Why aren't more people taking up scuba diving?

[RJP]

Hmm, I hear you, I cant say I agree but I hear you. From my experience, its not even that easy to convince the mom and pop store down the road to implement unknown change, their nose is to the grindstone doing what works for them today so they can pay the bills, to effect lasting meaningful change it needs to be internationally driven, not domestically USA or Europe or Asia or.......and it needs to take place from the top and filter down so that the Mom and Pop store can adapt, and they will if it works, but all this takes a long, long time, most likely a generation sadly.

Well yeah... if someone's going to sit around and wait for something to be "internationally driven... from the top... and filter down" they're screwed.

By the way, who exactly is "at the top" of diving that we're waiting for?

---------- Post added December 9th, 2014 at 01:05 PM ----------

Why is the supply price increasing with quantity? It is not obvious to me. Sure, if you have 1000 people competing for 10 seats at a football game, you can sell tickets for more, but are the same forces at play in the scuba industry? We tend to hear that products are crappy and prices are high because the market is so small... I am having hard time reconciling this popular wisdom with the curves you plotted.

You're looking at it sort of in reverse in this case. The point is that when DEMAND increases (curve shifts from D1 to D2), Price (P) and quantity consumed (Q) increase.

The same forces are "at play" anywhere that humans are exchanging money for good and services.

 

[Bob DBF]

Why is the supply price increasing with quantity? It is not obvious to me. Sure, if you have 1000 people competing for 10 seats at a football game, you can sell tickets for more, but are the same forces at play in the scuba industry? We tend to hear that products are crappy and prices are high because the market is so small... I am having hard time reconciling this popular wisdom with the curves you plotted.

I think you are pointing out what one of the problems with the SCUBA industry, you immediately focus on one particular part.

You are not just buying a a football game ticket, but your part of the NFL experience. You are there, you are part of the game, you are part of history. The vendors all want to make money, but they can make more because they also are part of the experience.

I don't know how to translate that to SCUBA, but the every man for himself model being used by all the participants in the SCUBA industry make that kind of success impossible.



Bob
--------------------------------------
Just some dumb schmuck blathering.

 

[drrich2]

So too, unless you have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, you will in most instances know about Scuba, so asking theses folk why they dont join a course is like asking me why I dont go hunting - I know about it, I know what it offers and I know about its ethos, but I simply dont have any interest in it, and no amount of positioning or motivation from the hunting industry is going to change my mind. I will never go hunting. I think its much the same with scuba.

Maybe. Maybe not. Let's take the metaphor of hunting & you as an example, vs. scuba & the uninitiated. If hunting to you involves going out in the woods, blowing a bloody hole in something & hauling the carcass home, you may not be into that. But let's say we expand our concept of hunting to naturalist, with hunting viewed as a niche, like spear hunters are viewed in scuba.

You might enjoy getting out & roaming in forests & meadows, sitting on a deer stand at the forest edge overlooking a meadow with high-power telephoto camera or telescope watching a bobcat in the pre-dawn hours, or a mother raccoon & her little ones, might even travel for the chance to photograph & study a wolf pack in their native habitat, and you might enjoy boating around the edge of a lake or pond finding green snakes in overhanging vegetation, photographing turtles and water snakes, etc...

My point is, just because someone enters a natural setting looking for something (the basic concept of hunting) doesn't mean they are constrained to do so in the manner of we think of when we 'hunter.' And these people may still be a target for a lot of the same gear sales as the stereotypical hunter; 4 wheel drive SUV, ATV, aluminum boat, camouflage clothing, binoculars, those game trail cameras that use motion sensors to automatically photograph wildlife when you're not around, etc...

In the scuba world, maybe we should ask whether the people in reptile/amphibian clubs who like 'herping' - looking for them in the wild, might be coaxed into looking for moray eels, barracuda, lizardfish, scorpionfish and so forth on coral reefs? And sea turtles, of course. Perhaps the same mindset that likes land based creepy crawlings could be drawn to diving? Would coral reefs appeal to wildflower lovers of natural splendor? Can 'real' wrecks drawn in those interesting in war history?

Richard.

