[Jud_T]

I wouldn't be in favor of it because that would be implying that price is the best thing we have to offer and would attract members accordingly.  Golf clubs aren't a commodity.  It's not like searching for the cheapest gallon of milk in town.  If it is you're wasting a lot of time on the wrong website.

I disagree with this. I can find the list price on everything from milk, to a rolls royce to a private jet to a small island. It's only the petty minded who think it adds kudos to have things clouded in secrecy. Some Clubs wise up, some don't and the top 1% don't need to.

Costs are facts and do not enhance or reduce exclusivity in any way. The Club either wishes to receive applications for membership or it doesn't.

You're assuming that everyone equates value with price. Give people the facts, they will either see it as good value or they won't. It is terrible business to lose a potential member/visitor because he or she wrongly "assumes" that the cost is higher than it is.

Ryan,

You disagree that a singular club is not a commodity?  A commodity is a widget.  A 2014 Rolls Royce is the same regardless of which dealer you buy it from.  If a club is missing out on members because they wrongly overestimate the costs of membership that means that 1) that person has likely never played the course with a member 2) probably doesn't know any members well 3) is more concerned about price than anything else.  If price is the most important variable, the vast majority of private clubs are not for you.  Generally speaking you'll find better value at a modestly priced public or semi-private track.  If price is only one of the things that you factor into your "value equation", then you aren't going to find those other key elements out without VISITING THE CLUB AND PLAYING THE COURSE WITH A MEMBER.  If that's the case, then finding out pricing is a trifling matter and you're thesis is out the window.  Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I was busily crafting a GolfNow special for today for a club that panicked after reading this thread...

[Adam Warren]

Sean,

Price is certainly important to virtually all of us.  I guess the question is are you looking to attract members for whom price is the most important variable.  Of course clubs who are struggling need to do whats in the club's best interest.  My point is 1) they are- many list pricing and 2) if they are struggling it's probably got little to nothing to do with whether or not they post prices.

Jud

I am guessing that for a significant percentage of first time private club shoppers, price is the most important element of the decision.  This is the market clubs need to exploit.  Whether or not publishing membership info will attract members is a question to which I don't know the answer. But, one big reason for a website is to attract members - no?  So, why not provide the most pertinent information for a signicant percentage of shoppers?  I can understand if a club doesn't want "walk ins" as prospective members because its ideal for members to find prospective members.  But much of the world operates in less than ideal conditions.  That said, its quite easy for events to overtake clubs who aren't thinking 5-10 years down the line.  I know if it were my club, I would want to know that steps are being taken to recruit new members regardless if they are needed at the moment. 

In any case, we can agree to disagree.  I was just speaking from experience and situation of not wanting to deal with plastic smiling suits where golf is concerned.   

Ciao

I would say this is correct Sean.  As was mentioned previously, some may have just paid off student loan debt and feel they can apply that money to another fixed monthly expense.  I wasnt aware every private club member had to come from the so called blue bloods of America as some have alluded to.  Some people, such as myself, come from an area that the closest private club in the area was 45min to an hour away.  Some people, in the entrepreneurial spirit of our country, are self-made and could (gasp) be first time club members.  As some have mentioned, some people move from time to time.  Kids go off to college now, and sometimes stay where they went to school.  News flash, they don't know the "elite" of the area to join a club there.  I just think its sickening the amount of self-righteous, entitled BS that is spewed by some here when private membership is discussed.  Those people are obviously in the old guard and are not in touch with the evolution golf has made in the last 30 YEARS!

[Adam Warren]

I wouldn't be in favor of it because that would be implying that price is the best thing we have to offer and would attract members accordingly.  Golf clubs aren't a commodity.  It's not like searching for the cheapest gallon of milk in town.  If it is you're wasting a lot of time on the wrong website.

I disagree with this. I can find the list price on everything from milk, to a rolls royce to a private jet to a small island. It's only the petty minded who think it adds kudos to have things clouded in secrecy. Some Clubs wise up, some don't and the top 1% don't need to.

Costs are facts and do not enhance or reduce exclusivity in any way. The Club either wishes to receive applications for membership or it doesn't.

You're assuming that everyone equates value with price. Give people the facts, they will either see it as good value or they won't. It is terrible business to lose a potential member/visitor because he or she wrongly "assumes" that the cost is higher than it is.

