[Jeff Dawson]

Does the quality of the golf course have anything to do with the success of a private club ?.  I find it alarming that some of the best courses built in the last several years are finding difficulty selling enough memberships and other less interesting courses seem to be doing just fine.  While there are a number of reasons for this such as location and pricing, and debt, the most important factor to the success of a project seems to be the intangible. The quality of the members who have already joined and the dignity and honesty of the owner or ownership group.  This goes back to something Tom Doak has said.....The most important person in the formula may not be the architect, but the owner.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Odd, it would seem to me that it would be the member or paying customer!  Maybe that is why many of my courses are popular with the general public, even if not award winning all the time.....

In my experience, the most popular courses for regular play (public or private) are the ones where:

* The golfer can shoot about his/her normal score.
* Maintenance and Service are good
* The course is not Terrible
* The course and facilities all send off the same vibe (i.e. good course with trailer CH are not good, nor are bad course with 59K SF clubhouse.
* The course is within 20 minute drive of its players (or less)
* The course also attracts the golfers friends (so if I like gca, I will probably still play a lesser course to be with my friends)

I hope no one paid golfclubatlas consulting a big fee to find out what most of us in the biz have known for years!

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

I think your points are right on the money.  Your point about service is excellent and I think that adds to the experience and good vibe people get from a club. 

Heck, the VAST majority of people I interact with relative to golf have no idea who designed a course and really don't care.  They care if they are having fun and spending time with people they like.  And as you put it, as long as the course is not terrible it is good enough.

Solid post!

[Richard Choi]

I would say Jeff's list is missing one really important factor - Value.

I don't care how good the course is, if the paying customer perceives as bang for the bucks is not there, it is not going to succeed. And I think that is part of the reason why so many of these "high quality" courses are failing. They spend big bucks to get big name designers and spend money like crazy to build the course thinking that they can charge whatever they want once it is open, not realizing that there are literally hundreds of other courses who did exactly the same and they are not unique enough to charge x-percent over an average course.

[Mike Nuzzo]

What about older courses?
Some new ones may become old one day.
Is the best owner the one who has the longest time horizon
In which case I think design does make a difference

An owner friend says the members care most about the green speed
He did do some bunker & tee work (improved design & value) a handful of years ago and his closest competition is out of business now

[Adrian_Stiff]

Odd, it would seem to me that it would be the member or paying customer!  Maybe that is why many of my courses are popular with the general public, even if not award winning all the time.....

In my experience, the most popular courses for regular play (public or private) are the ones where:

* The golfer can shoot about his/her normal score.
* Maintenance and Service are good
* The course is not Terrible
* The course and facilities all send off the same vibe (i.e. good course with trailer CH are not good, nor are bad course with 59K SF clubhouse.
* The course is within 20 minute drive of its players (or less)
* The course also attracts the golfers friends (so if I like gca, I will probably still play a lesser course to be with my friends)

I hope no one paid golfclubatlas consulting a big fee to find out what most of us in the biz have known for years!

Jeff - This is pretty much how to do it. The views on this site by many are very often how not to do it and whilst they may be majority views on this forum they are minority views overall. Richard is right adding VALUE into the pot. The key points are DECENT golf course GOOD value and GREAT location, if you got those three WINNERS you might even get away with giving bad service!!!!

[Jud_T]

 (i.e. good course with trailer CH are not good,

This describes one of my favorite clubs.....  

[Bill_McBride]

It's interesting........

"Value for money" has been a phrase in vogue in the UK for many years, but seldom heard in the US.  Now is the time for value for money here.  The value of an experience has to be worth the money you pay for it.

That's why courses that have been dramatically improved will flourish given the right pricing - good examples Souile Park and Peacock Gap in California, Longshadow in Georgia (although new), Aiken Golf Club in South Carolina, the Wilderness in Texas.....

These are American courses that I've played in the past couple of years that I think offered very good "value for money" - those are the courses I expect will do well in the near and long term in this country.   The days of golfers flocking to overpriced CCFAD's are long gone. 

[Jason Topp]

Even though I am a big time GCA geek, my typical search for a public place to play involves pretty simple factors:

1.  Playing companions
2.  Availability of tee times (rarely a problem these days - was a big issue 15 years ago)
3.  Price
4.  Condition
5.  Design
6.  Time involved -driving distance plus pace of play

If a course is a Doak 6 or better, item 5 can be strong enough to trump 1-4 but below that level I don't think course design makes that much of a difference.

I do not find service to be a big differientiator, at least as I have experienced it.  I would rather go to a muni with a guy behind the counter than have a guy take my bag out of the car, have an enthusiastic guy behind the desk extoll the virtues of the venue, get a long speech from the starter, see a beer cart lady every 2 holes, talk to a marshall every two holes and have another guy wipe down my clubs and carry them to the car at the end of the round.

The best service I have experienced has been at private clubs with a bunch of spike marks still on the floor of the pro shop and a crusty pro ready with a good insult.

[Michael Huber]

I would say Jeff's list is missing one really important factor - Value.

