Why aren't more people taking up scuba diving?

[Eric Sedletzky]

There are other reasons why people get into diving whether free or scuba besides looking at pretty fishes.
In my case it was because I wanted to kill pretty fishes and eat them.

 

[RJP]

So you are saying that it is absolutely impossible for any diver to remember what motivated us to take up scuba when we ourselves were non-divers? I seem to have a pretty good memory of it all. Is it some sort of an illusion?

No. I'm saying there is something about a great many of us - maybe not all of us - that predisposed us to become divers. Whatever that was... we had it BEFORE we ever put a reg in our mouths. We ARE different in some meaningful way.

So most of us cannot remember what it was like to be a non-diver because we never WERE "non-divers" >>> we were "pre-divers."

---------- Post added December 23rd, 2014 at 11:26 AM ----------

If it weren't for the bunny slope, how many hesitant potential skiers would give it a try?

Right... but they go to the bunny slope with the intention of skiing on it.

People don't go snorkeling with the intention of diving. They go snorkeling with the intention of snorkeling.

I'm not saying that most divers don't snorkel before they take up diving. They do. But the simple fact is that just because behavior "A" often/ordinarily comes before behavior "B" doesn't necessarily mean that "A" caused or otherwise increases the likelihood of "B" happening. Yes, there are times that DOES happen. However frequently, whatever predisposes someone to behavior "B" also predisposes them to behavior "A."

It's the classic "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logic fallacy. ("After this, therefor because of this.")

People with a desire to look under water to see what's going on beneath the surface will seek ways to do so - whether with a snorkel or a regulator.

Snorkeling experience is not necessary - nor is it sufficient - to drive interest or desire to dive.

---------- Post added December 23rd, 2014 at 11:30 AM ----------

There are other reasons why people get into diving whether free or scuba besides looking at pretty fishes.
In my case it was because I wanted to kill pretty fishes and eat them.

Right. But for the other 95% of divers...

---------- Post added December 23rd, 2014 at 11:46 AM ----------

Yes, some people might 'settle' for snorkeling instead of going further, but I wonder how many people with the drive to dive, so to speak, would never move forward. Or people with good potential to get into avid diving. Put another way, let's say you get 100 people to get into snorkeling, at least for awhile. How many would've become divers and now won't? How many will become divers who wouldn't have otherwise? I would guess, since only a really small percentage of the U.S. population divers regularly, that the latter would outnumber the former. So it's a net win.

How do you calculate the "net" part of the win?

Let's assume the following:

1. 1% of the population will become a diver at some point (A reasonable assumption based on current participation rate in scuba diving.)
2. Someone who has snorkeled is twice as likely to dive compared to some who has not snorkeled (a high "100% increase" assumption)

So...

With no effort to promote snorkeling we will continue to see ONE person out of every 100 become a diver. (Participation rate in scuba diving remains unchanged.)

With a focused campaign to drive uptake of snorkeling... we could see TWO people out of every 100 become a diver.

So, what's the cost, effort, and time necessary to widely promote snorkeling... compared to the revenue associated with an incremental 1% participation rate?

Before you calculate that... consider that one percentage point increase in diving would require that campaign effort to drive snorkeling participation has
- 100% reach (EVERYONE sees it)
- 100% frequency reach (EVERYONE sees it, EVERY TIME it runs, or often enough to drive interest)
- 100% campaign conversion rate (EVERYONE who sees it responds by taking up snorkeling.)

Of course that's not reality. So we would not actually see a scuba participation rate increase from 1-out-of-100 to 2-out-of-100. To figure out what increase we might see we would need to factor in some reach, frequency, and conversion assumptions.

Let's assume the following ridiculously HIGH rates:
- 30% reach (30 out of 100 people are exposed to campaign)
- 50% frequency reach (15 of the 30 who saw campaign saw it enough to drive interest)
- 50% campaign conversion rate (7.5 of the 15 who had interest actually take action)
- 20% snorkel-to-diver conversion rate (1.5 out of the 7.5 snorkelers become divers)
- Minus the 1-out-of-100 people who would have become divers without the campaig

So our actual increase in DIVING due to a "promote snorkeling" campaign - under the above overly optimistic assumptions - would not be from 1% to 2% of the population (2 out of 100) but from 1% to 1.075% of the population (1.075 out of 100).

How much is 0.075ths of a new diver worth, do you suppose?

 

[cerich]

Talking about snorkeling to dive shops and most instructors is a waste of time. I did for a decade, with participation and interest surveys from the cruise ships and sales information on soft goods (Mask, fins,snorkels) outside "dive retail. I wasted my time, snorkeling is just not what they want to be part of their "image".

