Kirk,
Sorry for the Mucci-like response, but you have asked a lot of questions here:
I understand and agree with most of what you say. But I think we are conflating two somewhat unrelated issues. Informed feedback vs. business interests.
Informed feedback and business interested are NEVER unrelated. That is the only reason feedback is gathered... for business interests.
If a golf course wants to hear the opinion of a group of informed consumers about their course and nothing more, golf course managers would have no problem getting the right people to come play their course any time they want.
If that were the case they would do it... it is not their area of expertise. There is a reason why so many advertising agencies, PR firms, and research companies exist.
On the other hand, the course ratings published by Golf Digest, Golf and Golf Weekly aren't really about giving golf courses informed feedback (although that is certainly a beneficial byproduct of the process). They are really more about generating business income and doling out prestige.
Of course they are about feedback... it's only about feedback. How the feedback is presented or interpreted is another matter. Whether the industry or public affixes status or meaning to the results of the feedback is not under the control of the magazines. They present the information and it is either accepted or it it not. If the industry or public thought the opinions of the panelists were bullshit then the ratings would die on the vine.
Public access courses desperately want to be included on these lists because of the big boost it gives to their business. Private courses (if they care at all) are interested in them because it makes their courses even more desirable, exclusive and prestigious which enhances value (tangible and intangible) to the existing members. The publications love the lists because they generate eyeballs and interest every year which translates into revenue for them. And the raters love them because the process provides them an opportunity to play courses that they would otherwise probably not have access to and/or be able to afford to play.
Agreed... and what is wrong with any of that?
IMHO, the ratings lists are really more about business and only secondarily to do with providing informed feedback. Since the rating game is largely about money, particularly for the publishers and golf courses...
As with countries, companies, and individuals, it's ALWAYS about the money. Ratings are about business because informed feedback is about business... that's why the feedback is generated in the first place. And, what's wrong with that?
I don't see it as too much of a stretch to consider the raters as being "worker bees" in this moneymaking venture even if they are doing it out of love for the game and a desire to see great golf courses.
So what? My wife's theater enthusiasts get to see lots of shows without paying for their tickets... then she takes their opinion of those shows and (shudder) makes money selling the information to a marketing firm or producer. Her theater goers are the "worker bees" in her money making venture and, again, what's wrong with that? Without them she wouldn't have a business... but, without her they wouldn't get to see the shows and the marketing companies wouldn't have information that they can use to promote their production to the general public. It ain't brain surgery.
Rhetorical thought experiment: What do you think the "fair market value" of a round of golf at each of the top 100 golf courses in America would be if these rounds were made available to the highest bidder? Big number, right? Huge number. Scary number. A rater who is fortunate enough to play these courses gets an awful lot of value for what they do. I imagine that the publishers could actually charge people to be raters and still have no trouble filling their ranks.
My understanding is that the magazines do charge a fee for individuals to do be a member of their panels (or some of them do, anyway). I know that my wife charges a fee for her enthusiasts to be a member of her "panel." Thank God for capitalism!!!