Golf Industry's Big Short

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

The problem is that sensible business operators are subscribing and reading this crap. I just love how the author uses "us" and "we" as though he's in the same boat, trying to survive the same storm, as his audience.........vomit.
Honestly, who on earth would listen to a guy who on one hand says," remind me of the 15 years now I've spent in the golf industry trying to figure out, "What the hell is really going on at the most basic and fundamental level?" " and than professes ,"how we might find our way out of this maze quicker and with better clarity by learning from the financial markets' mistakes:".

Comprehension of the decline in participation is not really that hard to work out and modify existing business models to suit. I'd be listening to the market and not some newsletter publisher.

Mark,
I agree that the problem is not that hard to work out.  And if you read a continuation of the Pellucid reports he may be the only one who says that.  Many agree we will bottom out at around 20 million golfers in the next few years.  It doesn't matter if they wear their hat backwards, if they listen to rap music in the golf cars or if they skateboard the golf course.  I agree with you regarding most industry reports as well as industry initiatives to grow the game.  They are useless.  We will just have to wait on more population to grow the game.  The issue for so many of the places is the surrounding RE.  The issue for so many of the equipment companies is pure participation.  The issue for PGA, GCSAA, NGF etc is they don't want to let their employers know the participation is just becoming less. 

[Daniel Jones]

35 year old, no kids, loads of free time. In my hometown there are roughly a half dozen courses I might play throughout the year. Of those, two are private. Sure, the $400-500 dues plus mandatory cart fee, plus F&B makes zero sense to me. But the bigger reason I give no consideration to one of private clubs...The golf courses are awful...


As someone said earlier, I don't need the cart guy, the locker room attendant, etc. What I need is... A) a great golf course. B) a friendly environment. C) a halfway decent food/beverage for the occasional post-round hang out. I get all of that at the $25 muni, so why go elsewhere?

[Kalen Braley]

35 year old, no kids, loads of free time. In my hometown there are roughly a half dozen courses I might play throughout the year. Of those, two are private. Sure, the $400-500 dues plus mandatory cart fee, plus F&B makes zero sense to me. But the bigger reason I give no consideration to one of private clubs...The golf courses are awful...


As someone said earlier, I don't need the cart guy, the locker room attendant, etc. What I need is... A) a great golf course. B) a friendly environment. C) a halfway decent food/beverage for the occasional post-round hang out. I get all of that at the $25 muni, so why go elsewhere?

Daniel,

Which muni can you play that is great for $25.  I'd certainly like to know.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Re Daniel Jones comment, I recall thinking that the most successful clubs "back in the day" actually had the old locations, near business centers, but also then pretty crappy golf courses.  Of course, over 30 years, many had remodeled.

When clubs were bigger, it seemed old money stayed at those central courses, and the new, younger whippersnappers or better players sought out some of the newer clubs with longer, more modern golf courses.

BTW, after our club closed here in DFW, I haven't rejoined anything, due to location, but my son did just get one of those junior memberships at Hackberry Creek in Irving, not far from where he lives.  Works at Fidelity, got a promotion, played college golf, etc.

So, the club market isn't totally dead to the 20 somethings, just reduced, as it is for the overall market.

[Doug Siebert]

I'm with Daniel. The only private course in town is a little 9 holer that I'd have no interest in, but there's a classic Ross at one of the clubs a half hour north of me. I've never had any interest in joining it - my interest is so low I don't even know what it would cost. Even if its yearly cost was no different than what I spend playing at public courses in the area (obviously it wouldn't be, this is hypothetical) I wouldn't be interested because then I'd feel I basically have to play almost all my golf at that one course because I was paying for it anyway.

While I'm sure it is a far cry from the old line clubs out east, it is still too stuffy and formal for a laid back guy like me. I don't want to fight off people who want to carry my clubs from my car to the clubhouse, and then expect a tip for that "service". Nor do I want to be a member of a club where people are worried about whether someone wears their hat backwards - and not because I do, I never even wear a hat. So long as they aren't damaging the course or my enjoyment of the round, I don't care what other people on the course do and certainly don't care how they dress. Given a choice I'd play at a course where shirts aren't required, rather than one that requires people to tuck in their shirts. A guy playing another hole with an untucked collarless shirt and cargo shorts doesn't affect me, never understood why people care about that stuff.

I can see the attraction of a club for those who play 50-100 rounds a year or golf is at least their main recreational activity but I just don't play often enough that it could ever make any sort of sense to join a club. It isn't even a matter of free time (I have no kids so I have more than most of you) but a matter of having too many competing interests for that free time.

[Mark Pritchett]

A good shoe guy at a club is a treasure. 

