I don't think golf needs to abandon expectations of decorum, etiquette, and attire. Golf clothing has changed dramatically even in just the short time I've been playing. I'm just old enough to remember the sound of real spikes on the pavement on the way in to the clubhouse and deca-pleated pants. When I started to play regularly in my late teens, I think just about everyone was wearing cotton, and some were probably even wearing wool. We just accepted that smelling like ass and feeling disgusting was part of the game. I still remember seeing a random college tournament maybe 12 years ago and seeing "athletic" golf shoes for the first time, and thinking they were hideous. Ten years later, I watched Mr. Decline of Decency himself, Ben Cowan, tee off while wearing a pair of white TW '13s. I was wearing them too. Expectations for decorum, etiquette, and attire will continue to change gradually, but as long as norms continue to exist, the culture of the game will be just fine. At the same time, Kyle's point that an industry will struggle to attract innovative minds if it discriminates against the cultural norms of modern society is a good one. Thinking briefly through the innovators of the last 15 years, it's hard not to think of guys ranging from business casual Elon Musk to the jeans and white shoes of Steve Jobs to the hoodies of Mark Zuckerberg (and Bill Belichick for that matter, who would never be mistaken for Hank Stram). Transportation has Uber, music has iTunes, tourism has AirBnB, and the golf industry has GolfNow. The real price golf will pay for being dorky and stuffy is the opportunity cost that comes from being ignored by people with game-changing ideas who would rather work at something cool.
The discussion of attire and decorum and all that other stuff isn't really what I want to get into, though. I'm still much more interested in how the game's playing fields can, should, and/or actually will evolve over the next few decades, and what that evolution will mean for the game's long-term health. I'm not even really interested in the golf industry - I have no stake in golf being a lucrative business. But I do have a stake in knowing the game will find an economic balance that assures it has a future and doesn't simply disappear.
I think it's pretty obvious that if golf hadn't been conceived of prior to today, that golf would not be invented in the future - at least not in its current form. A game that requires about 200 acres of maintained landscaping and takes 4 hours to play if you're lucky would not be invented in 2016. The fact that golf would never get off the ground if it was only now being conceived of does not mean that golf can't thrive in the future, but it does mean that the game has some serious threats to its long-term health. I guess I really just wonder if there's anything architecturally that can be done to mitigate those threats, and what systematic shifts in the way that golfers think about the game are plausible and could drive those architectural changes to improve the game's place within society, even if they don't fix the golf "business." The Kirkland golf ball interests me, because it's really just a harbinger of further future changes in the equipment market. Equipment manufacturers will see their profit margins decline after the graphite/carbon/titanium/MOI/COR/urethane-covered-four-piece bubble of the last 15 years now that equipment performance is regulated to a point of essentially being maxed out. As R&D's role is reduced, cost of concept and production will go down and eventually manufacturers will start undercutting their competitors until a new quality equipment price point established. It'll be painful - manufacturing companies will go out of business or be acquired, jobs will be eliminated, and executives will make less money. But the outcome will be a much more sustainable market.
As we can look back and see that the equipment industry was building a bubble that would eat itself, we also know that a construction bubble for golf in the economic boom of the '90s led to the proliferation of courses that were too long, too expensive to maintain, and too expensive (and slow) to play. We know that golf won't survive if maintenance costs don't stabilize or decrease, and we know the game can't survive if it gets much more expensive for players. We also know that golf courses worth a couple million dollars will eventually succumb if the massive amount of land they sit on is worth 10+ million for other purposes. And yet, we also know that golfers will continue to demand excellent conditioning and an experience that feels high-end. So how will the game adjust to these realities? Or will it fail to adjust and slowly disappear? I'm sure that the answer to the second question is yes, but I'd love to be convinced otherwise.
In the meantime, I need to confirm my foursome at Topgolf tomorrow.