News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« on: June 30, 2008, 09:55:18 PM »
 Here's the situation:

I'm doing some consulting for a renovation at a course tomorrow at least an hour away from a big market (more than 500 000 pop). The area population is about 35 000 people within 20 minutes in a slow economic area with already a course in town.

The course is already good in general. Improved bunkering, grass lines and landscape supervision can make the place really shine...

Let's say they put 80 000$ a year on a 5 year plan: it basically mean that the course will have to attract 2000 more rounds a year... solely because of architecture.

I know the built it and they'll come, but the last thing you want to do is to built it.... then flip the bill to the members...

Can improvment on the course bring 2000 rounds from off the area???



John Moore II

Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2008, 10:33:45 PM »
I don't know the market (most likely) but its certainly possible to bring in the new rounds, assuming they don't jack up the course fees in response to the upgrades. Or they might not make it up. Depends on the individual market.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2008, 10:51:13 PM »
Philippe,

I'd agree with JKM, which is rare, but, there are other variables.

While you've described the immediate market, what's the regional market look like.

A quality product should attract play especially if that product is heads and shoulders above the local and REGIONAL market.

Would I drive 60 miles to play Wild Horse ?  Yes
Would I drive 30 miles to play it more often ?  Yes
Would I drive 15 miles to play it all the time ?  Yes.

If you can create a club with the differential that exists at Wild Horse, you should be successful.

Then again, communicating that differential may be the key.

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2008, 11:00:47 PM »
I know that the 2% who cares about architecture will, what about the other 98%

I believe better conditioning will attract the 98% before beter architecture

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2008, 10:11:13 AM »
Perhaps when word gets out that there's been an update/upgrade to the course, folks will come in to see the changes. If the changes are perceived positively that will keep some of those folks coming back, but your point, Philippe, is a good one - would architectural changes keep more of those customers than conditioning changes? And what architectural changes would have the most impact on the customers who come in for look?
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2008, 10:44:26 AM »
I know that the 2% who cares about architecture will, what about the other 98%

I believe better conditioning will attract the 98% before beter architecture

I hate to say it but Philippe is right.  Strategy/architecture are lost on the vast majority of golfers.  The majority care about lush, green conditioning, fast greens, the beverage cart and price.

The key is building something interesting or unique enough to help differentiate yourself from the market.  I do believe a very small number of courses are able to pull this off but it is very rare :(

Matt Varney

Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2008, 10:54:27 AM »
I am a big fan of golf course design making an impact on the renovation of an existing course.  When it comese to attracting more players who will pay conditioning rules supreme hands down over design features.  I am just the kind of guy to stand on a tee box and see all the bad things in a hole design and just overlook conditioning for the design contour features. 

When I get together with groups of friends to play this is what they say "let's go play Pine Lakes it is only $29 to ride 18 and they course is always in good condition with nice greens."

I use Pine Lakes as the model all the time when thinking about new golf courses.  I live in Knoxville and Pine Lakes has been around for as long as I can remember.  They provide a good golf experience for the masses at a cost of $29 to ride 18 on the weekends.  Its not the best course in town but, it has some good golf holes and the owner keeps the course in good shape with nice tees, fairways and greens.  The greens fees with cart rental has gone up maybe $5 in the last 15 years.  In college at UT it cost about $22 ride 18 on the weekends.  The course just recently got a brand new fleet of the EZ-GO golf carts so you have good conditioning, a course that is fair for all to play and you ride in brand new golf carts.  The clubhouse is tiny they don't serve beer only fountain drinks and they have one of the best chili dogs on the planet.

Short answer to your question >> Better Conditioning = More Revenues.

     

Bruce Katona

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2008, 01:35:27 PM »
Philippe: It depends upon what those 2,000 rounds represent in terms of percentage of addional play.....if the couse is doing 20,000 rounds, that's 10% increase, which may be sustainable for the 1st year as the local and regional market may want to come a take a look at the improvements....retaining 100% of those customers to have play now be steady at 22,000 rounds would be tougher.

On the other hand, if they place is doing 35,000 rounds, that increase is only less than 6% growth, and that could be sustained over time with a good product, fair pricing and a good overall customer experience.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2008, 03:17:51 PM »
Phillippe,

In my 18 years in the resort and daily fee end I never heard a golfer comment on anything else but good conditions. Which is not to say that the public golfer does not appreciate architecture - I just never heard much comment on that.

There are too many waste areas and water features on some couses. There's not much fun in loosing your ball in tallgrass or a pond.

