# Most profit / biggest rip off in gear?



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2009)

What gear item do you think is the biggest rip off or more kindly, offers the greatest profit for a manufacturer.


To me, it's got to be climbing skins.  I simply can't wrap my mind around a piece of fiber that you clip onto your skis being sold at $100-$160.  Yes, I know deals can be had for less.  Yes, I know I will need them for my intended uses and will fork over somewhere in the $80-$120 range and be very glad to have them at some point but.......

I still don't get it.  

Some of the designer sunglasses and gloves you see out there blow me away too.  Unless they're prescription I can' see how anyone would pay $100+ for sunglasses.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> What gear item do you think is the biggest rip off or more kindly, offers the greatest profit for a manufacturer.
> 
> 
> To me, it's got to be climbing skins.  I simply can't wrap my mind around a piece of fiber that you clip onto your skis being sold at $100-$160.  Yes, I know deals can be had for less.  Yes, I know I will need them for my intended uses and will fork over somewhere in the $80-$120 range and be very glad to have them at some point but.......
> ...



The price is only set where it is because that's what people are willing to pay.  Most are not frugal like you.  $150 sunglasses are crazy but you can pick up most of the high end Oakleys for $40-50 online..I think Ski boots at over $500 bust have quite a markup...In the industry I work in, a standard markup is about 250-300% and I imagine it's at least that in the ski industry...once ski shops become extinct and everything can be bought online, I see the markups decreasing..but for now several different people are profitting from everything.  I think Turtlefur Balaclavas are a rip off..they must cost $2 to make but are about $30..but I try not to let prices bother me much..if I want it I buy it..and if it seems unreasonable then I usually go without it or find a better deal..


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2009)

perhaps it's because I'm used to wholesale mark ups.  My business, my GP is 33% and we run with some of the highest margins in the industry.  Of course when that gets to the stores, it's marked up 100% or 200% in a restaurant.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2009)

I'd be interested in knowing how much a set of skins cost to manufacture.  It can't be over $15


----------



## mondeo (Aug 19, 2009)

Skins don't seem that bad to me. It's not just a piece of fiber, it's an engineered fabric with directional properties and a glue that is very sticky but lasts mulitple applications. Plus the market isn't that big for them, so in order to cover overhead they probably have to charge a decent amount.

Anything top end qualifies as larger profit margin. Look at the difference in price between a 14 DIN binding and a 12 DIN. They might swap some plastic out for metal, or swap one metal for another, but the fundamental design doesn't change that much. But the people that feel the "need" for a 14 DIN binding are just as willing to pay $75 extra as $25.


----------



## roark (Aug 19, 2009)

Like sunglasses the markup on goggles is insane. My dad used to manage a sunglass factory - we had more free raybans than you can impagine... can't cost more than a couple bucks to make high end goggles.


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 19, 2009)

Knee joints!  There, I said it.
C'mon, why does it cost tens of thousands of dollars for replacement of a knee when the one that came stock really cost nothing?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 19, 2009)

Trekchick said:


> Knee joints!  There, I said it.
> C'mon, why does it cost tens of thousands of dollars for replacement of a knee when the one that came stock really cost nothing?



should you happen to have a connection in the knee joint biz, let me know.  

Those 10K knees = far more pay for sales reps in that biz than where I am.  Looking to get into medical sales and maybe bitch a bit less about the cost of skiing :lol:


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 19, 2009)

^^^ I thought I'd bring a new twist to the discussion. 

But, don't go twisting your knee!!


----------



## Glenn (Aug 19, 2009)

I used to work in a ski shop on my breaks in college. The owner was very cool and would give employees stuff for his cost....+15%. There's a pretty decent markup on a lot of things....skis, boards, jackets, pants...you name it. A lot of this stuff goes through a lot of channels. The guy who owned this shop wasn't calling up each company and order X# of products, he was part  of a buying group. So I'm sure that added another layer to the cost structure. 

I did order a snowboard directly from "Ride" one year. They had the board I wanted, but it was a "blem". By blem, I mean had a small scratch in the nose...nothing noticeable. I used that board for two seasons and then sold it for what I bought it for. Capitalism rawks.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 19, 2009)

Glenn said:


> Capitalism rawks.



times two...alot of the racer dudes do that..buy skis at special proform pricing..ski them a few times but keep them in great shape..and then sell them for the same price or even a profit..is there a market for 2nd hand skins?  I remember people from the ski vermont list making their own skins..


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 19, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> .  I think Turtlefur Balaclavas are a rip off..they must cost $2 to make but are about $30..



BINGO, we have a winner!  Actually...Tutle Fur or Seirus masks come in a close second place to hand and toe warmers in terms of profit margin for most ski/board retailers.  Those of you who think its equipment, think again...typically ski/board equipment (aka hardgoods) is the LOWEST profit margin in a snowsports retailer...even at full "street price" at the beginning of the year the margin in terms of % is lower for hardgoods than it is for sundries and accessories.  And, typically, the more expensive things get at retail (in outdoor/wintersports) the lower the margin tends to be...the margin on those $150 shades is lower than it is on the $25 rack sunglasses that are crappy for your eyes anyway.  Same is true for a bike shop...the margin in terms of % is much lower on a $3000 bike than it is on the first price point kids bike.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 19, 2009)

Glenn said:


> The guy who owned this shop wasn't calling up each company and order X# of products, he was part  of a buying group. So I'm sure that added another layer to the cost structure.



no...he's a member of a buying group because they negotiate for maximum discounts and terms for their members...so he ends up buying at a similar discount as someone like Ski Market or The Sports Authority even though his order is peanuts...the buying groups get a few points from dealer and they get a few points from the vendors and that covers their operating expenses...think of them more like a co-op...you pay a small membership fee each year and get to buy at lower prices.  It doesn't add another layer of markup to the process...it helps smaller retailers be more price competitive with the big guys.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 19, 2009)

As a rule in retail, clothing has some of the highest mark up around. Soft goods are far more profitable than hard goods. And people wear out clothing faster than gear (gear ho's who buy new skis every year or two excepting). It is all about last years' gear in both soft and hard goods.

My opinion is the biggest jack is the top tier product lines. I just can't imagine their stuff is that much better than the mid-tier clothing that it warrants twice the price. The margin is the same for the retailer and manufacturer, but the increased cost just jumps the price into the stratosphere. 

