Just to play devils advocate - Course Raters!

[Kalen Braley]

I've been following the thread about the horror story of the panelist who showed more than despicible behavoir when it came to rating courses and his set of expectations in terms of freebies....

Just to play devils advocate...

(Before I go any further I want to qualify where I'm coming from.  I'm in no way, shape, or form affiliated with any type of rating group or otherwise.  Lord knows with the way I've been playing lately, I would never be confused as one.)

I don't understand what the massive ado is with raters being comp'd to play a round at private courses.  After giving this some thought, I think there are only 2 camps that the course ownership/management can be in. (I'm sure some of you will add some more though)

1) They don't give a crap about the ratings - If this is really the case as I've heard on here on occasion, then this is really a no-brainer.  Tell the raters to piss-off when they call for access and deny them.  Plain and simple, no problem.

2) They do give a crap about the ratings - If this is the case and they really feel that there is some value add to the course being rated and hopefully highly so, then why can't this value be assigned to comp'ing a few rounds every now and then to the very people who have the input on this? The value being more publicity, more play, and hopefully in the end, more cash inflow to the club in the form of memberships or otherwise. Can't the argument also be made that in the case where they have to travel, they are already doing so at thier own expense as well.


Yes, there are likely a handful of top of the rung clubs where its purely about ego, and not about the money anymore, but I'd like to think this is the vast exception to the rule. But even then, if they have money to burn, once again I see no harm in allowing the raters to play at not charge.

Most clubs though would likely welcome, and in some cases need, the extra windfall that they could gain by being placed on <insert name of the list> in one of the more popular golf magazines.


Hence:

Why is comp'ing a raters round such a big deal if they could ultimately do the club a potential monetarily favor down the road??

P.S.  I must add, this obviously does not give raters the right to demand such, as always they should be at least as gracious as the Huckster when invited to play  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've been following the thread about the horror story of the panelist who showed more than despicible behavoir when it came to rating courses and his set of expectations in terms of freebies....

Just to play devils advocate...

I don't understand what the massive ado is with raters being comp'd to play a round at private courses.  After giving this some thought, I think there are only 2 camps that the course ownership/management can be in. (I'm sure some of you will add some more though)

1) They don't give a crap about the ratings - If this is really the case as I've heard on here on occasion, then this is really a no-brainer.  Tell the raters to piss-off when they call for access and deny them.  Plain and simple, no problem.

How would you establish their motives when they call ?[/color]

2) They do give a crap about the ratings - If this is the case and they really feel that there is some value add to the course being rated and hopefully highly so, then why can't this value be assigned to comp'ing a few rounds every now and then to the very people who have the input on this? The value being more publicity, more play, and hopefully in the end, more cash inflow to the club in the form of memberships or otherwise. Can't the argument also be made that in the case where they have to travel, they are already doing so at thier own expense as well.



How do you distinquish between group # 1 and group # 2 ?[/color]

Yes, there are likely a handful of top of the rung clubs where its purely about ego, and not about the money anymore, but I'd like to think this is the vast exception to the rule. But even then, if they have money to burn, once again I see no harm in allowing the raters to play at not charge.

The answer depends on the club's perspective/policy.
Some clubs encourage raters, others are neutral, others won't entertain raters not accompanied by a member.[/color]

Most clubs though would likely welcome, and in some cases need, the extra windfall that they could gain by being placed on <insert name of the list> in one of the more popular golf magazines.

Let's take a club in South Florida, in January, February or March.  Their peek season.  Let's take Saturday and/or Sunday.

Do you really think the membership would welcome unaccompanied raters ?

Most clubs limit accompanied guests of members to certain days and hours of play, especially on weekends.  In most cases unaccompanied guests, even those sponsored by members, aren't permited to play on weekends, so permitting unaccompanied guests who have NO connection to the club isn't a high priority with most clubs.[/color]

Hence:

Why is comp'ing a raters round such a big deal if they could ultimately do the club a potential monetarily favor down the road ??

There's no evidence to support your premise, which is flawed.

What monetary favor is bestowed upon the club ?
What's the time line on the residual benefit you allude to ?[/color]

I tried to get a club in Florida to permit raters to play at off-prime hours.  The club approved my suggestion, but, limited the number of raters and the times they could play.  
You'd be amazed at how many Northerners tried to play during the peak season, and how many wanted the club to accomodate THEIR schedule rather than being appreciative of the club's extension of playing privileges.

It's a difficult situation.
On one hand some clubs want to accomodate raters, but, not at the expense of interfering with member play.
And, as always, one bad apple ruins it for others.
That's at the core of the issue.

Try being a green chairman and getting 20 requests a day over Thanksgiving, Xmas-New Year's, President's weekend, Spring Break or Easter, while at the same time trying to balance the demands of the dues paying membership and their guests.[/color][/b]


I'd make the following suggestion to the magazines doing the ratings/rankings.

In addition to having the raters rate the golf course, I'd have the golf club RATE the RATER.

In other words, the rater would have to present a check list for the club/pro/manager to complete and forward to the magazine.  This check list would encompass behavior and demeanor as demonstrated by the rater.

If the magazine received two or three negative reviews, they should bounce the rater.