 

[RJP]

So too, unless you have been living under a rock for the past 40 years, you will in most instances know about Scuba, so asking theses folk why they dont join a course is like asking me why I dont go hunting - I know about it, I know what it offers and I know about its ethos, but I simply dont have any interest in it, and no amount of positioning or motivation from the hunting industry is going to change my mind. I will never go hunting. I think its much the same with scuba.

The reason that it's "much the same for scuba" is that - just like hunting - it's not for everyone. And marketing is not about reaching "everyone" by finding the magic word that grabs and motivates 100% of the population.

Diving is NOT for everyone. However, it is probably for more people than currently dive. And that's not just about making them "aware" that scuba exists. People know that Coke, and Nike, and Frosted Flakes exist. But they still advertise and market... and you can be damned sure that they are always exquisitely "on message" relative to positioning and branding. The reason they do this? Simple. It works.

And not just if you have millions in the budget. Ask yourself why the local Chinese restaurant near you still has a sign hanging up outside the building. Doesn't everyone know about egg rolls?

To drive communication that motivates people to action you need:

1. Top of Mind Awareness: not just "aware at one time" but "frequently, always aware, especially at the right time"
2. Motivating Messaging: it's not enough to just be aware that something exists... the customer needs to know what it means to them; "what is diving" to them
3. Consistent Reinforcement of Messaging: every time someone comes in contact with the product or service they need to get the same communication and messaging. That's how everyone in the world knows to "grab a coke and smile."

Look at it this way. A potential diver - who is aware that diving exists - finally decides to go into a dive shop and ask about diving because he's going on a trip, and he's always loved snorkeling. Maybe he signs up, maybe he doesn't. Let's pretend that he likes what he hears - diving is about adventure, perhaps - and signs up for a class. One consumer, one shop, one message: "Diving = Adventure."

So far, so good...

But what happens when that diver stops by a different dive shop - maybe he wasn't convinced by the first dive shop to sign up - and in that shop he hears that "Diving = Nature and Preserving the Underwater Environment." Wait... what happened to Adventure? And then he finds a web forum and finds out "Diving = Shooting Fish and Catching Lobster." And then reads a dive magazine that "Diving = Travel." So maybe he finally signs up before a vacation but when he gets to that warm water resort to do his checkout dives he finds out "Diving = Family Fun Together" and the class is him and three 10yr olds. And then he gets home and a third shop tells him "Diving = Diving Locally" and tries to get him into a dry suit. And thenhe finds out that he should buy a camera, because "Diving = Photography." But if he wants to do photography, he finds out he need to buy Jet Fins... because the $200 "Speed Demon" split fins he bought when he thought "Diving = Adventure" are no good if "Diving = Photography." But if you really want to do photography you need to...

And we're surprised that our new diver gives up diving within two years? Really?

He may well have found a sport he would have stuck with for a lifetime... but the industry lacks a motivating message around whatever that was... and lacks the willingness to reinforce that message every time he came in contact with scuba diving.

This is what branding and positioning does. It tells you what the product is, when, where, how to use it and most importantly... how the user is supposed to feel about it.

Now, I'm not advocating for an approach that requires diving to pick "one thing" that it is, to the exclusion of the other things. We need to find the "one big thing" that sits above those things and unites them. (And it's not as simple as "Diving = fun because you can do X, or Y, or Z, or A, or B" because that's not a single message.)

What is the one, singular thing? Finding that, and driving that, will enable more people to see themselves as divers.

Marketers do this... because it works.

"Grab Your Fins and a Smile!"

 

[Basking Ridge Diver]

Diving = Back to the womb. Reborn in a new world.

Serene, nurturing and exciting when you get certified. Take the first kick...

 

[kr2y5]

You're looking at it sort of in reverse in this case. The point is that when DEMAND increases (curve shifts from D1 to D2), Price (P) and quantity consumed (Q) increase. The same forces are "at play" anywhere that humans are exchanging money for good and services.