[John Kirk]

I want to amend a couple things.  In a previous post, I said I thought that golf participation and the number of operating golf courses would decline gradually.

This is all speculation, of course.

It's a bit surprising that so few courses went out of business after The Big Short.  Many went bankrupt and therefore many changed ownership.  But anecdotal reports seem to suggest that many clubs are still weak financially.

Therefore, a real possibility exists that the next major recession/contraction will knock out a large number of courses and clubs, and no one will try to revive them.  I'm amending my initial comment to suggest there may be a knockout blow that downsizes the game.

I am a gloomy contributor these days, but it makes no sense to sugar coat things.  Quantitative easing after The Big Short set a precedent, and now the major oil producers are pumping at full capacity, despite the fact they are exceeding current demand.  This is also new.

All of our primary contributors actually in the golf business have it right.  Design and build for efficient maintenance and use of resources, while restoring and renovating the best existing courses.  Within 10-15 years, unmanned maintenance equipment using GPS and powered by either gasoline or natural gas is a real possibility.

Frankly, if I were in the golf business, I would be wishing that life's other expenses weren't so onerous.  Medical expenses now account for something like 18% of U.S. GDP, about twice as much as Great Britain and Australia.  The desirable golf culture of these countries cannot be separated from their political/economic model.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

Very well detailed, and I agree completely...and lower wages for millenials than what Gen X'ers and older had is making this even worse.

I too think after the last great recession, a lot of clubs were just delayed in closing when the next one hits....unless a lot of benevolent .1'ers buy up clubs for pennies on the dollar to operate at a loss as "Trophys"

[Mike Hendren]

I'm wounded to see Lynyrd Skynyrd's name (albeit butchered) dragged through the mud of this thread.  Hurtful.

Mike

[Ben Sims]

Purposely didn't read the entire thread, just Mike's OP.


Upfront, I don't think golf itself has a problem. It seems to me that as a golf consumer, I have more choice and differentiation than ever before. But the golf industry itself does have a problem. Actually three problems. The Industry, The Archivists, and The Trolls.


1) The Industry has to support itself. Or more accurately, justify itself. The booming economy and burgeoning career of Tiger between 1995-2005 built a huge golf industrial complex. Declining participation among low-frequency players and the aging out by the core player leaves that massive industry in a pickle. I don't see a way around the basic tenets of supply/demand for the golf industry at the macro level.


2) The Archivists believe being a golf consumer is analogous to their personal anecdotal experience. Unfortunately, the reigns of the golfing world are increasingly held at the local by these archivists. They wish to change nothing because the former days of golf industry glory was their heyday. Archivists can't envision why the golf industry is in a pickle or why change might be needed.


3) You know what the The Trolls are. The Trolls are the group that just hates on everything. The Trolls will acknowledge that the golf industry has a supply/demand problem. That's because Trolls are good at finding problems. They're just godawful at providing solutions. The last Turf Industry Show I went to in 2012 had a metric  shit ton of a Trolls. Trolls will compulsively waste the time of innovators and leaders by diverting attention from solutions.


Trade publications can't say what I just did in the last sentence of The Industry paragraph. Anyone that wrote "we have no way out of the supply/demand problem we face at the macro level" in an industry-wide publication would be summarily dismissed (literally or figuratively). But, at the micro-level there are solutions. Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.


This is my two cents based on a number of factors. The golf industry will be fine for those that wish to adapt and evolve. In my opinion, innovators that use empirical data and robust relationships to quickly negotiate the golf downturn will do well.

[Joe Hancock]

Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.

Ben,

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you've stated; However, you've stated the above as fact, and I'm curious as to how you know. I'd LOVE to see the little guys have their day(especially a certain few architects that would put their heart and soul into a project or two), but it still seems like golf has it's have's and have nots. Money still is the primary motivator, whether or not we put a romantic spin on modern day developer heroes and such.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I give you mad props for calling your ownself out as a Troll....well done!

"1) The Industry has to support itself. Or more accurately, justify itself. The booming economy and burgeoning career of Tiger between 1995-2005 built a huge golf industrial complex. Declining participation among low-frequency players and the aging out by the core player leaves that massive industry in a pickle. I don't see a way around the basic tenets of supply/demand for the golf industry at the macro level.


2) The Archivists believe being a golf consumer is analogous to their personal anecdotal experience. Unfortunately, the reigns of the golfing world are increasingly held at the local by these archivists. They wish to change nothing because the former days of golf industry glory was their heyday. Archivists can't envision why the golf industry is in a pickle or why change might be needed.