My argument was that no dive shop should be just "dive" or "scuba" in their name and marketing efforts, add snorkeling and expand your potential market 1000 fold. People WANT to get good advice on snorkeling gear and lessons, there just isn't much to be found, they look up a local shop and find scuba...but they aren't up to that challenge so pass. But iof we could engage them as snorkelers maybe we could double our diver rate...would that be helpful to your business? Double scuba sales and add another bigger potential profit center without adding new vendors..just adding a word and changing your marketing approach?

I am a pretty experienced instructor and diver, I call fins flippers all the time...and get corrected by other instructors because "divers use FINS!", I laugh and say language is about understanding...did you know what I meant and if you ask 1000 people on the street to name a pair of diving fins...996 will call them flippers, why start the day by calling 996 people stupid? I tell students that most divers prefer to use the term FIN but that flippers works fine. Most use FIN to identify themselves as divers. In short, we as a "industry" screw up a HUGE potential market because of ego...which is funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

[TMHeimer]

cerich, Though I thought promoting snorkeling as a precursor to scuba may be a good idea, I do see your point. A reason there isn't much in the way of advice on snorkeling may be because it is something people who are already active in the water can easily figure out by themselves. I can't recall anyone showing me how to snorkel way back then (perhaps they did?). But if you can swim, you basically put your face in the water, kick "normally" with your fins on (though we know there are some who can't do that), keep the pipe above and breathe. I guess there may be some room for snorkeling advice for those who are not "water" people?

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Talking about snorkeling to dive shops and most instructors is a waste of time. I did for a decade, with participation and interest surveys from the cruise ships and sales information on soft goods (Mask, fins,snorkels) outside "dive retail. I wasted my time, snorkeling is just not what they want to be part of their "image".

My argument was that no dive shop should be just "dive" or "scuba" in their name and marketing efforts, add snorkeling and expand your potential market 1000 fold. People WANT to get good advice on snorkeling gear and lessons, there just isn't much to be found, they look up a local shop and find scuba...but they aren't up to that challenge so pass. But iof we could engage them as snorkelers maybe we could double our diver rate...would that be helpful to your business? Double scuba sales and add another bigger potential profit center without adding new vendors..just adding a word and changing your marketing approach?

I am a pretty experienced instructor and diver, I call fins flippers all the time...and get corrected by other instructors because "divers use FINS!", I laugh and say language is about understanding...did you know what I meant and if you ask 1000 people on the street to name a pair of diving fins...996 will call them flippers, why start the day by calling 996 people stupid? I tell students that most divers prefer to use the term FIN but that flippers works fine. Most use FIN to identify themselves as divers. In short, we as a "industry" screw up a HUGE potential market because of ego...which is funny if it wasn't so sad.

The old owner of my local dive shop once said that he wouldn't have made it if it wasn't for selling masks, snorkels, fins, wetsuits, etc. to people planning on going on vacation and snorkelling.
The reason they would go into a regular dive shop like his instead of going to Wal Mart was because they could get the advice they needed, buy better gear, and buy gear that they can try on that fits. There were also a small percentage that bought better snorkelling gear figuring that it would cross over to scuba if they went that route someday.
To sit here and anal-ize that people buying snorkelling gear will somehow diminish the possibility that they will become scuba divers someday is absolutely rediculous.
Hey man, if people come in and buy just snorkelling gear more power to them. At least it's a sale of something. I'm sure every dive shop owner reading this thread would agree with me. At least their coming into the store and being exposed to scuba in some form by seeing the gear displayed even though they're not buying scuba gear and signing up for classes right then, at least maybe the seed is planted.
As far as the flippers/fin debate, calling them flippers is old school. Pinnipeds have flippers and fish have fins. The fins we use most closely resemble pinniped flippers so I'll go with that.

 

[drrich2]

Snorkeling offers people with some initial interest a chance to get in and see what it's like to swim and look around underwater fairly easily, analogous to the skiing the bunny slope.

For comparison, imagine if there was no recreational diving, and no basic OW cert.; you had to either train for technical diving, or stay home. There wouldn't be as many divers. It's too big a leap for most people to make. If this sounds like a really lame comparison, imagine how a fully geared up scuba diver looks to someone with no diving knowledge and experience. Not unlike how a tech. diver with doubles and stage tanks might look to some of us.

Richard.

 

[RJP]

Snorkeling offers people with some initial interest a chance to get in and see what it's like to swim and look around underwater fairly easily, analogous to the skiing the bunny slope.

Skiing analogy really does fall short.

Snorkeling certainly occurs prior to scuba diving for the vast majority of divers. But the fact of the matter is... the vast majority of snorkelers never become divers.

