Thoughts on the Current Issues Facing the Golf Digest Rankings Panel

[JC Jones]

      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.

[Jeff Schley]

JC thank you for taking the time to document the insider concern of the GD panel. I'm sure it saddens you as someone who is in it for what you started out doing it for, which was for the love of GCA and seeing all those which are and those which aren't worthy of their accolades. I know several GD raters and one guy in particular came rushing in after the new model and was very surprised he was selected as he isn't a good golfer (maybe 20 handicap), not very polished personality, and can't tell you a discernible characteristic of a Jack Nicklaus course (I asked).  He also tells everyone he knows that he is a GD rater as if he is somehow crowned to be a decision maker in how golf courses are viewed. My contention is that if you have to keep telling people how good or important you are, you probably aren't.

Thus you have a conundrum for not only yourself, but other GD raters who I'm sure you have talked to. 10 years ago a GD rater was an exclusive designation that carried some respect, now I scoff at the title personally.  So I empathize and feel for those who got in under the old pretenses, which I didn't love the criteria myself, but I respected that it held consistent for the most part.
One idea a GD rater told me is that GD themselves could do a better job of managing the requests as opposed to the courses. If they want to increase efficiency for their raters to see courses, is ask each rater which 20 courses they would like to rate that year. Then have a lottery (cause they are all equal right in their opinion in GD eyes) for those with more than 20 requests and select the 20 raters for each course for that year.  Communicate the lists to the golf courses and then you are done with the access game. However, GD doesn't want that hassle as they aren't interested in that, they want the $ and pass that headache onto the courses themselves.  I talked to the GM of a very private GD Top 100 course, which manages their raters and has for the last several years where they only allow 10 a year.  They sort of interview the raters when they receive a request and as a result hand pick their raters for the year.  I don't blame them and assume other courses do the same thing.

I don't know the future of the GD system, but one thing is for sure and that is there are thousands of raters who are willing to pay to get the access GD rating system provides.  So with GD getting paid, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Are there other GD raters on this site who have a take on this topic?

[Eric Smith]

Social relevance is underrated. #airfrance

[Joel_Stewart]

      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.
 
     
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.

Interesting post. You risk getting a call saying "You're done".


First, nothing is going to change unless the new management makes the changes. Since Jerry negotiated to stay as the CEO, it's doubtful there will be any changes.  Jerry likes the system and especially likes the revenue source. If you look at what Golf Magazine did, new management recognized the problems, made changes to the panel and the architecture editor and viola.

[Tom_Doak]

Note to Joel:  the viola is larger than a violin, with a deeper, mellower sound.  I don't think that's what you meant, though.


JC:


Kudos for calling out the problems with the rankings at GOLF DIGEST.  Like everyone who thinks of themselves as "leaders in the field," they will probably dismiss your comments, instead of thinking you might be the canary in the coal mine.  Plus, those rater fees pay some salaries at the magazine, so they have every reason to ignore your criticisms.


They probably won't realize they have risked the reputation of their rankings, until it is too late.  But, to be honest, I'm not sure there is such a thing as reputation in that part of the business anymore:  golf courses will post on the wall the best ranking they've got, no matter how dubious the source and no matter what favors they handed out to get it.


Raters asking for favors is nothing new; it's been happening in pro shops of clubs where I consult for more than twenty years.  I've had an earful about it from more than one club professional who hates that they've been instructed to "look the other way" at egregious behavior, for fear that calling it out might harm their ranking somehow, because GOLF DIGEST [and GOLFWEEK] are reluctant to police their raters or eject them from the panel.


Perhaps when they do act they will ask you to come back onto the panel.

[Tim Martin]

I can’t speak to the Golf Digest policy regarding social media but there is certainly a cottage industry blossoming on Instagram for wannabe “influencers”.  They chronicle their every move in an exhaustive effort to impress their followers and some have even endeavored to roll out their own lines of merchandise. As JC mentioned many of the courses they are showcasing on their “Gram” page are accessed as a magazine panelist with no mention of same. Finally I’m not interested in your drone, dog or dad. I’m just not.

