Does The Golf Course Matter?

[Sean_A]

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.

Tom

I would look at the other side of the coin from you.  It doesn't matter to me when a course is awesome if the green fee is $300, $400 or $500.  That sort of high end pricing is not for me be it golf, a car or shoes.  To me, there is no value there regardless of quality.  My side of the coin is value - that is a balance between quality and price.  Think of it like sale items.  Once a bottle of wine can be bought for £5, I don't later pay £10.  It doesn't matter if I really like it, I know the real price and that is what I will pay.  Why?  Because I can get other good wines for that amount - I just have to be willing to keep looking.  Its the same with golf.  I know world class golf exists for ~$100, so why would I pay $300 - regardless of the name?  Conversely, if world class golf is getting a little short of supply for $100, I move down to nearly world class for $75.  I don't move up to $200.  To me its a simple exercise in personal economics.

Ciao    

[Tim Martin]

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

Mike- I agree with your friend. Green speed is very important. I want to play a public course when someone tells me the greens run like private course greens. How often is a good public access layout diminished by super slow greens? Alot.

[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.

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.

Tom:

I care, but unless the course is great, the challenge associated with trying to hit the ball where I aim, the fun of competing against friends, price and convenience outweigh the difference between an average and a good course.   

[Jeff Dawson]

Gentleman

The point I was making applies ONLY to PRIVATE clubs.  One could argue neither the quality of the course or the value/cost is a determinant to success.  Only the quality (perceived) of the members and the owner seems to be the common factor of a successful private project.

On the public play side one could argue that the quality of the golf course is the most important thing right now.  I.E. Bandon.

[Mike Sweeney]

 I continue to be amazed at the projects that we would all perceive to be a great course that are sucking wind right now.  

Jeff,

Isn't this the opportunity for The Outpost Club? Clearly there is a market for the remote club, but few want to be locked into one club. What I have heard of the model for The Outpost Club IS a benefit to these clubs. I think you are leading us down a path slowly out of a fear that you will somehow be accused of cherry picking on these clubs.

If it is done right, I don't see it that way. I see The Outpost Club as a potential benefit to the remote clubs. I have no interest in this other than as a consumer of remote/destination golf.

[Jeff Dawson]

Mike

I am not in a position to comment on Outpost.  My thought was a simple one.  We all get caught up in the architectural quality of a golf course, but on it's own there seem to be few examples of a golf course carrying a project just because the course itself is so darn good.  That alone concerns me in that I am a fan of many new "classical style" courses and want to see them all succeed.  The concern is that we could lose some great architecture if the golf market continues to go south.  Quality architecture may not be enough to get a newer project to a break even or prosperous point.  American golfers (not GCA) don't seem to reward good architecture on its own.  I think this is more relevant with regards to private clubs.  Great architecture seems to work well in the public arena as large numbers of golfers are willing to travel and see quality a time or two.

[Mike Sweeney]

Mike

I am not in a position to comment on Outpost.  My thought was a simple one.  We all get caught up in the architectural quality of a golf course, but on it's own there seem to be few examples of a golf course carrying a project just because the course itself is so darn good.  That alone concerns me in that I am a fan of many new "classical style" courses and want to see them all succeed.  The concern is that we could lose some great architecture if the golf market continues to go south.  Quality architecture may not be enough to get a newer project to a break even or prosperous point.  American golfers (not GCA) don't seem to reward good architecture on its own.  I think this is more relevant with regards to private clubs.  Great architecture seems to work well in the public arena as large numbers of golfers are willing to travel and see quality a time or two.

Jeff,

National Golf Links, Fishers Island, Mountain Lake, Shinnecock, Winged Foot, Eastward Ho! and Newport CC have all had difficult times where they almost went out of business. At some point in time they were remote clubs. Garden City was a public course. Fishers had to torch their clubhouse on a January night to keep the course alive. I have friends at Merion that have been thrown out of the most notorious gin mills in Newport RI and the Jersey Shore, yet all those clubs thrive today and it IS because of the golf courses.

Now, price points may be out of whack, it may end up being the third owner in 15 years from now but don't sell the obsessive golfer short. I have been playing for 35 years and I am not going anywhere BUT I am not stupid and I am not going to throw money away like I used to. I am an easy sell. A couple of hairy bunkers, a nice turtle or lentil soup, a four hour round and a beer and I am in.

