The Promo Boat Paradigm has to change

[jhughes]

Maybe we're asking the wrong questions. Is a potential "elephant in the room" that the new boats are simply not selling themselves with big enough advances these days? When we hear comments repeatedly across all brands that XYZ new boat is the same (or in many cases *worse than*, egad) an older model of XYZ new boat? Are strides in 3-event boat technology now so small (and in some cases negative strides depending on who you talk to) that we are now having to "solve a problem" with sales, marketing, and promo that is realistically a symptom of a lack of big advances that really motivate people to simply WANT the new boat, badly, regardless of the incentive scheme?

 

Anecdotally I feel like a few big leaps in the past were:

 

SN 2001 -> NWZ SN 1990. Huge leap, way better boat

90 MC -> 91-94 MC, again big stride forward

NWZ SN -> TSC1, Huge leap though more evolutionary it was no joke

03-06 RLXi, showed the industry a roomy walkthrough OB boat could be their primary world-record 3EV boat

SN200, adding space, tracking, and ergonomics to a solid list of existing CC attributes in the 196 with no compromises

14+ MC, taking innovation to another level

 

Has this trajectory tapered off lately, and is that why we're asking questions about how to move today's boats?

 

I realize this may be fodder for my first Panda but I wanted to at least get this out there.

[sunperch]

I would think that tournament participation would weed out unsatisfactory boats. I would not pay entry to a tournament that was being pulled by a boat I don't even want to ski behind for practice. FWIW - I love to ski behind my 1998 SN re-power with single puck ZO.

[Horton]

Currently the factory and the dealers are effectively losing money to make the programs work. I think we literally need to find a way to make it profitable for the factory and the dealers.

 

The other thing no one wants to talk about is that promo boat owners are currently incentivised to put as few hours on the boat as possible. When you are on the hook to resell the boat every hour makes it harder and or lowers the resale price.

 

What if EVERY tournament ride is taxed $10. If the boat pulls 8 rides an hour for 10 hours that is $800. Do that for a total of 50 hours per summer that is $4,000. Is that enough to make a difference?

 

Skiers are going to cry about every dollar but maybe $15 or $20 per ride is needed. $20 per ride x 8 rides per hour x 50 tournament hours per year would be $8,000.

 

Promo guys would be trying to get more tournament hours on their boats or at least not avoiding it.

 

Tell the factory that they no longer have to discount the boats to the dealer because there is an extra 8k to play with - the programs are suddenly a lot more sustainable.

 

Some of you are going to cry about the costs – Just stop. There is no free lunch and this is the world we live in.

 

Ok @JeffSurdej I solved it. Make it happen.

 

[jjackkrash]

Like it or not, people or organizations need to buy new ski boats every year at a price that contains some reasonable profit margin for the manufacturer and dealer or there will stop being any new ski boats to buy. Whatever solution you all come up with has to keep new boats in the chain to keep the cycle going.

[Chad_Scott]

@horton. I think you could be on to something with this idea. This would make promo owners want to ski at events and bring the boats. As many have stated the credits usually don’t even cover the cost of getting the boat to the site. I am pretty fortunate in this region, most of our sites comp your entry and at most sites in the SCR offer you a place to stay. But adding some fee for each tournament ride could certainly help with giving promo guys a reason to hustle.

[JeffSurdej]

@Horton @Chad_Scott tournament fees passed onto to promo guys or club boat owners is certainly probably where we are headed. We have been lucky for all these years to have boats at all events, almost to the point of taking it for granted, and when the 3 boats MF's sold 500 boats a year together it made sense for them, but now with sales down, the cut backs are happening year after year. Having to have 2-3 $100k boats to run a tournament is just another lovely factor that makes our sport so different and difficult. So unless we start selling more boats we are going to have to make it worth the 3 boats guys time and money. Of course if boats were cheaper we could sell more so that's the interesting catch 22

[jayski]

So as a site owner/Tourney organizer with that thought a $100 3 rounder is now $130, Florida which charges $150 plus for 2 rounds is now $170+ That will stifle participation numbers

 

Also at $10 a pull of possible income, why would I care about a promo program, Use my own new model year boat and offer it to other tourneys. One could just end the promo program all together with that type of remuneration.

 

(on a side note @Horton your cost per pull $10/$15/$20 just confirms my $100 per hour depreciation coverage in the other thread you thought was too high)

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Ok lets step back and turn this sideways for a thought experiment.

 

What is the ROI that Ford and Chevy get from promoting/sponsoring/testing NASCAR?