I am sure margins and markups in the ski industry are no different than those in other comparable retail sectors.


deadheadskier said:


> To me, it's got to be climbing skins.  I simply can't wrap my mind around a piece of fiber that you clip onto your skis being sold at $100-$160.  Yes, I know deals can be had for less.  Yes, I know I will need them for my intended uses and will fork over somewhere in the $80-$120 range and be very glad to have them at some point but.......


There is a company selling skins direct to customers for around $100 a pair. I can not attest to the quality but I have read rave reviews online. A quick google search will pull up the site for you as I can not remember the name.

When I bought my skins, they were only about $120-130 tops less than half a dozen years ago. I have no idea what caused the dramatic increase in costs. I would have to imagine it is increased cost of production and not an increased mark up.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 19, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd be interested in knowing how much a set of skins cost to manufacture.  It can't be over $15


I would be stunned if skins cost of production was anything less than $75 (don't forget R&D costs). That is some high tech equipment considering how versatile and long lasting the glue has to be. A product with inferior glue or hair would make for stunning difficult outings. When I got into BC, pretty much folks said go Ascensions or G3 and everything else was complete trash. Thankfully there are more options now. I will take other's experiences as truth and go forward with the understanding that there have been poorly designed skins out there that failed to work right.


----------



## snowmonster (Aug 21, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> There is a company selling skins direct to customers for around $100 a pair. I can not attest to the quality but I have read rave reviews online. A quick google search will pull up the site for you as I can not remember the name.



That would be climbingskinsdirect.com.

Back to topic: Gore-tex fabrics. Not a rip-off because they deliver what they promise but the margins on those clothes must be really high. The Pro Shell is astronomically priced. I think it's like selling jewelry or a Ferrari: once a store rings up a sale on a GoreTex Pro jacket, they've met their margin for the month and can go on vacation (sarcasm). I don't think you can get a Gore Tex Pro jacket for less than $250. I know we're paying for the R&D on this but wow!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 21, 2009)

This is a copy and paste of what Moe Ghoul posted on PASR..

http://www.carradanskis.com/

And ski jackets are 8000-12000. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 21, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> This is a copy and paste of what Moe Ghoul posted on PASR..
> 
> http://www.carradanskis.com/
> 
> And ski jackets are 8000-12000. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



whoever spends 8-12K on a ski jacket deserves to be punched in the balls.  8-12 hundred is ridiculous alone


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> whoever spends 8-12K on a ski jacket deserves to be punched in the balls.  8-12 hundred is ridiculous alone



Yes, but you can customize the number of pockets!


----------



## billski (Aug 21, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> should you happen to have a connection in the knee joint biz, let me know.


 
Uh, those funeral home directors in NY who got caught traffiking body parts are now in jail, sorry


----------



## billski (Aug 21, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I would be stunned if skins cost of production was anything less than $75 (don't forget R&D costs). /QUOTE]  And distribution, warranty, returns, marketing and insurance costs.  Granted, the high end stuff devotes far too much money to marketing, to promote an image, but that aside, the others are fixed costs.  If you really focused on profit margins that would be a more telling indicator.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 21, 2009)

billski said:


> Uh, those funeral home directors in NY who got caught traffiking body parts are now in jail, sorry



When business is dead you have to find revenue on the black market.

On topic..it would be great if we had the dude from the Killington food is expensive commercial and have him visit a boutique ski shop with $150 goggles that are $46 on Steep and Cheap and $100 fleeces and have him walk around and saying how he could fill up a shopping cart at Kohls for one Patagonia fleece made from recycled hippie farts.  For reference..


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 24, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> Yes, but you can customize the number of pockets!



yes...but they all have one pocket in common...for the deuche-bag...its on the inside!


----------



## wa-loaf (Aug 24, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> yes...but they all have one pocket in common...for the deuche-bag...its on the inside!



They give those out for free. :-D


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Aug 26, 2009)

Business 101..... for example....sunglasses cost $30 to produce, distributor pays $60 and sells to shop for $120, shop sells for $240. The more middlemen involved, the more the retail price is.


----------



## ccskier (Aug 26, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> whoever spends 8-12K on a ski jacket deserves to be punched in the balls.  8-12 hundred is ridiculous alone



Better have a hand built into the waist line if ya know what I mean.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 26, 2009)

Why does something that is profitable for a manufacture make it a big rip off?


----------



## Geoff (Aug 26, 2009)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Business 101..... for example....sunglasses cost $30 to produce, distributor pays $60 and sells to shop for $120, shop sells for $240. The more middlemen involved, the more the retail price is.



In high volume consumer electronics, the numbers are quite different.   Linksys or Netgear, for example.  The contract manufacturer gets 5% gross margin.  Netgear gets 10%.  The distributor gets 10%.  The retailer gets around 40% if they sell for MSRP.   That home WiFi router in Best Buy is roughly 2x the parts cost.   Netgear has practially no intellectual property in the product.   It's a reference design from a semiconductor company like Broadcom.  They design the plastic case and pay somebody to tailor the web interface to their taste.

The big carrier class phone systems I built for a lot of years were at the opposite end of the spectrum.   We'd pay our contract manufacturer around $100K for the printed circuit boards and chassis.   We'd sell the box to Comcast for around $3 million.   When you have 100+ engineers on staff developing and enhancing the box, you have to charge those kinds of numbers to make any kind of money.

And then you have Microsoft that has basically zero product cost.   It costs pennies to cut a CD-ROM and put it in a shrink wrap box.


----------



## marcski (Aug 26, 2009)

Skis.  It's crazy how much a ski shop will rape you for a pair of skis and bindings.  Nuts!  With production in the thousands....it just doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to make a ski.   All of the cheap prices online reinforces this.   I spent less on skis and bindings for myself and my wife online than I think I spent on the last pair of skis I got at a ski shop.