Oh wait, I have that at Enniscrone in Ireland as a Lifetime Member so maybe these places are in trouble.  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

I understand what you're saying about the private clubs, but it can't really be different for public courses, can it?  Because there is nothing to stop the private courses from being quasi-public if they need to be in order to survive.  In either case, the equation still involves location, price, and quality.


Mike Sweeney:

I have only seen a little info about The Outpost Club, and don't fully understand its model, but count me as a skeptic.  If the idea is for struggling clubs to sell tee times to a "national club" that gets access to several private clubs, then it will only work to the degree that the struggling clubs are desperate.  Once I can buy access to your course by paying somebody else, then you're going to have a much harder time selling a membership to your course exclusively, ever again.

But, I could be missing something in the fine print.

P.S.  Garden City was a public course?  When the heck was that?

[Mike Sweeney]

J
P.S.  Garden City was a public course?  When the heck was that?

The pages are not numbered but see "Beginnings" of the GCGC Centennial marked as "The Island Golf Links". Looks like 1897, but the date is not clear.

"The links are the property of the Garden City Company, and are open to all golfers."

[Mike Sweeney]

 If the idea is for struggling clubs to sell tee times to a "national club" that gets access to several private clubs, then it will only work to the degree that the struggling clubs are desperate.  Once I can buy access to your course by paying somebody else, then you're going to have a much harder time selling a membership to your course exclusively, ever again.

Tom

At one point in time, not all that long ago, you only had to be an officer in the Navy stationed in Newport to play Newport CC. There are more than a few guys here that would have a sudden feeling of patriotism to play NCC on a regular basis.

You are looking at this from the perspective of your clients that pay you. Sorry, but the courses that you have built will hopefully out last them, you and me. Jeff's question was "Does The golf Course Matter?", not will the first owner make money. I say yes to the course question, it just might take 15-25 years for me to be proven right. After 17 years of marriage, my wife is finally jumping onto the Sweeney bandwagon, feel free to climb on. 

[Colin Sheehan]

I do not wish to use this platform to promote Outpost Club. And I do not intend to. I am a principal in the project and I just want to clarify a quick point being discussed. We are only partnering with "architecturally significant" courses, which happen to come in all shapes and sizes: new, old, expensive, affordable, remote, locally supported, etc. We are simply borrowing from the British model where clubs subsidize their own operations with unaccompanied play. It's a tried and tested model, and we have found a select number of clubs who understand and agree that this model works, especially if the visiting golfers play quickly and treat the course with respect. Regrettably, these elements have never really been introduced to the American market. We offer "limited playing privileges" to OC members at select clubs, and in no way does it compete with the benefits of a regular membership to that course.

I like to remind people that The Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers, which may be the most exclusive golf club in Britain, allows visits on Tuesday and Thursdays throughout the year. They gladly share their lockeroom, dining room and golf course. Of course it's on that club's terms and they could pull the access at any time, but it is beneficial to the club and good for the game. And the Scots seem to know what's good for the game they created.

In the end, we are trying to attract a national audience of golfing aficionados, people who understand private club culture. We think this can become a very large "golfing society" in the British sense.

I just wanted to clarify some points and misconceptions.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

At one point in time, not all that long ago, you only had to be an officer in the Navy stationed in Newport to play Newport CC. There are more than a few guys here that would have a sudden feeling of patriotism to play NCC on a regular basis.

You are looking at this from the perspective of your clients that pay you. Sorry, but the courses that you have built will hopefully out last them, you and me. Jeff's question was "Does The golf Course Matter?", not will the first owner make money. I say yes to the course question, it just might take 15-25 years for me to be proven right. After 17 years of marriage, my wife is finally jumping onto the Sweeney bandwagon, feel free to climb on. 

Mike:

Believe me, I understand what you are saying, and I have been living the rollercoaster for the past 2-3 years with various courses closing, declaring bankruptcy, reorganizing, etc.

I do think the golf course matters, or I wouldn't be in this business to begin with.  That doesn't mean it will always end happily for a good golf course.  Some are gone, and some of my better ones will go away, too ... or have done so already.  And some of them will make a comeback.

[Brian Freeman]

It doesn't matter if I really like it, I know the real price and that is what I will pay.  Why?  Because I can get other good wines for that amount - I just have to be willing to keep looking.  Its the same with golf.  I know world class golf exists for ~$100, so why would I pay $300 - regardless of the name?  Conversely, if world class golf is getting a little short of supply for $100, I move down to nearly world class for $75.  I don't move up to $200.  To me its a simple exercise in personal economics.

