The Genius of Modern Marketing Wisdom

[Tom_Doak]

The new rules seem to be that:

1)  If you have multiple courses at a facility you need multiple signature architects to market them effectively [unless you're Lyle Anderson and you want SIX Jack Nicklaus courses at one site].

2)  If you're competing with other courses in the area you need a different architect for marketing purposes.

The upshot of these rules is that many of us in the business spend all our time flying from one part of the country [or world] to another, because once we've done a successful course in one area, everyone else needs to use a different architect.  Right now I'm having to choose between two different projects in the same locale, because they don't both want to market my name at the same time.

I just wonder if this is really the best thing for the industry.  It would have changed things a lot in the past ... "Sorry Mr. Ross, you've already done our No. 1 course, we think we should get somebody else for No. 2."

The only thing I'm sure of is that marketing is a relatively new expense that has driven up the cost of golf throughout America.

[Joel_Stewart]

You can add Herb Kohler and Pete Dye to your list of having the same architect in a location.   I have always wondered if having different architects would have benefited Kohler?

Marketing/Advertising is probably a very small percentage of a budget for a large development such as Pinehurst, Bandon Dunes, Pebble Beach, Kiawah etc. so I probably disagree that its driving up the cost of golf.  The economic impact to the surrounding areas, gas stations, hotels, and local businesses far exceeds the negative that results in slightly higher greens fees.

[Tom_Doak]

Joel:

Every candidate for the Best New Daily Fee Course has a marketing budget today -- $25,000 to $100,000 per year most likely.  Plus they're justifying the cost of "signature" architects as a marketing expense.

That just wasn't the case twenty years ago.  I'm one of the ones who will benefit from it, but in the larger scheme, it is one of the things which has changed about golf and has driven up the cost.

[Joel_Stewart]

What are you complaing about?  You want to cut off the hand that feeds you, you must be in self destruct mode!

Every golf course needs players unless you're going to build a course like Walter Annebergs place and their are not to many of those.  As a result, private clubs need members and public or resorts need daily fee players.  Its a competitive market out there for home sales, memberships or discretionary dollars for golf vacations.

[mikes1160]

Tom,  

For a high-end property purposefully seeking a name architect (such as yourself), I'm not sure why you are making marketing out to be the bad guy - if the original intent is there (i.e. "da plan"), then one certainly has to follow through (and sell) the vision (i.e. marketing)

If Proctor and Gamble or GM  stop spending a half billion dollars on advertising, that won't make toothpaste or cars any cheaper.

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Tillinghast was the rarest of exceptions in that he had several projects that were multi-course designs from the beginning. There are also a number of examples where they went to someone else for a second course despite how well received his first design was.

Sometimes this proved highly providential. An example is Aronimink. Tilly designed the new course that the club moved to in 1916. It was so popular that the RR opened a stop at the first tee for use by the members. Just 4 years later the membership decided to move the club once again and they hired Donald Ross to build the course that is universally viewed as unforgettable. Why go to Ross when you had Tillinghast? No answer is known. On other occasions it was Tilly who was given the design for the second course.

The first planned multi-course layout of more than two courses, was even rarer in that they were all buil and renovated at the same time, was the four course project of Tilly's at Bethpage State Park. As far as I know this is the only time 3 new courses and an existing one have been constructed/renovated all at once.

You make a valid point in that now there are a number of high-profile golf resort areas built and building, especially since the 80s that planned on multi-course layouts from the beginning. Just look at any large lake in Georgia and you will find this. For example, why all the different architects at Reynolds Plantation?

Are there any advantages to the consumers of the resorts built in doing it this way? I think so. For example, I am hoping to get up to Oregon late this year and play those three wonders of Mr. Keiser. What intrigues me most is that it will give me an opportunity to compare mindsets of several different architects and their approaches to a similar plot of land.

Of course each routing and course is unique to its own site, neighbors though they are, yet how often and where can the average golfer do this? What I wouldn't give to spend a week on Long Island and play Shinnecock, Maidstone, NGLA, Atlantic and even that new one being built right now, Seb-something or other.

No, the average player has very limited opportunities to play and compare courses done by the best designers of their day unless they do it at one location. Like it or not, most players are limited by finances and location.