I don't care how good the course is, if the paying customer perceives as bang for the bucks is not there, it is not going to succeed. And I think that is part of the reason why so many of these "high quality" courses are failing. They spend big bucks to get big name designers and spend money like crazy to build the course thinking that they can charge whatever they want once it is open, not realizing that there are literally hundreds of other courses who did exactly the same and they are not unique enough to charge x-percent over an average course.

Richard, your point about value is spot on.

When I read the original post, I thought about the restaurant and bar business, which faces the same sort of problems that golf courses face.  In tough times, pricey, but quality restaurants can survive and cheap, but crappy restaurants can fail.  Really, it comes down to waht the consumer finds to be a good value. 

In my case, I'd joing a private club if I thought it was a good value.  If I joined a club, the course would probably be a better course than what I am used to.  However, I woud not find value in the other things most private clubs offer i.e. exclusiveness, a fancy dining room, pools, gyms etc.  When I play golf, I look for value. 

[Tom_Doak]

Value is in the eye of the beholder, of course ... each individual one of them.  Presumably, the price of each course is set by the marketplace based on location, value for money, etc.  Some courses have not seen the handwriting on the wall, and stick to prices that are unsustainable, and they are losing money right now; they'll either see the light, or close.

By some of the standards expressed in this thread, McDonald's is the epitome of dining -- value PLUS location, and of course, they are enormously profitable, too.  But if there are web sites extolling the virtues of McDonald's food, I don't want to know.

[Bill_McBride]

Value is in the eye of the beholder, of course ... each individual one of them.  Presumably, the price of each course is set by the marketplace based on location, value for money, etc.  Some courses have not seen the handwriting on the wall, and stick to prices that are unsustainable, and they are losing money right now; they'll either see the light, or close.

By some of the standards expressed in this thread, McDonald's is the epitome of dining -- value PLUS location, and of course, they are enormously profitable, too.  But if there are web sites extolling the virtues of McDonald's food, I don't want to know.

I don't really buy the food vs golf correlation. I think the quality of food is generally proportional to cost (except maybe a good curry!), but there is a lot of very good golf at lower price points. I listed a few above.

[Sean_A]

Value is in the eye of the beholder, of course ... each individual one of them.  Presumably, the price of each course is set by the marketplace based on location, value for money, etc.  Some courses have not seen the handwriting on the wall, and stick to prices that are unsustainable, and they are losing money right now; they'll either see the light, or close.

By some of the standards expressed in this thread, McDonald's is the epitome of dining -- value PLUS location, and of course, they are enormously profitable, too.  But if there are web sites extolling the virtues of McDonald's food, I don't want to know.

I don't really buy the food vs golf correlation. I think the quality of food is generally proportional to cost (except maybe a good curry!), but there is a lot of very good golf at lower price points. I listed a few above.

Ace

I agree with you.  To a certain extent, as is the case in any product area, the label/badge/name justifies x% more even though it may deliver very little or no added value.  Its no different in golf.  There are countless courses over-charging because people pay and many of these people associate cost with quality too closely.  There are countless courses which are of high quality and far cheaper to play than the big guns. 

Ciao   

[George Pazin]

Of course it matters, but nothing can overcome poor business decisions, so ultimately it takes a backseat when it comes to whether or not a course survives.

[Richard Choi]

Tom, I only WISH golf courses were more like McDonalds.

While you may denigrate their lack of sophistication in cuisine, they are cheap, consistent, and available everywhere. I still have yet to taste french fries as delicious as the ones produced by McDonalds, not even by a 5 star restaurant.

Golf as a sport would be 100x more popular today if there were golf courses just like McDonalds - affordable by anyone and everyone, accessible from anywhere, and fast to boot. I believe those are highly admirable quailities for golf course architects to aspire to.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I would agree with your main point ... the pricing power of certain courses is disproportional to how much better they really are.  That's pretty much true across the universe, though.  You could have a shortstop who hits .250 and fields the position for $500,000 a year, or you can have Derek Jeter for $20 million.  

But, which courses you consider "of high quality" is defined by taste.  "Value" is a dividend -- it's quality divided by price.  And so the real subject goes back to how you define quality, does it not?


Richard:

The problem with your post is that golf course architects do not set the price of our courses.  Whether we build the course for $2 million or $10 million, the client charges what he will (or what he can) once it's open.  And accessible is a matter of land costs, too.  In fact, that is one of the biggest problems for golf ... as the value of land has steadily increased over the years, it's harder and harder to make the numbers work for golf in a location which could also be a more profitable business, like a McDonald's.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Read Jeff Dawson's initial post. I certainly read it as.... the best golf courses dont always make money. If we look at the golf course with commercial eyes that golf course must abide by certain parameters that link most buisness's. Location Location Location. It is very important, there is no point in discovering some fine linksland in Antartica. On the same basis Askernish simply does not work, the green fee is £15 and its £300 to get there.
Even the richest people like value, and whilst some might fall fer paying over the odds once they may not twice.
Another point already touched 99% of the golfers dont know who designed the course and they dont care, good greens, nice carts, good weather is more important. Go to Southern Spain and see some of the courses there, they wont tick many love boxes on this forum.
Market conditions will dictate the price, we are all the same if our course was inundated with tee time requests at $300 thats what we would charge. Value as TD stated is simply Price divided by Quality. Is it value can also be measured by is it busy.