[John Kavanaugh]

We may never learn why Kingsley couldn't break into the top 100.

[jeffwarne]

Finally I’m not interested in your drone, dog or dad. I’m just not.

just spit out my coffee...

[Ronald Montesano]

Tom: Canary in the coal mine only serves its purpose when it dies, so I pray that isn't JC's end. Unless the canary plays the viola (or is it the violin?)


I have nothing of additional relevance to add to this thread.


It would be great to have names, a la the slow-play expose' on the European Tour in 2019.

[jeffwarne]

Tom: Canary in the coal mine only serves its purpose when it dies, so I pray that isn't JC's end. Unless the canary plays the viola (or is it the violin?)


I have nothing of additional relevance to add to this thread.


It would be great to have names, a la the slow-play expose' on the European Tour in 2019.

I could email you an entire list with 516(Long Island) area codes who only have time to rate the course on weekends in July and August-who need to bring three friends......
It is substantially longer than the list who approach at appropriate times.

[Tim Martin]

I don’t think it’s a bad idea that raters not contact private courses at all between July 4th and Labor Day especially in an area like eastern Long Island. As far as asking to bring three guests that puts the M in moxie.

[Joe_Tucholski]

While I totally think the post raises valid points I have to wonder if this is a guy gripping about how things were so much better in the old days.


It's pretty clear it was better for JC in the old days.

[John Kavanaugh]

I’ve played most of the great private courses in the world without ever having been a rater. How do you know if an individual has played a course because he is a rater or just because he can? Are we now asking club managers to monitor social media and join JC on the whistleblower bandwagon? Should the member who offered access to a photographer get an equal credit on publication to clear Digest of wrong doing? What exactly is the end game here?

[Jud_T]

Can a course truly be considered really good without a rater’s stamp of approval? Furthermore, can it be truly great without a consensus of raters?  Therefore since we know based on all the specific delineated criteria, the larger the sample size, the better the statistical significance.  To take it to it’s logical conclusion, each person who plays a course should be required to fill out a detailed online questionnaire immediately post round and the results, obviously weighted by the persons hdcp index, should be instantly tabulated and displayed prominently on a tote-board at each course and updated in real time.  Furthermore, greens fees/membership downstroke could also be charged in $$/rank point and displayed in Yen, Euro, Sterling and Bitcoin.  This would take all the guesswork out of it and we could simply turn this site over to more obvious celebrity wannabe pursuits such as Kanye’s latest sermon setlist or what up-and-coming stylist gives Bernie that ‘I just rolled out of bed’ combover look.

[John Kirk]

JC, thanks for the fine post.

To me, what you are describing is a microcosm of a greater socioeconomic issue, a permissive society in which people are compelled to draw attention to themselves for financial and social gain.  Also, our society is filled with unprecedented privileges and pleasures, and these pleasurable experiences foster addictions and problematic behavior.  In my opinion, our society encourages people to aggressively seek out and gorge themselves on their favorite pleasures.  Playing top notch golf courses is not much different than a turkey dinner on Thanksgiving, or the perfect evening buzz. 


These comments may seem off-topic, but I believe they speak about the nature of wanting things, and how intoxicating it is to have special things, or feel sated by food, drink and drugs, and to gain the envy and admiration of your peers for what you have and what you've done.  Modern society promotes and glorifies this.


 I dislike the act of bringing attention to self, and I try hard to avoid it whenever possible.  You can't talk, or participate in a forum like this, without drawing attention to yourself, or trying to influence other's opinions.  Over the long run, it's better to be cool, and in general, I try.  In person, I can be very chatty, or too negative in my thoughts.


The fee-based structure at Golf Digest may have something to do with a greater sense of entitlement, but the aggression and lack of civility shown by abusers of privilege emanates from the intoxicating nature of that privilege.  That's why the best golf clubs do their homework before admitting new members.  After meeting a few members of top clubs, my conclusion is they are generally gifted with fine social graces.  You spend a day with a member of a top club, and you experience kindness all day long.

