State golf associations and promotion of out of state courses...

[David_Tepper]

"I may be cynical on all of it"

Mike -

We are only six months in, but that is certainly a contender for the understatement of year.

DT

[Mike_Young]

"I may be cynical on all of it"

Mike -

We are only six months in, but that is certainly a contender for the understatement of year.

DT

   and I also may be right

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thought you were a certified southern conservative, but with you complaining about every organization that done you wrong, shoule we label you a snowflake instead?  


At the very least, someone should write a someone done Mike Young wrong song and put it on the local country channel......

[Mike_Young]

Mike, how many rounds would you estimate that RTJ Trail ad drove out of the state?

I don't know.


Aren't the people likely to see that ad also likely to take at least one out-of-state golf trip per year, anyway?

Some will...


Would you also discourage state golf associations without year-round seasons from promoting warm-weather destinations?

Let me ask it this way.  If the owners of the course who make up the state association were on the boards making the decision do you think they would be taking ads from competition at times they were open other than in state courses?   And promoting a course far enough away to require a flight or overnight travel is a different matter.    Also, in Georgia they have several of these large adjoining state places come on as partners.  That's BS and owners would not allow such.

Mike--


Per Google Maps, it's a skosh under 600 miles and just less than a nine-hour drive from St. Marys, Georgia to The Shoals Golf Club, the northwesternmost outpost of the RTJ Trail. Would you not consider that journey "overnight travel"?


I looked through almost the entire latest edition of the GSGA publication online before being hit with a paywall, and it looked like roughly half the ads were for GA-based properties and businesses, and half weren't. Of the non-GA ads, there were Srixon and BMW, and then ads for the RTJ Trail, Myrtle Beach, Maggie Valley in NC and the Sheraton Bay Point Resort in the FL Panhandle. FWIW, all of these destinations are far enough from parts of Georgia to satisfy your "overnight travel" exception.


I'm guessing all of those non-Georgia advertisers (I don't have to guess for Myrtle Beach - I know it for a fact) derive the majority of their visitors from drive-in markets, and that Georgia-based visitors are an important part of their business.


This is true whether or not they advertise in the GSGA publication, of course, and GSGA members are going to visit those locales whether or not they see their ads in the magazine. Why wouldn't the GSGA want to get some ad $ - and why wouldn't these advertisers want the extra eyeballs/potential leads - especially if it would help defray the cost of the assembly of the publication and improve the Georgia-centric goals the GSGA pursues?


And if someone sees the ad in the GSGA pub, goes to Maggie Valley and has a great time, don't you think that will deepen that person's affinity for the association on some level?


From the standard rate of $40/year, by how much would you increase your GSGA membership dues if it meant only GA-based businesses were allowed to advertise within? To $80? $100? $200?


To assert that "taking big ad dollars" from non-Georgia advertisers is necessarily "competing against" GA golf courses belies a narrow and, IMO, inaccurate view of the golf habits of the audience.

I would not increase my dues at all.  I actually stopped.  I don't need them.  How many smaller courses do you think are not members? The younger new golfers don't want handicaps so the course has to absorb the entire annual dues cost.  The larger clubs can actually make money because they have more than enough handicaps to cover dues. 
You are stretching it when you take the far end of two states to compare.  And the places I mentioned are  "Travel Partners" with GSGA.  As you get older you will realize half or these associations feed off of their members.  It wasn't always that way but today they don"t offer much.  Lots of feel good programs and talk about growing the game but that's all to raise more money and justify larger staffs. 

[Mike_Young]

Thought you were a certified southern conservative, but with you complaining about every organization that done you wrong, shoule we label you a snowflake instead?  


At the very least, someone should write a someone done Mike Young wrong song and put it on the local country channel......

I never said they "done me wrong" ..I said I did not agree and would not be supporting them...I don't play the victim game...just trying tp enlighten these basement dwellers and get them thinking...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


I agree many organizations (including various governments) build up staff and then start looking for ways to keep their jobs.  Every one of them needs a clean out every so often as they get stale.  Seems that the members of GCSAA protested a move of HQ to Orlando as being more staff serving than member serving....if my memory serves. (it often doesn't)


Not sure if the GGA is quite there yet with this advertising, but understand your point.  You have to take the bigger view that promoting golf in general is a good thing, and you seem to be stuck on the idea of very direct benefit.  I don't know what it is, other than perhaps keeping association dues down, or allowing them to do other programs.  At least, that is what the less cynical would hope.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


I agree many organizations (including various governments) build up staff and then start looking for ways to keep their jobs.  Every one of them needs a clean out every so often as they get stale.  Seems that the members of GCSAA protested a move of HQ to Orlando as being more staff serving than member serving....if my memory serves. (it often doesn't)


Not sure if the GGA is quite there yet with this advertising, but understand your point.  You have to take the bigger view that promoting golf in general is a good thing, and you seem to be stuck on the idea of very direct benefit.  I don't know what it is, other than perhaps keeping association dues down, or allowing them to do other programs.  At least, that is what the less cynical would hope.