Although I see the advantages for an architect such as yourself to be able to do a lot of work and less travel, I believe that in the long run the ones who play the courses will benefit from this arrangement more.



 

[RJ_Daley]

I'd have to say that Mike Keiser is a light year ahead of Herb Kohler in the marketing department.  Why would you only market one big name designer, when you could have 3, maybe 4.

While BWR and WS has two distinctive style courses (parkland VS paux links) with differing loops of 18 within each, it is still one name designer to market.  Isn't that like saying that we serve Vanilla, French Vanilla, and Vanilla Bean?

The real genius of modern marketing, IMHO, is the use of this board to generate "buzz".  You Mr. Doak, along with Mr Keiser have written an new chapter in that department.  To which I say, Bravo.  Where else can an archie make running commentary of the course constructions progress, and find willing enthusiasts to come out to the site, pre-opening, to bat a few balls around and come back to a public open forum to gush about how good it is going to be?  Marketing is in the sizzle of the pre-opening in my view.  Anticipation, and a certain reputation to garner the "insider" approval is a valid marketing ploy.  I think it is even more effective than the actual "signature player-designer".  

It is a two way street.  The conoscenti seem to sense when a project is going to be very good, they seek out info pre-opening, and they can't wait to tell all their similarly minded friends if they are given a taste.  So, if a great piece of property announces a project underway, the insiders all seek to get the early prestige of saying they know about it first and that perpetuates the buzz.  And, in that case it doesn't matter if the archie is not so well known as Fazio, Dye, Nicklaus.  It can then be a Hanse, Kidd, or pick your own example.  

I consider that, genius marketing, not player-signature expenses.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Tom,

How did Stonewall (private, but may still need to sell memberships) and St. Andrews Beach manage?  Did they/are they having trouble with this?  Do they market courses that are different in some manner?

I wonder if The Prairie Club has problems selling two Gil Hanse (& Co.) designs.

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule and most seem to work out as well:

-Forest Creek has two Fazios (supposedly are a little different in feel)
-Lost Canyons (2 Dyes - both different)
-American Club (4 Dyes - all distinct)
-World Woods (2 Fazio's but quite different)
-Talking Stick (2 C&C's and different)
-Troon North (2 W/M - don't know how different)
etc..

[JohnV]

I can see why a marketing person would not want the same architect to design their course who had designed the one around the corner.  Brand identification is a big thing.  Of course, if it is a big drawing name like Fazio or Nicklaus, they might not care.

I think it also matters what type of course they are building and where.  For a private course in a fast developing area, it probably wouldn't matter.  For a resort style course it might help to have two courses by Fazio or Nicklaus or even Doak in the same area as it might more attract people who like that architect's style.  For a private course in a less fast growing area or a daily-fee course, they will be more inclined to look for market differentian and might make that restriction.

As for having one architect do multiple courses, I can see both sides of the argument.  If you did one course with an architect and you were happy with the work and built an excellent working relationship with him, why not stick with him.  Or, if you wanted a similar flavor among your courses.   Also, it might be possible to work out a multi-course deal with an architect and keep costs down somewhat. But, if you wanted each course to really stand out from the other or didn't like the first architect, I think you'd want to change.

But, what do I know, I'm not a marketing person, I was only married to one for 12 years.

[RJ_Daley]

Also, it might be possible to work out a multi-course deal with an architect and keep costs down somewhat.

John, tell that to Kohler, who comments that he gave Pete an unlimitted budget, and he exceeded it!

[Tom_Doak]

Mike S:  I don't know you, and don't want to jump to the conclusion that you are in the marketing business, or not.  But don't you think the price of cars could be a little lower if GM stopped spending half a billion dollars per year on marketing?

Twenty-five years ago the golf business wasn't so competitive as it is today and this level of marketing wasn't considered necessary.  It HAS added to the cost.  The costs are generally less in other parts of the world because marketing is not such a big deal there.

Scott B:  When Stonewall actually decided to do their second course, which wasn't planned from the outset, they were in a position where they thought marketing didn't matter that much.  They aren't selling housing, just memberships, and assumed that most people would want to join because of the quality of the first course rather than the assumed quality of the second.  I assured them we could design something that provided variety from the first course, and they were happy with that.  Besides they can always market the first course as Gil's [or even Tom Fazio's!] and the second as Don Placek's, since I wasn't there much.  