Ryan,

You disagree that a singular club is not a commodity?  A commodity is a widget.  A 2014 Rolls Royce is the same regardless of which dealer you buy it from.  If a club is missing out on members because they wrongly overestimate the costs of membership that means that 1) that person has likely never played the course with a member 2) probably doesn't know any members well 3) is more concerned about price than anything else.  If price is the most important variable, the vast majority of private clubs are not for you.  Generally speaking you'll find better value at a modestly priced public or semi-private track.  If price is only one of the things that you factor into your "value equation", then you aren't going to find those other key elements out without VISITING THE CLUB AND PLAYING THE COURSE WITH A MEMBER.  If that's the case, then finding out pricing is a trifling matter and you're thesis is out the window.  Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I was busily crafting a GolfNow special for today for a club that panicked after reading this thread...

THIS.

[Jud_T]

Adam,

This is a gross mischaracterisation.  Just because I defend PRIVATE clubs desire to not post their fees online I'm an a$$hole member of the old guard?  I'm sorry that the Country Club landscape in your area sucks.  That's why I ONLY JOIN GOLF CLUBS. It's just tiresome to hear so many guys who don't belong to private clubs tell those clubs how to run their businesses.  This is akin to a lifetime vegan telling a slaughterhouse owner and a butcher how to run their business to attract more vegans.  I'll shut up and let you guys twattle on.

P.S.  Enjoy your 5 hour round tomorrow...

[BCowan]

Those analogies are so far off, it is laughable.  What many are saying is that there is a shortage of GOLF CLUBS!  My (muni) lol, Golf is played in 4 or less!  Just because it isn't Member owned (Property taxes at the member owned course i grew up at is $78,000 a year) equates to $23 additional a month in dues (real biggie, not) doesn't mean Joe blow can call and get on.  We do reciprocals.  Most on here have either grown up at a member owned or have been members, so that is laughable.  Price is a big factor in determining VALUE!  Please post what you have crafted up for GOLFNOW, gotta love how GCAers go to extremes and they don't even make a worthwhile point. 

   With CC's closing left and right and being posted on here on a weekly basis (maybe some yahoo's should listen to their potential customers)  That would require common sense, which is in short supply! 

[John Kavanaugh]

Jud,

I just read the Kingsley website looking for information about joining.  I would have loved to know what you and each and every member payed and exactly who are the members of the great clubs mentioned.  But then again I do enjoy TMZ.com now and then.  Gossip is fun, dirty, wrong and addictive but fun none the less.

I'm on another email spam list of a popular club that sends me updates on their pending increases.  I love getting these emails and pondering how they are doing.

I once bought a rare car and a local banker, who was a competitor, went to kellybluebook and printed off what he thought I paid and put a copy of it on my friends desk that I play golf with.  I have no idea how many other people he distributed copies too.  He didn't do it in case my friend wanted to buy the same car.  This thread is 99% about gossip with a possibility of 1% membership losses thrown in for laughs.

[Ryan Coles]

I wouldn't be in favor of it because that would be implying that price is the best thing we have to offer and would attract members accordingly.  Golf clubs aren't a commodity.  It's not like searching for the cheapest gallon of milk in town.  If it is you're wasting a lot of time on the wrong website.

I disagree with this. I can find the list price on everything from milk, to a rolls royce to a private jet to a small island. It's only the petty minded who think it adds kudos to have things clouded in secrecy. Some Clubs wise up, some don't and the top 1% don't need to.

Costs are facts and do not enhance or reduce exclusivity in any way. The Club either wishes to receive applications for membership or it doesn't.

You're assuming that everyone equates value with price. Give people the facts, they will either see it as good value or they won't. It is terrible business to lose a potential member/visitor because he or she wrongly "assumes" that the cost is higher than it is.

Ryan,

You disagree that a singular club is not a commodity?  A commodity is a widget.  A 2014 Rolls Royce is the same regardless of which dealer you buy it from.  If a club is missing out on members because they wrongly overestimate the costs of membership that means that 1) that person has likely never played the course with a member 2) probably doesn't know any members well 3) is more concerned about price than anything else.  If price is the most important variable, the vast majority of private clubs are not for you.  Generally speaking you'll find better value at a modestly priced public or semi-private track.  If price is only one of the things that you factor into your "value equation", then you aren't going to find those other key elements out without VISITING THE CLUB AND PLAYING THE COURSE WITH A MEMBER.  If that's the case, then finding out pricing is a trifling matter and you're thesis is out the window.  Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I was busily crafting a GolfNow special for today for a club that panicked after reading this thread...