Jeff,
Someone has to be cynical. It's healthy and not necessarily bad if you don't let it creep into your overall.  Myself, I just don't like all the BS that is often seen but not discussed with so many of these things because people fear it will hurt them down the road.  What I've foind is that more people know when you are onto some of this crap than you would think but they choose to tiptoe.  I just have fun with it.

Anyway back to the subject...I do think promoting golf in general is a good thing.  But the most overlooked segment of golf is the individual course which is the backbone of the sport.  A well run, well maintained public golf course can still make it if it is owner operated and not farmed out to the management companies and not laden with debt.  The average golfer at many of these places is not interested in golf in the same way as a club member in an urban setting.  He may not wish to pay you for a handicap and yet dues to the state assoc is $1250 bucks etc per year which gives you 50 $25 handicaps for free.  So if a club can sell 50 handicaps at 40 bucks etc they can fund the assoc at no cost.  Many of the smaller places can't do that and yet the larger urban clubs may have 400 handicaps which allows them to actually make money and not even know they fund the assoc.  These associations know that and they stock their boards with urban private club members and in general ignore the smaller clubs.  It happens all over. 
There are all sorts of "feel good" programs out there that industry donates to in order to get the marketing hype.  First Tee,  Hook a Kid, Golf Environment and all of that stuff.  They don't work any better than what the individual members can do on their own for much less money.  But the associations know they have a vulnerable group of volunteers out there that they can attract because they wish to be associated with the game.  These are normally very good people but they don't depend on the business for a living as you or I do.  They get fed the line and life goes on. 

Jeff, at the end of the day not one state golf association or the USGA matters to the individual for profit course out there.  It's easy to go with them and considered cynical not to.  And other than getting on here and getting fired up I forget about it.  That's how significant it really is.

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike,


As you know, I'm on the executive committee for the South Carolina Golf Association. I struggle with a lot of the same issues that you bring up. It's a bit different with each association, but you are correct that the association's members are the "member clubs," not individual golfers... however, that is changing even in South Carolina. We now offer individual memberships for golfers who don't belong to a member club. There are just too many non-club golfers out there for us not try to find a way to serve them. We are constantly asking ourselves what the golfer wants from us and, mostly, it is a chance to play... either in an event or a "play day" at one of our member courses. It takes people to offer these opportunities, but I think we do a great job of keeping a lean staff.


With the number of clubs shrinking and the number of members at those clubs slowly fading away I think you will see a greater emphasis going forward on offerings to the non-club golfer.



Do you have a "Slope" or "Course Rating" on your scorecard? If yes, you might want to have cards made up without those numbers as they are registered and owned by the USGA and only authorized for use by member clubs through their regional associations. If you have dropped your membership of the GSGA you really are not supposed to display a "Slope" or "Course Rating" on your scorecards, website, etc. This also means that any rounds a golfer plays on your course cannot be posted for their USGA handicap. I doubt that the GSGA would crack down on that, but they could... it has been discussed here in SC... especially the use of "Slope" and "Course Rating".


I was really glad to see that you no longer offer tee times through GolfNow. Good for you!

[Tom_Doak]

 There are just too many non-club golfers out there for us not try to find a way to serve them. We are constantly asking ourselves what the golfer wants from us



Do you have a "Slope" or "Course Rating" on your scorecard? If yes, you might want to have cards made up without those numbers as they are registered and owned by the USGA and only authorized for use by member clubs through their regional associations. If you have dropped your membership of the GSGA you really are not supposed to display a "Slope" or "Course Rating" on your scorecards, website, etc. This also means that any rounds a golfer plays on your course cannot be posted for their USGA handicap. I doubt that the GSGA would crack down on that, but they could... it has been discussed here in SC... especially the use of "Slope" and "Course Rating".

