The $99 scuba course question

[ams511]

Everybody knows skiing starts on the bunny hill, but you're probably going to have to do a lot of it or take some more lessons to get to the blue or black slopes. Nobody seems to think that diving is similar.

I think you hit the nail on the head. People that want to get better at a sport will pay to take more lessons. If they are happy on the bunny slope then why take lessons? If a person is happy swimming around at 40 feet looking at fish then why do they need to take an intro to tech class? You may be able to sell them on an advanced course or Fish ID but that is about it.

---------- Post added April 3rd, 2015 at 05:42 PM ----------

Res ipsa loquitur. If scuba diving/training were price-elastic all those $99 OW course shops would have lines out the door and their owners would be driving Porsches. The vast majority of the population will never take up diving whether the course costs $399, $199, $99 or even $1.99. Which is to say, the overall variance in overall demand does not vary uniformly with change in price. That's the very definition of price inelastic.

Giving a Latin catch-phrase is not evidence. So in other words you have no empirical, experimental, or analytical evidence to back up your assertions. What speaks for itself it that the if $99 pricing is growing the dive industry must see some benefit in it. Also price elasticity has nothing to do with variance. Simply put it is the change in quantity divided by the change in price. If the absolute value is greater than 1, it is called price-elastic, if less than 1 price-inelastic. Price inelastic does not mean that consumers will purchase the same about regardless of price.

While I do agree that out of the population as a whole there is only a small subset that may be interested in diving; however, that is not to say that within that subset consumers are not price sensitive. What you are suggesting is violates the law of demand. Also if you think diving is perfectly inelastic then why did you not draw the demand curve as vertical line? That is the graphic representation of what you are saying.

---------- Post added April 3rd, 2015 at 05:46 PM ----------

I'll let Milton Friedman know. I'm sure he'll return his Nobel prize.

First, Milton Friedman died close to a decade ago. So unless you can add "ghost whisperer" to you other accomplishments you cannot talk to him. Second, his work was mostly in the field of monetary policy so I see no relevance to this discussion. Unless you claim an LDS can affect the money supply. If he has a paper on point please let me know and I will look it up. I have access to most periodical databases.

---------- Post added April 3rd, 2015 at 06:00 PM ----------

Any local market or business is subject to the same, well-characterized market forces as the overall market. The slopes of any of the curves may change... but the shape of the curves and the overall price/demand/supply/consumption dynamic are the same in any marketplace. (At least any market that isn't subject to governmental price-controls or production subsidies.

You need to go back to basic economics. The market demand curve us the aggregation of the individual demand curves. The shape of the curves need not be the same because the determinants of demand and market structure could be different. If there is only one dive shop in town then that person has a virtual monopoly on scuba, if there are 20 shops he doesn't. In which market do you think the dive shop has more control over price? You need to look at the determinants of demand, if the choice is between skiing and scuba which would someone in Miami be more likely to pick? Someone in Vale?

---------- Post added April 3rd, 2015 at 06:02 PM ----------

Obviously since dives aren't reported and C-cards don't expire it's not easy from any machine-readable transactional data. Instead, best that can be done is a large quant survey that can be fairly reliably projected. Survey, say 24,000 people (as in the last one that was done) who were certified at one point and find out what they've done since getting certified.

So what are the reasons people drop out of diving?

 

[RJP]

So what are the reasons people drop out of diving?

They're just not that into it.

 

[descent]

• Increasing the DEMAND for diving is the best way
for the industry to "sell more diving" and
overcome divers' current level of price-sensitivity

Yes, the answer is to create demand. Emphatically yes.

No, we should not work to overcome anyone's real or imagined allergies to posted price info yet.

Being concerned with pricing before new demand has been created is the sin of premature optimization, which (in terms of heinousness) falls somewhere between graverobbing and cannibalism.

 

[jsamuelson]

While I agree in the primacy of neutral buoyancy I'm not certain that students need to be "forced" to dive neutral and in proper trim. At least not in the typical meaning of the word "forced."

One of the most formative experiences in my diving "career" was my own Open Water class, wherein I was simply never shown anything OTHER than neutral buoyancy and horizontal trim when we were in water too deep to stand. I was never told it was "hard" or "uncommon" or "difficult" much less that I was being "forced" to dive that way.

When we did our very first descent in the pool I was told "We're going to swim out to the deep end, let the air out of our BCD and descend half way to the bottom..." and that's where we did skills.

But since I had no idea that was impossible... I just went ahead and did it.

I think you'll find that most students will do the same. Assuming anything else sells their ability - or yours - short.