----------



## marcski (Aug 26, 2009)

Geoff said:


> In high volume consumer electronics, the numbers are quite different.   Linksys or Netgear, for example.  The contract manufacturer gets 5% gross margin.  Netgear gets 10%.  The distributor gets 10%.  The retailer gets around 40% if they sell for MSRP.   That home WiFi router in Best Buy is roughly 2x the parts cost.   Netgear has practially no intellectual property in the product.   It's a reference design from a semiconductor company like Broadcom.  They design the plastic case and pay somebody to tailor the web interface to their taste.
> 
> The big carrier class phone systems I built for a lot of years were at the opposite end of the spectrum.   We'd pay our contract manufacturer around $100K for the printed circuit boards and chassis.   We'd sell the box to Comcast for around $3 million.   When you have 100+ engineers on staff developing and enhancing the box, you have to charge those kinds of numbers to make any kind of money.
> 
> And then you have Microsoft that has basically zero product cost.   It costs pennies to cut a CD-ROM and put it in a shrink wrap box.




http://www.newegg.com/


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 26, 2009)

Geoff said:


> And then you have Microsoft that has basically zero product cost.   It costs pennies to cut a CD-ROM and put it in a shrink wrap box.


Don't forget R&D and techs. Maybe the box and CD don't cost much but a lot goes into producing the "product" even if individual delivery costs are low. Look at downloads of software further reducing cost of the actual distribution method to just bandwidth and a global web site and server. Lots go into the software behind the scenes though. Not that I am defending Microsoft


----------



## Philpug (Aug 26, 2009)

marcski said:


> Skis.  It's crazy how much a ski shop will rape you for a pair of skis and bindings.  Nuts!  With production in the thousands....it just doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to make a ski.   All of the cheap prices online reinforces this.   I spent less on skis and bindings for myself and my wife online than I think I spent on the last pair of skis I got at a ski shop.



Gotta love the ignorant and monoptic views that are posted on the internet.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 26, 2009)

Philpug said:


> Gotta love the ignorant and monoptic views that are posted on the internet.



I'll take that over throwing insults.......

Why not offer something constructive instead?  If you have intricate knowledge of a ski production cost, by all means share it with the group.  It's fairly easy for a consumer to believe otherwise when you see a ski that MSRPs for $1200 last season, go for less than half that one summer later.  Don't see that with cars or numerous other products, which would lead the consumer to believe that they are being gouged.  But in your opinion, no, consumers are just ignorant. 

As for your original question, 'What is wrong with profit'....the point of this thread was not slam profit.  I just feel there are certain things that border on gouging.  In my view skins are one such item.  No one has told me the production costs, but I have a hard time buying that some fancy plastic and glue and a couple of clips costs more than $20 to produce.  So, when you see them listing for $150, that to me seems like exorbanate profit.


----------



## RootDKJ (Aug 26, 2009)

Geoff said:


> The big carrier class phone systems I built for a lot of years were at the opposite end of the spectrum.   We'd pay our contract manufacturer around $100K for the printed circuit boards and chassis.   We'd sell the box to Comcast for around $3 million.   When you have 100+ engineers on staff developing and enhancing the box, you have to charge those kinds of numbers to make any kind of money.


On the video side, it's a little different.  Some major manufacturers give us the hardware (and sometimes even the software) for basically nothing, but have us enter multi-year support agreements and upgrade contracts.  That's where they make their profit.  

I particularly like this model.  I think it forces the vendors to build a better box.This keeps the  amount support necessary  to maintain the product down, to increase the profit ratio.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 26, 2009)

I'll chime in as someone with an intimate knowledge of the costs associated with ski manufacturing...the whole manufacturer cost gets doubled to the distributor and the distributor doubles the cost then the retailer doubles the cost...otherwise known as a "keystone"  simply isn't the case in ski production.  Ski manufacturers hope to realize a margin in the low 30% range, the US distributor hopes to realize an overall margin in the low to mid 30% range, at the end of the season, the retailer will be happy to have a hardgoods margin in the mid to high 30's.  There are some skis on the market that neither the manufacturer nor the US distributor are making more than a 10% margin on...I've sat in pricing meetings and joked that, after we've paid the sales rep his _single_ digit commission that we'll have enough gross $$ profit left to buy a sandwich...not a resort sandwich mind you, but a sandwich at the local sandwich shop for less than $4.  That's GROSS margin...not net...gross needs to cover all the other costs of operating...payroll, healthcare, marketing, heat, rent, etc etc etc.  If the ski industry was as lucritive as some of you thought you wouldn't have seen Rossignol sell for over 240 million to quicksilver a few years ago and then get sold a few years later for 78 million.  I could go on and on and provide example after example...I've been working in snowsports retail/wholesale for the last 20 years...and not because I think it'll make me rich someday, but because I love the sport...and its an industry that is full of people who do it because they love it.  If you want to complain about margins and feeling like your getting ripped off, take a look at the perscription drug industry, jewelry industry, or professional sports.  There aren't any ski industry "tycoons" with a second home in the Hamptons or a multi million dollar Manhattan apartment.  A ski that's bought at 50% off means that somewhere along the line, there's someone who didn't make any money...and may have lost some...either the retailer or the distributor.  There's an old saying in the industry....how do you make a small fortune in the ski industry?  Start off with a large one.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 26, 2009)

I have a hard time calling anything for entertainment as gouging. Skins don't have that high of volume, so the margins have to be higher.

My guess is that the summer ski prices are just above or at cost, and are just a way to clear inventory for the next year's skis that they actually make their money on. Plus being a seasonal business, there's high overhead associated with needing a building for a full year.

I don't think you can get away from basic economic theory on this one. The right cost for a product is the one that makes the most profit for the seller. I don't care if skins only cost a cent a piece, if $150 is the price that makes Black Diamond or G3 the most money, then that's the right price.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 26, 2009)

I will echo eastcoastpowderhound's thoughts on this but from a different realm of the retail service industry, one in which that gets slammed frequently for price gouging on items that we only make a 10% gross margin on our most expensive product after commissions paid for the right to operate a store front. As eastcoastpowderhound notes, that is prior to expenses and some items are sold at break even or even a loss meanwhile the consumer complains of rip off pricing.

My perspective change on some subjects has been interesting since I graduated college as a wet behind the ears grad with a semi-mixed socialist perspective. Economic theory can not explain everything and has a hard time predicting the future. However, some things it can explain very well. And one of those is prices when mixed with competition. So long as their is appropriate competition without collusion, then price gouging can not happen because the competitor, even with an inferior product, could drop prices low enough to corner the market.

