Rumor Has It?

[davelepka 4]

What I wrote was -

Quote

what Skyride and Proskydiving does is 'legal' (in the sense of SEO and intercepting customers)

-and I added the part in paranthesis because a lot of what Skyride does isn't legal, but using SEO to intercept customers is legal.

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

JCPenney just got caught with its hand in the web search cookie jar.... wonder if our brethren are also doing this....

Thanks for posting this. That story is a prime example of a perfectly legal, but unethical, use of SEO. The actions of JCP are legal, but frowed upon by Google, a company that collected some $2.5 million dollars from JCP for legitimate advertising.

So the law has no stance on the subject, but Google feels strongly enough about it that it's willing to sanction one of their own 2.5 million dollar clients.

I expect that there will come a time when the law will take a stance on the subject.

I never said that unethical but legal was acceptable.

Quote

Just because what Skyride and Proskydiving does is 'legal' (in the sense of SEO and intercepting customers) does mean that it's right. They're cannibalizing skydiving in order to line their own pockets.

Are you saying you have proof right now that ProSkydiving.com is utilizing unethical practices?

If you do, that will certainly get my attention. Please tell us all about it. Show us your proof.

But if you do not, then you are condemning them on the general principal that you worry they might do that?

Do you really think that's how things should be?

Quote

Let's fast forward a decade, and see what we're left with if this continues. A very small number of people will be making a very large sum of money off of skydiving, anf they won't be the ones owning or operating DZs. Meanwhile, DZOs will be severly limited in the money they can make because too much of their business will be filtered through one of these 'services', who of course soak up a cut of the profits before passing the business to the actual service provider.

Let's face it folks, skydiving is a cottage industry, and it always will be. Take a look at any of the equipment providers and you'll see this to be true. The only companies with any size to speak of are those also involved in the defense industry (let's leave UPT and Strong out of this because tandem makes the skydivign world go round).

What would Bonehead's annual sales be if they didn't have the military contracts? How about Tony Suits or Bev, how long have they been in business, and how long have their sales been stagnent?

There just isn't that much money in sport skydiving. I know it seems like it costs a fortune, but that's thanks to the FAA and the fact that it's a small industry. The FAA has made airplanes expensive to own and operate, and that's the majority of the cost in making a jump. They have also made the equipment more expensive to manufacture due to TSO testing and adhering to that TSO during construction. (In all fairness, the FAA has made skydiving safer with these things).

Beyond that, the gear is pricey because the industry is small. I'm sure if you could sell 50,000 rigs per year, they could find a way to make them cheaper.

In point is that profits in sport skydiving are a small pie, and you can't cut that pie up too many times before everyone is just getting crumbs. These 'services', like Proskydiving and Skyride don't bring anything new to the table or create additional revenue for the DZ to justify their cost. It's a straight loss for the DZO, and one the DZO would be better off without.

If nobody stuck their nose into their local business, the DZOs would be better off in the end. Leave them to deal with their local customers and local competition one-on-one, and allow they to live or die of their own devices.

I thought we were talking about directing tandems to dropzones.

Tandems don't buy helmets and rigs or jumpsuits.

As far as who is making the money, well, you don't have a problem with putting the local hardware store out of business, but you want to protect the dropzone. That's not going to work. Protect them all, or protect none.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

As far as who is making the money, well, you don't have a problem with putting the local hardware store out of business, but you want to protect the dropzone. That's not going to work. Protect them all, or protect none.

Retail is a different animal. The online retailer, or even big-box chain store that can sell me a screw driver for less, still has to sell me a screw driver. They have to stock it, trasact the sale, and either deliver it or provide a store where I can pick it up. If they can do it for less than the mom and pop store on the corner, then so be it.

For the record, I avoid Walmart like the plague, and always choose the local store if one is present.

What were dealing with here are people who do nothing but collect money. Proskydiving does nothing in terms of providing the actual service being sold. The DZO is left to do everything they used to do for 100% of the profits, for something less than that.

It would be the equivlant of Walmart setting up a kiosk in the parking lot of the mom and pop store and selling me the screwdriver inside the store. I still need to walk in the store and pick it up, and mom and pop still need to stock the screwdriver and pay rent on the store, but are forced to take less than sticker price after Walmart takes it's 'processing fee'.

The whole deal is a straight jack for the DZO. It might be legal, and it might be the way many industries are going, but that doesn't make it right for one of our own to do the same to our own industry.

Of course they're going to avoid the pitfalls of Skyride, and of course they're going to wrap it up in a pretty package so they can 'sell' it people, but in the end it's a DZO muscling in on the profits for services they don't provide in a locality they have no interest or investment in.

[davelepka 4]

Quote

I thought we were talking about directing tandems to dropzones.

Tandems don't buy helmets and rigs or jumpsuits

It's an example of the fact that this is a cottage industry. Those businesses that deal exclusively with sport skydiving are small by nature. There's not enough business to support more, or bigger, businesses.

When you take a business like a DZ, and try to split up the profits too many ways, it's going to fail. This industry is not big enough to support an administrative entity, which is an apt description for Proskydiving.

