A State Golf Association Dilemma?

[Chris Cupit]

Greg,  I assure you that the GSGA membership is NOT marketed as a handicap only service.  That may be the perception but go look at the website under Membership.  Handicapping is but one of many benefits outlined and all the efforts of the last ten years has been to avoid that notion.

[Mac Plumart]

I'm just a golfer, but, regardless, I'm damn proud of being a GSGA member.

http://www.gsga.org/

[Chris Cupit]

Greg,
my last point/comment re: Mike is that I have know him for a long time and I think he is a smart, good golf guy.  I don't think he was tricked or bullied into GSGA membership and I think that he made a rational choice that he felt was in his club's best interest to join.  I think I am giving him more credit than you may be

As to the overall question about whether it is a new day for golf organization I would say that despite association membership rolls being lagging indicators (an oxymoron ?), SRGAs have realized for several years now that things are going to have to change.  I believe we saw a sea change after 2001 and 2008 that have fundamentally changed things all across the industry.

Frankly, I get exhausted talking about the golf industry. Until we realize that at its core it is a fun stick and ball game that needs to be affordable, recreation, we will all continue to piss into the wind

[Chris Cupit]

I'm just a golfer, but, regardless, I'm damn proud of being a GSGA member.

http://www.gsga.org/

Me too!  It's a heck of a deal.  The one year subscription to Golf Digest or Golfweek alone is worth $25.  Of course there is so much more 

[Chris Cupit]

Duplicate. Sorry

[RJ_Daley]

CC, for what it is worth, from my own experience in a few professional associations and organizations over the years, I completely understand and sympathize with the case you are trying to make about the collective strength and benefits of a quality umbrella organization working to the benefit of the many.  You are obviously a 'joiner' and one that steps up to serve your collegues in their attempt to advance their professional footprint in an industry, society and economy.  While you make it crystal clear your current comments are your own and don't reflect the GASGA, you have been in the trenches and care enough to devote your time to that greater advancement of the whole (compensated or gratis).  I completely understand the issues of having a competent lobby to look out for your organization members best interests, based on a structure the organization created to identify and develop a consensus policy and agenda.  As long as your organization has an elective or consensus forming fair process to form committees and form policy and goals for the overall profession, you deserve support, not devisive disgruntled snipers.

This whole mentality and issue isn't confined to golf associations and golf professional organizations.  It is throughout our society from chambers of commerce to rotary clubs to automobile associations.   Wherever there is a guild or group or other manner of profession that identifies themselves by a professional body of practioners or social service community of like economic and social interests-  there are organizations of people that draw out the inclinations of the joiners and organizers that put forth great effort to take pride in their place in society and provide a service to their collegues to advance their collective professional standing.  

And, as sure as there are god's green apples, there are the critics and those that won't pony up the cost of the service but want all the benefits.  Generally, those folk are 'Maytags" - agitators - and disgruntled individuals that won't work within a consensus framework to advance the cause of the profession, because they want it 'just their own way'.  They never step up to present themselves for service via running for elective consensus of the rest of those involved in the organization.  They just sit back and snipe.

Sorry Mike Young, your attitude is well recognized by just about anyone that has worked in any professional organization to take pride in that profession and wishes to work in a framework that has been created by a majority of participants in that profession to go forward, only to have individuals submarine the efforts.  It seems clear that you have the indisputable right to choose not to join the professional organization and don't have to support them in any way.  But, it is disheartening to see when people step up to serve and advance the professional status and standing of their collegues (even though competitors in the broader economic context) to be derided and taken on in a forum like this case, for a petty personal inclination of a person that wants to have a big say with a tiny microphone.  

BTW, I completely understand that some organizational structures also become ineffective or even corrupt.  It is then up to good and decent practioners or members of the organization's body of members to take hold from within and change whatever is going wrong.  It is rarely productive to take the in-house grievances to the public at large as a subversive tactic.  

[Chris Cupit]

Thanks RJ.  I am pretty sure Mike and I are OK.  He is a bit of a rabble rouser but anyone who can put up with Charlie ain't all bad

I do wish he saw all the things that the GSGA does on behalf of all the clubs.  Even clubs who are not GSGA members benefit from their work.  If Mike chooses not to support the GSGA (again, even with just 28 members he would "lose" and have to pay a net of $270) he will still benefit from their work.  I am not sure what group he would support (mike is not a "joiner" 


 I think he raises a very good point regarding accepting dollars from out of state interest.  No doubt there are legitimate issues raised in this regard.  A group the size of GSGA that is as involved in as many different area as it is has to be very careful not to offend the very constituents it tries to support.  But I'd do feel Mike is throwing the baby out with the bath water.  