 

It should be obvious that anyone who tries to put $ or % to that business model is nothing less than a rectal extraction. But it has a HUGE effect on the brand and the flowdown to the consumer market. IMO that should be the approach the big 3 take to tournament towboats. Too bad they won’t pay me for consulting(:

 

Yes, thats a vastly different scale, but is that not what the big 3 are attempting with the top notch 3 event boat?

 

And here we poor smucks are trying to figure out what an engine hour is worth so we can justify bringing the NASCAR towboat to a local tournament.

 

The current promo model has served us well for many years, but needs to be thrown out and completely revamped.

 

Just my $0.02

[Chad_Scott]

I am not sure there is a flowdown effect from sponsoring and promoting 3 event skiing these days. Most of the big 3 can’t build the wakeboard and wakesurf boats fast enough. I can tell you with the current production schedules it is hard to get a production slot to build a three event boat because of the demand of the more expensive and profitable models. The individuals buying these wakeboard and wakesurf boats don’t know or care that there is a 3 event boat or that it is pulling tournaments. The only care about the size of the wake it will throw

[RichardDoane]

@horton if you add an additional $10 per round per skier in order to pay the boat owner, and cover the fuel and comp my entry and get me a place to stay, I’d get back into the promo program.

[Horton]

@RichardDoane what I'm really saying is that $10 needs to go into a bank account to cover depreciation. I'm envisioning a day when the factory is not going to discount the boat to the dealer and the dealer is not going to give you as much of a discount as a promo guy. For you as the promo guy to just break even you're going to need that $6,000 or $8,000 that you are going to bank from pulling tournaments. My idea is to make the program less expensive for the factory and the dealer and not put the actual financial burden on the promo guy.

[aupatking]

Pay the promo guy for the boats he sells. A program I was considering had a program where I could pay them a fee for the year, and offered somewhere in the area of 15% of that fee credited off my next promo for every boat I sold, up to 3 boats.

So from that I took, I get to pay to sell your boats, and if I do well, I still have to pay to sell your boats.

If I’m selling your boats, why would you set an upper limit to my compensation? Especially if you’re only crediting me $500? I know that’s less than any salesman on a showroom floor gets and these promo guys know more, and do WAY more.

[MillerTime38]

What’s the average cost per round at a L/E/R event? Probably $60 per round? So I guess an additional $20 per round isn’t asking too much. So 30-40 skiers gets the promo guy around $1400 incentive to bring a boat for a two round tourney. At most 3 promo boats there so about $500 per promo guy

 

After 2nd thought, how does this money get issued to the promo guys? Would it be considered taxable income the way it is being proposed?

[disland]

It has to be a cooridnated effort. We need to find ways to reduce the cost of running tournaments to offset the additional cost of towboat usage (either paying the promo guy or paying to use club boats)

 

First step to reduce costs is to

 

1. loosen the judge requirements. Stupid rules like the chief judge cant judge anything.

2. make it easier to become a judge and scorer. anyone with basci computer skils can score a torunament in less than a day of instruction.

3. reduce the tournaments that require "L" scores to qualify for. (juniors shouldnt need "L" score to go to the CAN/AM or Jr Masters.) L/R tournaments should be a Pro thing.

4. Allow remote trick judging. If we are going to video all the runs and score them later anyway, why does the judge need to be on site, especially for class C.

 

 

The above will eliminate paying for judges to come to your event, and eliminate all the tech and site surveys that jack up costs.

[Andre]

So,nobody is blaming the boats prices?

 

 

[skierjp]

.

[Horton]

@Andre no. That is a different topic. Not saying it is not a valid topic but a totally different subject.

 

@disland I think we need to look at everything if we're going to shift money around but you are squirreling on me. In some parts of the country a round of L is astronomically expensive. I frankly don't understand why but again that is a different subject.

[aupatking]

If we’re talking about adding $20-$30 to a ELR tournament for promo boats, what happens to the guys skiing in the same tournament, but at class C or Grass Roots? Are we adding $20-$30 to them as well. I spent several years “competing” in tournaments where I got 1-2 passes per round. At $70 that’s not something most people are going to do, and now tell them it’s $100?

If one of the boat companies (let’s insert a name) wants out, it will only create more room for the other 2. The boat companies just need to create more Incentive to sell their boats. If a promo guy has to sell his 1 boat per year, what’s driving him to sell another one? If I could either get paid for every boat I sold or, at the absolute minimum, get all of my cost credited by selling more it would start to be worth doing. Wasn’t there a thread sometime ago where someone was saying that being a promo boat guy was at best a “break-even” deal, even back in the day? The boat companies don’t want to do it because it hurts their margin but the promo guys have never made a cent.