Michael:


The last part was the most bothersome thing I've read all day.  Someone years ago told me the USGA was trying to monopolize the handicap system, but I didn't think they were serious.  I guess they were.


The first part, taken out of context, sounds a bit like a hammer in search of more nails.  It would be one thing if you had a clear mission statement ... but it's another if you are trying to figure out what the golfer wants from you.  Organizations frequently overlook the possibility that the answer to this question is "nothing".

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


As you know, I'm on the executive committee for the South Carolina Golf Association. I struggle with a lot of the same issues that you bring up. It's a bit different with each association, but you are correct that the association's members are the "member clubs," not individual golfers... however, that is changing even in South Carolina. We now offer individual memberships for golfers who don't belong to a member club. There are just too many non-club golfers out there for us not try to find a way to serve them. We are constantly asking ourselves what the golfer wants from us and, mostly, it is a chance to play... either in an event or a "play day" at one of our member courses. It takes people to offer these opportunities, but I think we do a great job of keeping a lean staff.


With the number of clubs shrinking and the number of members at those clubs slowly fading away I think you will see a greater emphasis going forward on offerings to the non-club golfer.



Do you have a "Slope" or "Course Rating" on your scorecard? If yes, you might want to have cards made up without those numbers as they are registered and owned by the USGA and only authorized for use by member clubs through their regional associations. If you have dropped your membership of the GSGA you really are not supposed to display a "Slope" or "Course Rating" on your scorecards, website, etc. This also means that any rounds a golfer plays on your course cannot be posted for their USGA handicap. I doubt that the GSGA would crack down on that, but they could... it has been discussed here in SC... especially the use of "Slope" and "Course Rating".


I was really glad to see that you no longer offer tee times through GolfNow. Good for you!

Michael,
Thanks for the comments.  I don't think the State associations can serve two masters and trying to serve clubs and individuals is two different things IMHO.  Once the associations start trying to serve the individual then they are competing with the member clubs also.  For instance 400 clubs trying to sell merchandise and the state association trying to be sponsored and taking ad dollars from PGA Superstore or others.  Zero sense there.  As for slopes and ratings....I would love for them to begin an argument on that subject...much of all of this could be corrected if more of the public clubs had representation on the associations.  If it evolves as you suggest it will be even wore with individual golfers being sought as associaiton members and the boards being made mostly of private club dudes.  Or at least in Georgia it is that way.  I think you system is much more fair in that the club mainly pays for handicaps and a small annual dues basis.  However, if the magazine cannot make it on advertising that is good for the member clubs then they should make it smaler or shut it down.  JMO

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike - you and I are aligned fairly well. Our membership fees are very low, as are our handicap fees... around $16 per golfer. We also have a magazine that is published only twice per year and is definitely not a revenue source for the organization.     I read the Metropolitan Golf Association magazine regularly and it is filled with "outside" ad revenue. I can see where it would be difficult for a daily fee course to justify membership in their association if they don't have members who keep a handicap or play in statewide competitions... especially if the fees are as high as you describe. It's definitely different motivation than the private clubs.


As for "serving two masters" or being a "hammer in search of a nail," when we talk with golfers who are not club members we are often asked why they can't join the SCGA and play in our events. As a result, we have run a few projects of creating non-course clubs to give these players a golf "home" and fellowship often associated with a traditional club... scheduled weekly games, full club tournament schedule, socials, etc. The response has been good and many of these golfers have gone on to join a "traditional" club after enjoying the independent club experience. In a way, we have created a small "farm system" for recruiting club members. It's just in its infancy, but early returns are encouraging. I think anything we can do to help clubs recruit new members is a good thing. That's what I meant by trying to find a way to serve non-club golfers.

[Mike_Young]

Michael,

Just spouting off bot arguing here....I think we all are seeing more "non-course" clubs but I still consider the "non-course club" to be the member and not it's individual members. 
I read what TD had to sy a few post back he is a much better wordsmith than myself.  When he says" Organizations frequently overlook the possibility that the answer to this question is "nothing".   Nothing is what I think most golfers today need from an association such as the USGA.  Most don't even know the difference between USGA and PGA.  All these guys want is to play better and play where they have good greens and friends to play with.   I am quite certain the associations deep down know they are in trouble and the NBC/GolfNow is the elephant in the room.  They will be the handicap and the golf club for a large portion.  And then yesterday ClubCorp partners with TopGolf so that guys at TopGolf can play their clubs etc.  Lots of crap being played right now.  In the end it will boil down to guys wanting good greens at a reasonable price with friends to play with.  All of these so called fixes including the First Tee type stuff is manufactured to help rais emoney for more positions in headquarters.  JMO

[Michael Whitaker]

Mike - I disagree a little... as long as men, women and juniors want to compete in the association's statewide competitions, and as long as membership in the association is required to participate, the association will exist... maybe with a smaller footprint.