So I don't see the "rip off" perspective so much as blindly assuming certain products are making more than 50% margin (again, as mentioned, no retail product that I know of has a higher margin than clothing which tops out around 60%). But rather what products are not worth the money that is being charged. eastcoastpowderhound's post suggesting that ~30% margin is really good for hard goods in ski retail seems sound. Every market has various margins depending on numerous factors. But there are not many industries that are ripping people off, IMO. There is a lot of junk out there that is not worth buying for the price, though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 26, 2009)

I appreciate the input regarding the channels of distribution and everyone's cut.  That is something a consumer is not going to know.  I guess my beef with skins are that the MSRP on the skis I recently purchased is $620, fairly inexpensive actually.  When I look at skins with an MSRP of $150, it doesn't add up.  It would seem to me the cost of materials and build process to produce my skis is well over 4 times that of skins.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 26, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> I appreciate the input regarding the channels of distribution and everyone's cut.  That is something a consumer is not going to know.  I guess my beef with skins are that the MSRP on the skis I recently purchased is $620, fairly inexpensive actually.  When I look at skins with an MSRP of $150, it doesn't add up.  It would seem to me the cost of materials and build process to produce my skis is well over 4 times that of skins.



i wish i knew more about the production process and steps involved with skins...I'd shed some light if I did..  I do know from my past life as a retail buyer that G3 skins were not a high margin item...low 40% margin...we did a lot better on lip balm, turtle fur and hand warmers.  If we sold skins to a season pass holder our margin was toast...employee sale...fuggetaboutit,not even worth stocking...


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 26, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> i wish i knew more about the production process and steps involved with skins...I'd shed some light if I did..  I do know from my past life as a retail buyer that G3 skins were not a high margin item...low 40% margin...we did a lot better on lip balm, turtle fur and hand warmers.  If we sold skins to a season pass holder our margin was toast...employee sale...fuggetaboutit,not even worth stocking...



all about perceived value.  There are just certain things that make me scratch my head.  Skins are one, Arctyrx or obviously the ball punch clothing mentioned earlier being others.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 26, 2009)

Interesting read, first few paragraphs being most pertinent: http://www.telemarktips.com/SkinRev.html

Lower end skis are a fairly simple construction in comparison. Just a laminate of fiberglass, wood, plastic, and metal. You have to get the curing process right, and directional fiberglass layup takes some specialized machinery, but it's a known process not unique to the ski industry.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 26, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> i wish i knew more about the production process and steps involved with skins...I'd shed some light if I did..  I do know from my past life as a retail buyer that G3 skins were not a high margin item...low 40% margin...we did a lot better on lip balm, turtle fur and hand warmers.  If we sold skins to a season pass holder our margin was toast...employee sale...fuggetaboutit,not even worth stocking...



Hard goods aren't the profit center, it's soft goods and accessories.   You do tunes and hard goods to get the foot traffic in your shop.  Even better, rentals are gold since those people almost always load up on accessories.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 27, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Hard goods aren't the profit center,.



you can say that again!  I think thats one of the biggest misconceptions ski consumers have.  Not only is it not the profit center, its typically the lowest margin department in any ski/board shop...and in the last two years its unfortunately become the loss leader for many retailers.  Below is an article from 2008, based on 0708 sales that illustrates some of what we've been talking about...and as you can imagine the situation has only gotten worse since 0708.  Pre-season alpine ski orders from retailers to the companies have decreased 25% yr/yr from last year to this year.  

Retailers Eye Other Categories
as Ski and Board Sales Go Downhill


As more Americans opt to rent rather than buy their own alpine skis and snowboards, outdoor retailers are reassessing their commitment to snowsports gear.



The 2007 OIA Specialty Retailer Operational Report estimated 56% of outdoor retailers sold snowports equipment. Recent interviews indicate they are becoming increasingly weary of competing against growing rental and demo fleets that allow alpine skiers not only to avoid $50 airline baggage fees, but pick from the latest gear to suit conditions on the mountain. Many resorts have expanded their rental fleets or demo programs to allow downhillers to rent inline retail product.



The ratios of alpine skis and snowboards sold into retail vs. rental channels have been steady the last five years, according to other industry research at about 5 to 1 for skis and 10 to 1 for snowboards. Some retailers, however, claim the number belies the fact that a growing number of resort ski shops are expanding their rental and demo fleets. Rental fleet expansion is definitely thinning the ranks of ski and board retailers, according to the head of a buying group that has seen its membership decline 18% in the last five years.



The trend has hit retailers in the South particularly hard since their clientele must fly out to reach their ski destinations.



“The big thing for us is the airlines,” said a manager with a small chain of outdoor stores serving one major Southern city. “Where we are, everybody flies to get to the resort, and the cost associated with bringing their own skis or snowboard has gotten out of control. Even if they own equipment, it is staying here and they are now renting. It has basically killed the ski business for us.”



 The retailer, who said they are the number two snowsports retailer in their market, said the business began turning south in the last three years after airlines began charging $25 one-way for skis and snowboards. To make things worse, the company had to mark down most of its skis and snowboards the last two years to compete with internet channels.



“The margins were not there,” the manager said. “The demand was not climbing and it just did not seem like a viable business to be in. Last year, the bottom just fell out.”



The retailer has ordered no skis or snowboards for the upcoming season. It will continue to carry snowsports apparel and accessories, including helmets, which have been among the fastest growing snowsports items the past few years. It will sell carry-over boot inventory and may reorder boots for winter 2010/11 depending on results.



Roughly 300 square feet of space dedicated to two ski and snowboard shops will be used to store fixtures and hangers now warehoused off site. Another 500 square feet of floor space will be used to improve sell through via more visual merchandizing and deeper or broader assortment of winter footwear and other products. The retailers will also shift focus toward outfitting customers traveling to Mexico and Costa Rica.



On average, outdoor retailers who sell snowsports equipment dedicate 1,252 square feet to the category, according to OIA research.



Below are some factors and tips to consider when evaluating your own snowsports equipment business.