Sorry but you clearly come here to write, rather than to read.

It is not my thesis, nor my value equation, it is yours which you advanced earlier in the thread and again have done so above. I disagree. In your rather narrow view, anyone who doesn't know one of your precious members, is ONLY interested in price and will base his golf expenditure sole on what is cheapest. I disagree with this. Not everyone equates value with price.

If a Club only wants members to be introduced by existing members only, that's fine. Their website is purely a vanity exercise and the issue of putting the costs in the public domain via the site is a moot point.

P.S. A Rolls Royce price does indeed vary between dealer.

P.P.S. There is plenty of golf played well between your extreme ends of the spectrum between bargain basement and exclusive memberships. That's just immature hyperbole.

[Adam Warren]

Adam,

This is a gross mischaracterisation.  Just because I defend PRIVATE clubs desire to not post their fees online I'm an a$$hole member of the old guard?  I'm sorry that the Country Club landscape in your area sucks.  That's why I ONLY JOIN GOLF CLUBS. It's just tiresome to hear so many guys who don't belong to private clubs tell those clubs how to run their businesses.  This is akin to a lifetime vegan telling a slaughterhouse owner and a butcher how to run their business to attract more vegans.  I'll shut up and let you guys twattle on.

P.S.  Enjoy your 5 hour round tomorrow...

I would guess if mischaracterization is taking place, its coming from you to me.  I am a member of "country club" that is really a golf club.  We have a pool, but only because we have always had a pool.  The place is all about golf with a few wives taking advantage of the pool.

We also, as luck would have it, have sub 4 hour rounds 6 out of 7 days of the week on average.  If I am there for 4:15 I count it as 30 extra minutes with the guys.  

The problem in my area are that there are TOO MANY country clubs.  I have onlly lived here for 5 years, so I don't know everything about it, but if you know me, you know I know enough.  See, what you are missing is the fact that in a previous life, I was a golf pro.  I've seen the books for more clubs than I care to count.  I still talk to people from the business, at all types of facilities who keep me up to date.  I loved the business, but hated the lifestyle.  Anyway, that is for another time.  Therefore, I enjoy discussing the business because, unlike you (characterizing here) I know what goes on in this business.  Just another example of how those that have always been a part of the "old guard" making assumptions about people who don't see and bow to the almighty exclusive private and their ancient views and rules.

[BHoover]

When I was looking for possible non-resident membership options, I emailed the membership director/coordinator at each of the clubs I had some interest in exploring.  With a few notable exceptions (which I won't mention), most of the clubs were quick to respond to me with information, including pricing.  The clubs that did respond either did so through email or by phone and my inquiry was responded to either by the membership director or a member who chaired the membership committee (because the club wanted to make sure I wasn't fishing for market information and that I was sincerely looking for membership information).

It was not a difficult process.  I don't see what the problem is.

[JC Jones]

Some of the comments here are precisely the reason some people, with the means to do so, do not want to join private clubs.  I would need to be paid to be around some of these attitudes.

Let me throw out a couple of real world thoughts here.  My area has one club that does not list their rates online.  They have a website where you can view information and read about the course.  It is in great condition, has a well-known designer, has a sizeable initiation and I honestly have no idea on the monthly prices.  There is a waiting list to get OUT and they can sell their memberships for whatever amount they like.  It is part owned by the membership and part by another entity.  I would wager any member there has the money to continue to stay a member there as long as they like, but they don't feel they get the value they would like.  

Another club, is the "old money" of my area.  If you are not a member you can only see the homepage.  It is an early 1900's design by a well known designer that has been modified a couple times I believe.  I have no idea of initiation or monthly fees.  

Another, down the street from the first, has all information online and is probably the only club in the area to have a waiting list to get IN.  If it were closer to my home it would be in consideration of a club I would join.

Another, closer to my home has most of their information online except for all pricing, is run by a golf club company, has a small initiation, is not full, and decent prices.  It is a generally unwalkable subdivision course so it does not really interest me.

I say this to say it is all about value.  The first is one you would think would have an initiation to get in, but the players arent getting the value.  The second probably has a similar price to the first, but nobody would ever know.  They are ultra exclusive and they may not even have minority members here in 2014.  The third is an active club that is probably the second or third membership of many of the first two.  The fourth is a good course, presents the illusion of exclusivity, yet actually has room for members based on conversations I have had.  The place I would like to join is the one with info online, although it is probably more expensive than the last and is actually, if pressed to join somewhere besides where I am, would be the place I had to join because of proximity and facilities.