I promise the staff and committees struggle to balance all these issues.  Some clubs hated the PGA Superstore advertising.  Some like Mike don't like out of state advertising.  While good and valid points can be made against accepting those dollars I feel any fair and complete review of what the GSGA does for clubs is a no brainer in favor of what they do as a whole.

As a general role though I think that sometimes a business has to be willing to "fire" a customer.  Again, NOT speaking for anyone but myself but in a group or club setting sometimes the desires of the individual just can't jive with what is best for the group.  This goes against almost every libertarian notion in my body but I come to no other conclusion.  

If Mike were sitting in front of me I would try and explain again the minimum policy and the advertising policy.  I would try and make the case that even though he hates those two policies, overall, GSGA membership benefits his club, his industry, his members and can even be a tiny profit center.  If I can't make the case we will go have a beer and discuss something easier--religion or politics

[Mike_Young]

 It seems clear that you have the indisputable right to choose not to join the professional organization and don't have to support them in any way.  But, it is disheartening to see when people step up to serve and advance the professional status and standing of their collegues (even though competitors in the broader economic context) to be derided and taken on in a forum like this case, for a petty personal inclination of a person that wants to have a big say with a tiny microphone.  

RJ,
It's hard to piss me off but you have zero idea about this.  Read my opening post.  I never mentioned any particular organzization.  someone else did that later on.  This is not a petty personal inclination from someone that wants to have a big say.  That type of cpmment really pisses me off.

[Mike_Young]

Greg

I don't think it is presumptuous at all. I am an expert in golf operations and I am confident speaking to the issue.

I am a small operator like Mike and have known Mike for twenty-five years.   I have  been directly familiar with Mike's issues re: the pricing model of the GSGA and have spoken directly with Mike about his issues.  I have acted as an intermediary between Mike and the GSGA staff to make sure they understood his concerns and he understood theirs.  I am familiar with small clubs all over the state and have a good idea of their membership levels.  
Man I come back on here and there is a page of comments takng thi thing to another level.
I was not the one who mentioned a particular state golf association.  someone else began that.
Also, I did join on my own and I have no problem with that.  As I said earlier I want to support the state assoc.  

I can confidently say that Mike, while he may not have liked the answers he was getting, was perfectly aware of the fee structure and the fact that the GSGA was not going to lower the minimum member requirement any more.  I do not agree that a good "sales and marketing job" could have avoided his objections.  Two sides had a position.  Two sides understood one another.  Mike had a CHOICE to accept the benefits I outlined above for the price described or not.  
I agree BUT I have not requested a rating of the golf course and will not until I get it the way I want it.  If you here differently then there is some confusion.  also, I was told I had to have the computer and that's fine.  I would be glad to pay them a separate fee for the computer.

The precedent you mention is not apples to apples.  The precedent is for a product in SC, not GA.  If GA had a ten person minimum for some clubs that it did not extend to Mike, I'd be on the front lines defending him..I hope  you will accept that GA is a different animal and a one size fits all minimum for our country may not work.  Is it not presumptuous of you to assume that the GSGA hadn't thought about all these issues and debated them, discussing the pros and cons at length?  I can assure you they have.
Are you sure there have not been exceptions to the rule made?

Here is what I think is a bit presumptuous

If I agree to pay x for services x,y and z,I think it is wrong to later complain publicly that the company providing x, y and z didn't do it on my terms or that somehow they are now  taking advantage of me (assuming of course that he benefits they promised were delivered).
Again, it was not be that specifically named an organization and I have never said anyone was taking advantage of me.  I complained of "partner" golf courses outside the state and of minimums.  And I would assume that the promotional fees of the "partners" are probably going to the magazine and not the association.  

Your suggestion that things could be done "differently" is well, true but so what?  Better?  Of course.  Any organization can improve and I said the GSGA could certainly do things better multiple times.  I hate to sound this way but everything you said about marketing and Mike's suggestions for different pricing aren't new and have been examined.  I personally think we could improve our marketing and I think it is crucial to dispel the notion that all one gets for a state assoc membership is a handicap!!  You are right that they MUST do a better job selling themselves.  (All the member benefits I mentioned are on the GSGA website and they describe the benefits to individuals as well as clubs).  Also, they do reach out personally to all new clubs and owners to try and explain those benefits.  

With Mike, nothing more could have been done to explain the benefits.  For some crazy reason, he joined anyway . I will redouble my efforts as a fellow member club to try and convince him that it is beneficial for him to be a part of the GSGA even if he sells not one more membership and must come out of pocket $270 this year!
I joined to show support and they knew that.  I told them I thought there should be no minimum and will probably do it again.  The fat one agrees with me on all of this and we both agree with you regarding the game basically being entertainment and fun.  I think there will be other things coming down the pike regarding the types of issues we are discussing and I don't think I'm the bad guy here nort do I think anyone else is ( that's why RJ pissed me off) but golf is changing and I can't make myself think that I am the only one out there with a small town golf course thinking the way I am thinking.  I know I'm not.  

