One of the hardest things for an architect is to spend a clients money on something he's not sure will work. The "executive" or less than par 70 course is one of these animals. The original premise was to make a shorter course that busy "executives" read "working people" could find time to play. If the long holes were shortened and the 5"s replaced by 4"s and 3's, it should speed up playing time.
So, what happened? Well the quality of golf was dumbed down. And since the course was less than "regulation" it couldn't charge the same. This lower price alternative appealed to seniors, ladies and juniors who didn't need or want the length and didn't want to pay the going rate charged by a regulation course.
Since the gross revenue was marketly lower, the operations expenses had to be streamlined. This meant reduce maintenace costs and clubhouse service. As a second generation of these courses came around, the architects had to adapt the designs to this new demographic and operations model. The result was less shaping, less bunkers, smaller greens, and fewer tee options.
As the industry in general was on a upswing in all the above parameters, there became a greater and great disparity in the perceived overall quality of the experience and "Executive" course began to get a negative connotation associated with them. The general veiw became that they were something substandard in every way populated by high handicappers who were slow players. Anyone who could hit the ball out of their shadow feared a long round on a short course.
So, like Ally states, there is a negative association with the word, but not for the reasons he states.
We thought that this market was being short-shifted so we developed our own version of an executive course. It was a 2,800 yd par 34 with 3-3's and 1-5, 3 tees and 21 bunkers - no cart paths and very walkable. We did bent G,T,& Fwys. Kept the 4 around or under 400, made the 3's and green complexes as we would for a high-end course and the lone 5 480 (just to call it one). We shaped the course in a faux-links style with undulating fairways but perimeter faux dunes mounding that kicked balls back into the center of the holes, which had wider-ish fairways.
After 15-years of fine-tuning, we found that the market demanded we lengthen the course at every opportunity, put in cart paths and lengthen our longest 4 into a short 5 (for 2 reasons) 1) most of the short knockers played it as a five and 2)it allowed us to be a par 35 and escape the "executive" stigma. We maintained the place as an upper-end (but not high-end) daily-fee and had a nicely designed (architectually) clubhouse that was only 3,000 sf and no restraunt - only a grill. We had starters and rangers and multiple pro shop cashiers to minimise service waits and a very big all-grass range, 2 practice greens and a short hole-chipping complex.
By keeping thecourse intersting an challanging around the greens and a higher than muni level of golfing experience, we were able to charge enough and draw enough younger and affluent players to fill the tee sheet.
Lessons learned: don't sacrifice quality or design interest. 4 tees even on a short course. Looks hard/plays easy is a must. People have to feel lke they are getting a deal/steal. Forcasts predicting bad weather hurts high-end courses - people won't risk it early in the week if the forecast is for a rainy weekend - but will on 9 because there is a better chance it may not rain all day and they will "get it in". Have an extensive practice area. Golfers will come in for a walk-on and settle for practicing if they can't get on. And Finally, having a few expensive cars in the parking lot is great sublime marketing. It says "I could pay more elsewhere but I like it here".