At St. Andrews Beach, they prefer to compare themselves to the two courses at Royal Melbourne [both designed by one architect], than to the two new ones at The National [which were designed by two "names" on the American plan].

[JohnV]

Dick, I didn't say that would apply to all cases.

Pete Dye and George Allen had a lot in common in that way.  For those who don't remember, when Allen was hired as the coach of the Washington Redskins, Edward Bennett Williams, the owner said he gave him an unlimited budget and he exceeded it.

[mikes1160]

Tom,

Guilty as charged. Any marketing budget is based on an anticipated return. I doubt there is a business model that exists today would show that cutting/reducing a marketing/advertising budget would then result in a lower price of product (which you would want to promote anyway, right?) So if GM were to slash their budget by, let's say 50%, they would only do this in anticipation that the over/under would still be in their favor (i.e. the revenues saved by spending less on marketing/advertising would more than offset the lost sales due to a lack of advertising)

IMHO, I get the feeling you're talking about something other than marketing - more like a philosophy.

 

[Paul_Turner]

In Britain, in the 1920s and 1930s, the new multi course developments nearly always went with a single man or company:

Wentworth, Berkshire, Walton Heath, Moor Park

[RJ_Daley]

Isn't there another difference between marketing a comodity like cars or cereal, as opposed to golf either public or private venues?  

You spend billions on marketing comodities because you have a far higher and flexible high end of how many you can market to and how many widgets you can produce.  In golf private, you have a finite number of memberships.  In public, you only have so many tee times you can sell.  So the flexibility becomes what scale of increased $$$ you can charge for your memberships or green fees.  The other factor, is you only have so many home lots associated with your designer named course to sell.  

I believe that the Internet is the single most important tool for modern marketing.  As I have stated above, the best marketeers have used it to generate 'buzz' building anticipation and selling the finite tee times, memberships, or lots.  

Look at some of the best and most successful golf projects i the last 10 years.  How many of them had robust Internet sites before and during construction.  I look back at Kingsley Club as being one of the earlier, clever home page sites.  Further back, I look at a spontaneous but early example of Internet hype in Tobacco Road.  Then, Keiser and Doak came along and knocked it out of the ball park with Bandon-Pac Dunes.  

How much does it cost to have a really great, updated often pre-development, during construction site?  Then all you have to do is get the simple tag line <www.lookitup.com>-- in the public marketplace of discussion, and then have a place to buzz it (like here) and you got much of your marketing done!

[A_Clay_Man]

The irony of all this marketing cost, is that "word of mouth" has finally out-paced most of the traditional forms, that all this money is being spent on.

As far as having the same architect in close proximity, I'm all for it, and those two potential clients are morons.  

Seeing how differently the same individual handles the differences in the site and it's ultimate golf course would be almost a gauranteed tee time.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Personally, I would have rather seen someone other then Dye give the Irish Course a go. Part of the benefit of having some fresh is that they would have had to really out do themselves to compete with the sister course on the property.

With regards to marketing costs, assuming you spent 50K, which would probably be high, how much cost is being added to the round? My experience with seeing golf courses books is that 7% of overall costs is the highest marketing budget I have seen. As long as maintenance is half of the expense line, conditioning has been a far greater beast in driving up costs.

I do not think that $50K spent on marketing, which is designed to draw in more revenue has driven up the cost of golf?

[tonyt]

Tom D could expand on this more, but he mentions somewhere on the St Andrews Beach website the strength in retaining the one team for 36 holes. Apart from relationship and comfort with the client, there are a few advantages. Firstly, no archie is trying to do something with an 18 that might nobble the other 18 for space around the clubhouse, nor gain any other "advantage" of the like. No archie is trying to set one 18 apart from the other in a way that risks the whole complex not looking seamless. A point of difference is one thing, but a glaring misfit between courses is another. The great benefit is that the designer has the best interests of both courses at heart, regardless of which one they are working on at the time.

That said, if I had loads of space on a dream site for three stunning courses and no end to my wallet, having a Doak, a C&C, and then either a Hanse/Shackleford, a DeVries or the like doesn't sound bad. But if the money had to be justified and the complex sustainable, finding one of the above to do the whole job is more likely to be the correct result, regardless of the fact that Mr Keiser has done brilliantly otherwise. And I wouldn't care what else they have done in nearby zip codes.

