Kalen and Mike, I used the example of skiing over xmas break as an example of dynamic pricing excluding some folk from participating. It is pretty obvious that more expensive lift tickets and lodging will keep many people away. Those that can afford the inflated price will be okay. Those that can't will have to find an alternative.
You don't grow the game by pricing people out with higher green fees or making the top courses to exclusive to have access.
For Kalen, Mike, Matt and everyone else who's made the point that this is just how it works and that dynamic pricing gives us benefits in other ways, you're all absolutely correct on the laws/rules of economics. I feel like Craig's point is that people on the lower end of the income scale can get the worst of both worlds here. If you don't have much money, you often also don't have the flexibility to take advantage of the benefits of low dynamic pricing. Now I realize that there's essentially nothing most of us can do about it, but it pays to acknowledge it I think. Low twilight rates make no difference to someone who only has free time on a weekend. Great shoulder season rates make no difference to someone whose only holidays are July 4th and Thanksgiving and Christmas. It's the job of nobody on this board to fix that paradox, but it's fair to accept that it exists for some people.
I do definitely care very much about this topic. I hope my comments don't come off like I don't. It's one of the reasons I'm trying to build the database I'm working on, so that normal people can be free of the gatekeepers grip on what places should get ink. It's one of the reasons why I change my view of the Fried Egg reviews after they highlighted some "normal" golf courses with good architecture. It's the reason I'm publishing a series on every hole at Gleneagles SF, to try to save a club with incredibly unique architecture, that doesn't fit the "correct" description of a great place to play. It's why I'm a member of the SF Public Golf Alliance to try and keep Sharp Park a place where everyone can play what's left of the MacKenzie course for a few bucks.
Especially private clubs, do not "owe" anyone on the outside anything. It may suck if you cannot gain access to play a course you want to play, but not every course/club has their sights set on growing the game. And that's ok. There are many courses/clubs out there that do have a mission to grow the game.
I'll constantly bring up on this forum, that this treatment of private clubs is not set in stone. Do not confuse decadence with natural right. I see the political winds in areas where concerns about water use and cost of living are moving us toward a place where private clubs are simply not allowed to continue to operate the way they do now.
Hunter and MacKenzie were right to be so enthusiastic about municipal golf... it's just that back then they were calling on the privates to help establish these municipal clubs. There are some folks out there who do volunteer their time, and those folks should never have to pay for a drink in any 19th hole. However I often find myself shaking my head when I see
another club doing
another renovation/restoration/whatever, on a perfectly opulent course, when their neighbors are struggling. Maybe that's not happening where you live, but it's a slow moving disaster in California.