While snowsports equipment – including backcountry gear –  produced the fourth highest sales per square foot for outdoor retailers, it ranked third to last among 17 categories when measured for average gross margin at 37.3%, according to the report. That was 10 points below apparel and accessories.
Snowsports equipment turned 1.8 times per year on average, well below the 2.9 average for outdoor retailers, according to the 2007 study.
Margins are also lower with online sales because skis and snowboards require special packaging, which makes them more expensive to ship.
Skiers and snowboarders still need to buy outerwear, base layers, socks, gloves, helmets and other high-margin apparel and accessories.
Southern retailers can shift their winter emphasis to paddle sports, hiking, fishing and other activities that can be pursued in their local market year round.
Consider polling some of your top snowsports customers on where they’d like to see you shift your dollars – cycling, outdoor furniture, fishing, paddlesports, travel, etc.
Consider offering customers who buy skis or snowboards at your store a $50 gift certificate or store credit to compensate them for airline fees this season.


----------



## marcski (Aug 27, 2009)

marcski said:


> Skis.  It's crazy how much a ski shop will rape you for a pair of skis and bindings.  Nuts!  With production in the thousands....it just doesn't cost hundreds of dollars to make a ski.   All of the cheap prices online reinforces this.   I spent less on skis and bindings for myself and my wife online than I think I spent on the last pair of skis I got at a ski shop.





Philpug said:


> Gotta love the ignorant and monoptic views that are posted on the internet.



I still stand by what I said.  It holds true regardless of the ski manufacturer's profit margin.  The title of this thread is Most profit/Biggest ripoff in gear.  

If you go out and spend top dollar and pay MSRP for a pair of skis...its a huge rip-off....as you can get the same product at about a 1/3-1/2 of the price.  And I'm not talking about last years equipment bought during the summer.  You can find deals online on current season's equipment in early February.  

Obviously, through the tone of his post, Phil has a plug somewhere.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 27, 2009)

marcski said:


> I still stand by what I said.  It holds true regardless of the ski manufacturer's profit margin.  The title of this thread is Most profit/Biggest ripoff in gear.
> 
> If you go out and spend top dollar and pay MSRP for a pair of skis...its a huge rip-off....as you can get the same product at about a 1/3-1/2 of the price.  And I'm not talking about last years equipment bought during the summer.  You can find deals online on current season's equipment in early February.
> 
> Obviously, through the tone of his post, Phil has a plug somewhere.



I haven't been around the business for a while but there used to be great margins in the beginner/intermediate packages.  You'd have around $150.00 into that $400 package.   That was down in the flatlands where most of your customer business was the 5 to 10 day per year skier.   It's the same thing with the rental fleet.  You break even on it after 10 days of rentals and the rest is gravy.   That class of customer also needs hat, gloves, goggles, socks, long underwear, ....   When I was doing it, we were trained to upsell the accessories as much as we could.   While you're fitting somebody with rental boots or the beginner package deal, you're asking them what they have for gloves and telling them how you swear by the ski socks  you use since they don't chaffe like athletic tube socks.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 27, 2009)

marcski said:


> I still stand by what I said. It holds true regardless of the ski manufacturer's profit margin. The title of this thread is Most profit/Biggest ripoff in gear.
> 
> If you go out and spend top dollar and pay MSRP for a pair of skis...its a huge rip-off....as you can get the same product at about a 1/3-1/2 of the price. And I'm not talking about last years equipment bought during the summer. You can find deals online on current season's equipment in early February.
> 
> Obviously, through the tone of his post, Phil has a plug somewhere.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand


----------



## marcski (Aug 27, 2009)

Geoff said:


> I haven't been around the business for a while but there used to be great margins in the beginner/intermediate packages.  You'd have around $150.00 into that $400 package.   That was down in the flatlands where most of your customer business was the 5 to 10 day per year skier.   It's the same thing with the rental fleet.  You break even on it after 10 days of rentals and the rest is gravy.   That class of customer also needs hat, gloves, goggles, socks, long underwear, ....   When I was doing it, we were trained to upsell the accessories as much as we could.   While you're fitting somebody with rental boots or the beginner package deal, you're asking them what they have for gloves and telling them how you swear by the ski socks  you use since they don't chaffe like athletic tube socks.




Agreed!  But this goes on in all businesses...its not just germane to the Ski industry.  Drug stores....do you know what the most profitable portion of a drug store is...(even chain stores...)?  The photolab.  They make way more money printing photo prints than selling shampoo.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 27, 2009)

Interesting article regarding rental shop expansion coinciding with retail shop declining. Especially in regards to southern shops that rely on airline skiers and riders. It makes a lot of sense for those folks to rent. Most recent gear, choose ski to match the conditions, don't pay extra bag fees, and one less thing to lug around on a trip. For the airline skier or rider, this makes amazing sense and obviously those skiers and riders that only participate in the activity a few times a year on big trips will enjoy many benefits and few draw backs. Kind of the "lease" model of ski equipment in a way... a model that does not work for hard core and frequent drivers but works great for someone that wants to get the latest and greatest for a minimal cost and doesn't drive distances.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 27, 2009)

marcski said:


> I still stand by what I said.  It holds true regardless of the ski manufacturer's profit margin.  The title of this thread is Most profit/Biggest ripoff in gear.
> 
> If you go out and spend top dollar and pay MSRP for a pair of skis...its a huge rip-off....as you can get the same product at about a 1/3-1/2 of the price.  And I'm not talking about last years equipment bought during the summer.  You can find deals online on current season's equipment in early February.
> 
> Obviously, through the tone of his post, Phil has a plug somewhere.




First of all, there are less than .01% of equipment that goes out at MSRP, maybe at some resort area. Yes you will see gear at 50% off of retail after February, thats when dealers come off MAP (Minimum Advertised Price), that is industry wide. The only plug I have is used to fill the holes in your argument.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 27, 2009)

Philpug said:


> First of all, there are less than .01% of equipment that goes out at MSRP, maybe at some resort area. Yes you will see gear at 50% off of retail after February, thats when dealers come off MAP (Minimum Advertised Price), that is industry wide. The only plug I have is used to fill the holes in your argument.