My question was about the shape of the supply curve. AFAIK, the model you referred to assumes a free market with perfect competition. Is scuba really such a market? It assumes that suppliers cannot influence the market. Is it true, given the relationship between scuba manufacturers, dive shops, and consumers? It assumes that production is somehow limited by a fixed resource. Is the price of ScubaPro and Apeks regulators driven by some limited resources that scuba manufacturers have at their disposal? I do not agree that the same forces are always at play everywhere. All those models are based on assumptions, which hold in some circumstances, and do not hold in others. My question was about the assumptions. Are they really valid in this case? Maybe they are, I just don't immediately see why, hence my question...

---------- Post added December 10th, 2014 at 12:03 AM ----------

You are not just buying a a football game ticket, but your part of the NFL experience. You are there, you are part of the game, you are part of history. The vendors all want to make money, but they can make more because they also are part of the experience. I don't know how to translate that to SCUBA, but the every man for himself model being used by all the participants in the SCUBA industry make that kind of success impossible.

This is a brilliant observation. People do not go to parties, concerts, drain money in clubs, or stand in line for an hour before a restaurant because beer or the food there tastes so good, or because they can better enjoy music in a crowded room... they go to be there with their friends, to be a part of something, have something to talk about, and post about it on Facebook. The more high-profile the event, as perceived by one's social group, the higher the perceived reward for participating, and the higher price, whether in money, or inconvenience, one will pay to take part in it. Why are there so many golf clubs? Surely, it can't be that most folks go there to enjoy the sport...

 

[widget]

Well yeah... if someone's going to sit around and wait for something to be "internationally driven... from the top... and filter down" they're screwed.

By the way, who exactly is "at the top" of diving that we're waiting for?

---------- Post added December 9th, 2014 at 01:05 PM ----------

Theres an old saying that runs along the lines of "You need to know where you came from, to see where you are going" and I think its apt here. If we look back at scuba growth we will see it started at a very small local club base, there was very little in the way of standards and accepted training protocols, it took ages to qualify, the equipment was lousy and difficult to come by, you couldn't go on a diving vacation because tour operators did not have the capability and didn't want the risks and insurers ran screaming for the hills when they heard you scuba dived.
The big training agencies as we know them today were in their infancy or in some cases didn't even exist, but slowly over time they gained traction and changed the small local club and federation method of training by introducing internationally accepted and recognized training standards, people internationally were now trained to a uniform level, they felt more confident so more took up the sport, tour operators realized this was actually a (fairly) well regulated sport and an internationally accepted training card meant the diver actually knew what he was doing and they started catering to this market, equipment manufacturers found critical mass and equipment became easier to source and of a higher quality....scuba grew in leaps and bounds, .............Over time the agencies tweaked courses as the international market changed, people had less time so they made the course shorter and so on and scuba continued to grow, this could never have happened if we had continued with the local outlook and without an international drive into the future I fear it wont grow again.

I think we need to recognize that scuba is a unique entity, unlike say Nike, who are not beholden to a regulator or external influences, the scuba industry is,... a tripartite alliance if you like between (1) the training agencies, because everyone who has a stake in scuba abides by at least a few of their regulations, (2) the equipment manufacturers because without them obviously there is no scuba and (3) the tour operators, because divers soon grow tired of diving in the local muddy dam and tour operators need to know the quality of the diver on their boat.
Nike markets (amongst other things) shoes, how you use them, where you use them or what you do with them is of no consequence to them, diving however is somewhat more constrained, it does matter how well you are trained, how you use a regulator, what you do with it and where you use it, so any change firstly needs all these three on board, otherwise the chain breaks. Who is at the top, well depends on where you sit, but for me I would say the training agencies.

---------- Post added December 10th, 2014 at 01:20 PM ----------

The reason that it's "much the same for scuba" is that - just like hunting - it's not for everyone. And marketing is not about reaching "everyone" by finding the magic word that grabs and motivates 100% of the population.

Diving is NOT for everyone. However, it is probably for more people than currently dive. And that's not just about making them "aware" that scuba exists. People know that Coke, and Nike, and Frosted Flakes exist. But they still advertise and market... and you can be damned sure that they are always exquisitely "on message" relative to positioning and branding. The reason they do this? Simple. It works.

