What does this Board think.....?

[Steve Lapper]

Nearby, is a club that has recently revamped their course, and has truly done a very nice job of introducing attractive architecture and strategy to a course that had very little of either in it's past.


A practically new, and interesting, course was undeniably necessary in order to effectively re-market the club in a very local and regionally competitive private golf club market.


The outside person responsible for this work deserves kudos for doing such a good job. His work was a giant net positive.


My question is what most of you think about the club that pursues a strategy of aggressively promoting a club history and relationship with a well-admired deceased architect, uses another similarly-positioned person to try to validate this effort and then goes out and markets the course as a restoration/renovation attributable to the famous architect??


I am not interested in naming this club, have no axe to grind with them, their ownership, nor the folks involved in genuinely upgrading the course, but really just wonder if it isn't a disturbing sign-of-the-times that such a strongly promoted, yet questionable relationship might be passed off as fact...despite zero factual evidence ascribing the course to the famous architect.


What say you?

[JESII]

I think two things;


In any endeavor, if you're flat out dishonest, it will catch up to you so it's just not worth it because the crash is likely bigger than the climb.


Marketing in the golf business must be really difficult. If it's not direct word of mouth, it's not very reliable. Do people really join a club because of an old dead guy architect? Seriously, enough people to impact the financials are aware of, and buy that brand?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Steve -


Was the original GCA truly fabricated or was there merely some...ahem..."truthful hyperbole" in the chronology of the club?


Sadly, I think that 60%+ members at most clubs can't name their own club's architect.
(Unless it's CBM, Raynor, Dr. Mack, etc.)


If the original layout of the course did have some compelling pedigree, then what's wrong with a little marketing hype?


However, if the "sympathetic restoration" was done purely to create a "buzz", with no relationship to reality, then shame on them for their deceit.


A club based on a lie will have a tendency to be a "douche trap" in the end.
Every region needs one. Maybe North Jersey just found one...;-)

[Brad Tufts]

I agree with Jim above.


I think they could do a great marketing effort surrounding the money/time/effort put in by the club and new architect to bring the course up to snuff in the honor or inspiration of the famed architects of yore.

If I was in the area and looking for the next best place to join, or pay my daily fees...I'd certainly be interested in something that was marketed like I describe above.

Yes, we as a group are pre-disposed to look for this stuff...but I think the non-architecture-obsessed are just looking for a fun, nice place to play where it shows management cares about their course.


How many are just going to join at the place that says Ross or Tillinghast on their scorecard?  I understand it may be competitive with local clubs with the official pedigree...but my guess is that it would be so regardless of discovering/generating your history if your local competitors are Plainfield/Baltusrol/Ridgewood, etc. (for example)


All depends on the stewardship too...it's fun to have the history, but these guys have not touched the place since the Golden Age so most of these courses exist today as the result of decisions made by a dozen committees and superintendents.

[Steve Lapper]

Jim,


 Thanks for your reply. As an owner of a Tilliinghast course we've actually seen a small and incremental increase in prospective members awareness, knowledge and interest in GCA. Frankly, I suspect it's due to sites like this and others so widely available over the I'net. The widespread pleasure of disseminating course ratings is also becoming better known. Ultimately, membership is usually driven by proximity, price and amenities.....also ease of entry.


Ian,


  No true "truthful hyperbole" despite the attempts by some to make such a claim. Even the architect's own historical society debunks them.


  There was zero original pedigree of note. But again, in the interest of fairness, the newly created course is vastly more interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:


It seems the underlying problem here is laziness - the laziness of the club to tell the true story and give credit where due, but also the laziness of the public at large for valuing designer labels over good workmanship.


The story in question is a fraud, but the story of most courses is also a stretch of the truth.  How many days did Tom Fazio put in at Monterey Peninsula CC, and what did he actually do on those days?  For that matter, what did Seth Raynor actually do there?  They would receive a blue check mark "verified" pedigree, but not all famous labels are created equally.


Years ago I went to the opening of a new course in Canada.  It was designed by a young Doug Carrick, but nobody knew his name then, so they hired Curtis Strange as a consultant (as I said, it was years ago 😉) and plastered his picture on the program for the opening (even though he didn't attend) and did not mention the actual designer at all in print or in the ceremony.  Pretty hard to make a name for yourself in those circumstances !

[Pete_Pittock]

If there was no original pedigree, what will keep the competing clubs from commenting?  The course in question could get away with it by using "faux" or "style", or mention that the 'architect' is known for his restoration work of 'xxxxxxxx' designs.

[BHoover]

How is this any different than, say, Trump inventing some bullshit story about a Civil War battle taking place on his course in Virginia?

[Kalen Braley]

I was also thinking along the lines as Bhoov.

But at the end of the day, if its not illegal or can't be sued for the claim, I suppose they will get away with it...

I guess its right at home in fact-free "fake news" 'Murica

[Tom_Doak]

How is this any different than, say, Trump inventing some bullshit story about a Civil War battle taking place on his course in Virginia?