I think the perspective is that it would be a rip off to pay full price for hard goods when you could just wait until late season for deals or shop around other retailers that offer the same product for 33-50% less. "Rip off" may be an inappropriate term as the connotation is that the retailer is ripping off the consumer which is not the case when charging a fair margin that barely even sustains the business. Perhaps a better term would be a "bad buy" such as that it would be a bad buy to purchase something at full MSRP or even close to it.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 27, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I think the perspective is that it would be a rip off to pay full price for hard goods when you could just wait until late season for deals or shop around other retailers that offer the same product for 33-50% less. "Rip off" may be an inappropriate term as the connotation is that the retailer is ripping off the consumer which is not the case when charging a fair margin that barely even sustains the business. Perhaps a better term would be a "bad buy" such as that it would be a bad buy to purchase something at full MSRP or even close to it.



Thank you. When terms like "rip off" and "rape" are used it really limits the validity of the persons argument. For some people who want and can afford to buy the gear early in the year, that is their business and for some of these people they get to enjoy the gear for another 2-4 months more than someone who waits. People can choose to purchase gear early or later for a lower price, that is fine either way. Both cases have their own argument. It is not always about the money.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 27, 2009)

If my term 'rip off' in the title of the thread offends................sorry.  That or the term 'rape' however, does not limit the validity of someone's argument AT ALL.  Buying a $9 beer at a Red Sox game is a RIP OFF.  It's effing gouging.......there's no doubt to it.  

I'm in sales.  60% of the time I try and give a fair price to maintain customer relationships through fair pricing.  20% of the time I dump product for no margin at all. 20% of the time I most definitely Rip Off people to make the numbers my employers ask of me. I have to prey on the ignorant to survive professionally.

The point of this thread is that from the outside looking in, there are certain market segments within the ski retail industry that operate at what I perceive to be disgusting margins.  Skins, gloves, sunglasses, Arc'tyrex clothing, etc....appear that way to me.  

I sell Italian White Truffles in winter at 3 thousand fucking dollars a pound.  It's a rip off.........


----------



## marcski (Aug 27, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> If my term 'rip off' in the title of the thread offends................sorry.  That or the term 'rape' however, does not limit the validity of someone's argument AT ALL.  Buying a $9 beer at a Red Sox game is a RIP OFF.  It's effing gouging.......there's no doubt to it.
> 
> I'm in sales.  60% of the time I try and give a fair price to maintain customer relationships through fair pricing.  20% of the time I dump product for no margin at all. 20% of the time I most definitely Rip Off people to make the numbers my employers ask of me. I have to prey on the ignorant to survive professionally.
> 
> ...



I agree.  (Although, one of the best dishes I've ever had was this truffle rissotto appetizer....(which was quite pricey!).  

I think you have to be an educated consumer when it comes to skiing and purchasing both hard and soft goods.  As this thread demonstrates there are huge price differentials in skiing related goods.  Do you pay retail for gloves, DHS?  I don't think so.  You and I and most people on this board know how to find skiing related items at much better than retail costs out of a specialty ski shop.  

I do think that the price differences in skiing are quire large....perhaps larger than most other industries.   Whether you're talking soft or hard goods.  I mean you can wait till the end of summer and get good deals on a new car that is the year ending model.  But, at least it seems to me that the % difference from the beginning of the car year to the end is not as great as the % in skiing.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 27, 2009)

marcski said:


> I But, at least it seems to me that the % difference from the beginning of the car year to the end is not as great as the % in skiing.



exactly

In my business, I don't ever give such a good deal that a customer will look at the initial retail price and say man, you were gouging me at that price.  

IMO It's BAD business to see last years skis selling at 50-60% off MSRP one summer later. It's been that way for the last five years it seems too, so this is not a function of over production in a bad economy.


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 28, 2009)

I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree with GSS on the Turtle neck gaiters.  
I understand the wool and tech fabric gaiters being a bit more expensive, but the turtle fur ones that are made of basic fleece are cheap to make and cost 15.00.

BUT.......since I was willing to shell out 15.00 for a turtle fur on a sub zero night when I left my gaiter at home, it was not a rip off, it was a life saver and I'm glad I had the opportunity to spend my hard earned $$ to add the extra comfort.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 28, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> exactly
> 
> In my business, I don't ever give such a good deal that a customer will look at the initial retail price and say man, you were gouging me at that price.
> 
> IMO It's BAD business to see last years skis selling at 50-60% off MSRP one summer later. It's been that way for the last five years it seems too, so this is not a function of over production in a bad economy.



Exactly..everyonce in a while when a customer screws up and gives us the wrong dates and signs off on the proof.....and we have to replace the monument, we tell them we'll do the replacement for them at cost but we really give it to them for like half price which might be double the cost because if we charged them cost..they would see how high our profit margin is..


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 28, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> IMO It's BAD business to see last years skis selling at 50-60% off MSRP one summer later. It's been that way for the last five years it seems too, so this is not a function of over production in a bad economy.


I figured this was due to over production and over optimistic numbers. But if it is over production, then either the manufacturers never decided to cut back production or retailers are not cutting back on purchases. Either way, you wouldn't see gear going for 50-60% off at the end of the season if shops sold through most of their inventory (or at least the best models) by the end of the season or even better by the end of February. But you can usually find some of the best boards brand new from a year or even two or three years ago with minimal effort. I wouldn't buy a brand new ski for anything more than $400 at this point and I tend to make a solid effort to wait until I see new items drop down to $300 or less before pulling the trigger. I just don't know how the industry keeps letting this situation happen but I ain't complaining!!! In retail, you always want to have a clearance rack, but you never want your best product to be on it. Skiing has too much supply on the market right now with not enough demand, it seems.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 28, 2009)

riverc0il said:


> I figured this was due to over production and over optimistic numbers. But if it is over production, then either the manufacturers never decided to cut back production or retailers are not cutting back on purchases. Either way, you wouldn't see gear going for 50-60% off at the end of the season if shops sold through most of their inventory (or at least the best models) by the end of the season or even better by the end of February. But you can usually find some of the best boards brand new from a year or even two or three years ago with minimal effort. I wouldn't buy a brand new ski for anything more than $400 at this point and I tend to make a solid effort to wait until I see new items drop down to $300 or less before pulling the trigger. I just don't know how the industry keeps letting this situation happen but I ain't complaining!!! In retail, you always want to have a clearance rack, but you never want your best product to be on it. Skiing has too much supply on the market right now with not enough demand, it seems.