Another club in town is very in tune with social media and up to date information on their website.  It's a decent course, in a subdivision but not crowded.  They actually are the most expensive of the two courses I spoke of I would consider.  They have a huge clubhouse with an excellent practice facility, tennis courts, two pools, etc.   They were on the verge of bankruptcy a decade ago.  They re-structured, built the best or second best online presence in the area, maintained an upscale profile, and are not full on membership, but have a good number.  Roughly half of their membership is under 50.  This model lets me believe there is something to the transparency and younger generation responding to them embracing the fact that they actually live in this century and not the previous one like so many others that are struggling.  

A lot of the people here that are pushing for info online, do hold memberships, and are in the generation that should be focused on by struggling clubs.  I think instead of the old guard pushing back on the customers they should be attempting to gain, they should shut up and listen so they have a place to play.  

Adam,

Firstly, I think sarcasm and playfulness is hard to convey on an internet forum so don't take too seriously some of the digs and barbs.  Secondly, I think this is a very good post, though there are some assumptions that are made to help prove your overall point but we all do that.

I would say this, I don't think the presence of membership prices on a website is at all a factor in the success/lack of success of the clubs you mentioned.  I think that the marketing strategies of the clubs are different.  My question to you is whether you think the club who has the active social media presence would be as successful if they didn't post their prices online but did all of the other things you mentioned or do you think that the placing of prices online is a critical part of their social media?

Also, you mention the social media savvy club is not full but seem to care less about that fact than you do with the other clubs who are also not full but do not meet your social media expectations.  Why is that?  

Lastly, I don't think that most people here looking for prices online are under 35.  Mike Sweeney is FAR from under 35 and he is the biggest advocate.  

[JC Jones]

When I was looking for possible non-resident membership options, I emailed the membership director/coordinator at each of the clubs I had some interest in exploring.  With a few notable exceptions (which I won't mention), most of the clubs were quick to respond to me with information, including pricing.  The clubs that did respond either did so through email or by phone and my inquiry was responded to either by the membership director or a member who chaired the membership committee (because the club wanted to make sure I wasn't fishing for market information and that I was sincerely looking for membership information).

It was not a difficult process.  I don't see what the problem is.

Similar experience and completely agree.

[JC Jones]

I wouldn't be in favor of it because that would be implying that price is the best thing we have to offer and would attract members accordingly.  Golf clubs aren't a commodity.  It's not like searching for the cheapest gallon of milk in town.  If it is you're wasting a lot of time on the wrong website.

I disagree with this. I can find the list price on everything from milk, to a rolls royce to a private jet to a small island. It's only the petty minded who think it adds kudos to have things clouded in secrecy. Some Clubs wise up, some don't and the top 1% don't need to.

Costs are facts and do not enhance or reduce exclusivity in any way. The Club either wishes to receive applications for membership or it doesn't.

You're assuming that everyone equates value with price. Give people the facts, they will either see it as good value or they won't. It is terrible business to lose a potential member/visitor because he or she wrongly "assumes" that the cost is higher than it is.

Ryan,

You disagree that a singular club is not a commodity?  A commodity is a widget.  A 2014 Rolls Royce is the same regardless of which dealer you buy it from.  If a club is missing out on members because they wrongly overestimate the costs of membership that means that 1) that person has likely never played the course with a member 2) probably doesn't know any members well 3) is more concerned about price than anything else.  If price is the most important variable, the vast majority of private clubs are not for you.  Generally speaking you'll find better value at a modestly priced public or semi-private track.  If price is only one of the things that you factor into your "value equation", then you aren't going to find those other key elements out without VISITING THE CLUB AND PLAYING THE COURSE WITH A MEMBER.  If that's the case, then finding out pricing is a trifling matter and you're thesis is out the window.  Sorry, I would have responded sooner, but I was busily crafting a GolfNow special for today for a club that panicked after reading this thread...

Sorry but you clearly come here to write, rather than to read.

It is not my thesis, nor my value equation, it is yours which you advanced earlier in the thread and again have done so above. I disagree. In your rather narrow view, anyone who doesn't know one of your precious members, is ONLY interested in price and will base his golf expenditure sole on what is cheapest. I disagree with this. Not everyone equates value with price.

If a Club only wants members to be introduced by existing members only, that's fine. Their website is purely a vanity exercise and the issue of putting the costs in the public domain via the site is a moot point.

