Peter,
My decision to change my course in 2006 was as much a gut instinct as anything. My market was dominated by more expensive private clubs that quite frankly had a "sameness" to them. I chose to do something different because I didn't feel I could compete by imitating what everyone else had--pretty white edged bunkers, boring two tiered greens that needed to stomp at 11 to have any interest and acres and acres of groomed Bermuda and raked pine straw beds. I could not afford that even if I could build it.
We had little debt so I felt we could crate something unique that may alienate some but would hopefully attract more than enough people to be viable. Combined with a dues structure 25-35% lower than my neighbors and the combination of interesting golf and price could create value that golfers wanted. We also emphasized a nice social environment but have a tiny pool and tennis presence. I actually sold off my swim and tennis to a developer but part of the deal required him to build two courts and a pool that he would own, operate and maintain but my members would forever have access to those amenities at no extra cost to me or them.
Anyway we have hung in for 38 years now and since 2006 we are still chugging along. Our course is in excellent condition and does have a mini "cult" following I guess. We also have a pace of play policy that our membership has bought into. Any group teeing off prior to 10:00 am on the weekends must finish in 4:10 or they have to tee off later the next weekend. I wish I could say I intentionally tried to have conditioning, price and pace as my goals but I don't remember even seeing this survey back in 2000! He'll, even if I saw this and believed it, I am not sure I could have intentionally developed a plan to achieve all three!!
I also think there are countless factoids like this that operators can reference or tweak to confirm their hunches anyway. Human nature to look for facts that confirm your own prejudices and I am as human as they come
. I did find the information interesting and a alrge part of me hopes that it is true. I was surprised location was as relatively low on the list as it was and while I am not surprised that name architect is low (since few except for the guys on this site have a clue about any course architects) I was surprised that the percentage was so low for a famous designer. I would have thought John q. Public would have been interested in a Jack Nicklaus , Arnold Palmer or Pete Dye course.
I think my prospective member is looking at overall value--price, quality, convenience. Without a good product there isn't value at any price no matter how cheap. Without a decent price people simply cannot continue to justify the time and expense and without a good location if it is too much of a hassle to get to your course, you end up bagging it and then quit because you never use it.
The main reason I am making it is that we have managed to have little debt and even after our renovation in 2006 we kept debt low and have been able to keep our prices among the lowest in town. We have never had an assessment as well which is one thing that drove many of our competitors members to us after they faced year after year of operational and capital calls. Lastly, I truly felt that a great club was possible based on bunch of good people a quality course in good shape and an atmosphere that let's people hang out comfortably. Also, we have an old clubhouse that is functional but we avoided going bankrupt by NOT building a 40,000 sq. Ft. monstrosity. I know I lose some people because they want a fancier clubhouse and bigger pool and tennis area but I am thankful I didn't go that direction. As bad as times are for the industry I still think golf is financially viable and it is the ancillary items that are such a drain.
Lastly, I wonder if the list has more daily fee versus private club application?