Ciao   

Sean,

I think you hit the nail right on the head.  Marketing theory says it's very dangerous to use yourself as a case study in defining a target market, but here goes anyway:

Personal Case Study: Despite living within an hour of Pinehurst for over 2 years, I still haven't played Pinehurst #2. 

I'd like to think I'm somewhere in their target market: Decent handicap, good short game, reasonable economic means, respect for traditions of the game & architecture, etc... If I woke up on any given day and decided it was the most important thing in the world to me to go play #2, I could certainly find $400 somewhere in my personal savings to go play there on that day... BUT I STILL DON'T EVER PULL THE TRIGGER.  And it's because of a whole lot of other pretty good alternatives for 25% of the cost or less.  The perceived value is just not there for me.  If their tee-time sheet is full at that price, more power to 'em.

And by all means, I have been to Pinehurst on numerous occasions before and played almost everywhere else down there - world class courses under $100.  I'm even headed to Scotland this summer, and there's a high degree of likelihood that I will have played Dornoch and Carnoustie before another one of the world's best, just an hour away.  Even with a plane ticket, hotels, etc. involved, I'm finding it much easier to justify $100-200 a round to go play in Scotland vs. $400 close to home.  I'll probably do it eventually - but under circumstances where I get a better deal.

I have to believe the "typical" consumer is making similar trade-offs.

I also think this is the same economic problem, on a larger scale, that private clubs are facing.  Once the annualized commitment to a club gets over a range of 30-40 rounds per year x $75-100 a round, the club has to offer some sort of a unique value proposition - be it socially or architecturally - to pull people in.  It may cost more than that to build and run a truly exceptional club, but if it does, the economics just aren't going to be there from a revenue standpoint.

Of course this is a non-issue for the independently wealthy and retirees without work and personal commitments... but much like all the $1M+ houses on country clubs built over the last 10 years - there's only so many people around with those means!

[Tom_Doak]

Brian:

I'm sure there is a name for it, though I don't know the name, but I think your experience has something to do with living close to Pinehurst.  My thought is that you would be more likely to splurge far away from home [at Pebble Beach or Bandon] than near home.

[Brian Freeman]

Tom,

I think you're right... there probably is an added perceived value for me from the journey and valuing the exotic course not easily reached over the one in your backyard as a result.  Kind of like the equivalent of a high school kid wanting the supermodel he can't have vs. the girl next door (although this girl next door is quite the knockout herself, she'll still be here when I get back).  Maybe this also explains why I am still a single man but this is a golf course architecture forum, and not a psychology forum, so I'll try not to deviate too far into that topic...

You make a good point in that I do actually want to play at Bandon at some point as well and not just because I'm shamelessly pandering.  

I would have to think a significant portion of Bandon's clientele, as well as Pinehurst's (although not including myself) is the stereotypical "buddies trip", a group of friends spread across the country reuniting over golf.  So maybe the lesson learned (although I'm sure you have already) is to focus on designs in those types of locales.  

On further thought: Obviously that's been a factor in choosing some projects - in particular Cape Kidnappers? 

[Bryan Izatt]

An interesting phenomenon. I have a course a couple of miles from my house that's ranked among the best in Canada, and it's public access - a CCFAD type of place.  It's $175 prime time, which is high for our market.  Unlike your case with Pinehurst,  I have played this course a couple of times, but only at half price rates in the late fall.  I refuse to play it otherwise.  The price/value proposition isn't right outside of a splurge occasion.  And, the pace of play is terrible and the players they attract seem to have more money than golf brains. And, there are other equally attractive courses at much more reasonable prices.

On the other hand, I've often dropped that much or more on foreign splurge occasions - Pebble, TOC, Bandon .........  I guess the difference is that those places were infrequent splurges, and I have played the the local course and my curiosity is satisfied.  But, there is undeniably an attraction for the foreign famous courses.  More confusing is that in some cases - Pebble and Castle Stuart come to mind - where once was enough at the prices they charge.  At others, like TOC and Dornoch,  I was willing to pay the freight more than one time.  There's some intrinsic value thing going on that is hard to put into words.  For some, like Bandon, they have grown out of my price comfort range even for splurges.  And, some like Pinehurst, I've looked around, but couldn't bring myself to pay the price.  It just didn't look like I was going to walk off and say, wow, was that ever worth the expenditure.  It is priced out of my value system even for a splurge.