[Jason Topp]

By some of the standards expressed in this thread, McDonald's is the epitome of dining -- value PLUS location, and of course, they are enormously profitable, too.  But if there are web sites extolling the virtues of McDonald's food, I don't want to know.

I don't think anyone is saying McDonald's is the epitome of dining.  My point at least, is that unless the course is very good, the difference in experience between an average course and a course that is good, but not great, is not very significant.  I would much rather go to Culver's than Macdonalds.  I care little about whether I play the Fazio or Nicklaus course at Kiawah even though I consider the Nicklaus course to be a much better course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

No doubt value is the key, not just today but always has been for 99% of golfers.

I may have related this before, but I was at the Quarry at GR a while back, chatting at breakfast. The guy at the next booth overhears and realizes who I am and comes by gushing about how great the course is.  However, at the end, he tells me he organizes golf outings for his bank and his customers like the course as well as anything in Brainerd, AND "I can golf them, sleep them and feed them for the same amount as golf only over there......"

A $79 greens/cart fee compares/beats a $125 greens/cart fee course is money in the bank.

[Tom_Doak]

By some of the standards expressed in this thread, McDonald's is the epitome of dining -- value PLUS location, and of course, they are enormously profitable, too.  But if there are web sites extolling the virtues of McDonald's food, I don't want to know.

I don't think anyone is saying McDonald's is the epitome of dining.  My point at least, is that unless the course is very good, the difference in experience between an average course and a course that is good, but not great, is not very significant.  I would much rather go to Culver's than Macdonalds.  I care little about whether I play the Fazio or Nicklaus course at Kiawah even though I consider the Nicklaus course to be a much better course.

Jason:

I would agree that not many golfers appreciate the difference between good and average.  But I find it really strange for someone who DOES have an opinion on the subject, such as yourself, not to care which course you play.


Adrian:

Most great golf courses aren't built with the goal of making money, or at least, with the goal of making as much money as possible.  And, yes, some great courses fail ... although from past history, the most prominent of those which failed (i.e., Lido) were due to factors other than location.

[Tom_Doak]

A $79 greens/cart fee compares/beats a $125 greens/cart fee course is money in the bank.

Jeff B:

What happens when the $125 course drops its price to $79, though?  Because you know that's what's coming.

[Adrian_Stiff]

TomD - Yes I agree what you are saying about the great courses are not all about raking dollars, equally I bet an owner would not want to lose big money every year so there has to be some middle ground and business sense.
It can be difficult to drop from $125 back to $79. That is quite a drop, two problems stand out straight away, firstly if you drop that daily fee by 35-40% the annual membership man is no longer getting the same value and he gets unhappy, also to get back or ahead of where you were financially you need to produce 35 - 40% more business, you might get a bit of secondary spend I suppose, but I am not sure that level of drop is really pratical, you almost start the club into death spiral.

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

Indeed, "death spiral" is not just a figure skating term.  But, you did swtich your use of the term "value" in this post.  You're assuming the conditions will drop considerably along with the price, which is not necessarily so.

In my neck of the northern Michigan woods, price cuts from $125 to $79 to $59 are pretty common these days because of the oversupply.  When the course is only half full at $125 -- if that -- cutting to $79 could indeed increase the business, at least until the $79 courses cut to $59.

That's the way it will go, unless the half-full course can break even at $125.  Even then, they might want to try and get in the black.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Im not thinking that the course that cuts from 125 back to 79 would initially cut their standards although in time they may have to, ultimately losing labour which will result in less frequent cutting which equals not so good. I think the better perceived courses would be the ones best kept rather than best architecture, I dont think great architecture could outwin condition. My main point is if you drop by such a margin or indeed any margin you have to increase more in order to have more income, ie 20,000 rounds at $100 dollars are better than 40,000 rounds at $40. Lets say a course is doing 25,000 rounds at $125, and 30,000 is the break even if it moves to $79 per go, its really hard to generate enough to get back in front. Equally I dont have the solution, you are right what happens though, each course chases the same business and cuts the other one on price, the winner is the one with best value I guess because gof courses are not so easy to compare because we all perceive them very different, its not so much about Lowest price wins its not like we are all selling the same CD, but its not a great scenario and it touches on something we discussed once before when I said some of the better golf courses will have a tougher time.

[Michael Huber]

For the record, value does not always mean cheap.

Lets take, for example, Pebble Beach.

Lots of things have been said about the value of playing PB.  I played PB in July, and it was the first world class course I have ever played.  I'm only 25, and although I am gainfully employed, im not exactly swimming cash.  Even if I was making good money, I wasn't so sure that the $500 greens fees, plus the extra $175 for a caddy and rental clubs and so forth.  Thats a lot of money.

But I realized that, in all liklihood, will never be in Monterey, CA again and I may never have the chance to play at one of the worlds greatest courses.  675 to play 18 holes of golf will stick with me forever.

So what is the value of that?  Pebble Beach isnt a mcdonalds type value, but it provides good value. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()