[thager]

As a member of the older mens classes now on a fixed income there is little chance I am going to renew my USAWS membership let alone pay higher tournament fees. GOOD LUCK!

[dbutcher]

@thager I'm sorry to read that. Membership doesn't cost much more than one night of dinner and drinks for two.

[bishop8950]

If I go anywhere to take a practice ride behind someone’s current model boat (or old boat) I pay a lot more then the gas I burned. it needs to cover depreciation. Why not do it in tournaments as well?

 

I chose to use my personal/nonPromo boat in two tournaments last year. I was supporting the LOC and pulling a bunch of friends. But the reason was for the first time we could not get a promo boat on site. I expect more of this in the future if we don’t make a change.

 

Many of us agree: If the boat companies don’t see any return on sponsoring a promo program, we should not expect the promo owners to subsidize, it’s not sustainable. I don’t know what other options we have than covering it as skiers.

[Andre]

I wouldn't mind the extra $ toward boat owner.

Gotta pay to play.

[dave2ball]

Adding an additional money that is earmarked for the promo person is a good idea. Hopefully money filter back to the MFG and allowing the factory to sell the boat for more money to the dealer or promo person depending on the program of course. But will it solve the problem of lack of promo boats at the tournaments? If the MFG’s start breaking even or making money will they be willing to add boats to the teams? If they are making the required 20% to get into the nationals they may not add additional boats if the job is being done with current promo boat numbers and they are now making money.

 

[The_MS]

Why hold it to ZO boats? What about a 97 196 that can come in at 16.95 with s good driver?

Why is the time tolerance so large if it is not utilized

[Horton]

@dave2ball how the money would flow is not exactly defined but the goal is 100% to relieve the factories and the dealers from discounting the boats as much. The money accrued by the promo person from the tournaments would offset the higher original sale price and maintains the end of season resale price to its current artificially low level.

 

The whole idea is to financially incentivize the factories and dealers to put more promo boats in play.

[MarkTimm]

What about a program where the local dealer owns the boat, If the LOC wants a boat or boats for their tournament. The LOC will work directly with the dealer for the boat request and the $10.00 per set fee would go straight to the dealer. If the LOC has an adequate boat and doesn't want to pay the fee they can use their boat. In regards to the three year rule for Class E L R, AWSA needs to consider moving that to 5 years. All of the boats made in the last five years are more than capable.

[BCM]

I have been pondering the multi-year idea. If a promo boat was held for 2 years the manufacturers would only have to provide 50% of the current promo boat numbers per year while allowing for the same number of available boats. That would result in fewer promo boats on the market each year (maybe increase price for promos and/or true new boats) while not reducing boats available for tournaments. Maybe add in the $/ride idea to handle depreciation since the promo owner would hold the boat for 300-500 hours.

 

The multi year thing might get weird when there are major hull changes (e.g. MC 190/197 to ProStar). But, when I show up to a tournament during that weird year change I either see the boat I have been skiing behind for a few years (e.g. 197) and am happy, or I see the brand new super fancy best thing since sliced bread boat, and am happy.

[Rpc29]

The scariest part of all of this is that it’s happening with a booming economy. Inevitably there will be some sort of recession at some point. How many $75,000 ski boats and $150,000 wake boats will get sold then?

[blakeyates]

I have read this entire thread and I see several good ideas. Adding a "promo fee" to the entry fee may be the way to go. I think "now" we need to ask the Big 3 to read this thread, create a "Promo" committee and determine what will be done different in 2020 and act now. Make a change in 2020 and then review at the end of the year then make improvements in 2021; and so on.

[ALPJr]

Good question @The_MS

[Jody_Seal]

@jayski dont forget the head tax that is going to be collected in form of a license in order to get your scores on the iwwf ranking list.. (just another gouge to participate)

 

I dont think that Florida suffers from lack of towboats as one company has pretty much a strangle hold on boat usage in this state.

Even saying that we still have a few true promo boats . Two MasterCrafts that I know of, otherwise the rest are either skier contract boats from Mal and MC or back door factory boats from Orlando.

 

Outside of the florida fish bowl the southern region is pretty well covered for promo usage as well, we also actually have a few owners with older boat that donate their boats for event usage. The southern region also has a large number of overall skiers. Overall skiers I think are less critical then slalom only skiers about skiing behind older boats in tournaments.

 

Whatever the high counsel decides for whatever they are trying fix I hope they open up to the idea of a data base of owners who would be willing to participate in utilizing their boats (older or newer) for compensation also or even donation.

This also means revamping the towboat policy as some sort of inspection program would need to be put in place.

