Posted by Ken Kurtis on October 30, 2000 at 13:02:11:
(I've taken the liberty of starting as a new thread my answer to Frank's question which was under the "RE: Ken Do You Know What You're Talking About" thread.)
-------------------------------------
Frank asks valid question which I think deserves a (hopefully) thoughtful reply.
(From Frank) Ken, I guess what I don't understand is how not supporting EANx is a good business decision. . . . If your decision is based on a determination that the added cost . . . would be more than the potential income from pumping it, that I can understand.
That's actually a lot of it. Especially out here in L.A., most of the store owners that I talk to who are pumping nitrox freely admit that it's not a profit center and some may be even losing a bit on it. No one seems to be making a ton of money on it as far as I know.
A few years ago, when the nitrox thing was new, it was pitched to scuba stores as a great way to make extra money - a new profit center. It just doesn't seem to be the case, at least here in L.A.
In fact, you can look at two businesses who made a big effort in the nitrox area as examples.
J.A.W.S. opened in Santa Monica as a nitrox-tech-oriented store. And despite poersonal conflicts people might have had with the owner, the bottom line was that there didn't seem to be the volume of this type of business necessary to support the business. They closed their doors about a year ago.
You can also look at Sport Chalet. Perhaps five years ago, when Gordy Boivin was still heading up the scuba wing, Sport Chalet made a very aggressive push into nitrox. At the time, their goal was that every S.C. would be an active nitrox center. It simply didn't pan out for them from a business standpoint. I'm not sure if they still pump nitrox, but it's either done sparingly or not at all. And they're not exactly dummies when it comes to running a business so you'd have to think that if a 21-store chain can't make a go of it, there may be some flaw in the initial business assumptions about the financial vialibilty of nitrox.
(Frank adds) Do you anticipate a point in the future when Reef Seekers will provide Nitrox?
I honestly don't (although Michael Kane is convinced I'll be eating these words).
This is not a decision we arrived at willy-nilly. My business partner Bill Wright and I have discussed this at length, read up on it, talked to other stores, and feel we've really looked at both sides of the issue.
Our business plan defines Reef Seekers as a shop that is strictly recreational diving by nature and definition. That means we advocate diving 130' or less, within no-decompression limits, and breathing only air. We don't do deep dives, let alone deep air dives (so no Matterhorn for us). We don't advocate deco diving (so leave the doubles and the hnag bottles home). We are content to dive within the limitations air imposes in terms of bottom time, and feel the relative risks can be manged through monitoring of bottom time, depth, and doing safety stops.
Now regardless of whether or not someone thinks these are good decisions, that's how we've molded oursevles, and those are the parameters within which we choose to market oursevles.
We feel that you CAN dive safely on air. We feel there are some inherent risks with nitrox, like oxtox, that tend to get the short shrift in discussions. (Interestingly enough, we're willing stand by our convictions and only deal with air. We've also suggested to other stores that if they fell that nitrox is such a superior gas to air and that air may even be "dangerous" that they follow our lead and avoid selling air in the same way we avoid nitrox. No one has taken us up on that yet.)
We also truly feel that, as an industry, there's been a lot of fear-mongering and dishonesty in selling nitrox. And we're just not comfortable with that. In some ways, we view this as both an ethical (don't want to take your money for something we don't think you really need) as well as a business decision.
But at no time do we advocate a ban on nitrox. We just say it's not for us, doesn't fit in with our philosophy of what diving should be, has some unresolved issues (mainly legal) that could impact us, and we're choosing to stay away from it.
Hope that clears our thinking up a bit. What makes me really sad when we have these discussions is the inability of some of the proponents to see that there really can be two sides to this issue. We don't think those who strongly believe in nitrox are idiots and we're amazed when our positions are met with "How can you believe . . ." or "Surely you must admit . . ."
As I said previously, this isn't about right and wrong. It's about finding a comfort level that works for you either as a individual (in Frank's case) or as a business (in our case). We fully understand that those who advocate the use of nitrox feel as strongly about their decision as we do about ours. We just wish sometimes we'd get a little credit for having thought this stuff through. Sometimes, we're not as ignornat or stupid as some would have you believe.
Ken Kurtis
NAUI Instr. #5936
Co-owner, Reef Seekers Dive Co.
Beverly Hills, Ca.