For some of the high end courses, I guess the business model is based on a national or world market.  Maybe for them, there are enough one time splurge players to make the club work economically.  If the business model is based on repeat local play from hard core golfers then I think it can't succeed.  In these times there can't be that many big spenders left.


 

[Adam Lawrence]

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.

Tom is on the money here. This is, in fact, the key issue that makes developing affordable golf in new markets difficult, because to be affordable and accessible, it needs to be located reasonably close to where people live, and most of the land close to cities is either hugely expensive or protected for agricultural use.

Adrian: I hear your point, but you are wrong with respect to Askernish; it works perfectly well. The course cost nothing to build, basically costs nothing to maintain, and it's there for its members when they want it. If it brings attention, golfers and £££ to the island (which it is doing) then so much the better. But it doesn't need to do that to 'work'.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adam - Yes I am using the Askernish situ more to demonstrate heres a great course but with **** location. I would love to see this course but its just so impractical and I realise it was more set up for love than money.

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam - Yes I am using the Askernish situ more to demonstrate heres a great course but with **** location. I would love to see this course but its just so impractical and I realise it was more set up for love than money.

It's not really that impractical. It's only an hour's flight from Glasgow. You should go. Just don't get into a whisky-drinking contest with the locals.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Colin,

I wish you well in the endeavor. It certainly seems like it would be of interest to some.  I find myself wondering just how big an audience you will find and how long they would remain.  As such, I would be more interested in hearing JD's business estimates of how many members you would attain rather than the finances of the target clubs......

I don't know much about (marketing) science books, but I know this place has a membership of 1500.  I know the typical gca book sells less than 5000 copies.  And I think I know that probably less than 10% of that group of golf architecture fans would have the wherewithal to afford not only the membership, but the travel costs associated wth taking advantage of it.

I also wonder about how many years (not really knowing your model) members would stay.  Even ardent gca buffs probably only wants to play a big name course once, to notch the bed post as it were.  I can imagine a lot of one and two year memberships bought soley for a person of means to play one of their most targeted courses.

Brian Freeman,

I am not sure your image of Bandon is quite correct. When I played there last spring, managment told me that an astonishing 65% of rounds there arrived via private jet, not quite the buddies trip you envisage.  And business was down, as corporations tried to cut back on lavishness.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jeff you touched on an interesting point and I am not sure we have discussed this before.... people want to play a golf course once.

Obviously your not meaning peoples local clubs, but if I was planning a trip to say Scotland I would want to take in the big names, if I made a second visit I would want lots if not all new ones. I reckon I have played 300 courses, but I reckon well over 200 I have only played once, maybe another 50 only twice. Is this consistent with others. Do people have say 50 courses they have played frequently but the vast majority is just one go?

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

It's true that many remote courses are successful in getting people to play one time, but not successful at getting people to come back.  I counted up a couple of years ago that there were only about 20-25 courses that I had played as many as ten times.

However, all the successful courses are successful because people go back.  Bandon Dunes and Barnbougle are so successful that often, people book their next trip there as they are checking out ... but their bread and butter is visitors from 200 miles away, not 2,000.  Cape Kidnappers [and, unfortunately, New Zealand itself] is seen as a once-in-a-lifetime destination for international visitors, and there aren't enough Kiwis who can afford the green fee, so even though its photographs have been seen around the world, it's never that busy.

[Tim Nugent]

Perhaps most here play "one-timers" more than most because we are as intersted, if not more so, in the architecture as we are in the game. Thisi is probably especially true for the architects who play less than the avid golfer.

The other guy is the one who ventures out a couple times a year "to test his medal" but plays on a select few (or home club) the rest of the time.

[Richard Choi]

Brian, your case is not unique. I am going through something similar myself.

Next year is my 40th. I have always planned on going to Pebble Beach for it with my brother and family. But now, I am not so sure.

I would want to play at least a couple of rounds at Pebble and probably at least another round at Spyglass. Those rounds alone will cost me around $1500. Add another $600/night for the rooms, it is quite astronimical.

On the other hand, I can pay $1500 in airfare to Australia (compared to $350 or so to SF) and play with the good folks from here next March at much more reasonable golfing rates. I am beginning to think that Lost Farms/Barbougle AU might be a better choice. The only difficulty is that my wife does not have that many vacation days so losing a couple of days just traveling hurts.

[Steve Strasheim]

Very interesting thread.

In my personal situation, the course matters. In fact, I am seriously contemplating changing back to my old club which I left about 5 years ago. There are several factors, but it is such a better golf course that I think I'd like to return.