Four @$70 or Seven @$40?

[John Kavanaugh]

Which model would you roll your bank and why?

[Mac Plumart]

I don't understand the question.  "roll your bank" ? 

[Ed Brzezowski]

Did he mean bankroll?

[Carl Rogers]

the typical quality vs quantity debate ... that is if the $70 is really worth it??

Mr. Kavanaugh, is there specific example you have alluded to?

[John Kavanaugh]

Which greenfee would you prefer to manage and/or sell?  Yes, roll your bank. Ie: bankroll

[Mac Plumart]

I'd prefer a higher greenfee.

Less golfers.  Less damage to the course.  More income per golfer.

But I'd go way higher than $70.

But, that is just me.

[Ed Brzezowski]

The $70 route, for reasons already posted.

[JESII]

I doubt it's ever an either/or once you get off the spreadsheet presentation...how do you turn 7@$40 to 6@$60?

[Carl Nichols]

At those fees, do you get close to 75% more food, bev (high margins) or merchandise sales with 75% more golfers?

[Ed Brzezowski]

Really depends on our local market. Just got back fom Naples and 70 bucks would be a killer price down there.

[Carl Rogers]

Now I understand ...

i see the benefits of less number of golfers and less wear & tear on the course.

I would do aggressive prime time pricing and steep discounts for twilight & weekdays to spread out play during the week.  I would close the course on Mondays.

[Anthony Gray]

I'd prefer a higher greenfee.

Less golfers.  Less damage to the course.  More income per golfer.

But I'd go way higher than $70.

But, that is just me.

  I agree with Mac. Price doesn't matter if you're playing the best.

  Anthony

[Carl Nichols]

Why are you guys assuming total revenue is the same? Doesn't more golfers possibly translate into more sales of other stuff?

[Ronald Montesano]

a-are you guaranteed a full tee sheet either way?
b-who turns away customers?
c-what Ed said, about eco-climate...$70 doesn't sell in WNY, while $40 does.
d-what Carl said, about other stuff...

[Mike Nuzzo]

4@$70 allows for wider tee time starts and better pace of play - my choice

[Bill Seitz]

a-are you guaranteed a full tee sheet either way?
b-who turns away customers?
c-what Ed said, about eco-climate...$70 doesn't sell in WNY, while $40 does.
d-what Carl said, about other stuff...

Isn't the answer to a almost certainly no?  If it was, the question would 7@70 or 7@40.  

I think you guys are getting too hung up on the specific dollars..  John can (and almost certainly will) correct me if I'm wrong, but I read the question as being generally "More at a lower price point or fewer at a higher price point" with the assumption that either choice will balance such that green fees revenues will more or less the same. If my interpretation is correct, I suppose it would come down to maintenance costs vs. ancillary revenues. Three more golfers is three more buckets of balls, six more beers, an extra cart or two, etc. That adds up. I'll leave the other side to the maintenance experts, but I'd imagine that guys paying $40 probably aren't as hung up on conditions as guys paying $70.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I'd prefer a higher greenfee.

Less golfers.  Less damage to the course.  More income per golfer.

But I'd go way higher than $70.

But, that is just me.

  I agree with Mac. Price doesn't matter if you're playing the best.

  Anthony

I think it's very easy for those that feel that price doesn't matter to forget that it does matter to the vast majority of golfers. I sometimes think it's a bit like being in good health; those that are healthy easily forget that there are many that are not.

I'd go with 7@$40. More sales (lunches, bar, pro shop, etc.).

[Adrian_Stiff]

Donal!!!!!!! I did not think anyone would go for the $40.

That aside I understand your point more people have 40 to spend than 70, but I assume the course is worth 70 for the purpose of the thread.

All the profit is in the golf. Plus the other things mentioned, tee time space, wear and tear is another factor.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Donal!!!!!!! I did not think anyone would go for the $40.

That aside I understand your point more people have 40 to spend than 70, but I assume the course is worth 70 for the purpose of the thread.

All the profit is in the golf. Plus the other things mentioned, tee time space, wear and tear is another factor.

I suppose it all depends on the business model. At my club, the restaurant and pro-shop are put out to tender, so I the cook and pro would certainly prefer more players. That leaves the club to worry about green fees. Getting 4@$70 would be better for the club (less wear and tear, less crowded, etc.). But the club needs the restaurant and pro shop to be viable, otherwise the cook and pro will not renew their contract and that's a loss for the club.

[Tim Gavrich]

I wouldn't mind taking on the $40 model but taking pains to make it seem to players like they were playing a $70 round.  Not enough golf courses brand themselves in a way that does that, I don't think.

Don't both these sides generate the same revenue on the golf course side?  So that means the maintenance budget is the same, so the golf course is in essentially the same condition for both examples, so the $40 is going to make it seem a better value to more people.

[Adam Clayman]

Thankfully golf does not fit into any neat little models. Seeking renumeration, especially in the short run, practically guarantees failure.

The projects that have worked best are the ones that start slow, learn their processes, and move forward.

Remember, a fool and his money, are lucky, to get together in the first place.

[Jud_T]

 Three more golfers is three more buckets of balls, six more beers, an extra cart or two, etc. That adds up. I'll leave the other side to the maintenance experts, but I'd imagine that guys paying $40 probably aren't as hung up on conditions as guys paying $70.


+1

[John Kavanaugh]

I expected to see a majority of replies going for the $40 rate.  It would seem a lower rate would be conducive to growing the game.

[jeffwarne]

I expected to see a majority of replies going for the $40 rate.  It would seem a lower rate would be conducive to growing the game.

I'd much prefer to operate the $40 course.
More bodies-less expectations-more emphasis on things that matter(like a cart girl  ) not things that simply cost more.
benches in the proshop/snack/lounge area that people leave their shoes under should do it.
the mere fact that i had no bag drop or locker room would hopefully send a few back to their car.
Besides, that leaves $30 they can gamble with (hopefully with me )

[Neil White]

Carl,

Why are you guys assuming total revenue is the same? Doesn't more golfers possibly translate into more sales of other stuff?

I would have agreed with this statement pre-2008.  In this current climate there are those who are prepared to spend £40 on golf but don't have a great deal more to play with - especially if you start adding range balls, food and drink etc.

Neil.