 

AA3EWS

[The_MS]

@ALPJr

Unfortunately it’s a question that has asked lots of times with no answers. If they are dead set on ZO then why have such a large tolerance around times? I think it would be best if they loosened up ZO a bit to give us 1 setting

[JackQ]

The setting in ZO is not as much about "a large tolerance around times" as it is about when, how aggressively and how long the throttle is applied to maintain tolerance. Why the hard** on having only one setting, you most likely would not like the setting that I do, and I would like not like your preferred setting. In a future world where all manufactures use the same engine, and similar hulls, one setting would likely be more practical. Though as I don't ski like you, I may like still want a different setting than others.

[Horton]

@JackQ MS knows all this. He is just being difficult. Is off topic.

[The_MS]

@Horton Why is there such a large tolerance around the times? Is the AWSA just too lazy to update the book?

 

[dave2ball]

The participation tax is a good idea but for the promo guy to benefit the current promo programs may have to go back to the traditional programs in which the team member resells his boat. Is AWSA going own and Facilitate this program to make sure the money get to the team member or the MFG?

[Horton]

@dave2ball for this idea or anything similar to work the manufacturers and AWSA would have to all get on the same page and work out the logistics. I think I know how I think it should work but perhaps they would do something completely different. who cares as long as it's effective and it makes the promo programs more sustainable.

[MattP]

Are there any other sports out there that we could look at who have had the same issue regarding expensive factory supported equipment and the models they use to sustain their programs?

[The_MS]

If a boat that costs over 100k would be worth 80k a few years later with 800 hours, we wouldn’t have as big of a problem. If you go over 1k it really sucks

[unksskis]

Do promo programs choose the right people/place? That has been a major factor throughout the years, impacting the resale of the boat, tournament availability, involvement and engagement, dealer relationships, and even brand image. I don't personally see the benefit in moving the ownership back to the dealers, as now they're stuck with a boat no one was trying to sell or promote. One manufacturer moved their promo from a lake of 60 lake lots where it was routinely purchased by someone on the lake, to one with maybe 10 lake lots. However, at least they have a promo program, where one of the manufacturers has had nothing for years now, and seems to have no desire to get one in the area.

[The_MS]

What % of skiers attending events can afford a new 100k boat? It’s a very small %. Without some sort of TV exposure for the manufacturers to expose the product and almost no spectators at events why would they want to play the promo game?

[Chad_Scott]

@MS. Send me a 100k, I will sell you my boat and a truck to pull it. (Isn’t that a country song)

[jcamp]

Maybe it's time for a new player to come up with a slalom tug designed specifically to pull tournaments and serve as club/ski school boats? I'm sure producing a 40k boat didn't look attractive/possible to anyone a few years ago. But with the Big 3 edging toward 100k-plus now, I wonder if that creates room for someone to come in at a 60-70k price point.

[The_MS]

I get that I can go out and buy that used promo for under that amount but all that does is move that promo boat. It does not sell another brand new boat from a dealer needing profit margins to stay in business. Instead of loosing money on a promo they could use that money to find other outlets of marketing.

[unksskis]

@jcamp I try to convince Tige to get back into the ski game every chance I get.

[jcamp]

@unksskis Funny you mention Tige. Right after posting my comment above I went to their website to see what they currently offered. They still have a 20-footer but it's not direct drive ...

[Jody_Seal]

@jcamp you could probably produce an outboard ski tug for $40k but sorry not an inboard. To many moving parts..

[6_Buoys]

Do away with the promo programs all together. This is a community of very financially savvy people. Someone will figure out how to purchase a boat (maybe not a new one, but new enough) and get other skiers to pay for it. The "promo" guy no longer works for the mfg, he/she works for themselves. I bring my boat for use at a tournament and this is how much I charge and the tournament can decide if it is worth it. When you sign up for a tournament: will you pay extra for an L tournament with a new boat? How much will you pay for a C with an older boat? Let the skiers decide what they are willing to pay for: ski site, number of rounds, level of tournament, and boat to be used. The market will work it out. Maybe it forces some clubs to update a boat more often (aka: new boat sale). Maybe after a few years, the manufacturers will decide they want to get their boats back into more tournaments and create the "new and improved" promo program themselves. I know, lots of maybes.

 

 

[MattP]

@6_Buoys sounds like the fastest way for the mfgs to get out of the 3 event business to me.

[dave2ball]

@6_Buoys doing away with the promo team members and relying on private boats may work for a local tournament. But the big picture is how would you run regionals nationals the big dawg events. The 3 MFG would most likely stop producing 3 event boats. The answer is out there. Just need to keep searching.