My guess is it's planned overproduction. Manufacturers are basically making the call that it's better to make 10% extra and sell it at cost than make 10% less and just miss out on those sales.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 28, 2009)

Everyone wants a bigger market share..it is just not there in a shrinking (or even stable) market. It has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Trekchick (Aug 28, 2009)

Another thing that has effected the mass marketers in Skis is that the lunatic fringe like us is more aware of the boutique skis and shows some interest in experimenting a bit outside the box.

However, we are a small lunatic fringe, an most of the skiing world that buys will buy the mass marketed ski, but only once every few years, where we may buy several pair a year.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 28, 2009)

there is a tremendous amount of overcapacity in the ski industry...in terms of capacity, the industry could make about 6 million pair of skis a year...a few years ago sales were in 4.8 million range...now its hovering in the mid 3 million range.  Many of these factories are in Europe...with very strict labor laws...so, basically it takes a long time for them to adjust capacity downward to match the current global demand.  So they keep more workers on than necessary and they need something to do...so they build skis.  While European ski companies have laid off hundreds of workers in the past few years..they are still bearing some cost of those employees.    Ski factories that used to operate on 2 or 3 shifts are down to one, mergers like Atomic and Salomon under Amer group are leading to Salomon ski production being shifted to Atomic and Atomic boot production to Salomon facilities...Volkl is making more and more skis in K2s Chinese factories and less in Germany...all in the name of adjusting the overcapacity and also trying to lower the overall cost structure.  The dollar's weakness against the Euro is putting price pressure on skis, this year's models were hit with some very high raw materials costs (ie petroleum prices)...but, as the capacity is adjusted and costs are contained you're going to see an improvement in the performance/value ratio from many companies.  You may also see less product at 50% off at the end of the season...as the manufacturers build less and the retailers buy less, there will be less product left at 50% off...it just takes a while for the system to adjust.  Several years ago you couldn't find the "hot" model ski in Feb...Vollkl 5 stars, K2 Recons, they sold out early in the season and didn't end up at 50% off...but the last few years you've been able to find them in the summer..AC50s, Recons, even Mantras and Gotamas the last two years.  The last few years have been very good years for consumers looking for a deal...but they've come at the expense of retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.  You may start to see some graphics "roll over" from one year to another...2 year cycles will lower the "closeout" pressure at retail.  The current trend of overproduction and no margin sales is unsustainable and needs to be addressed for the health of the industry.


----------



## mondeo (Aug 28, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> there is a tremendous amount of overcapacity in the ski industry...in terms of capacity, the industry could make about 6 million pair of skis a year...a few years ago sales were in 4.8 million range...now its hovering in the mid 3 million range. Many of these factories are in Europe...with very strict labor laws...so, basically it takes a long time for them to adjust capacity downward to match the current global demand. So they keep more workers on than necessary and they need something to do...so they build skis. While European ski companies have laid off hundreds of workers in the past few years..they are still bearing some cost of those employees. Ski factories that used to operate on 2 or 3 shifts are down to one, mergers like Atomic and Salomon under Amer group are leading to Salomon ski production being shifted to Atomic and Atomic boot production to Salomon facilities...Volkl is making more and more skis in K2s Chinese factories and less in Germany...all in the name of adjusting the overcapacity and also trying to lower the overall cost structure. The dollar's weakness against the Euro is putting price pressure on skis, this year's models were hit with some very high raw materials costs (ie petroleum prices)...but, as the capacity is adjusted and costs are contained you're going to see an improvement in the performance/value ratio from many companies. You may also see less product at 50% off at the end of the season...as the manufacturers build less and the retailers buy less, there will be less product left at 50% off...it just takes a while for the system to adjust. Several years ago you couldn't find the "hot" model ski in Feb...Vollkl 5 stars, K2 Recons, they sold out early in the season and didn't end up at 50% off...but the last few years you've been able to find them in the summer..AC50s, Recons, even Mantras and Gotamas the last two years. The last few years have been very good years for consumers looking for a deal...but they've come at the expense of retailers, distributors, and manufacturers. You may start to see some graphics "roll over" from one year to another...2 year cycles will lower the "closeout" pressure at retail. The current trend of overproduction and no margin sales is unsustainable and needs to be addressed for the health of the industry.


So you're saying we should stock up on skis while we still can.

Sounds like a good excuse to buy a couple pairs to me.


----------



## riverc0il (Aug 28, 2009)

mondeo said:


> My guess is it's planned overproduction. Manufacturers are basically making the call that it's better to make 10% extra and sell it at cost than make 10% less and just miss out on those sales.


Makes you wonder if they realize they are shooting themselves in the foot for long term profit by going for the short term profit? What ends up happening in a saturated market place is people do buy more skis, at first, at discounted pricing. So the manufacturers make a killing while they are saturating the marketplace. But eventually, everyone has all the skis they need and in the long term, if the market continuously gets flooded by substantially more skis than demand, the long term sales have to decrease unless the manufacturers can convince the marketplace that they need to continuously upgrade. Perhaps that is what is happening with skis getting fatter and fatter. If it was only an extra 10% production, that would make sense as it is better to produce a little too much than leave sales on the table. But it has to come back to bite them in the butt eventually, I would think.

eastcoastpowderhound, thanks for your thoughts and input on this thread. Makes complete sense the process you are describing and I am not surprised that the industry is moving that way. Good points about the early 2000s having shortages of "hot" skis whereas the mid-2000s these last few years had tons of overages. Circa 2001-2002, I remember searching high and low for a Volkl P40 Platinum and every retailer I contacted had sold out by March. No deals at all. Finally found a pair but had to drive 3 hours to get it. Now I just hope online, setup an eBay daily search email, and any ski I could want is at 50% retail within a short period of time delivered to my door. While I appreciate that system, I understand that it is unsustainable for the retailer or the manufacturer.


----------



## Philpug (Aug 28, 2009)

I have a bigger problem with the constant changing of graphics. There is no reason to change graphics every season. It used to be graphics would stay in the line for 3 and 4 years, now just one. There is no reason to change them so often.


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Aug 28, 2009)

Philpug said:


> I have a bigger problem with the constant changing of graphics. There is no reason to change graphics every season. It used to be graphics would stay in the line for 3 and 4 years, now just one. There is no reason to change them so often.



