Tim:
I couldn't agree with you more that the manufacturers have gotten a free ride recently in shaping the debate about what's good for Joe Sixpack or the American golfer! You put this topic very well by saying "shaping the debate"!, because that's exactly what the manufacturers have done, particularly in the last four years since Buz Taylor made that remark (as he was being induced as President) about how the USGA was going to do something about this and they didn't care how many lawyers came after them (or something to that effect).
Quite obviously both Buz and the USGA completely misread the attitude and the expected (or hoped for) response from the manufacturers! To their obvious surprise the manufacturers came out swinging in every way after that remark. And quite obviously the USGA has been in their "paper Tiger" mode ever since!
Immediately following that brouhaha, the USGA should have come out with a well crafted "communications plan" the likes of which many of you have touched on here!
In my opinion, their approach to the public (even Joe Sixpack) should NOT have been something like; "We control and administer the rules of golf, we have for one hundred years and we will tell you what you can play with and what you can't".
It should have been something to the public like this; "With your support and compliance we have been able to administer the rules of the game for one hundred years and we feel that you feel the game has prospered and been preserved well to this point because of your compliance and support for the way we have administered the rules of the game."
They should then have gone on to explain how the game is threaten now by a technology explosion and apparent arms race for increased distance and basically what that could mean to the playing fields of the game. They should also have made it clearer to the public that the rules of golf are in two basic categories--the playing rules and the B&I rules! Very few people understand that and actually it's an important distinction to be aware of. It really was important too that they bring in the context of architecture at that point. They didn't do that that I'm aware of and if they did it was extremely limited and peripheral.
What they did is offer up some vague analogies of how failure to play within one set of rules or to abide by them and the dangers of unleashed technology had made other sports decline in popularity--and the one I heard was an analogy to bowling, of all things!!
That is or was just not definitive enough to what was going on or what could happen in the future. I'm sure that the USGA and the manufacturers, Tours, foundations, whatever are interested in the "popularity" of the game but I don't really know how interested I am or you are or Joe Sixpack is! But we are interested in our golf clubs and golf balls and certainly our golf courses!
They could have offered the public information on what had happened with the technology but the fact is they really weren't completely sure what had happened. Despite an expensive and sophisitcated test facility their stats were not really representative of what was happening or could happen and to date they still seem slightly unaware of that or unwilling to completely admit it.
This really all boiled down eventually to the single issue of what they perceived to be a COR related problem. It was that but much more than that! The USGA actually did not discover the COR problem, they were made aware of it by a manufacturer!
Without going into speculation of all the details that were causing the distance explosion, and that noone could really agree what was causing it in detail, the fact remains that although they might not agree what caused the problem, they could have agreed how to solve it.
And this is where and when the USGA did not communicate particularly well with the manufacturers and certainly they did not communicate well with the public.
At some point if the manufacturers smell blood and feel that the USGA has no real solid support from the public they will likely begin to stop communicating with the USGA and just try to take B&I matters into their own hands in an unregulated B&I world, or at the very least, regulated by another entity or likely other entities! We could be getting near that point.
So the USGA really does need to get out there with a really good and saleable message if they want to get the public back or really on their side. And frankly, enough time has gone by now (the last four years) where their message might need a slightly different "tone" than even four years ago!
For this I would offer one of the most extraordinary public messages I ever saw. It was John Lindsay, the Mayor of NYC who was running for reelection. He was considered arrogant, an elitist, and the average New Yorker was really down on him for appearing to be sort of a " lofty aristocratic appearing know it all". Lindsay was a total goner in the polls and the election was real near and along came a huge snow storm and shut down the city and the snow crews did a credible job but couldn't handle the storm very well. Well now, in that already unpopular atmosphere that Lindsay found himself in, the city blamed the whole thing on him and he was even more of a goner!
But on the advice of a political operative, who I'm still in awe of, Lindsay got on all the airwaves and TV stations and took full responibilty for the snow storm and the aftermath. He said that the storm and whatever failures there had been to clean it up properly were all his fault. Basically he said the storm and everything else NYC was pissed at he was persoanlly responsible for--that it was all his fault!
Do you think NYC even noticed the ludicrousness of Lindsay taking responsibility for an actual snow storm? Not at all, and he was reelected with plenty of breathing room votes to spare.
The USGA's policy now and for the future does not need to be the message but they do need a message and a communication plan and very good ones and they need them very soon.