And, as long as playing in a member club's events (such as member/guest) requires an "official" USGA handicap that is recognized between clubs it doesn't matter what GolfNow does with handicaps. Straka tried to take over handicaps in SC with his GolfNet system and fell flat because the handicaps were not recognized by the SCGA clubs in the state.


I'm sorry your association is not trying to help you attract new players or members to make the association a valuable entity to you. Maybe someday!

[Mike_Young]

Mike - I disagree a little... as long as men, women and juniors want to compete in the association's statewide competitions, and as long as membership in the association is required to participate, the association will exist... maybe with a smaller footprint.

I see where you come from but I think GolfNow has a much larger bully pulpit and is a very dangerous thing for golf.  They have already begun their tournament series for players and just recently hosted one with 100 players at Athens.  Also the association will exist as long as the member clubs wish to belong.  It wasn't long ago that golf associations did not want public golf courses and now they depend on them even though they try to keep the old private clubs in charge. 


And, as long as playing in a member club's events (such as member/guest) requires an "official" USGA handicap that is recognized between clubs it doesn't matter what GolfNow does with handicaps. Straka tried to take over handicaps in SC with his GolfNet system and fell flat because the handicaps were not recognized by the SCGA clubs in the state.
I think this issue will become smaller and smaller.  I am betting that if a group of course raters(not magazine raters) who were trained by the USGA rating committee were to come to a private course and apply the same rules to rating a course outside of the USGA it would be difficult to keep a club from using that slope and rating....and if the PGA ever decides to not play nice they will take over the handicaps...they should anyway.  It would make more sense.

I'm sorry your association is not trying to help you attract new players or members to make the association a valuable entity to you. Maybe someday!

I'm one who doesn't think associations attract new players.  That's just one of their sales lines.  Population with god greens and people to play with on a consistent basis where one can have a game is what I have seen attract new members more than anything.
[/quote]

[Ed Brzezowski]

Mike - I disagree a little... as long as men, women and juniors want to compete in the association's statewide competitions, and as long as membership in the association is required to participate, the association will exist... maybe with a smaller footprint.

I see where you come from but I think GolfNow has a much larger bully pulpit and is a very dangerous thing for golf.  They have already begun their tournament series for players and just recently hosted one with 100 players at Athens.  Also the association will exist as long as the member clubs wish to belong.  It wasn't long ago that golf associations did not want public golf courses and now they depend on them even though they try to keep the old private clubs in charge. 


And, as long as playing in a member club's events (such as member/guest) requires an "official" USGA handicap that is recognized between clubs it doesn't matter what GolfNow does with handicaps. Straka tried to take over handicaps in SC with his GolfNet system and fell flat because the handicaps were not recognized by the SCGA clubs in the state.
I think this issue will become smaller and smaller.  I am betting that if a group of course raters(not magazine raters) who were trained by the USGA rating committee were to come to a private course and apply the same rules to rating a course outside of the USGA it would be difficult to keep a club from using that slope and rating....and if the PGA ever decides to not play nice they will take over the handicaps...they should anyway.  It would make more sense.

I'm sorry your association is not trying to help you attract new players or members to make the association a valuable entity to you. Maybe someday!

I'm one who doesn't think associations attract new players.  That's just one of their sales lines.  Population with god greens and people to play with on a consistent basis where one can have a game is what I have seen attract new members more than anything.
[/quote]

I thought slope and rating had to be approved by the USGA? Or an AGA?

A rating mutiny??

[Mike_Young]

I thought slope and rating had to be approved by the USGA? Or an AGA?

A rating mutiny??


They probably do, just like anchoring, long putter, golf ball etc but who cares.  Less than 3% of people with handicaps ever use them for USGA or State golf assoc competitions.  The various member/guest confirmations will get over it.  I am quite sure I can make my own slope and rating on a scorecard if I wish.   
I have noticed that the new cool thing for clubs wanting to be the top of pecking order is to not have a slope or rating or membership just like ANGC.  A few being done now have no affiliation.