So I see the problem as thus; Is the marketing too short sighted revolving around the facility's opening and its up front revenue, more so than its long term future? If the marketing arm is asked to find members or investors, then their focus is not going to be aimed at annual revenues in a decade's time. But the owner should not be separating their focus as such, and do so at their peril. If a facility is twenty years old, how well the entire venue provides for the client will determine its success, as the courses are long in play and have whatever good reputation they may hopefully have earnt. Whereas prior to their opening, they have no reputation and so their potential (in terms of kudos for designer's name and any other typically grand mission statement) is all the puff the marketers are given to go on.

The Royal Melbourne example is fitting for the above. A pair of "MacKenzie Co" courses, even though a previously little known and untried Mr Russell was the "associate" who did East. And yet seventy years later, RM can attract its aura without even a mention of the good Dr's name if they desire.

The result justifies more than the initial choice for promo can possibly ever achieve.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
The model isn't that different than the one auto dealers have pursued over the past 30 years. Go to most any city( at least on the east coast) today and you'll see all the dealers in close proximity to one another (read golf destination) with multiple brands at one location (read multiple architects).
This just wasn't the case 30 years ago, they were spread out and usually stuck to one, maybe two brands at most.
Having a broader range of offerings in a centralized location  facilitates sales, there is usually a product for every taste.

The problem with this approach, and I think this happens in golf too, is that mid level product pricing increases beyond its worth because of its proximate positioning to the high end product.
 

[Brian_Sleeman]

In response to one of the points made by Mr. Doak regarding how marketing budgets can impact the cost of golf, it's interesting to consider how the price of golf itself can be considered a marketing ploy.  For example, green fees of $300 automatically give the course a different image in a prospective customer's mind than do green fees of $50.

Think of occasions when you've heard people say, "It only costs $50 to play, it must not be worth the trip."  Or, "I hear Whistling Straits costs $300, it must be nice!"

[tonyt]

Think of occasions when you've heard people say, "It only costs $50 to play, it must not be worth the trip."  Or, "I hear Whistling Straits costs $300, it must be nice!"

Working in the wine industry, there is similar logic to this that is very prevalent. Charging $40 per bottle makes the wine better than if it were $25 per bottle. But whilst these comments are indeed common, the difference between asserting them and then reaching for the wallet and walking the walk comes into play. Those who believe that Whistling Straits' quality lies in its green fee rather than Mr Dye's work won't normally become paying customers. And even if the high green fee gets somebody there, the course is what will bring them back or turn them away in the future. Fewer businesses are successfully modeled on high pricing to attract attention and just getting loads of one-off users. Particularly those not in a vacation or destination market.

[Doug Siebert]

Tom,

Guilty as charged. Any marketing budget is based on an anticipated return. I doubt there is a business model that exists today would show that cutting/reducing a marketing/advertising budget would then result in a lower price of product (which you would want to promote anyway, right?) So if GM were to slash their budget by, let's say 50%, they would only do this in anticipation that the over/under would still be in their favor (i.e. the revenues saved by spending less on marketing/advertising would more than offset the lost sales due to a lack of advertising)

IMHO, I get the feeling you're talking about something other than marketing - more like a philosophy.

 

Mike,

I don't think that's strictly true.  I'm reminded of a quote I've seen attributed to several heads of companies so I'm not sure who really said it, but its apropos regardless: "I know half the money I spend on advertising is wasted, but I don't know which half!"

Some products can be overmarketed, or become commoditized, and you may need to cut your marketing budget to compete more on the basis of price instead of marketing.  Not every product can have the markup you get from having a name like Tiffany's on it, there have to be some Acmes as well.

If GM decided they were spending a X amount more than they should on marketing, a cut could allow them to lower prices if they wanted to stimulate demand, or to make more profit if they didn't think the increased volume they did with lower prices would be worth it.  Its similar to the idea of what happens to pricing when costs increase.  Sometimes a company can't pass on any increased costs, and sometimes they can pass it all on, but generally its somewhere in the middle.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

You mentioned Lyle Anderson. As you may know, he is the master developer for Festival Ranch, a new massive project in the West Valley of the Phoenix area. Is Nicklaus Design locked in on his new courses there? I know Schmidt-Curley is doing the first course at the Del Webb Sun City Festival. I know you want to do another course in this area.