Do you know Mike???  Sales and marketing are useless against him!!!  They needed a hammer
You don't need a hammer...I think Martha and crew are great and do fine selling and marketing the product.  I told them I felt a base amount much like the NGCOA or something would fair and then charge for handicaps.  That way all are supporting lobby efforts etc.  But that's not the way they do it and OK. And I think there will be a day when such a method will be necessary.  As you know my consultant in these matters ( Mr. DT himself) also feels it will go that way.

[Mike_Young]

The outline of benefits for individual golfers and courses (owners in many cases) could cerrtaiy be explained better but I don't see how voluntary membership in the assoc is "crammed down anyone's throat".  Mike asked the GSGA to send a crew (usually three women and three men) to spend a full day measuring and rating his course. I don't think I have asked for this I assume he has his computer and printer and I know he was told up front what the minimum was. yepHe didn't reach his number that would allow him to break even or profit and seems to suggest a no minimum picy that would allow his club, his employees and his members to enjoy all the advantages if just one guy from his club signs up.  I didn't say that

You can't demand all the benefits of a buffet and expect a la carte pricing. I never didUnbundling services would not allow golf associations, in fact, many businesses, to survive. Sad to think many seem not to care a out the state associations who really do so much to support the game. I care about the game and it's survival.  We may disagree but that doesn't mean I don't care about the associations that support the game. 

[Chris Cupit]

All that red is giving me flashbacks to high school English class  

I think there is no doubt that SRGAs will be forced to adapt to a changing golf landscape.  How they market themselves, price their services and support their member clubs will be very different for sure.  One huge challenge is how to be relevant and offer services the daily fee golfer wants without stepping on the toes of the owner/operator.

Your issue illustrates this.  Our individual golfer wants other options and deals to play golf at different locations.  That "itinerant" golfer is a completely different animal than the private club guy.  Do we just ignore him though?  GSGA had been criticized for being overly focused on the private club guy and yet, reaching out to the daily fee golfer may be hard without offending the daily fee owner.  Our research shows the main things golfers want is access to many different courses at the lowest possible prices and deals on "golf stuff". To try  to give that to him or her without stepping on toes.

There are really two markets--the traditional member club that passes along the membership costs to their members a a small profit and the majority who are daily fee golfers not affiliated with any one particular club.  They have different needs and wants.  Arguably if the goal is simply to grow membership numbers (and no one I know thinks that should be the only or even the primary goal) then GSGA membership should be marketed directly to those golfers.  Most agree that would damage the relationship between GSGA, club and member and should be avoided.

As I mentioned on the phone weeks ago, the GSGA is working on a member benefit that will directly help you and your business with health care costs for your employees.  It is simply awaiting state approval.  Be patient and quit stirring up trouble

[Mike_Young]

Now I think you are getting close to the problem...but I don't describe it as much as private vs. daily fee but more of a profit driven club vs. the non profit clubs.  Two different animals and one is gaining ground and one is losing ground...
I don't stir up trouble but the comments from RJ really pissed me of as much as anything ever on this site...I'm still not over it...

Did you see that fat boy's record was broken yesterday by Keegan B?

[RJ_Daley]

Sorry Mike, but you named the thread, you fed it based on your State's association policies and examples and made it a grievance, so I never thought you were bringing the issue up for some guy running a mom and pop course in N. Dakota.  For me, it wasn't the particular golf professional association administration issue, it was what I interpreted was the process and tactic.  

The two issues themselves seem to have people who see them differently, pro and con.  But, if you feel agrieved, and you think you have company in your views within the industry and there are like minded collegues in your STate, why don't you put yourself out there and get elected or submit to the process to get on a committee and represent that other point of view you have?  Why are you bringing such an arcane issue to GCA.com?  I just have a sense that there are a number of hard working people (just as there are in our State association) who aren't getting rich or anything tawdry like that, who do a hell of a lot of work to promote golf as an industry and profession.  Why not take the grievance to your collegues and abide by the collective wisdom and go about changing policies when consensus gathers to change them, rather than this process?

Mike, you have standing to care about many aspects of golf, from professional organization standpoints; from owner-operator, builder, designer, club member, friend of many other golfers, generous host and all around nice guy.  I just don't understand why your grievance on various matters you've brought to this forum for discussion can't sustain the frank commentary your frank criticism of aspects and people in these matters has projected.