That would insure that everyone conducted themselves properly.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Kalen,
   As a Golfweek rater, we are told not to EXPECT to be comp'd wheb we request access to a golf course. Brad klein can comment to confirm, but this is done to avoid some of the issues mentioned above. I usually only try to gain access to private courses because I dont want to take up a tee time and possibley a greens fee. I know that a private course will be open regardless and I always ask to play at a time that causes the LEAST problems with membership and staff. I am fortunate enough to be in the golf buisness and manage a reat golf course, and I always try to include my professional references inb my request, including emailing the golf course superintendent as he/she may help me gain access. I try to make sure that I meet a member of the maintenance staff during my time. I think that if a golf course doesnt have issues with raters, they sems generally open to granting access. In fact, many times I arrive to a golf course, the head professional and/or assistant pro introduce me to MANY of the members on the range an why Im exactly there. Ive been treated with nothing but open arms when rating clubs, regardless if the course is one that wants or needs raters; cares or does'nt care about rankings.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

Understood, its hard to know for sure, but if they are a rater and state thier intentions, that really has to be good enough for all practical purposes.

As for your 2nd question, the viewpoint is from the perspective of the mgmt, so not sure what you mean by that question.

As for when the raters get to play, that should always be up to the clubs discretion.  If there is a busy time of year, is it not difficult to say its not a good time and suggest another time??  Raters after awhile would learn which time of the year is busiest for a particular club and know when to call to improve thier chances.

As for your question regarding marketing.  How does anyone determine these things from a marketing perspective?  You advertise a new shoe by Nike and put a whole bunch of commercials on the air and hope for a surge in sales.

Same is true for a golf course except thier cycle may be longer as they have to wait for the next ratings cycle to come out.  If more requests come in for potential memberships after the ratings comes out, then that is the benefit.

And by all means, if clubs identify rogue raters, by all means they can choose to deny them access.  A name is usually given when the reservation is made correct?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

It's not the club's responsibility to determine the merits of the rater, and, it's beyond their abilities to pre-screen the rater.

That's why I like the idea of the club assessing the rater and reporting the rater's conduct back to the magazine such that the magazine can cull the ranks of those raters who don't meet performance standards.

Having a corps of efficient, dedicated, gentlemenly raters is in everyone's best interest.

But don't think that the sole objective of raters is to reduce the golf course to a numeric equivalent.

[Mike_Young]

Who gains the most from this entire process..the courses or the raters?
100 courses on most list out of 17000...how can this be feasible?
At least this year with only 125 courses opening...it should be easy to get on someones "Best New List" for something.....
While playing devils advocate let me ask this one question.....A rater is in a town with a new public course that needs a review and a "big time" private that has had millions of dollars on pr and advertising spent. He has time to play one course?  The public course has made sure he has a tee time at a good time of day and the private has said we will have to call at the last minute to try and work you in.  They call.  Which one does he play?  I have seen the answer.

[Jesse Jones]

Patrick,

That's a good system, rate the raters.
You also made a point about raters asking to play during peak times in the peak season.
Here's the problem..
I tried to do the right thing and get to the AZ privates during the summer, even though I do spend alot of time there in the winter.
I was told by several Pro's and DG's, "I'd love to have you come by in the winter, but right now our course just isn't ready to be rated."

[Andy Troeger]

Pat,
Jesse makes a good point. Many courses want raters to come during their prime season because that is when the course is at its best.

I try to begin any request by asking the course for its policies regarding panelist play. That way they can tell me when is good for them before I say anything about when I am available. Sometimes it doesn't work out. I've actually never had a place tell me they do not accept panelist play at all, but we tend to know that ahead of time and can avoid writing to those places.

Just about anyone I have dealt with has been very pleasant and helpful. I would support your idea of allowing them to "rate the rater" and I think (or certainly hope) the magazines would welcome the feedback.

Mike,
Ironically I've found that the top tier places are often more accomodating to panelists than the courses that are considered for the lists but are unlikely to actually make one. For them its really an inconvenience since they get no benefit really.

[Joel_Stewart]

It's not the club's responsibility to determine the merits of the rater, and, it's beyond their abilities to pre-screen the rater.

Not true.  

Ask the panelist to fax their panelist ID and handicap card.   If they are over a 15 they should tell them the course in unavailable.

Two they can demand that they walk (hopefully with a caddy)which will eliminate 75% of the panelists.

Three:  Try and determine their age.  I will make a very broad statement in that the majority of older panelists do not like classic courses.  Again this statement is not true for all panelists but has been my experience over the last 10 years.

So as a result, if you are a new Tom Fazio, Jim Engh course you want the older players with higher handicaps and if you a new C&C or Doak course you want the younger better players.

I'm sure there will some reaction to my statement but I will provide specific courses as proof should anybody care.  

[Jesse Jones]

Joel,

On the other hand I've been required to use a cart and a forecaddy on some courses.
No walking allowed.

[Rich Goodale]

Let's take a club in South Florida, in January, February or March.  Their peek season.  Let's take Saturday and/or Sunday.

Do you really think the membership would welcome unaccompanied raters ?

[/b][/color]

Of course they would, Pat.  That's what the "Peek Season" is all about, isn't it?

rich

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
Ironically I've found that the top tier places are often more accomodating to panelists than the courses that are considered for the lists but are unlikely to actually make one. For them its really an inconvenience since they get no benefit really.

Andy,
I thinkyour statement says all it needs to say.....sounds like panelist have a predetermined"top tier"......
Mike

[Andy Troeger]

Mike,
I do find it unfortunate and I suppose even ironic that some panelists look at the very lists they are creating to determine where to play.

At the same time part of my point is that some courses that do not make the lists do not care to have panelist evaluations any more than the top level courses. I called one public course this spring to try to get a tee time (being perfectly willing to pay for it) and was told to come out without a tee time. The tee sheet filled up so I found a different course and paid to play there instead.

I was treated very well by the first course in the same manner as any other single trying to work their way on. I had no issue with that. I'd still like to play there, so I'll just make sure next time to drag someone along so that I can make a tee time!