SNIP, SNIP..

I actually like this post, it makes very good sense. I would find it hard to argue against.

 

[RJP]

My question was about the shape of the supply curve. AFAIK, the model you referred to assumes a free market with perfect competition. Is scuba really such a market? It assumes that suppliers cannot influence the market. Is it true, given the relationship between scuba manufacturers, dive shops, and consumers? It assumes that production is somehow limited by a fixed resource. Is the price of ScubaPro and Apeks regulators driven by some limited resources that scuba manufacturers have at their disposal? I do not agree that the same forces are always at play everywhere. All those models are based on assumptions, which hold in some circumstances, and do not hold in others. My question was about the assumptions. Are they really valid in this case? Maybe they are, I just don't immediately see why, hence my question...

Frankly, if I had found a good image without the supply curve I would have used that instead as it wasn't really germane to the price-elasticity-of-demand topic. But since you asked...

The model is not "based" on assumptions, but rather it can factor them in. The chart illustrates a "variable function" rather than a fixed case. That is to say, other than in an image, the lines in the chart are not static. The shape of the supply curve - and all the other curves - in the original chart were hypothetical... to illustrate the function. They would all move, be shaped appropriately, and end based on the market particulars. (ie - supply is not an infinite number, so that curve would stop when the absolute limit of supply is reached.)

For example, suppose that someone at ScubaPro screwed up and produced a million extra regulators (S3) and put them all out on the market. Given demand curve (D2) they will sell more regulators (Q3) if the retailer price comes down (P3) to move all these extra regulators. You see this every day (not 1mm extra regs) but at the gas pump right now for instance. The supply of oil currently exceeds demand... prices have fallen as retailers try to attract more customers... people buy more gas (ie they don't curtail their driving as much.)

On the other hand, what would happen if the there was some sort of regulator embargo put in place in the US - no more regulators are allowed into the country. Obviously, the supply of regs (S4) changes accordingly. Assuming the demand curve does not shift (D2) prices will go up (P4) (in the scuba market this will be through lack of discounting +/- price hikes by manufacturers) but the total quantity consumed declines (Q4) as it is constrained by the limited supply of regulators.

Now, of course you are correct when you point out that no market is perfectly competitive. But the model actually takes that into consideration. You control for that when you shape the curves. Take demand for scuba classes for example. Since the desire for OW certification is based on much more than price... the demand curve (D5) for OW courses is imperfect. Even if the price drops to ZERO, there are still millions and millions of people who will not get certified. So if the price of an OW course continues to drop (P5) until the point that everyone who stayed out of scuba because of cost finally signs up, the market will have reached the maximum number of OW divers (Q5). If the price is further lowered (P6), the quantity of OW students will remain at Q5... even if the supply of OW courses (S5) is infinite.

You asked whether the price of regs is somehow impacted by limits on resources at the manufacturer level. The answer is "of course." If there is a shortage of raw materials those prices will go up... increasing the price of finished goods. Labor costs, production capacity, warehousing, shipping, etc... there are any number of resource limitations that effect the price of goods. Essentially, there are many manufacturer-based supply/demand curves underlying every customer-facing supply/demand curve.

You can play with the assumptions all day long. The model works in all cases. Assume that there is a law passed that all adults must get certified... simply use that assumption when you create the demand curve. Assume that 50% of all instructors in the US (supply) retire... simply use that assumption when your draw your supply curve.

In short, the relationship between demand/price/supply/consumption - and thus the model - is the same for any market. You simply need to apply the appropriate assumptions for that specific market when using the model.

 

[widget]

Maybe. Maybe not. Let's take the metaphor of hunting & you as an example, vs. scuba & the uninitiated. If hunting to you involves going out in the woods, blowing a bloody hole in something & hauling the carcass home, you may not be into that. But let's say we expand our concept of hunting to naturalist, with hunting viewed as a niche, like spear hunters are viewed in scuba.

You might enjoy getting out & roaming in forests & meadows, sitting on a deer stand at the forest edge overlooking a meadow with high-power telephoto camera or telescope watching a bobcat in the pre-dawn hours, or a mother raccoon & her little ones, might even travel for the chance to photograph & study a wolf pack in their native habitat, and you might enjoy boating around the edge of a lake or pond finding green snakes in overhanging vegetation, photographing turtles and water snakes, etc...

