BCowan; When you first came on this board, you immediately became involved in a series of vitriolic exchanges with a number of members including me. Your propensity to engage in ad hominem attacks has surfaced again. Candidly, I am reluctant to engage in another round because little has ever become of our prior discussions. But because others view the site, I will try once again.
Yes, and many of the comments made by you and others I felt where in very poor taste too. I know a fresh breathe of clean air is good from time to time. It is difficult to on my end engaging in discussions as well.
I am glad you concede that US clubs need carts. Your solution to almost all problems is to increase membership. As a long time professional dealing with economically troubled enterprises, I have learned that the universal answer to fixing a failing enterprise is to increase sales. I have also learned that this "obvious solution" rarely works. In this case, that solution assumes that there are sufficient members to fill the courses and that the elasticity of demand is such that by lowering the cost, membership will grow sufficiently to makeup the loss of revenue per member. It also assumes that cost is the main reason clubs or tee sheets are not full. Finally it assumes that the existing members who have created the model at their clubs, would support the changes. I submit that there is no data to support any of these assumptions. I also suspect that your experience is insufficient to justify reliance on your assertions.
I haven't seen any of your ''walking fees to gain more revenue'' work, mine have. I have many friends in the golf business. If the course is a top golf course and has an empty tee sheet, Cost is a big factor especially non affluent areas. Of course, many members at clubs don't own business and as Mr Mucci's friend and others in the Golf Business say ''members lose their minds and all common sense when they drive through the gates of their golf course''. That don't make much needed changes till it's too late. I also suspect that your experience is insufficient to justify reliance on your assertions another example of an elitist comment. What is that saying about making an assumption? Studies can be vastly flawed and the outcome can yield desired outcomes by the ones doing the collection. I much prefer horse sense, experience, and common sense. I will gander at data.
Interestingly, you suggest that there is no cost to the club for a walker. There is a cost to the club for every round. All overhead, whether it is to maintain the course, the clubhouse, pay the staff or otherwise is borne by the members. If you start with my assumption, that properly priced, cart fees will cover all direct and marginal costs of cart usage and contribute a profit, then cart users contribute more as their dues/greens fees are equal to the walker and the profit goes to the bottom line. Everybody brings costs. Carts add costs but priced correctly, the costs are offset and they even contribute to the bottom line. That said, I don't like them and use them only at facilities where they are required.There is a cost to the member in the 6 months he or she is most likely not using the facility. Your monthly dues go to pay for maint. Cart fees are very high in affluent areas, and add to the bottom line to pay for fu fu and other extra services that aren't basic necessities. The walker who pays his monthly dues is paying for the maint, staff, and necessities. So depending on the club's location and model that varies greatly. Taking a caddy doesn't contribute to the bottom line, other than possible savings in maint.
Similarly, your suggestion to fill in pools and end other services that are unprofitable is poorly reasoned. It assumes that the cost will disappear and that membership will remain constant, or any loss in membership will be made up by those flocking to join the club with fewer amenities but a lower cost. Again, no data. Moreover, if it were that easy, those in control of clubs would have already tried your solution.Filling in pools is an idea shared by many of my friends with common sense. Location, location, location. If the course isn't in a nice burb, wealthy members wives don't drive 30+ mins to drop kids off at the pool. One with good leadership has to determine if the pool is costing you money and a drain on the Golf Course. That main asset is the Golf course. The club i grew up redid their pool 15 years ago and its packed, the social membership is paying for it. location, location, location
Understand, I have no objection to any club that decides it wants to proceed in this way. My entire premise is that there are a variety of ways a club or public course can structure itself. Each club must find a formula that works for its members. I have had a great time at no frills all golf facilities. I have been unimpressed by the golf experience at some high prestige tracks. But I support each membership/owner's right to determine what works for them.I agree with everything, except the last sentence. It is beyond frustrating watching golden age courses close due to repackaging of the same old CC model.
Finally regarding some of your more personal remarks. I may have views about the inevitability of contraction in the market, but I do more than pontificate about it on the internet. I contribute a significant amount of my time as an officer/director of one of the largest Golf Associations in the country where I spend a fair amount of my time working with our member clubs to assist them in remaining viable. I suspect I have had more discussions with decision makers in this area than most and I have seen financials for a few clubs. But I suppose that qualifies me as one who wants contraction in the market. I contribute my time as well, I know what organization ur on. A friend of mine wants me join our organization, he is trying his hardest to change the perception of golf and is doing wonders. People making the same old decision and not listening to the market (potential members like me) is arrogance. I've seen financial too, played uber clubs, and actually worked at uber clubs. Serving on boards and getting paid for advice doesn't mean that someone's ideas actually work in reality. I get feedback from friends in the business that make great gains in memberships in poor markets. Guess what, walking fees for additional income weren't on the list.
Similarly, your dismissal of the charitable contributions of many clubs strikes me as uninformed and ill mannered at best. Caddy programs in Chicago contribute to the Evans Scholar program via contributions from virtually every member. My club has its own scholarship program on top of the Evans for caddies and other employees and their families. Additionally, many clubs, including mine, require applicants to demonstrate a history of charitable giving on the theory that those who are fortunate enough to be able to enjoy a private club should give back. Your suggestion that this is some form of hokum is insulting. What you apparently refuse to recognize is that clubs can be more than a place to play golf. Again, there is nothing wrong with the golf only model if that is what works for a club. But your blanket dismissal of other models reveals a lack of intellectual flexibility and an ignorance of the market.I love the Evans, and spoke very highly of it, so don't twist my words. I said there were other ways to contribute to the Evans without a caddy program. I apologize for my tone, but you make it out to be that you are all saints. The clubs that try and be more than GOLF are hurting, unless protected in an affluent area. I had a nice lunch at a cafe in Deerfield on my way up to WI. I can make a blanket statement and say clubs in declining burbs are struggling trying to keep the 1950's membership model afloat, that is a fact. Metro Chicago and Detroit are no different. I also offered solutions that have been implemented (reality) at top club(s) that are working, which falls on deaf ears!
Finally, and I hesitate to even discuss it, I refer to your suggestion that I am a snob. I have been on this board for a long time. A lot of the folks here have come to know me. I am a lot of things, but one thing I am certain I am not, is a snob. What I am is a stickler for clear thinking and careful research. I am also one who, having made a living for 40 years engaged in argumentation that was more meaningful than idle debates about a mutual interest, insists that arguments be carried on in a respectful manner recognizing that one can only defeat an argument by establishing its weaknesses, not by attacking the proponent. To the extent my remarks here are deemed an attack on you, I apologize. I don't know you. They are intended to be a critique of your arguments and the manner in which they have been made. If that reflects on the proponent, it is an unfortunate byproduct.Your comment was snobbish, doesn't mean you are a snob. I apologize for my tone towards you. I can tell you my suggestions aren't tested. You also are implying that my thinking isn't clear. My opinion is shared by many in the Golf business, the silent majority.