I’ve been thinking about a lot lately about rankings (this is prior to the GOLF Magazine release) and the issues surrounding them. For over a decade I have been a Golf Digest panelist, although I’ve been reflecting on that and am realizing that should no longer be so. Nonetheless, I feel the Golf Digest ranking panel is at a significant crossroads and I wonder where it will go.
For reasons that I think are pretty obvious, and perhaps I’m wrong, Golf Digest chose to change its panel. Previous to the change, Golf Digest panelists did not have to pay “dues” and the process for getting on the panel was decently thorough (by no means perfect). Golf Digest however, has chosen to increase the size of the panel by roughly 1000 panelists, charge each of those new panelists an “entry fee” of $1000 or more and each panelist is now required to pay $300/year in dues. Given that the panel is now over 1700 people, you’re looking at a $500k/year revenue center for the magazine. Not a huge number but it is about 1.5-2% of what Discovery just paid for the magazine. I think each of these, the growth and the pay for play scheme, present significant concerns and issues not present prior to the changes.
With respect to growth, I think the prior size of the panel made sense given Golf Digest’s interesting in having robust Best in State lists and the panel size was roughly 12-15 panelists per state. Given the panel’s current size, however, I think it is difficult to manage and police that number of panelists. And I say that for both Golf Digest and the courses. All reports are that courses are absolutely inundated with rater requests and several courses, particularly the higher ranked and nearer large cities, have just shut down their availability to rater play. Maybe some will say good riddance, but the ratings and the courses have, to a certain extent, a symbiotic relationship. Membership numbers, revenue numbers, validation for restorations, etc. can all be affected by a course’s ranking and those who are sensitive to such things care about their rating. Even architects need rankings because it helps them make sales. But courses don’t want to be overloaded with raters. And if you think about it, with the size of Golf Digest (and Golfweek included), there are thousands of raters out there looking to play golf courses.
Unsurprisingly, with the increase in the size of the ratings panel, there has been an increase in poor and notable rater behavior. Prior to the increase in the size of the panel, I am not aware of and do not recall a single email or announcement about rater behavior or raters being removed from the panel for poor behavior. I’m sure it happened, but it wasn’t widely known or communicated from Golf Digest. In the last few years there have been several communicated incidents, panelists removed, and new sets of rules and policies being created and implemented to curtail poor behavior.
Take, for example, a new social media policy for Golf Digest that prohibits panelists from posting pictures of golf courses they’ve rated on social media, prohibits panelists from profiting or selling pictures they’ve taken while visiting the course as a rater, and prohibits panelists from posting their thoughts on golf courses on this website and on any other internet or social media platform. (If only Golf Digest was aware of a certain other, “private” message board forum where a number of their panelists participate, I’m sure it would be called out by name as well)
This policy has been put in place because several panelists are leveraging their access to private clubs for financial gain and social relevance. Panelists are taking pictures at courses where such things are not permitted and posting them on Instagram and other places. One notable panelist (who has not been dismissed despite being the clearest violator of this policy) is selling pictures he’s taken after posting them on Instagram (the same panelist has even received letters from private clubs regarding this practice). Other posters are leveraging their access to private clubs in their endeavors to be “influencers” often capitalizing on the snowball effect of the more places you play the more access you get. All of this has resulted in the new social media policy mentioned above. The release of this policy was, I guess, the final straw for me.
In hopes of having an honest discussion about what the panel had become and what I saw to be the issues, a couple of weeks ago I posted the following on the Golf Digest panelist internal message board:
No surprise such a policy is needed now that our delegitimized panel has been more than doubled in size to generate revenues for Discovery Golf (and previously Conde Nast). The panel was once a relatively small set of good players and architecture nerds interested in participating in the larger discussion; but once it was decided that money was the reason to have a panel it has become just a paid-for punch ticket to access private golf courses and a pass for the hangers on to use in hope to gain social relevance.
Nonetheless, I logged in today to see how serious the policy was and realized it wasn’t all that serious. I noticed one of the most notorious offenders was still in the panel directory. This is a person who has received several letters from private clubs for droning and photographing without permission; and has also profited from such photos. So, does Golf Digest really care about the dignity of the panel?
In any event, when the purpose of the panel shifted from legitimate interest in golf courses and content creation to a paid membership, should we really be surprised the members of the panel want to get their money’s worth?
This post was immediately deleted from the message board by those who run the ranking panel for Golf Digest.
The latter part of my post gets to my issues with a pay-for-play panel. I think the charging of dues breeds entitlement in the panelists and an idea that they are paying for a membership into a club. A club that gets them access to private golf courses to which they would not otherwise have access. A club that turns the panelist-magazine relationship into a transaction and entitles the panelists to get their money’s worth. I don’t think this “return” is necessarily limited to free golf and access, I think it also includes the returns of being someone known on social media as having access to those private clubs and whatever social clout comes along with that. I don’t think raters should profit after visiting a place via their rater card; whether financially or in kind. But I’m not sure the new pack of raters necessarily agrees, and I wonder if the “membership” style structure of the panel is the reason behind that. And the reason why this policy is now needed.
I did not support and was in disagreement with the expansion of the panel and the creation of a dues structure; and, I have held these issues since the transition. Thus, I have not paid dues to Golf Digest to be a panelist because I did not want to participate in such a transaction (I haven’t yet been removed from the panel for not having done so). Basically, in my opinion, increasing the size of the panel and charging dues begets the very profiteering golf publication ranking panels have been criticized for and have (hopefully) tried to avoid through the years, inundates the courses with panelist requests for access, and has resulted in a significant delegitimization of the panel in recent years.
Therefore, I am in agreement with others who subscribe to the notion that the Golf Digest rankings are in a precarious state. Some have never held them in high regard because they disagreed with the methodology or with the ranking of the courses; but I believe the Golf Digest rankings serve a different purpose, especially as it relates to the Best in State rankings. So, whatever one’s issues might be with the list, to me, the biggest issue facing the Golf Digest panel is how to regain its legitimacy in the golf world. A status I think it once held.