My point is, just because someone enters a natural setting looking for something (the basic concept of hunting) doesn't mean they are constrained to do so in the manner of we think of when we 'hunter.' And these people may still be a target for a lot of the same gear sales as the stereotypical hunter; 4 wheel drive SUV, ATV, aluminum boat, camouflage clothing, binoculars, those game trail cameras that use motion sensors to automatically photograph wildlife when you're not around, etc...

In the scuba world, maybe we should ask whether the people in reptile/amphibian clubs who like 'herping' - looking for them in the wild, might be coaxed into looking for moray eels, barracuda, lizardfish, scorpionfish and so forth on coral reefs? And sea turtles, of course. Perhaps the same mindset that likes land based creepy crawlings could be drawn to diving? Would coral reefs appeal to wildflower lovers of natural splendor? Can 'real' wrecks drawn in those interesting in war history?

Richard.

I agree with you. I just call hunting without killing "Photography" and I do that already.

But in all seriousness, its a point of course, but we need a much bigger picture, I spoke to an associate in Spain today, he estimates the scuba business in Spain has declined 50% over the last 5 years ....and some say thats optimistic.

In truth if you want to know whats happening in the industry, you need to ask people in the industry, because they are the ones facing those issues every day, they know what people walking into their shops are telling them and as strange as it may seem those issues are universal, get 10 dive shop owners from around the world together and you will see, the problems the store owner faces in NY is the same as those the owner faces in London, Hong Kong, Barcelona or Puerto Rico, mostly its not something they can do much about, insufficient financial resources, or those resources been allocated elsewhere, a severely time poor population, increased work and family obligations, etc are common issues, and are not within the shop owners or the industries ability to change.

If we take another example of the buggy cart, at one time everyone used it for transport, breeding strong horses and building buggy carts, whips and wheels was probably a good business, until someone invented the mechanical engine. I will bet the buggy cart industry did all they could to keep people buying and using buggies, but their time had gone, today it probably supports a small cottage industry for an exclusive market, maybe its a lot simpler than we believe, maybe we just need to accept scuba had its day but now its over, and we will go back to been a tiny cottage industry serving a small but exclusive market?

Only time will tell.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

How many other sporting activities besides scuba have dropped off? Has anybody done any research to find out?
I don't think anything has replaced scuba, scuba is not obsolete, the double hose regulator is obsolete to make a comparison to the horse and wagon. Modern scuba gear is current and just fine.
I think interests have just changed.

To point out an observation, I never see bulk advertising from any sneaker promotion group to wear more sneakers in general, I only see individual sneaker companies pushing their brands. I never see a hamburger fast fast food council advertising to eat more hamburgers in general, it's either the big M or other. BTW, everybody knows who the M is, but they continue to carpet bomb with their ads. I wonder what their global ad bills are annually?
Then look at some of the high tech companies like Google. They started as a search engine and now are a lot more than that including hardware.
So with this in mind just for the sake of conversation, what if a company like Scubapro (example only) was to not only make all the gear but also have their own certification division and their own advertising campaign as a one-stop-shop entity to enter the world of scuba.
On the other side, a company like PADI could source out a full line of gear, provide the training, their own store, the trips, and their own advertising promoting themselves, (example only, please don't rip my head off).
Since there is no person or group "overseeing" and taking care of the overall scuba industry at the top then maybe an individual company needs to get selfish and do it for themselves.
At the rate scuba is going it will reduce down to the very small world it was in the old days. That's actually what drove the first DEMA show and the whole revamp in training etc. was to ramp up scuba back in the early 80's.

If all the separate components in scuba are waiting for something to happen or for somebody to make it happen for them they are grossly mistaken.
At this point I think the only way it's going to happen is for an individual company to take control of their own destiny and break out with their own diversification and ad campaign. And of course if it worked they would leave the rest behind. If it didn't work at least they tried because at the rate it's going they're going to die anyway.