[Jon Wiggett]

In all fairness, a rising tide will raise all salaries.

and yet the gap between the haves and have nots has widened quite a bit in the last 30 years or so John so your cute sounding sound bite is a bit hollow.

Which is more valuable to a club: 25 new members willing to spend $20,000 per year, or...Management finding $500,000 in budget cuts?

Clearly the 25 new members but what if you cannot find them?

[Rich Goodale]

1.  Rollback the ball to a uniform performance standard, somewhat similar to the Titleist Professional in terms of distance and non-cutability.  Elite balls now cost c. $15 for a sleeve, whereas elite tennis balls cost under $3 a can.  And it's damn hard to cut or lose a tennis ball....
2.  Fuggeddaboot irrigation if your course is not located on a desert.
3.  No concrete or asphalt paths (sorry JakaB......)
4.  Downsize your clubhouse,restaurant and pro shop by half, and then by half again, and then again until they match demand.
5.  Hire a pro who is capable of running the club and pay him or her a good salary.
6.  Hire a greenkeeper who is capable running the maintenance of the course and pay her or him a good salary,
7.  Abolish the commitee/council/board/etc. of worthies and replace them with members who are willing to work for and with (but not manage) the pro and the greenkeeper.


This is just a start......


Rich

[JESII]

Golfers

[John Kavanaugh]

In all fairness, a rising tide will raise all salaries.

and yet the gap between the haves and have nots has widened quite a bit in the last 30 years or so John so your cute sounding sound bite is a bit hollow.

Which is more valuable to a club: 25 new members willing to spend $20,000 per year, or...Management finding $500,000 in budget cuts?

Clearly the 25 new members but what if you cannot find them?

My reference was inside the club. When a Super makes more eventually all the other department heads make more with the club manager making the most. There is very little reason for anyone to fight a large and growing maintenance budget.


I find it odd that 25 new members seems to be the obvious preference to a budget cut. Let's just hope they don't pull a PCCraig and goober up all the best tee times. I doubt that any club could take on 25 new members at one time without a drastic change in culture.

[Rick Lane]

Because of lots of factors like aging demographics, people moving, etc, our club turns over about 15 people a year, some years more.   So we are in a constant "marketing" mode to attract people to fill those spots.  Its just reality.   Part of the "marketing" is the quality of golf, and other services, to compete with other area clubs.   Mind you, this is a club over 100 years old, and is full service with pool, tennis, paddle, big old clubhouse, the works.    If we had to do it all over it would be different, I think, but it is what it is now.   I read an interesting article from the manager of Dye Preserve a few years ago, where he said it takes $1.5mm to run a golf course (mind you, a high end one) and divided by 300 members, that's $400 a month per member, and any expense more than that was for "lunch".   I think that thinking is why place like Dye Preserve are going back to the future and are just golf clubs, with a small clubhouse, and maybe you can get a sandwich.   Much better model?   

[David Wuthrich]

I like that approach.

[Thomas Dai]

1.  Rollback the ball to a uniform performance standard, somewhat similar to the Titleist Professional in terms of distance and non-cutability.  Elite balls now cost c. $15 for a sleeve, whereas elite tennis balls cost under $3 a can.  And it's damn hard to cut or lose a tennis ball....
2.  Fuggeddaboot irrigation if your course is not located on a desert.
3.  No concrete or asphalt paths (sorry JakaB......)
4.  Downsize your clubhouse,restaurant and pro shop by half, and then by half again, and then again until they match demand.
5.  Hire a pro who is capable of running the club and pay him or her a good salary.
6.  Hire a greenkeeper who is capable running the maintenance of the course and pay her or him a good salary,
7.  Abolish the commitee/council/board/etc. of worthies and replace them with members who are willing to work for and with (but not manage) the pro and the greenkeeper.
This is just a start......
Rich

Cracking post Rich. +1
atb

[Ian Andrew]

Remove all the Trees


No shade, more sunlight, less inputs ...
No cleaning up after them ...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Saw a stat yesterday that consumers (and golfers are a type of consumer) will pay on average 23% more for a good experience vs. an average one.  (And customer expectations have gone up over the years)  Some will pay more, some not at all, everyone is different, of course.


So, the real question is spending a bit more on things customers will typically pay more for, but a lot less on things that they won't.  While we can all name individual examples of spending with no return gained, in general, I would bet the managers of clubs and courses have this pretty well figured out.  It's almost "everyone knows" type stuff to focus on greens, then tees, then fairways, then rough with whatever dollars you have.


My personal waste favorite was a parks super who felt edging the cart paths for a crisp edge was a weekly task, whereas most places, even in aggressive growing seasons and Bermuda would do it once per month or once per quarter.

[Tim Martin]

Yes - I guess that's basically it, Sean. 
A friend (who rarely plays my favourite local course) called once to say he'd gotten us a "deal" at the course for later that day -- I think it was $28 for what is usually a $40 round.
I played that round, and since then have purposely made sure never to even ask about let alone try to get that kind of deal again.
No, I don't have money to burn, and I'm not particularly altruistic and/or foolish. But:
- since I've rarely done anything else to "support local golf" (e.g. like becoming a member of a club)
- don't play all that very often
- like the people who own and run my favourite course
- can play that same course later in the afternoon for its then regular fee of $35 (thus saving only $7 with the "deal"), and
- want to support the courses I like best and not have them enter a 'race to the bottom' with courses I like less

It just feels, literally, like the least I can do to try to help keep my local golf scene healthy. I can spare that $7 or so as a very small gesture in support of the game.