Steve

From www.andersonco.com

Festival, located in the Town of Buckeye, Arizona, at the northwest end of the White Tank Mountains, is destined as a mixed-use community on more than 10,000 acres.

The Lyle Anderson Company is positioned as the owner/master planner for the property. In that role, with the goal of creating an exemplary community, the company is directing the major planning concepts for the property, core infrastructure, community themes and other essential functions.

One of the country’s largest homebuilding companies, Pulte Homes, is planning a new Del Webb community on over 3,000 acres to be known as Sun City Festival. Plans for this phase, scheduled to start construction in 2005, include traditional housing, age-restricted housing, commercial development, parks, recreation and golf.

[Brian_Sleeman]

Those who believe that Whistling Straits' quality lies in its green fee rather than Mr Dye's work won't normally become paying customers. And even if the high green fee gets somebody there, the course is what will bring them back or turn them away in the future.

Exactly, and so much of the limited exposure I've had thus far to new golf course marketing has to do with getting people there the first time.  It obviously is a strategy that literally pays off only when the product is worthy of such a price.

Specifically in the golf world, though, those courses considered to be the absolute premium by the general golfing public all seem to inhabit a similar price range.  It's almost like a club in itself.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The new rules seem to be that:

1)  If you have multiple courses at a facility you need multiple signature architects to market them effectively [unless you're Lyle Anderson and you want SIX Jack Nicklaus courses at one site].

If you were working for the same owner his question would have to be, "can you design a distinctly different golf course, that's a good golf course, that will stand out from the others ? "

Variety is the spice of life.

What's the attraction if all of the courses have a sameness, or similarity in style running through their archtiecture ?

I have a great deal of respect for a variety of architects, but, I don't think I'd want to visit a facility where the golf courses have a repetitive theme, no matter how subtle.  
I don't care if it's you, Dye, Coore & Crenshaw or anybody else, I think diversity is a sound architectural and financial policy when an individual is risking his net worth and trying to create a permanent lure for golfers.

If the site for each course was substantively different, I might consider one architect, but, I like the safety in numbers theory.[/color]

2)  If you're competing with other courses in the area you need a different architect for marketing purposes.
I see that as a double edged sword.

Do you want to design a golf course that will compete with another one of your golf courses ?  In the immediate area ?
With different owners, do you think you could please both, or, would the one with the "perceived" inferior course, have a strained relationship with you ?

Didn't Jack Nickaus undertake the Ritz Carlton project, a project with property contiguous with the property at The Bear's Club ?

Didn't that cause a great deal of resentment by the members of The Bear's Club who plunked down considerable sums in initiation fees and dues, only to have a competing course built by Nicklaus at their side door ?

Didn't a number of members leave The Bear's Club in favor of The Ritz Carlton ?[/color]

The upshot of these rules is that many of us in the business spend all our time flying from one part of the country [or world] to another, because once we've done a successful course in one area, everyone else needs to use a different architect.  Right now I'm having to choose between two different projects in the same locale, because they don't both want to market my name at the same time.

Despite your talents, Dye's talents and Coore & Crenshaw's talents, I think variety is a prudent approach.
And, there should be enough business for everybody.[/color]

I just wonder if this is really the best thing for the industry.  It would have changed things a lot in the past ... "Sorry Mr. Ross, you've already done our No. 1 course, we think we should get somebody else for No. 2."

Today, you're catering to a different customer.

There weren't any residential golf communities in Ross's time.

Golfers couldn't fly across the country in the morning, play a golf course and fly home that night, or the next day, and, in order to lure a golfer to a golf course, offering variety makes sense.[/color]

The only thing I'm sure of is that marketing is a relatively new expense that has driven up the cost of golf throughout America.

But, if the end user can afford the incremental cost, and the marketing makes the club successful, everybody benefits.

Remember, those who invest the capital, putting their net worth at risk, are entitled to recapture their investment, the sooner the better.  And, if they feel that marketing will be the catalyst to hasten the process, then so be it.[/color]