[Ronald Montesano]

John Kirk...The societal flaws that you describe are normalizing themselves. As this generation ages, those who draw attention to themselves as youth, will continue to do so as adults, albeit to a lesser degree of frequency and intensity. Those who do not partake will, for the most part, forgive their contemporaries. Those who do not, and bitch about it, will be a ridiculed minority. We ain't going back to the bad and good of 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and soon, 10s.


Jud T...There are two way for a great course to not have rater seal of approval. One is for it to exist in an impenetrable vacuum. No one knows it is there, so no one can rate it, but it does exist. This was Wolf Point for a time. The other is for it to be so polarizing, that raters refuse to give it a seal of approval. This would be if Jim Engh and Mike Strantz had a love child of a golf course, on the ocean floor or the surface of the Earth's moon. The course might be great, but fitting no rater molds, it would receive no seal of approval.




Is there anyone out there who would not trade her/his game for Nelly Korda's? I find no flaws in her game. Goodness, I love her swing.

[Jeff Schley]

Can a course truly be considered really good without a rater’s stamp of approval? Furthermore, can it be truly great without a consensus of raters?  Therefore since we know based on all the specific delineated criteria, the larger the sample size, the better the statistical significance.  To take it to it’s logical conclusion, each person who plays a course should be required to fill out a detailed online questionnaire immediately post round and the results, obviously weighted by the persons hdcp index, should be instantly tabulated and displayed prominently on a tote-board at each course and updated in real time.  Furthermore, greens fees/membership downstroke could also be charged in $$/rank point and displayed in Yen, Euro, Sterling and Bitcoin.  This would take all the guesswork out of it and we could simply turn this site over to more obvious celebrity wannabe pursuits such as Kanye’s latest sermon setlist or what up-and-coming stylist gives Bernie that ‘I just rolled out of bed’ combover look.

I would say yes, just ask the members of the club.  They are happy with their course given the geography where they live and resources they are willing to spend. When those align it is as great as can be.  There isn't an Outback Steakhouse in every town, you may have to settle for Sizzler, but going to the Sizzler can be the place you go on your birthday once a year.

[Tom_Doak]

I was just reading an article on families who pay $300 [per person, per hour] to go straight to the front of the lines at Disney World instead of having a 2-3 hour wait for each ride.  The writer was a Wharton business school grad, and he was almost feeling guilty about having done so, and starting to question where one draws the line at wealth buying access.


Amazingly, he did not think to explore the theme in the context of political lobbying.



[apologies if the author of the piece is a regular at Golf Club Atlas    ]

[John Kirk]

John Kirk...The societal flaws that you describe are normalizing themselves. As this generation ages, those who draw attention to themselves as youth, will continue to do so as adults, albeit to a lesser degree of frequency and intensity. Those who do not partake will, for the most part, forgive their contemporaries. Those who do not, and bitch about it, will be a ridiculed minority. We ain't going back to the bad and good of 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s and soon, 10s.

In the modern world, you don't need nearly as many people to produce the basic goods for society, so people are more incentivized (or desperate) to be noticed.  That, coupled with social media platforms that enable cheap communication on a wide scale, make the practice of self-promotion more prevalent.  If you can do stuff that people want or need, you don't need to draw attention to yourself.

I recently posted a couple of pictures of trees in my yard on my Instagram page, thus ballooning my career image count to 9.

[JC Jones]

I have no expectation that my thoughts and comments will bring change at Golf Digest.  That was especially made clear when those in charge of the panel at Golf Digest deleted my post on the panelist message board.  There is no interest among the powers that be to run their rankings and their panel in any manner other than it is currently run.  Frankly, it pays the salaries of those in charge of the panel as well as the rent on their 1 World Trade Center office space.


I am not worried about being kicked off the panel as a result of my post, I had already resigned.  Im sure they're excited at the prospect of a $1000 entry fee that will no be available as a result.


John Kirk, as always, thank you for your thoughtful reply.  I dont disagree.

[David_Elvins]

Surely the issue here is that there has been a resource ("free" rounds of golf at exclusive clubs) that has been sustainably exploited for decades that in a late stage capitalism kind of way is now being exploited in a completely unsustainable way that will maximise short term profits for those that have worked out how to monetise the resource but will see the resource almost completely dry up as a result of this over excessive exploitation.