Now, if it was a very well-heeled and high-end club that usually charges $300 but that is offering a special (or I have a British-American friend who knows someone who knows someone), I am going to take that discount in a heart-beat!

Peter

Peter-I think it's great that you will pony up the extra coin to support your course. That said I think it's unrealistic to think that scenario repeats itself with any real frequency across the demographic at the public/muni/daily fee courses. Lower/lowest green fees often rule the day especially since 2008. In your reply number 32 you said "Don't sink too low". I disagree wholeheartedly that "If we can afford $30 to play golf we can afford $40" as a blanket statement. There are an awful lot of people who will run to the $30 course every time and for some the price difference may also be the demarcation line of being able to afford the round. Thanks.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - you may well be right. I'm certainly conscious about costs, and I know others are too. But:
1. The ripple effect of this sinking too low: the nearby (100 year old) 9 holer that now routinely charges $20 for all you can play after 2 pm; the 1990s course offering flex passes that price out at $25 a round. I'm not good with economics, and I don't know about the finances of these courses, but at those prices it sure feels like the "closing for new housing" signs can't be far behind.
2. I think there are limits to how much golf many of us can play, at any price. Except for retirees, modern life imposes certain limits. If most of the golfers I know can allow themselves one or two rounds a week, few I think will play a 3rd round if the price was $28 instead of $35; they don't have the time even if they have the money. Which is to say: these "deals" may encourage someone to play at Course X instead of at Course Y, but over-all I don't think they increase the total number of rounds being played. 
3. I think this golfnow/low pricing model may take the place of other (better?) approaches. The semi private I mention has yearly membership packages (that get you into the 3 members tournaments and some preferred tee times) priced so that you need to play 60 rounds a year (and the standard rate) to "make it worthwhile".  No one in my circle comes near playing 60 rounds a summer, especially locally. Wouldn't the course be better off offering membership that prices out at 30 rounds a year instead - which I think would bring a lot more of us to joining as members without dropping the standard price-per-round?
 
All tentative thoughts; but based on a hope that modest local courses can continue to survive/flourish, and the belief that this low-pricing model might serve in the very short term but not in the long one. As I said to Sean, my extra $7 is obviously nothing but a drop in the bucket - but it's all I can do.

Peter 

[Tim Martin]

Tim - you may well be right. I'm certainly conscious about costs, and I know others are too. But:
1. The ripple effect of this sinking too low: the nearby (100 year old) 9 holer that now routinely charges $20 for all you can play after 2 pm; the 1990s course offering flex passes that price out at $25 a round. I'm not good with economics, and I don't know about the finances of these courses, but at those prices it sure feels like the "closing for new housing" signs can't be far behind.
2. I think there are limits to how much golf many of us can play, at any price. Except for retirees, modern life imposes certain limits. If most of the golfers I know can allow themselves one or two rounds a week, few I think will play a 3rd round if the price was $28 instead of $35; they don't have the time even if they have the money. Which is to say: these "deals" may encourage someone to play at Course X instead of at Course Y, but over-all I don't think they increase the total number of rounds being played. 
3. I think this golfnow/low pricing model may take the place of other (better?) approaches. The semi private I mention has yearly membership packages (that get you into the 3 members tournaments and some preferred tee times) priced so that you need to play 60 rounds a year (and the standard rate) to "make it worthwhile".  No one in my circle comes near playing 60 rounds a summer, especially locally. Wouldn't the course be better off offering membership that prices out at 30 rounds a year instead - which I think would bring a lot more of us to joining as members without dropping the standard price-per-round?
 
All tentative thoughts; but based on a hope that modest local courses can continue to survive/flourish, and the belief that this low-pricing model might serve in the very short term but not in the long one. As I said to Sean, my extra $7 is obviously nothing but a drop in the bucket - but it's all I can do.

Peter

Peter-I am a fan of the semi-private model you are describing. Maybe the owner and the golfer meet in the middle at $35 and although the profit margin decreases the pins stay in and hopefully rounds increase. I love these types of courses in and around New England but the farther from a metro area the tougher it becomes. As far as pricing I like a few limited round options as well as a full membership and have seen more creativity of late than any time in the last 35 years. A lot of clubs have literally reinvented themselves to stay relevant and it's great when that Ross 9 holer or whatever local favorite someone play's flourishes.

[Sean_A]

Yes - I guess that's basically it, Sean. 
A friend (who rarely plays my favourite local course) called once to say he'd gotten us a "deal" at the course for later that day -- I think it was $28 for what is usually a $40 round.
I played that round, and since then have purposely made sure never to even ask about let alone try to get that kind of deal again.
No, I don't have money to burn, and I'm not particularly altruistic and/or foolish. But:
- since I've rarely done anything else to "support local golf" (e.g. like becoming a member of a club)
- don't play all that very often
- like the people who own and run my favourite course
- can play that same course later in the afternoon for its then regular fee of $35 (thus saving only $7 with the "deal"), and
- want to support the courses I like best and not have them enter a 'race to the bottom' with courses I like less

It just feels, literally, like the least I can do to try to help keep my local golf scene healthy. I can spare that $7 or so as a very small gesture in support of the game.

Now, if it was a very well-heeled and high-end club that usually charges $300 but that is offering a special (or I have a British-American friend who knows someone who knows someone), I am going to take that discount in a heart-beat!

Peter

Pietro

I guess that is noble of you. I am one to think that whatever the lowest rate charged is the defacto the rate.  As they say, a penny saved is penny earned. But then I am not worried about my favourite courses closing.  It is also heartening to know that so many of the courses I played in Michigan before leaving are still open and still not charging much if anything more than they did 25 years ago.  I find this incredible. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()