I like Harry Averill's take on it: "Bouyancy control is not a skill... it's a habit."

Same here, kind of. During my OW my instructor said my buoyancy and trim were great. I was like, "Really?!"...

It was probably flattery but it was nice to hear.

But compared to some of the people I went diving with later, I think she may have been partially truthful...we dubbed one Miss Kicky and were very careful not to get underneath her!

 

[spoolin01]

So what are the reasons people drop out of diving?

I'd venture to guess:

Lack of proximity to fun places to dive. (I know that's at play around here, and really, how many people travels hundreds or thousands of miles to vacation, with any regularity?)
Expense of 90 minutes of boat diving (cf one to two days of alpine skiing, 5 visits to the zoo/aquarium, any number of alternative local or vacation destination half- or all-day tours/activities, months/years of bike riding/hiking/swimming/snorkeling/frisbee/volleyball).
(Possibly) discomfort at being underwater.

I wonder also, is there an industry culture of intimidation and fear as tools to sell dive products and services, and what does that do to demand in a sport where lots of folks are already leery of the context? Maybe a shift in marketing and representation more toward fun and eco-tourism, and less of the U/W mall ninja stuff could move things? (full disclosure: I probably get most of my impressions from SB, and still have mild PTSD from my OW instructor).

I wonder how retention compares to the sky-diving industry? If they beat scuba, something is really being done wrong.

 

[TSandM]

I think some of us think the pendulum has already swung too far toward the fun and eco-tourism side . . . I personally think that, although you don't want to scare OW students to death, it IS important that they understand there are certain things they can do while diving that can, quite literally, kill them.

 

[ScubaSteve1962]

All real questions here:

I wonder, is it even possible to learn to dive effectively when the foundation is weak, or more correctly non-existent?

Do you think divers can learn neutral buoyancy by themselves? Or even come to any idea of what that is?

I ask because unless divers are absolutely forced to be neutrally buoyant (at all levels from Open Water Students, to Dive Instructors) they end up diving negative. It's fighting all previous experience as a human being to swim in trim neutrally buoyant.

Unless you are forced to do so by your OW instructor (and very, very, very, very few are, largely because very few instructors understand neutral buoyancy), it seems that the diver will never even understand the idea of neutral buoyancy, let alone be able to use it to move underwater.

IME, there is only way course that matters: Open Water. Everything else is just frosting on that cake. (Or at least if the OW is taught a certain way.)

umm I learned neutral buoyancy by myself, just purchased the manual, and went to a pool and practiced.

Now to the ops question, if I had to take classes 6 to 8 weeks, I would look and the instructor and say I've got a life, this a hobby, not going to be my job. My classes were free, but that depended on me buying my gear from the dive op. I have no regrets on the gear he sold me and enjoy using it ever time I go diving. I've made a few add on's here and there, but don't have any regret about any of the gear he recommended. Now while this may not work for everyone, lets remember this isn't a one course fits all thing.

 

[spoolin01]

I think some of us think the pendulum has already swung too far toward the fun and eco-tourism side . . . I personally think that, although you don't want to scare OW students to death, it IS important that they understand there are certain things they can do while diving that can, quite literally, kill them.

I'm not in the instructor world, but surely top of your list must be talking up tech diving and glorifying risk-taking!

To your point, to a typically capable person those rec scuba-specific things can be downloaded in 10 seconds, and elaborated upon and reinforced in surely fewer than hours and hours costing hundreds of dollars. For those who need or want more, or who want to lay the groundwork for additional certification, there is that option.

Is there some demonstrated mortality/morbidity consequence, in the accident stats, of inadequate OW training that drives the issue here?

 

[dmaziuk]

To your point, to a typically capable person those rec scuba-specific things can be downloaded in 10 seconds, and elaborated upon and reinforced in surely fewer than hours and hours costing hundreds of dollars.

Have you actually met "typical" people? There's a whole lot of different ones out there. You run into someone who gets it in 10 seconds and 1 hour pool dive, you could conceivably charge them a little less. However, you only find out afterwards when they've already paid. Would you refund their money?

 

[redacted]

Have you actually met "typical" people? There's a whole lot of different ones out there. You run into someone who gets it in 10 seconds and 1 hour pool dive, you could conceivably charge them a little less. However, you only find out afterwards when they've already paid. Would you refund their money?

How about if it were done in a similar manner as getting a driver's license? Up to the candidate how the knowledge and skills are obtained. Those who require a week of training and practice and those who take a couple hours should pay accordingly for the training. In the end, all must pass the same written and skills performance test.