3) You know what the The Trolls are. The Trolls are the group that just hates on everything. The Trolls will acknowledge that the golf industry has a supply/demand problem. That's because Trolls are good at finding problems. They're just godawful at providing solutions. The last Turf Industry Show I went to in 2012 had a metric  shit ton of a Trolls. Trolls will compulsively waste the time of innovators and leaders by diverting attention from solutions. "

[Mike_Young]

Trade publications can't say what I just did in the last sentence of The Industry paragraph. Anyone that wrote "we have no way out of the supply/demand problem we face at the macro level" in an industry-wide publication would be summarily dismissed (literally or figuratively). But, at the micro-level there are solutions. Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.


This is my two cents based on a number of factors. The golf industry will be fine for those that wish to adapt and evolve. In my opinion, innovators that use empirical data and robust relationships to quickly negotiate the golf downturn will do well.

Ben,
I think you are close.  The one thing I don't see is the renovation angle that everyone keeps talking about.  Speaking for myself, I don't enjoy building bunkers on a course some other guy did.  There are only so many courses that can do renovation. Most can't afford it.   I like to build golf courses that are mine.  That's why I don't care to get out and fight for renovation work.  I don't see a living at it and would rather get into other facets of the golf industry and live another day to get new work.  IMHO there are way to many architects and there is just not work to make the kind of living I would think most would desire.  I think it has probably always been that way and architects were involved in other aspects of the industry.  It will be an interesting year as IMHO the second round of flops will occur.  Golf will be just fine.  What you call the archivist will still have one finger up their rears.  and that includes groups like First Tee, Hook a Kid etc...  A guy just was telling us last week that the amount of out of date product Taylor Made has in the market place is over two quarters of production worth...

[George Pazin]

That's because Trolls are good at finding problems. They're just godawful at providing solutions.

This isn't confined to Trolls, it's damn near everyone, including many highly educated, successful and influential members of this very site...


Nice posts, Mark Pavy.


As long as golf avoids bailouts and crooked politicians, it will be fine. It may struggle to find its place in today's world, with so many options, but it is simply too much fun to really fade away.

[John Kirk]

I guess I'm a Troll.

I believe the problem is a dwindling source of discretionary income devoted to the game.  Two things can be done:

1.  Encourage more people to play, though word of mouth and familial ties to the game probably work best.  Professional golf tournaments on TV are a compelling advertisement.

2.  Eliminate unnecessary expenses.  A separate thread on the topic might be interesting, about what people think is the most wasteful use of money/resources in golf life. 

[Ben Sims]

Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.

Ben,

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you've stated; However, you've stated the above as fact, and I'm curious as to how you know. I'd LOVE to see the little guys have their day(especially a certain few architects that would put their heart and soul into a project or two), but it still seems like golf has it's have's and have nots. Money still is the primary motivator, whether or not we put a romantic spin on modern day developer heroes and such.

Joe,

 Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I had all of the answers.  I think of this website mostly as a place where moderately informed people come to throw their opinions around in order to facilitate discussion.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I give you mad props for calling your ownself out as a Troll....well done!

"1) The Industry has to support itself. Or more accurately, justify itself. The booming economy and burgeoning career of Tiger between 1995-2005 built a huge golf industrial complex. Declining participation among low-frequency players and the aging out by the core player leaves that massive industry in a pickle. I don't see a way around the basic tenets of supply/demand for the golf industry at the macro level.


2) The Archivists believe being a golf consumer is analogous to their personal anecdotal experience. Unfortunately, the reigns of the golfing world are increasingly held at the local by these archivists. They wish to change nothing because the former days of golf industry glory was their heyday. Archivists can't envision why the golf industry is in a pickle or why change might be needed.


3) You know what the The Trolls are. The Trolls are the group that just hates on everything. The Trolls will acknowledge that the golf industry has a supply/demand problem. That's because Trolls are good at finding problems. They're just godawful at providing solutions. The last Turf Industry Show I went to in 2012 had a metric  shit ton of a Trolls. Trolls will compulsively waste the time of innovators and leaders by diverting attention from solutions. "

Kalen,

  I'm of the mind that elegant solutions to complex macro problems do not exist.  With that said I do believe that there are innovative and smart people that can exist in  difficult environments and succeed.  I hope my post above tried to numerate at least one or two types of people that will survive the current golf downturn .

[Joe Hancock]

Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.

Ben,

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you've stated; However, you've stated the above as fact, and I'm curious as to how you know. I'd LOVE to see the little guys have their day(especially a certain few architects that would put their heart and soul into a project or two), but it still seems like golf has it's have's and have nots. Money still is the primary motivator, whether or not we put a romantic spin on modern day developer heroes and such.

Joe,

 Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I had all of the answers.  I think of this website mostly as a place where moderately informed people come to throw their opinions around in order to facilitate discussion.

Ouch. I was only curious if you knew something coming in the future of golf that I hadn't otherwise read about, that's all. No offense intended.