P.S. A Rolls Royce price does indeed vary between dealer.

P.P.S. There is plenty of golf played well between your extreme ends of the spectrum between bargain basement and exclusive memberships. That's just immature hyperbole.

Ryan, I'm under 35 and not a member of any guard so I am curious to know why, if you were interested in joining a particular club, you'd let the lack of pricing on the internet cut off your desire to be a member of the club?

[Dave Doxey]

Clubs can do whatever they want, relative to sharing rates & other information.  Clubs not in need of new members have no incentive to share anything.

My interest in this discussion is on thinking about ways to stem the current decline in private course membership.  Having been a long time private club member and having to change clubs as I moved around the country, I try to look it from the consumer angle.

If I were running a club that wanted to new members, some things that I would do:

Publish as much information on the club as I could.  Photos, rates, amenities, tournaments, clubhouse, pro shop, lessons, junior golf, food menus & whatever else I could think of.  Publish the club’s mission statement. Extra credit if I could craft a clever message that showed the club to be in good financial health (not sure how I’d do that…)

Publish a clear description of the membership application process and requirements. A contact name, phone & email for more information.

Hold open house days a couple of times a year. Perhaps require a request for invitation, perhaps not.  Include facility and course tours, a chance to meet & talk to members & staff, maybe even a chance to play, or a group lesson from the pro.

The idea is not “click & join” – it’s marketing and information sharing in a new age when people expect easy access to information online.  The joining requirements and process need to change little, if at all.

Not finding the information easily available, I will assume that the club is full or not interested in new members outside of a select network, which is fine.  That is also information to be taken into account when making a selection.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

I remember in my first job out of college I bought a Volvo and it pissed off my boss.  I quit six months later after learning a valuable lesson.

[JC Jones]

Dave,

I think those are great ideas and agree, the sharing of information is absolutely vital.  As Adam rightly noted in his post, my generation needs to have more information available, we are just accustom to that.

The only point I'd challenge you on is whether you think the club could be successful if it implemented all that you mention above but did not include pricing?  Lets say it just had a "Membership FAQ" and gave all the information but said at the bottom "for membership inquiries and plans, please contact the membership director," do you think that would significantly affect the success of the marketing plan?

[JC Jones]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

I remember in my first job out of college I bought a Volvo and it pissed off my boss.  I quit six months later after learning a valuable lesson.

I think there is something to this.  The partners at my old law firm certainly were aware of the cars the associates drove.

[BHoover]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

I remember in my first job out of college I bought a Volvo and it pissed off my boss.  I quit six months later after learning a valuable lesson.

I think there is something to this.  The partners at my old law firm certainly were aware of the cars the associates drove.

When I started at my old law firm out of law school, one of the partners told a few of us that having a low handicap was not something that many partners looked upon favorably.  Regardless of the amount and quality of our work, having a low handicap implied that one was more focused on golf than work.  It was total bullshit, but that was the perception.  I'm no longer working at a law firm and I certainly don't miss it.

[Phil McDade]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

I remember in my first job out of college I bought a Volvo and it pissed off my boss.  I quit six months later after learning a valuable lesson.

I think there is something to this.  The partners at my old law firm certainly were aware of the cars the associates drove.

When I started at my old law firm out of law school, one of the partners told a few of us that having a low handicap was not something that many partners looked upon favorably.  Regardless of the amount and quality of our work, having a low handicap implied that one was more focused on golf than work.  It was total bullshit, but that was the perception.  I'm no longer working at a law firm and I certainly don't miss it.

What's your current handicap?

[BHoover]

When I started at my old law firm out of law school, one of the partners told a few of us that having a low handicap was not something that many partners looked upon favorably.  Regardless of the amount and quality of our work, having a low handicap implied that one was more focused on golf than work.  It was total bullshit, but that was the perception.  I'm no longer working at a law firm and I certainly don't miss it.

What's your current handicap?
[/quote]

Not as low as some of the guys I used to work with.

[BHoover]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

Why?  Because you're making an assumption about that person?  Total bullshit.  I posted plenty of scores each month when I was an associate at my old firm, but I never let it get in the way of work.  If I had an assignment that demanded my time, I was always there.  But when I had free time, I spent it with my wife or on the course.  What's wrong with that?

Would you also not hire someone who has kids?

[Carl Johnson]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

I remember in my first job out of college I bought a Volvo and it pissed off my boss.  I quit six months later after learning a valuable lesson.