Maybe he meant the coming Civil War he was predicting earlier this week.


Most (if not all) marketing is b.s. but there is now a growing acceptance of blatant fraud in many aspects of life.

[Steve Lapper]

I wouldn't argue that laziness is an absolute contributing factor, however, the club in question has stretched it's truthful history IMO.


What is especially interesting to me is that under the clip's previous name, never did they advertise, market or even suggest credit for the course was attributable to the architect whom they later declare was it's original designer.


It is also very interesting to me that in a day when nearly every headline outlines how lies and spin are substituting for truth and facts, this type of deceit has already trickled down to golf architecture. I ought not to be surprised.

[JESII]

Jim,


 Thanks for your reply. As an owner of a Tilliinghast course we've actually seen a small and incremental increase in prospective members awareness, knowledge and interest in GCA. Frankly, I suspect it's due to sites like this and others so widely available over the I'net. The widespread pleasure of disseminating course ratings is also becoming better known. Ultimately, membership is usually driven by proximity, price and amenities.....also ease of entry.

Steve - agree with your comments 100%...


While marketing b.s. is exactly that, in this day and age, every candidate at this club will very likely be a candidate at one or more of the other clubs in the area. Will they let these candidates continue to believe the false narrative? This things falls apart quite quickly I'm afraid.


Re-re-branding to occur in less than 6 months...

[JESII]

That's a betting line by the way...

[Pete_Pittock]

Jim,


 Thanks for your reply. As an owner of a Tilliinghast course we've actually seen a small and incremental increase in prospective members awareness, knowledge and interest in GCA. Frankly, I suspect it's due to sites like this and others so widely available over the I'net. The widespread pleasure of disseminating course ratings is also becoming better known. Ultimately, membership is usually driven by proximity, price and amenities.....also ease of entry.

Steve - agree with your comments 100%...


While marketing b.s. is exactly that, in this day and age, every candidate at this club will very likely be a candidate at one or more of the other clubs in the area. Will they let these candidates continue to believe the false narrative? This things falls apart quite quickly I'm afraid.


Re-re-branding to occur in less than 6 months...

That is what I was trying to say

[Kalen Braley]

I'm not so sure about the false narrative scenario here....seems its not an issue these days to get people to go along with just about anything.

[John Kavanaugh]

It is far more interesting to discover why people choose to believe a lie than to expose the lie to them. In a case such as this the golfing world as a whole is better off to let those few who play the course enjoy themselves for whatever reason that may be.

[JESII]

Unless you're selling memberships two blocks away...then you'd like the truth on the table to at least consider.

[John Kavanaugh]

Unless you're selling memberships two blocks away...then you'd like the truth on the table to at least consider.

I imagine that we have all had competitors who were cheating to gain an edge. How we decide to handle the situation defines our company for the rest of our lives. Outing the cheat is a short term solution that will gain you little respect in the community. Improving your product beyond what the cheat is promising eliminates not only them but most threats in the future.

[Bernie Bell]

"uses another similarly-positioned person to try to validate this effort "

Steve, what does that mean, if you're comfortable elaborating.

[Kalen Braley]

John,

Are you suggesting we should do away with trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc? 

[corey miller]

I know it won't happen but shouldn't the golfing world look askance at the restoration/renovation architect?


Good work or not but how does another place with an actual "pedigree" decide to hire this guy, at least without a mea culpa for the fraud? 


 

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Are you suggesting we should do away with trademarks, patents, copyrights, etc?

That has zero to do with a course saying it is a Ross when it impossible to prove it is not. I recently was in a similar situation where I could have gone to the rooftops and screamed my competitor was a cheat. Instead I drove through his projects day after day studying what he was doing that I could not. I took ten projects for every project that he took from me. Just when I thought he would fold his tent and go home his wife caught him banging a truck stop waitress. Game over bitches, the wife sold his plant and it was shipped to China.


Always play the long game.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Commercial " free speech" is permissible under the First Amendment unless lawyers, accountants,architects, medical providers or others who can be sanctioned are advertising "false, misleading or deceptive"  statements or claims.


https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/72/bates-v-state-bar-of-arizona



Can a golf architect  be sanctioned  if they  engage in they engage in the type of conduct mentioned here?

[Jerry Kluger]

This group may be very skeptical of such practices but does it or should it really matter?  I would speculate that better than 95% of golfers really don't view the architect as a significant reason for them joining a club. They look at cost, location, facilities and if they enjoy playing the course.  An architect of note might be something which is viewed as interesting but if the other factors are not up to the prospective member's needs then it really doesn't matter who designed the course.

[MCirba]

I respectfully disagree that it's meaningless.


If the club is purposefully telling people that their course was designed by famous architect X, they themselves have to believe that information is valuable from a marketing standpoint. Why else would one fabricate the truth if not to gain advantage?