On the other hand... the vast majority of people on the bunny slope will be skiing on the real hill later that same afternoon. The reason for that is... they intended to go SKIING in the first place.

Perhaps a better analogy:

Snorkeling is to diving as... sledding is to skiing.

Most skiers will have gone sledding at some point prior to skiing... but a fair few sledders - in the grand scheme of things - will go on to skiing.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

Skiing analogy really does fall short.

Snorkeling certainly occurs prior to scuba diving for the vast majority of divers. But the fact of the matter is... the vast majority of snorkelers never become divers.

If all of a sudden snorkelling was gone, never existed, would there be more or less scuba divers world wide?
If snorkelling and all knowledge of snorkelling ceased to exist from this point on would that be good or bad for dive shops, operators, resorts, local economies that have some gain from freediving activities, and would that make scuba grow since snorkelling wouldn't be an option.

Perhaps a better analogy:

Snorkeling is to diving as... sledding is to skiing.

Not really, because with skiing you use no part of a sled.
With snorkelling you use the same mask, same fins, same wetsuit and other exposure protection, a weightbelt (in some cases).
Only the media in which each activity is performed are the same. With skiing and sledding you use the same snow and hill to slide down, in snorkelling and scuba you use the same water to be in, and in the case of more advanced freediving you can dive to the same depths as scuba. The difference is you get to stay down with scuba. This in my opinion this is what primes a lot of advanced snorkellers who are somewhat proficient at freediving to take the next step to scuba.
It seems like those that break the surface from snorkelling into freediving may be more apt to try scuba than just a person happy with floating on the surface and only snorkelling, but who really knows?

 

[RJP]

Not really, because with skiing you use no part of a sled.
With snorkelling you use the same mask, same fins, same wetsuit and other exposure protection, a weightbelt (in some cases).
Only the media in which each activity is performed are the same. With skiing and sledding you use the same snow and hill to slide down, in snorkelling and scuba you use the same water to be in, and in the case of more advanced freediving you can dive to the same depths as scuba. The difference is you get to stay down with scuba. This in my opinion this is what primes a lot of advanced snorkellers who are somewhat proficient at freediving to take the next step to scuba.
It seems like those that break the surface from snorkelling into freediving may be more apt to try scuba than just a person happy with floating on the surface and only snorkelling, but who really knows?

For some reasons divers REALLY love to get caught up in gear/technique minutiae when dealing with analogies. Try not to do that... it will help clear your thinking.

:d

Analogies are not "everything is exactly parallel in every way" examples. Analogies are comparisons based on a resemblance/similarity of a single facet between two things that are otherwise dissimilar.

 

[Octopusprime]

There are a couple really good threads in the business to business on marketing. I have been in retail and service industries for years and I have seen very few dive shops or instructors that are good business people. There are many that go pro because they love to dive not realizing that opening a shop or becoming an instructor often occupies a lot of your nights and weekends Not diving.

Dive shops see each other as competition instead of partners in a community. As I have been in IT sales for many years now and look around there is a computer store or IT support company on every corner. There are 12 within walking distance of my office.

Many choose to compete with each others on price and guess what... Everyone runs to the bottom and goes out of business. Those with good service and repeat customers (because people see value) continue to be successful.

I see see dive shops, charters etc as partners to instructors. An Independant instructor can bring students to a shop with pool for confined water and get equipment, but you have to trust the shop is not goings to poach the students.

If you understand the market, who is learning to dive and the limiting factors it is easy to see that other sports are the competition. Look at golf. Clubs start at $500 and you could spend $2000 or more. Plenty of accessories to buy for Father's Day... And ongoing costs once certified are similar to greens fees for entry and charters. But really it comes down to disposable income. If they do not have it they are not going to do either. However golf has a marketing machine... TV tournaments, sponsorships, celebrities etc. Golf equipment in every sporting goods store. All of that promotes the sport as a whole.

However in scuba BIG anything is looked at as BAD! There are thousands of threads complaining about online retailers STEALING customers. However, if you look at things like scubaboard, leasurepro, scubatoys PADI etc are the big marketing tools. The Independant instructor can not put on adds on tv but PADI could and should. We need to let the big dogs promote scuba diving and we promote ourselves as service providers. Even a retail shop is in the service business. Part of the cost of equipment is the holding cost, overhead and SERVICE. These things cost money. But more importantly we should not look down or talk bad about anyone making a living on scuba as a business.

So the short answer is people see Scuba as expensive or a nitch where it is no different than golf. A beginners golf lesson is about $300-600 similar to OW cert initial equipment about $500-2000 dames as scuba unit. Ongoing training, just like additional specialities. Scuba pros of all types need to educate, inform and promote scuba as a whole... Share any scuba event, drag friends and family to trade shows, whatever it takes.