[Mike_Young]

Several books have been written lately about "branding" and how "brand conscious" the American public has become.  Many businesses such as "Coca Cola" are just a brand and nothing more.  Maybe even Nike. We see guys in $450 "North Face " jackets when a $200 goretex will do just fine.  Many of our large corporations place "brand identity" first and foremost.  
....Anyway.... while reading it just made me ask myself these questions as it related to golf architecture....
There are probably 200 architects out there right now.  I don't know how many work for themselves and how many are associates.  But out of that number there are probably around five that have developed "their brand" to a level that it is in demand.   Most of you probably haven't even heard or seen the work of most of us but you have heard and seen at least some of the "Brands".  The day to day difference between most of us and the "brands" is that we compete for projects based on fee, project cost etc. while the brands only compete with each other.   They can demand cetain budgets in order for them to do a project and they can turn down more projects than they accept.   And it is a given that 1- you pay a premium for a brand and 2- most architects strive to become a brand.
I would venture to say that most of the current brands got there start either as a great player or as a family business.  Ex: Dye/Nicklaus- Harbortown; Palmer; Nicklaus; Fazio/George, US Open winner /RJ,RTJ, family.
The value of these brands has been created by the RE development industry.

Question 1- How often do you see an associate leave one of these organizations and become a "brand" on his own.?  I know that I have competed for jobs against some of the guys in this situation and in many instances have a better chance because I have been on my own.

Question 2-  Do you think "branding has been good or bad for golf architecture??  I know it has been good for RE Development much to many of our distaste.  For ex:  If I have a $200,000 fee and one of the mentioned brands has a $1,000,000 fee.  I am more expensive.  For the simple reason that no one buys a lot for my name but just a couple of well placed lots on the " brand course" will pay his fee.

Question 3-  Do you think that most of us other architects will have to associate with a player in order to become a brand??  Ex: Even with Bill Coore's talent; would you have heard of him or would he have gotten the chance on some of the high profile sites without Crenshaw?

Question 4-  I have seen a "snob factor from several younger associates of the "brands" for no reason other than they work for a "brand" and have been told that this is the best way to break into the business.  It is a fact that several "brands" are getting older.  As they die will the brand die also?  Where will these associates be?

Question 5-  Will we one day see wrestling arenas by Goldberg?  Herschel Walker football stadiums?  And if so ; would you sit in them?

As one of the other recent post asked " art or the artist"  No doubt for the American public the "artist" wins.

Mike

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I'll take a stab at your 5 questions, even though I have no particular corner on insight or proof to back up my thoughts.  Just my opinions, I could be wrong...

1.  I don't know exactly.  I have seen a newer high end RE course in our area that was marketed as; architect "Rick Robbins and Brian Lussier",  previously with the Nicklaus organization....  So, in that regard, it seems to me that there was some free riding on Golden Bear's name.  I don't know if you have a better chance in the face of that...

2.  Brand names are bad for GCA in my view.  They appear to strive for a "signatrure look" and become a form of high end landscape sameness to my eye.  I just watched the 3-tour event at Lake Las Vegas and the development honch was interviewed about the projects next expansion.  He was breathlessly telling the interviewer how they "just inked" Fazio for the 4th or 5th course to be built there.  He said it as though the entitiy isn't a golf course so much as it is a Fazio.  From the looks of the shacks they are building there, around the "nicklaus" they are playing on this week and the others, the RE approach is defininitly about the name not the quality.  They had aerials of the area where the "Fazio" is going, and with enough money to "landscape everything in total" I suppose it will be an artificial showpiece with "Fazio" signature landscaping to show off the pretty homes.  I'll bet the folks that buy the houses don't know much about GCA but can't wait to say the name of whose course they have their house built next to... Just costly proliferation of golf course building for all the wrong reasons in my opinion...

3.  Unfortunately I think good course designers will have to attach themselves in some way to a name player to get recognition.  Not enough people will think of Axeland and Proctor or De Vries or Eckenrode, et al, etc., when contemplating development of a new course, particularly if they need to sell lots around it to make it a go.  (the golf conscious and astute will... however)

4.  I think of the snob factor as the same as the "gang mentality" that permeates everything in this stupid brand driven society.  "My brand is bigger,tougher, more valuable, more this and that - than yours; and we can kick your ass!"  It is disgusting to me.  The brand sycophants and minions will either rework the older passing guy's brand value to a new generation identy or go suck up with a new contemporary brand name. And, none of this has anything to do with quality of the product, just hype and marketing because the infantile hat backward, scooter riding, crotch grabbing, rappin, pop culture is conditioned to jump at the lowest common denominator.  

5.  I think courses are ripe for architect branding like the "Fazio", the "Nicklaus", the "Freddy Couples   , because of the snobby association with lifestyle in the housing components and landscaping idea.  We may see some corporate logoing like "Cowboys" (sorry Jeff) but most of that will be saved for facilities and stadia like "Coors field, United Center" etc.