I think there is something to this.  The partners at my old law firm certainly were aware of the cars the associates drove.

I know this is getting more o.t., but, Mr. Jones - to show just how naive I am, at age 72 and having been first an associate and then a law firm partner for my entire working life before I retired several years ago . . . o.k., partners at your firm were aware of the cars associates drove, but what did they make of it?  Was it viewed as "better" for an associate to drive a 17 year-old dump? A late model Ford or Toyota (e.g., Fusion/Camry) sedan? or a new $60K BMW (if there is such a thing)?  Why?

[Phil McDade]

Dave,

I think those are great ideas and agree, the sharing of information is absolutely vital.  As Adam rightly noted in his post, my generation needs to have more information available, we are just accustom to that.

The only point I'd challenge you on is whether you think the club could be successful if it implemented all that you mention above but did not include pricing?  Lets say it just had a "Membership FAQ" and gave all the information but said at the bottom "for membership inquiries and plans, please contact the membership director," do you think that would significantly affect the success of the marketing plan?

JC:

I guess my response would be: Why leave it out? Why not make it transparent? What's the argument for not including it? I have yet, in nine pages of this thread, to see a really sensible argument for not including pricing, and making that widely available. The two main arguments offered so far seem to be:

-- We're private, and a club, ergo we don't have to.

-- Publicizing pricing might lead to membership discounting, which would lead to resentment in the club.

Neither one strikes me as terribly compelling, in light of the likely (and rather substantial, I'd argue) fall-out in golfing rounds that is on the horizon.

[John Kavanaugh]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

Why?  Because you're making an assumption about that person?  Total bullshit.  I posted plenty of scores each month when I was an associate at my old firm, but I never let it get in the way of work.  If I had an assignment that demanded my time, I was always there.  But when I had free time, I spent it with my wife or on the course.  What's wrong with that?

Would you also not hire someone who has kids?

I work in a seasonal industry that corresponds with the golf season.  I once had a little league coach working for me.  What a disaster that was, he would shut down the crew on game day.  I've played golf for 46 years and know enough about people who take the game seriously that they are not productive in the summer.  Plus, they ain't gonna like how much I golf.

[BHoover]

Golfers under 35 most especially do not need the costs of their hobbies published for coworkers and employers.  It's bad enough that we have to publicly post when and where we play.  I would never hire someone that posts more than 7 scores a month.

Why?  Because you're making an assumption about that person?  Total bullshit.  I posted plenty of scores each month when I was an associate at my old firm, but I never let it get in the way of work.  If I had an assignment that demanded my time, I was always there.  But when I had free time, I spent it with my wife or on the course.  What's wrong with that?

Would you also not hire someone who has kids?

I work in a seasonal industry that corresponds with the golf season.  I once had a little league coach working for me.  What a disaster that was, he would shut down the crew on game day.  I've played golf for 46 years and know enough about people who take the game seriously that they are not productive in the summer.  Plus, they ain't gonna like how much I golf.

   I'm sorry for getting off topic.

[Carl Johnson]

Dave,

I think those are great ideas and agree, the sharing of information is absolutely vital.  As Adam rightly noted in his post, my generation needs to have more information available, we are just accustom to that.

The only point I'd challenge you on is whether you think the club could be successful if it implemented all that you mention above but did not include pricing?  Lets say it just had a "Membership FAQ" and gave all the information but said at the bottom "for membership inquiries and plans, please contact the membership director," do you think that would significantly affect the success of the marketing plan?

JC:

I guess my response would be: Why leave it out? Why not make it transparent? What's the argument for not including it? I have yet, in nine pages of this thread, to see a really sensible argument for not including pricing, and making that widely available. The two main arguments offered so far seem to be:

-- We're private, and a club, ergo we don't have to.

-- Publicizing pricing might lead to membership discounting, which would lead to resentment in the club.

Neither one strikes me as terribly compelling, in light of the likely (and rather substantial, I'd argue) fall-out in golfing rounds that is on the horizon.

I've not followed this tread closely, but here's my argument, which seems to me to make sense.  Clubs have real differences.  Clubs have different membership needs.  Clubs have different ideas about how to "market" themselves, if at all.  Some may want to publish prices because they think that will help the club.  Others don't see the need -- don't think it will help their club.  In either case, time may tell whether they were right or wrong.  What I take from this is that it is very hard to read much into the publish vs. not-publish decision made by any particular club.  It is not an issue I would focus on if "shopping" for a club. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()