So if it were me I would spend the money on fixing issues that make it difficult to provide good conditions. I suppose we'll never be able to reduce wetland areas or ponds, but maybe you could redirect a hole to play through those features on less difficult angles.

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2008, 01:13:49 PM »
Kelly, I love those fundamental steps.  They sound like a real formula for increased business.

I subscribe to many of the e-mail newsletter programs that public courses around the Philly area have to offer.  And for me the best run one is by the people at Iron Valley.  They don't overwhelm you with sendings, which is nice, and what is best is they come written by the director of golf.  He gives you very honest updates on the course conditions (like what the status of aeration is, tree removal, etc) and upcoming discounted events.

If you are a course owner and want to see what I think is a top-notch run e-mail newsletter program out there, subscribe to the one at Iron Valley and check out the messages you get over a few months time.
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Jed Peters

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2008, 01:29:00 PM »
I can totally relate to Joe Bausch's commentary.

There is one course in the East Bay Area, CA that BOMBARDS me with emails--I've asked to be removed 5+ times now....

And frankly, as good as the course may or may not be, that turns me off!

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2008, 01:50:20 PM »


When I get together with groups of friends to play this is what they say "let's go play Pine Lakes it is  The clubhouse is tiny they don't serve beer only fountain drinks and they have one of the best chili dogs on the planet.

Short answer to your question >> Better Conditioning = More Revenues.

     

Cheaper answer to question...
Improve your chili dogs ;)
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2008, 05:02:05 PM »
A coupon for free gas would probably work best  ;D followed by better conditioning of the course.  Scott Witter and I did a master plan for a public access course outside Albany (40 minutes outside Albany).  Higher gas prices are curbing the number of rounds despite improvements to the architecture (only a small portion of the plan has been implemented so far) and better conditioning. 
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 07:43:43 AM by Mark_Fine »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2008, 10:29:54 PM »
Phillipe, Chris & Bradley,

If that were true, then conditioning would essentially be the only factor in determining where to play.

But, I don't think that's true.

I think golfers have an inherent, subconscious understanding of architecture as it relates to their desire to play a golf course, whereas conditioning is a conscious understanding.

Can anyone name a terrible golf course that's very well conditioned that is flocked to by golfers of all levels ?

Golfers have flocked to play Pebble Beach when it's in terrible condition, or, the return to Pebble Beach, having previously played it in terrible conditions.

Golfers talk about conditioning because they see and understand it.

I'm not so sure that they see and understand the architecture, the relationship of the features, their interrelationship and the play of the hole.

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2008, 06:55:30 AM »
To Patrick

Pebble Beach views and dramatics help on that... I don't think that the averae guy would comeback to Garden City if he had played it in therrible shape.

We'll see how the project goes in the future

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2008, 08:17:57 AM »
Phillipe,

In my work, I have a few courses well further than the mainstream courses of urban areas where design/re-design seems to be a part of strong play.  Among new courses, my MN stuff has done very well - a few years ago resort play in MN was down 6% overall but theirs was up 15%.

Near Houston, my Wilderness course has gotten 45K rounds of play despite being 60 miles south of town.  And the local country club, which always struggled and lost all its outing business closed a year after opening....

And in DFW, my remodel of Indian Creek increased rounds by about 10K and the course(s) (it is 36 holes) went from $800K in losses to $300K in profits.  Initially, higher play can be attributed to advertising/marketing and the new look of the course.  As time goes on, I presume a lot of credit for continued strong play has to go to improved maintenance and service from a new management company, esp, since as time goes on, results are continuing to improve.

Now, its not all design.  I think the best way to describe some of my mid level courses' popularity is "value."  One gent stopped me in Minnesota to complement me on my courses there.  While I was taking in all his rave reviews, afterwards it dawned on me what he was saying.  He was a banker who entertained clients and at one point he says that his customers liked my courses as well or better than anything over in Brainerd (a big golf resort area) and he got to "golf 'em, feed 'em and sleep 'em" for the same price as golf only over in the more established area.  A big win- win for him!

In simpler terms, another course manager put it like this - if you can offer the perception of a $100 course for $80, or a $50 for $40, you'll get a lot of play.  Offering a course percieved as a $40 for $40 is okay, and offering a $40 green fee for a course percieved as a $20 course is death in business terms.

So, some mix of design, maintenance and service provides that option.  For managers it means cutting out any service or nicety that golfers really don't appreciate.  For supers it means letting the edges of the course go, but keeping greens, tees and then fw in great to good condition.