And, even some of us ranters and preachers against brand evils fall victim to this gang, tribe, cult mentality.  I always buy a hat or shirt with the logo of the club/course when I go to a special golf course I really like.  So, I will soon sit back in my "Packers" slippers and "Wild Horse" logo shirt to watch the late game...  :-/

[Neal_Meagher]

While there is no doubt that the ongoing rush of "branding" golf courses as a "product" has been a boon for real estate developers, I am unsure of whether or not it has benefitted the game of golf.  Specifically, there has now been placed upon us a stratification of expectation, if you will, exemplified chiefly by the Country Club for a Day and many new resorts.

Yes, it is true that certain "people who play golf" are attracted to the branded facilities which does serve to grow the game, it is unfortunate that we are continuing to get away from courses meant for "players of the GAME of golf", though.

I once lived in Nashville and played at several muni's like McCabe G.C. and a 9-hole at Percy Warner Park.  Who designed them?  Where is their brand?  Nobody knows and most could care less.  They are simply fun and basic tests of golf for folks who play for the pleasure of playing.  You don't go stand in line at McCabe at 7:00 a.m. on a Saturday to que up to play because you want to go to a cocktail party that night in Belle Meade to smugly brag about where you just "played".  

This is true golf, this is not brand-driven, $1,000,000 plus to maintain a year, bentgrass fairways that should have been bermudagrass, too large to pay the debt service on clubhouses, concrete ribbons running amok everywhere, cartgirls named Gretchen with generous and pouting br***ts and headphone wearing concierges waiting to service your golf bag for a tip.  NO, I maintain that real golf and the real golf courses that are necessary for their patrons to play on are becoming the casualty.  However,...................

This economic correction period may just well be the thing to separate out the fat, if you will.  Will the number of golfers decline in the coming decade?  Maybe, but is it not time that we return to what the game is really all about?  Will there always be a home for the uber-designers, the branded ones?  Of course there will be as long as there are the new "golfers" who want to brag on the branded course they just played and how much they payed to play it.

Yet, the biggest dissapointment that the new emphasis on following certain designers around brings is that many golfers now expect certain things.  It's that stratification of expectation.  Recently, the oft-villified Rees Jones has even begun to get more positive feedback on this DG, as difficult as it may be for some to believe that his company's designs can actually "evolve".  It's as though some would think golf course architects cannot or will not change their thinking as a part of natural evolution of thought.  So while all of the respected architects frequently mentioned here have done excellent work and deserve their accolades, I do find it maddening that we can't just find the course as it is and just go play it.  Whether it was designed by Doak, Hanse, Robinson or Rainville.

Let's just go play and enjoy what is in front of us.  Let's not allow ourselves to become blinded by branding.

[Marketing_Interloper]

Hi all,

I don't know much about golf, but maybe a little something about branding that might add to the discussion or bore you tremendously.  

(1)  There is an implication that a "brand" is some kind of vapor, that people are suckers for paying for something branded versus not.  In fact, a brand is... a promise of Value (North Face versus Wal Mart) Quality (Lexus vs Toyota)  Cultural expression (Coke is optimistic, Pepsi is edgy.)  

(2)  Nicklaus, Palmer, etc are not true "brands" in the sense that they don't really stand for anything, they are just names.  Part of what a name creates is knowledge of the product, in that if someone is buying something unfamiliar, going with a known name tends to remove some of those questions.  Fearful that some huckster will run off with his money, knowing that Jack Nicklaus or Ben Crenshaw somehow lent his name to a pile of dirt adds comfort to the future homeowner that the lovely watercolor painting will, in fact be a real golf course in a few years.

(3)  Branding is important only if the consumer sees it as important.  What kind of sugar is in the Coke?    But there is a Coach Leather edition of the Lexus.  Do people know who designed their golf course?  Do they understand the details of design well enough to know if it was done well or not?  What the brand offers might not be what you expect it to, as the previous example shows.

(4)  One creates a name for oneself through publicity, publishing a book, getting their courses listed, all the usual ways, so that their known name accomplishes the goal of reducing unfamiliarity for the consumer.  Ah, but a brand?  Years of consistent focus on a theme so that when Joe Blow leaves Nicklaus and says "I worked there for 15 years" either means he stayed off the streets a little while (name), or learned something about a type of design, approach of play, quality of work that will be assumed (brand.)

(5)  In the long run, a brand that truly creates value will survive the economic downturn, just like restaurants that provide customers a positive experience will survive.  But, it is something to be thought through, because as fewer people know or care who Nicklaus is, his "brand" will need to transcend his "name."

Just a little fine-tuning to the discussion.

[Mike_Young]

RJ,
Thanks for the opinions.  You say it much better than I do.
Neal,
I agree.  I think the downturn will cut out some of the fat.  But I have already seen one "brand" start to to reduce fees thru different "package cost".
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()