Adrian,
Believe me, the fact that the clubs are owned by the same group doesn't mean members can play any given club 83 times. I know this only too well! Like I said before, limits are key to success. And, whilst I don't have any figures to hand to quote, the clubs tend to appeal to seniors as much as any other demographic i.e. people with time on their hands to travel around and play at various places. Certainly it's not correct to categorise the membership as being predominantly made up of the under 40's.
It's fair to say that in and around Bristol the scheme is of less promotional benefit. Again, local courses of a similar standard are where reciprocity works best. The star of the show (and these things of course are open to interpretation) is St. Mellion, which is indeed excluded from the scheme, as per your comment that schemes couldn't work if such clubs were included. Well, St.Mellion members can actually play elsewhere but it doesn't apply the other way round.
Reading your previous posts you clearly understand your own market very well and the modern golfing environment more broadly. Given the lack of understanding your average golfer has in the current market (I particularly liked your 'let's go to The Belfry' jibe), I wonder if I can't persuade you that convincing a typical club member that various local courses are of a similar quality (but not quite as good, obviously
) is really not such a hard sell. My only real reservation about the idea is the potential to lose members to any given club which joins the scheme (again, best not to overplay the quality of potential competitors), and I'll concede that's not a problem Crown face with an internal reciprocal scheme.
Duncan,
We could talk hypotheticals forever, but what's your personal feeling about the ease of identifying, say, ten local clubs which you would like to be able to play occasionally for free and occasionally have their members trampling your fairways? And how do you think your fellow members would feel? This surely is the nub of it.