The industry has a problem with it...but its sort of a classic prisoners dilema, if brand A goes to 2 year cycles but the other brands stick to every year, then brand As stuff looks dated in year two...and retailers can get away with just filling in sizes from brand A while they need to stock a full load of the other brands who have changed.  So there's a fear of losing sales and market share by switching back to a multi year cycle.  The f'd up part is that its the every year change of graphics that has led to the downward spiral of closeouts, very conservative pre-season buys and declining margins for the retailer and the distributors.  Its a topic of conversation in more than one product planning meeting with the euros.  In nordic though its pretty much the rule...they change about half the line each season and alternate.  Fischer is doing it with their boot line...new sport performance line for 0910 but the performance boots carried through...next year the performance boots will be all new.  I'd like to see it go to a two year cycle...I agree, there's nothing worse than seeing a "new" line that only has minor cosmetic changes...barely enough to notice, but just enough to force you to dump the "old" model at little to no margin.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 29, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> The last few years have been very good years for consumers looking for a deal...but they've come at the expense of retailers, distributors, and manufacturers.  .




music to my ears....the most I ever paid for a pair of skis was in 1998 for my K2 El Caminos..with the Marker M51 Bindings they were about $550..My Atomic LT11s with Neox binders came close along with my Elan S12s with bindings but all my other skis have been less..:beer::beer::beer:to 200 dollar skis that retail for 700 on tramdock..I heart the internet..so good for the consumer..:beer:


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 29, 2009)

Philpug said:


> I have a bigger problem with the constant changing of graphics. There is no reason to change graphics every season. It used to be graphics would stay in the line for 3 and 4 years, now just one. There is no reason to change them so often.



I like seeing new graphics..it's mad steezy..I stare at my skis alot riding the lift so it's nice if they look cool..


----------



## Philpug (Aug 29, 2009)

eastcoastpowderhound said:


> The industry has a problem with it...but its sort of a classic prisoners dilema, if brand A goes to 2 year cycles but the other brands stick to every year, then brand As stuff looks dated in year two...and retailers can get away with just filling in sizes from brand A while they need to stock a full load of the other brands who have changed.  So there's a fear of losing sales and market share by switching back to a multi year cycle.  The f'd up part is that its the every year change of graphics that has led to the downward spiral of closeouts, very conservative pre-season buys and declining margins for the retailer and the distributors.  Its a topic of conversation in more than one product planning meeting with the euros.  In nordic though its pretty much the rule...they change about half the line each season and alternate.  Fischer is doing it with their boot line...new sport performance line for 0910 but the performance boots carried through...next year the performance boots will be all new.  I'd like to see it go to a two year cycle...I agree, there's nothing worse than seeing a "new" line that only has minor cosmetic changes...barely enough to notice, but just enough to force you to dump the "old" model at little to no margin.


Elan & Dalbello have been keeping some graphics for two years, last was the 888 & 999's and the Krypton series. I think some manufacturers are trying to get back to this. I know from a retailers standpoint, they would rather go back to 2 year graphics. Kastle is going 3 years. When I was with Hart, this was one thing I was pushing for was graphics that stayed for two years. It would lower production costs it showed that we had more faith in the product and  showed that we had more respect for the consumer that the the investment they made in the skis held up for more than a fleeting couple of months. 

As far as something to look at on the lift, IMHO a sharp "timeless" graphic will look good for more than one season. But I can understand your delimma, GSS, you spend more time at Blue riding the lifts than you do skiing so new skis do give you something to look at. j/k :lol::lol::wink:


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 29, 2009)

Philpug said:


> . But I can understand your delimma, GSS, you spend more time at Blue riding the lifts than you do skiing so new skis do give you something to look at. j/k :lol::lol::wink:



It's the truth..5 minutes up and 1-2 minutes down..8 times an hour..


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 1, 2009)

A few points:

- There are currently virtually no desireable skis from last year out in the retail market, they were all dumped between March and July. 

- Some retailers are offering pre-buys of new gear at reasonably good prices.  I suppose this is a way to lock in early profit from hardgoods sales, instaid of being stuck with it at the end of the season.  They're getting people who would normally buy closeouts to pay 6 months earlier, at more margin.  But this may eat into normal retail sales....?


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 1, 2009)

Highway Star said:


> - There are currently virtually no desireable skis from last year out in the retail market, they were all dumped between March and July.



by retail, I assume you mean bricks and mortar stores yes?   :???:

If I had it, I could dump thousands a day with the deals I see online for last years gear everyday.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 2, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> by retail, I assume you mean bricks and mortar stores yes?   :???:
> 
> If I had it, I could dump thousands a day with the deals I see online for last years gear everyday.



Maybe my idea of desireable is different than yours, but all the best powder skis in proper length have sold out in the past month, if not 4 months ago. Online.


----------



## Glenn (Sep 2, 2009)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> K2 El Caminos..



I've got a pair of those. I loved those skis when they first came out.


----------



## SKIQUATTRO (Sep 2, 2009)

$6.00 pints apres ski


----------



## Puck it (Sep 2, 2009)

$7 burgers


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 2, 2009)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> $6.00 pints apres ski



especially at an actual brew pub.  Friends of mine were head brewers at the Shed for years.  I was told that after the initial investment, it cost them roughly 16 cents a pint to make.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 6, 2009)

SKIQUATTRO said:


> $6.00 pints apres ski



better than $6 pints on Long Island..


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 6, 2009)

Glenn said:


> I've got a pair of those. I loved those skis when they first came out.



The El Caminos were great..I had them in a 198 and then got the K2 Kreitlers(the skis with the Eagle on the tip) in a 193..I think they were about 99mm in the tip and 63mm at the waist..skinny mo-fos but shaped skis..the first time I demoed the K2 4's back in early 1998 it was like a turbo boost to my skiing..as I didn't really carve on straight skis..more the old style of skiing...


----------



## riverc0il (Sep 6, 2009)

Puck it said:


> $7 burgers


Win!!! But even with such high markups, the ski business is anything but thriving. That is what boggles my mind the most. In almost every industry, prices are high not because the bean counters are going for max profit but rather because businesses need those high margins to survive. The bean counters set the highest price that the market will bear without loosing so much business that high margin does not off set decreased purchases. Tough balance. If enough people brought food from home, prices might actually decrease. But that is not going to happen with a captive audience, especially families with crying kids that are hungry and cold and want a hot pizza.


----------