[Chris Cupit]

The outline of benefits for individual golfers and courses (owners in many cases) could cerrtaiy be explained better but I don't see how voluntary membership in the assoc is "crammed down anyone's throat".  Mike asked the GSGA to send a crew (usually three women and three men) to spend a full day measuring and rating his course. I don't think I have asked for this I assume he has his computer and printer and I know he was told up front what the minimum was. yepHe didn't reach his number that would allow him to break even or profit and seems to suggest a no minimum picy that would allow his club, his employees and his members to enjoy all the advantages if just one guy from his club signs up.  I didn't say that

You can't demand all the benefits of a buffet and expect a la carte pricing. I never didUnbundling services would not allow golf associations, in fact, many businesses, to survive. Sad to think many seem not to care a out the state associations who really do so much to support the game. I care about the game and it's survival.  We may disagree but that doesn't mean I don't care about the associations that support the game. 

The course rating service is a core service. You may not have asked for it but it is part of what GSGA provides and you have been around long enough to know that!   Though i know you dont like the way they measure sometimes either

Agreed that you didn't say that exactly. I said or was trying to say that your approach of no minimums, logically extended, could lead to abuse.  I think I understand you advocate a set minimum fee plus additional costs per handicap.  If that is accurate, It is different from what I thought you were suggesting earlier.

My next comment using the buffet analogy was meant as a general statement and I did not mean to direct it specifically at you.

I appreciate that we both love the game and want a healthy game for both noble and selfish reasons. I do think I see more good in SRGAs than you though.  . I also think your "anti establishment" temperament makes you less inclined to support groups and trade orgs.  

Greg--sorry if I got abrupt with you. I stand by what I said but I could have been nicer about it.

RJ. I appreciate your comments and insights re trade organizations.  

Mac--thank you for your GSGA Membership!

[Mike_Young]

My anti- establishment temperament???    Man, that hurts my feelings now I got to go get prescription for some of that anti-depressant medicine that all the little tennis wives take before they get in their suburbans.

Yep, you probably like associaitions more than I do.     I hate unions and feel as though many trade associations would like to move that way.  Like the PGA   And I think the putter situation will be a huge decision for the USGA.  I think the question for many will be...can I belong to the NGCOA or the PGA and the USGA....as we discussed in the last post, for profit clubs can function or will find a way to function on their own and associations will have to justify ( not saying any particular one) in order to be accepted by such.  IMHO

[Chris Cupit]

Just received my copy of John Barrett's FOREGeorgia June magazine.  As you know, FOREGeorgia is "The Officail Golfers' News Magazine of the Georgia Section PGA".

There are three full page ads in this edition and two are from out of state golf facilities--Fripp Island and the back cover is Dancing Rabbit Golf Club

The magazine is largely advertising space for daily fee golf courses across the state and while it may not be the same as an ad from the Trent Jones Golf trail I am pretty sure he waould accept ads from them as well!  Not sure how you would accept some out of state ads but not others?

Obviously I am not as bothered by "Georgia" magazines accpeting ad money from out of state facilities as you are (though I understand the concerns) but it is both the GSGA AND the Georgia Section PGA doing it.

[Chris Cupit]

OK.  I will try and make this my last post as this dog is pretty well dead

The pricing srtucture the GSGA chooses allows smaller clubs to be subsidized by larger clubs.  I paid just under $17,000 this year to the state golf association and you joined for a minimum of $1250.  Let's look at this for a moment:

We both received the exact same benefits--our courses are rated and sloped, our handicaps are compiled and updated, we each received a Dell computer, screen and printer, we both benefited from the lobbying efforts at the capitol re: water usage and property valuations thanks to to Economic Impact Study from Stanford paid for by the GSGA, we both have employees and their dependents eligible for the Yates and Moncreif Scholarship programs, we both benefit from the TPP, Handicap and Rules seminars and have equal access to call at anytime for help.

As a club the only real difference is a computer program calculates several hundred handicap indexes for me and about 30 for you (I am guessing).  That really isn't worth $16,000!?!?  I should be the one complaining as it is me, and other big clubs like me, that subsidize your membership!   But I am OK with that.

Also, our individual members receive the exact same benefits too--handicap, tournaments for every day play, championships, subscription to GolfGA and their choice of GolfWeek or GolfWorld, travel discounts plus other things I mentioned already.

One last thought--we both mark up and sell at a profit the GSGA Membership.  It costs us $25 per Member.  I charge my Member $33 so I make $8 per person.  Most clubs charge $40-$50 and some (Cherokee I think, bundles it with their range program for $200) charge even more.  It is essentially an inventory item you can sell at your club.

Assuming a $40 price, selling GSGA Memberships is more profitible than selling ProV1 balls and you dont have to "carry" any inventory!  I wish owners would realize that they are better off encouraging and selling GSGA Membership than the prov1s but it is tough.  Also, I promise that in my club, my member who has a GSGA Membership and a handicap is more engaged and less likely to become disengaged with golf and therefore quit.  GSGA Membership is another "sticking point" for them and something any owner wants--sticking points to keep your customers/members tied to your facility!