[Kalen Braley]

Surely the issue here is that there has been a resource ("free" rounds of golf at exclusive clubs) that has been sustainably exploited for decades that in a late stage capitalism kind of way is now being exploited in a completely unsustainable way that will maximise short term profits for those that have worked out how to monetise the resource but will see the resource almost completely dry up as a result of this over excessive exploitation.

David,

I'm not sure I see it the same way. Currently there are ~1700 people who are members of one of the best memberships in the world, to potentially have access to all the privates with the exception of a few elite ones. As long as there is a long queue of clubs wanting to crack the GD top 100 list, i see this continuing for the foreseeable future.

$1000 upfront and $300 ongoing year over year?  From the perspective of how much it costs just to join 1 top end club, that seems like a bargain.

P.S.  I'm not saying I condone or agree with the system, just that the financial model seems to make a lot of sense for both GD and prospective raters.

[Mark_Fine]

Correct me if I am wrong but I am guessing there are probably 1000 “target courses” that panelists are trying to rate that have Top 100 or Best in State potential.  Let’s say the average panelist sees 20 different courses a year (that is a lot and the average in reality is probably less than 10) and there are 1700 panelists that equates to 17,000-34,000 panelist rounds a year.  Let’s say those 1000 target courses average 15,000 rounds each a year that is 15,000,000 rounds of which 34,000 rounds (0.0022%) could be panelist play.  Probably (hopefully) the majority of that panelist play was properly and respectfully managed (many panelists probably access courses other ways then stating they are a panelist), then we are talking about a minute percentage of rounds that clubs might have an issue with.  There are better things to complain about as I don’t think this is crippling the golf industry 😉

[Peter Pallotta]

Ironically, the system described in this thread seems the perfect one to meet/fulfill the aims & objectives expressed in the other ('alternative rankings') thread, ie "a Top 100 list that reflects the tastes, opinions, values and interests of the "retail golfer" (to borrow a term from Mr. Keiser) that we all know to exist".
And necessarily so, too: since the new 'set' of GD panelists as described here are *themselves* 'retail golfers' -- maybe even the very epitome of the term.
I assume not intentionally or strategically on GD's part, but they seem nonetheless to have landed on the ideal system to ensure that their panelists (and resulting Top 100 lists) will truly "speak to" literally millions of other golfers:
i.e. to those millions of retail golfers who share the same tastes, values and -- even more -- aspirations of a group of golfers who, nowadays, are eager to become GD panelists and who are willing to pay top dollar for the privilege of accessing/playing 'the best':
i.e. the 'retail golfers' who have made all of Mr. K's public efforts, from the northwest to the southeast, such a great financial and critical success. 
In short: while every retail golfer is not a GD panelist, every (new) GD panelist is a retail golfer. 
Who knows - maybe it was indeed an intentional & very strategic decision by GD after all.   
P 

[JC Jones]

Ironically, the system described in this thread seems the perfect one to meet/fulfill the aims & objectives expressed in the other ('alternative rankings') thread, ie "a Top 100 list that reflects the tastes, opinions, values and interests of the "retail golfer" (to borrow a term from Mr. Keiser) that we all know to exist".
And necessarily so, too: since the new 'set' of GD panelists as described here are *themselves* 'retail golfers' -- maybe even the very epitome of the term.
I assume not intentionally or strategically on GD's part, but they seem nonetheless to have landed on the ideal system to ensure that their panelists (and resulting Top 100 lists) will truly "speak to" literally millions of other golfers:
i.e. to those millions of retail golfers who share the same tastes, values and -- even more -- aspirations of a group of golfers who, nowadays, are eager to become GD panelists and who are willing to pay top dollar for the privilege of accessing/playing 'the best':
i.e. the 'retail golfers' who have made all of Mr. K's public efforts, from the northwest to the southeast, such a great financial and critical success. 
In short: while every retail golfer is not a GD panelist, every (new) GD panelist is a retail golfer. 
Who knows - maybe it was indeed an intentional & very strategic decision by GD after all.   
P 

You could not be more wrong.