Tom P:  Don't worry about Mr. Tillinghast, he's probably hitting the bottle again.  I knew my recent success has made some architects jealous, but I didn't dream it had an impact on the dead ones, too!

Actually, I brought up The Donald because he is a symbol of the over-the-top salesmanship that is taking place in some corners of the golf business [though the Belfair quote is a strong contender for the title].  But I would agree with you that Mr. Trump believes everything increases in value when his name is attached to it, and he has several million reasons to think so.

I also agree that "anti-excess" is the wave of the near future, but it's really pretty amazing whose money is behind some of that low key stuff.

There is no question that buzz marketing is pretty effective but I was trying to establish if there are any ground rules to when it should start.  

Barnbougle was brought up and it's an excellent example ... I was uncomfortable with Greg Ramsay's earliest posts on the subject trying to generate interest [and raise money via lifetime memberships], because at that point in the game, the project was unfunded and there wasn't much chance he was going to be successful that way.  In the end, Greg wasn't, but a handful of Australian investors put up some money, and Mike Keiser's enthusiasm over the site was enough to convince the landowner to put up the rest of the cash himself, and now there is a golf course!  So Greg got to see his dream realized after all, and we got to build something pretty extraordinary.

But there must be fifty other projects at that stage somewhere in the world today, and I don't know if Ran wants all of them on here trying to sell the merits of their site.

Ed G:  I'm surprised at the response only because I think there is the potential for oversaturation of these types of things, and because I know there are actual living people out there who think the amount of promotion I do here is already too much.

I'll chime in.....

As for Tom's question about "guidelines" for over the top, acceptable, etc. I think he, and 99% of the people in the biz can distinguish without the help of this group.  If I feel the slightest bit uncomfortable doing something, then I don't do it.  As the old joke goes, if it smells, looks, and tastes like poop, then.....

If there were really anyone who participated here that has the $100,000 available to join some of these expensive clubs that are supposedly being promoted here, I am not aware of it.....and if someone has the $10 mil necessary to build a golf course (I know there are a few exceptions to both) then self laudatory/promotional posts could be considered marketing and salesmanship.  

I have never considered this a venue that is going to land me loads of contracts, I just do it for fun and edumacation.  The proof is in the fact that I actually tell the truth as I see it, rather than parrot the well known "party line" here.  Hey, if I wanted to sell to the group that comes on here, I wouldn't have posted half the stuff I have.....BTW, If I am wrong, omigod, about no real clients being on here, please let me know ASAP!

Jeff,

According to Tom's New Year Card, he has 18 years on you (or a few less, depending on just when you started with Rod)

Rod isn't the only GCA who can't get on the net.....but I won't mention names.  However, golf course architects are human (so is Trump, although he and some GCA go out of their way to dissuade you from belieivng that) and jealousy, envy, respect, etc. are all part of that equation.  I suspect we are all a bit jealous deep down, but as adults try to mask it, or disguise it.  And, as you say, every moment spent worrying about someone else is a moment less to be your best, whether in career or other aspects of a fulfilling life.

I know one of the great things about ASGCA (or other industry gatherings) for me is that I was jealous when younger, (I'll only speak for myself, but I think it has occurred in other GCA's) and often tended to go so far as to personalize it - as in "if he got that job, he must have done some really jerky stuff."  I see that from some fans here, implied in their posts about non-favorite gca's.  However, when you meet the people in question, you find to your surprise that you like most of them, they are good guys, that they have the same struggles you have (even the famous ones), that you have more in common than diffeences, and that you tend to forget the jobs you beat them out for, and remember the ones that they beat you for.  For them, its just the opposite!

John,

My favorite sign - over an LA freeway read, "Last Chance For Ammo Before the Highway."

"Tom P:  Don't worry about Mr. Tillinghast, he's probably hitting the bottle again.  I knew my recent success has made some architects jealous, but I didn't dream it had an impact on the dead ones, too!"

TomD:

What did I say about Tillinghast on this thread? I don't remember.

You said:

"But there must be fifty other projects at that stage somewhere in the world today, and I don't know if Ran wants all of them on here trying to sell the merits of their site."

This really wouldn't be a hard question to answer. Obviously the best way to find out is to just ask Ran Morrissett but my sense is Ran can get excited about any startup if he thinks it has potental architecturally. Matter of fact, why don't I email him and ask him?

But the larger question I have is what difference does it make if anyone shows enthusiasm or salesmanship at any stage of a project? How does money ever get raised and interest get stimulated if those involved in the project from the beginning don't show enthusiasm and a good sense of salesmanship?

While I think I have made my inclinations known about enthusiasm and salesmanship (I have no problem with it and I have confidence those that are consumers can wade through the B.S.), I would like to explain one aspect of enthusiasm and salesmanship that is actually a legal no-no.

As some of you know, I made a failed attempt to develope a golf course and homesite project some 11-12 years ago.  It was somewhat unique in that we tried to capitalise it with a common stock share offering, with a privately placed debenture that I took.  

With respect to the common stock share offering, a prosectus had to be written with very specific language, not using "blue skies" enthusiasm, so to speak.  Had we used hyperbole and some of the typical "salesmanship" lingo we have seen in many of the big privately funded projects, we'd have been fined heavily and the offering would have been yanked off the market by the Securities Commissioner.

So, thee is a legal line, if the capitalization method is a public offering.  Ironically, Wild Horse was a public, intra-state stock offering, and I suspect they had similar "blue skies" restrictions in how they promoted it.