In design terms, a renovation probably means a whole new look....at least in America, products are advertised "new and improved".  That puts a lot of pressure on doing changes that are visually based, rather than infrastructure that might help the super, even though new irrigation or drainage might improve maintenance more and usually makes more sense. 

It also raises the question of how you design - you might love blind shots, but if the local clientele is not in favor, do you include them to "educate" them?  Do you restore a course to its original (and possibly dull, in the players eyes) design, or give it a fresh look that will drive the curiosity business?  Do you put in features your client can use to get customers like waterfalls, landscaping, etc?  In golf, like most businesses, there is a fine line between offering the perfect mix and one that is way off target.

I presume that varies a bit from market to market, and its worth looking at the big picture before starting design.  I visit competitive courses before starting a design or redesign to "benchmark" what I have to do to make my owner's course competitive.  If my site is bland compared to those of competitive courses, I might focus design on unusual holes, because there is little sense in having the second most aesthetic course with traditional play values in an area.  Better to have something different, IMHO.  If most courses are new, I might focus on more traditional design so the course stands out as being "the best of its type" in a region.  I used that approach at the recently discussed Sand Creek Station, and thats why I came up with those adaptations of the Alps, Redan, etc. holes - the other courses in the Wichita area were nothing like that and I thought it would do well.

I offer these examples because I sense your course is "mid level" like these examples.  There is no sense in offering up Pebble Beach, Sand Hills, or one of golf's other truly unique experiences as an example of what might happen in your situation.  As always, I could be wrong.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 08:20:20 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2008, 08:48:25 AM »
Jeff,
You make a great point about "visual based" changes!  The most difficult by far (at least that I have found) is drainage.  Getting courses to spend money on drainage can be very hard even though it can have a profound effect on playing conditions (and revenue).  Sometimes it is the best thing a course can do to increase the number of rounds in wet conditions, to keep carts operating after heavy rain (which is a huge revenue source for many clubs), and to improve the playing surface. 
Mark

Philippe Binette

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2008, 09:29:28 AM »
Very interesting comment Jeff, thanks

Funny enough, drainage is right now the key issue for the club... (it doesn't help that they receive rain 26 of the last 30 days)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2008, 10:07:00 AM »
Phillippe,

That's why every master plan is different!

Mark,

I agree on that.  See above, and then consider that there are many basically solid courses out there where its more important to fix drainage.  If a course relies on a lot of pre-booked tournament play in particular, I argue for drainage first, since missing big paydays, and dissapointing possible return customers is a big turnoff.  Just too many options available for people to go elsewhere, and never come back.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 10:09:11 AM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Doug Ralston

Re: Down the line, does better architecture = more revenues
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2008, 10:40:10 AM »
I am a big fan of golf course design making an impact on the renovation of an existing course.  When it comese to attracting more players who will pay conditioning rules supreme hands down over design features.  I am just the kind of guy to stand on a tee box and see all the bad things in a hole design and just overlook conditioning for the design contour features. 

When I get together with groups of friends to play this is what they say "let's go play Pine Lakes it is only $29 to ride 18 and they course is always in good condition with nice greens."

I use Pine Lakes as the model all the time when thinking about new golf courses.  I live in Knoxville and Pine Lakes has been around for as long as I can remember.  They provide a good golf experience for the masses at a cost of $29 to ride 18 on the weekends.  Its not the best course in town but, it has some good golf holes and the owner keeps the course in good shape with nice tees, fairways and greens.  The greens fees with cart rental has gone up maybe $5 in the last 15 years.  In college at UT it cost about $22 ride 18 on the weekends.  The course just recently got a brand new fleet of the EZ-GO golf carts so you have good conditioning, a course that is fair for all to play and you ride in brand new golf carts.  The clubhouse is tiny they don't serve beer only fountain drinks and they have one of the best chili dogs on the planet.

Short answer to your question >> Better Conditioning = More Revenues.

     

Matt;

So Pine Lakes still exists, and flourishes? Sad.

When I lived in Knoxville and 1st picked up golf clubs, Pine Lakes was that dull 'pasture course'. I preferred playing Wallace Hills, which was never in good shape but has buku fun holes. No WH is gone, revamped to a semi-private with most of the fun holes destroyed, and old Pine Lakes still trudges on.

Back in those days I only played a little, and never had any real insight into architecture; but I still knew a fun hole from a dull one. Since score was never a goal for me in golf, I looked for what made me want to come back. Conditions were never the key.

Sadly, for many [most?] who play, they are.

Doug

PS: Play Dale Hollow!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back