Take an indusrty like health care, or workmans compensation. Both of them have businesses who's sole purpose is to handle the adminstravtive tasks between service providers and customers. There is enough complication in the administrative end, and enough money in the industry that these business exist, thrive, and are welcomed by all involved.

Note the part in bold, that's the key. The other key is that Proskydiving isn't exactly 'optional' for the DZO. It's either get on board, or lose out on every customer they can rope in and direct toward your competition.

So we have a business idea being applied to an industry that cannot support it, and we have it being presented in such a way where the DZO is forced to choose between two evils, either losing some or their profits, or losing a lot of their profits.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that's not going to be good for skydiving. As per the Facebook conversation that posted, it seems that Rook Nelson agrees with me. I don't know if this is related, but Rook's dad was the first guy to build a mega-DZ in a seasonal area, and really kick ass in the tandem business. In fact, after his initial success, Roger went on to hold seminars (for free) telling other DZOs how to market their DZs and run their operations so they could share in his success.

Now I don't know how much Roger taught Rook about business, but the guy had the right idea, and I have to assume that his kid does too.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

The part I find funny is this is the second time around. The DZOs let a bunch of crooks in to "help" their business and got screwed. We finally have a bit of a handle on the first one and I'll be damned if they aren't lining up to let the next guy take their money.

Ever heard the phrase You just can't help some people? How about You can't fix stupid?

[riggerpaul 1]

Quote

Quote

I thought we were talking about directing tandems to dropzones.

Tandems don't buy helmets and rigs or jumpsuits

It's an example of the fact that this is a cottage industry. Those businesses that deal exclusively with sport skydiving are small by nature. There's not enough business to support more, or bigger, businesses.

When you take a business like a DZ, and try to split up the profits too many ways, it's going to fail. This industry is not big enough to support an administrative entity, which is an apt description for Proskydiving.

Take an indusrty like health care, or workmans compensation. Both of them have businesses who's sole purpose is to handle the adminstravtive tasks between service providers and customers. There is enough complication in the administrative end, and enough money in the industry that these business exist, thrive, and are welcomed by all involved.

Note the part in bold, that's the key. The other key is that Proskydiving isn't exactly 'optional' for the DZO. It's either get on board, or lose out on every customer they can rope in and direct toward your competition.

So we have a business idea being applied to an industry that cannot support it, and we have it being presented in such a way where the DZO is forced to choose between two evils, either losing some or their profits, or losing a lot of their profits.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that's not going to be good for skydiving. As per the Facebook conversation that posted, it seems that Rook Nelson agrees with me. I don't know if this is related, but Rook's dad was the first guy to build a mega-DZ in a seasonal area, and really kick ass in the tandem business. In fact, after his initial success, Roger went on to hold seminars (for free) telling other DZOs how to market their DZs and run their operations so they could share in his success.

Now I don't know how much Roger taught Rook about business, but the guy had the right idea, and I have to assume that his kid does too.

It all comes down to the business ethics of ProSkydiving.com.

If they are ethical, and they only sell where they actually have local dzs that support them, then it will be an easy thing for the local business to protect itself by not participating.

You presuppose that they will be as unethical as SR is.

If they don't purport to sell in areas that don't support them, then you won't get a hit from them when you search for a provider in the particular area.

The problem with SR was that they forced ALL the hits to be on their fictitious dropzones.

If ProSkydiving.com doesn't have fictitious dropzones, then the other dropzones in any area will still show hits when you search.

As long as that is working properly, it will come down to the actual value of the service that they offer. No value? Dropzones won't sign up. Searches will still show the local dropzones. Capitalism will kill it before too long.

As I said, it is all about the business ethics involved.

I won't condemn them until they show us they are unethical. If they do that, I'll be right with you in my protestations.

Do I like it? No, I don't. Is it going to happen despite our dislike of it? You bet!

[davelepka 4]

Quote

The part I find funny is this is the second time around. The DZOs let a bunch of crooks in to "help" their business and got screwed. We finally have a bit of a handle on the first one and I'll be damned if they aren't lining up to let the next guy take their money.

That's my biggest problem with the situation, nobody is 'lining up' to get into bed with these guys, but the situation remains that it's either play ball, or they'll take your customers across town.

If a business was free to use a service, or able to continue on with business-as-usual, that's one thing. If I want to start 'Dave's Airplane Washing Service', and pitch it local DZs, they can choose to do business with me based solely on the value for dollar I present. The threat of lost business to their competitors is not part of the decision making process.

It's one thing to offer a service to a business, and let them choose to accept or not. It's another to offer a service, with the threat of taking their customers elsewhere as the penalty for not playing ball.

It's dirty pool, and everyone knows it. You're right, we were on the cusp of wiping out the Skyride problem, only to have Doug come along and 'help' us all by filling the void. What a guy.

[jtiflyer 0]

http://www.sportations.com/

awesome!!! They advertise skydiving in Stockton Ca for 199. Well the nearest dropzone is also the cheapest Lodi for 99.

[alabamaskydiver 0]

It appears that Cedartown was not successful at evicting ASC and with their new partnership with Skydive Spaceland for supplying them with the Otter, it is business as usual.

[Marisan 0]

Both of them are rent seekers just the same as your financial industry.
Look where that's got you.

Greed, unfortunately, always wins out.