiving a discount as owners?
But I’m not even keen on using the word “punish” when it comes to paying customers in the first place. The better argument is that the only remuneration that is received by the County is a paltry 1.75% of gross revenues. While $315,000 (thus far into the season on revenues of $18,000,000 compared to $8,000,000 last year) is nothing to sneeze at, cui bono: who benefits? And at the meeting, Sr. Management crowed that they had $9.3 million in the bank.
Is it the purpose of Gunstock to pile up the dough in the bank?
Sorry, even for the small percentage of Belknap County residents that ski (I am no longer one of them, given bad knees, hips, and back), IMHO, they SHOULD be getting a discount! After all, the question is:
Who owns the area? Who should benefit?
And maybe have a “brownie dividend for the rest of us (I had one while at the Special Meeting a couple of weeks ago – quite good!).
Again, what is the mission of GMR? While it does have out of County customers, wasn’t it historically meant for Belknap County folk?
If those folks have to pay the same rate as outsiders, who is really getting “punished”?
Which also begs the question – is Gunstock a homey, rustic area for locals or would it ever really become a “destination” spot like the big boys up North, East,a n