[Ben Sims]

Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.

Ben,

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you've stated; However, you've stated the above as fact, and I'm curious as to how you know. I'd LOVE to see the little guys have their day(especially a certain few architects that would put their heart and soul into a project or two), but it still seems like golf has it's have's and have nots. Money still is the primary motivator, whether or not we put a romantic spin on modern day developer heroes and such.

Joe,

 Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I had all of the answers.  I think of this website mostly as a place where moderately informed people come to throw their opinions around in order to facilitate discussion.

Ouch. I was only curious if you knew something coming in the future of golf that I hadn't otherwise read about, that's all. No offense intended.

Dang it! I'm horrible with tone. I need to use more emoticons. No, no offense at all! I was just volunteering my opinion. My bad Joe. I have no insider info.

 

[Joe Hancock]

Architectural firms that focus more effort on renovation will survive. Construction/irrigation firms that focus on enabling superintendents operate more efficiently will thrive. Superintendents that increase efficiency while maintaining standards of play (and relentlessly communicating with their constituency) will survive. More than anything, these innovators will need industry support instead of archivists standing by shaking their head.

Ben,

I don't necessarily disagree with any of what you've stated; However, you've stated the above as fact, and I'm curious as to how you know. I'd LOVE to see the little guys have their day(especially a certain few architects that would put their heart and soul into a project or two), but it still seems like golf has it's have's and have nots. Money still is the primary motivator, whether or not we put a romantic spin on modern day developer heroes and such.

Joe,

 Sorry I didn't mean to imply that I had all of the answers.  I think of this website mostly as a place where moderately informed people come to throw their opinions around in order to facilitate discussion.

Ouch. I was only curious if you knew something coming in the future of golf that I hadn't otherwise read about, that's all. No offense intended.

Dang it! I'm horrible with tone. I need to use more emoticons. No, no offense at all! I was just volunteering my opinion. My bad Joe. I have no insider info.

 

A three emoticon handshake? All is good!

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

Fair enough, I would agree that complex problems tend to be very difficult to fix as its difficult to know which particular fix directly affects an issue in a "cause/effect" manner.

In terms of identifying problems though, I have a slightly different take.  I think its a healthy part of the process to fix anything, because if problems are not identified,( due to lack of trying or lack of belief that a problem actually exists), then for sure nothing will be improved.  Finding and correctly defining a problem is usually one of the first big steps before a big innovation can take place.

That being said, I like you have a hard time coming up with viable fixes for this particular issue that are measurable.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

Fair enough, I would agree that complex problems tend to be very difficult to fix as its difficult to know which particular fix directly affects an issue in a "cause/effect" manner.

In terms of identifying problems though, I have a slightly different take.  I think its a healthy part of the process to fix anything, because if problems are not identified,( due to lack of trying or lack of belief that a problem actually exists), then for sure nothing will be improved.  Finding and correctly defining a problem is usually one of the first big steps before a big innovation can take place.

That being said, I like you have a hard time coming up with viable fixes for this particular issue that are measurable.

Kalen,


Yes precisely. I'm no economist, but there's something to that Invisible Hand thing. No amount of foot golf, golfnow.com's, or name-your-fix is going to correct the macro issue. Golf participation is down. Supply is high. The game itself cannot remain as golf (writ large) and attract the players that already eschewed golf for other things.


That's the crux of this for me. Trade pubs tell me golf is in a bad spot. I say BS, golf is everything it has always been. The problem is that the industry needs more players to support it.

[Joe Hancock]

Ben,

You really are right. The only reason one has to worry about anything golf is if they get paid by being involved with golf. There will always be golf....maybe less of it, maybe less employed by it, but at the end of the day, those who are more talented than average will still be there. An occupational hazard, I suppose.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

You really are right. The only reason one has to worry about anything golf is if they get paid by being involved with golf. There will always be golf....maybe less of it, maybe less employed by it, but at the end of the day, those who are more talented than average will still be there. An occupational hazard, I suppose.

Joe,


Which really sucks right? I mean, it's great to be driving a Chevy Suburban right now. Not so great if you're livelihood is dependent on oil prices.


I think the industry should spend more time trying to make the supply side more solvent and less time making the demand side bigger, Maybe I'm off base.

[Mike_Young]

Ben, Joe etc,
It really will correct itself.  As an example of cutting cost... this past weekend after all of the rain down here we were playing and the tees had not been cut in a week.  The greens had not been mowed that day and I asked my group if they were good with the conditions.  All were fine.  We can get by on much less than we are doing.  Have we really asked the golfer or has the competition between either boards or supts placed conditions at a level the player is not really pushing for?   It will be fine.