It's Time to Grow Golf Again

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 12, 2008 11:22 AM EST

I have been talking about golf participation issues for the past two or three years. In the last 12 months, though, we have seen a number of stories and studies come down the pipe that indicate that golf participation is weakening. News about fewer rounds played, more course closures than openings, and a massive NY Times piece on the subject really put the topic into the limelight.

Well, the golf industry has listened and they have seen the problem, too. Now, they're ready to act. Gary Smits reports:

Golf 20/20 unveiled an ambitious player development program Tuesday, marshaling almost every major governing body of the sport behind a two-phase, five-year plan with the goal of adding 700,000 new players by 2013.

Get Golf Ready in Five Days will use the resources of organizations such as the World Golf Foundation, the PGA of America, the United States Golf Association, the PGA Tour, the LPGA and governing bodies of golf course owners, operators, superintendents and architects.

In addition, equipment manufacturers and golf broadcast partners are on board.

The golf industry has been listening to the many complaints from golfers of all kinds that the game takes too long to learn, is hard to access, costs too much, and is tough to do with a family. The Get Golf Ready concept attempts to address these problems.

Get Golf Ready, which was explained to more than 250 members of the golf industry at the St. Johns County Convention Center in St. Augustine, begins with a five-lesson package, 60-to-90 minutes in length, for a suggested cost of $99.

There will be an emphasis on giving new players a golf-course experience from the first lesson - taking skills learned at a practice range or short-game area to a part of the actual golf course during each lesson.

Participating courses are also asked to schedule leagues, family programs and other events to encourage retention.

The program also would include orientation on the history, rules and etiquette of the game.

The industry is hoping to have 5000 facilities on board by 2013 - the end of the program. Most facilities will be public courses or munis.

I love the idea and I hope it works. It really does seem to try to address many of the concerns raised by players as barriers to the game. This may very well help to introduce players to the game - as families, with real course experience from the start.

The question will be what the industry intends to do as a retention program. Even current golfers are playing fewer rounds than they used to because of a variety of reasons - time, cost, and other things to do. (Like blogging?) The industry has to band together to not only bring new players to the game, but keep the current ones.

I would propose things like:

More 9 hole leagues - TGC's Amateur Tour is a fantastic idea and one that could really grow
Better pricing structures at public courses - courses may take a hit on deeper discounts and extending twilight hours into earlier in the day, but more traffic at a lower price is better than little traffic at a high price. Also, it sets the stage for getting golfers to come back and play again.

What ideas do you have that would keep people in the game?

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

LOL

I love these things. And I hate them. I appreciate that the business people of golf try to bring new people into the game and want people to stay with it…for their bottom line, of course.

But these slogan campaigns are just so corny. If these things were coming out when I was first trying the game, I don’t think I would have even picked up the first club. They are just insulting to my intelligence.

Adding 700,000 new golfers by 2013 ? Where is the balance of players who give up the game ? Where are they going to play ?

There are three things that keep people from picking up the game and sticking with it – (1) personal prejudice – the idea that the game is “elitist” (which is ridiculous – a game cannot be “elitist” – PEOPLE are elitists) (2) cost (equipment, practice, playing, etc), and (3) time – it just takes a long time to play 18 holes. Ok – FOUR things – the game is just damn hard to get good at. (cue the Monty Python “nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition” theme music)

Until these three things are addressed and accepted by the public – golf will be what it is – popular, but not something the general population is going to take to for life.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 12, 2008 11:38 AM EST reply actions

I think this is a beginning point

to try to address issues 2 through 4. It’s as much of a PR effort as it is getting people to put clubs in their hands in the first place.

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 12, 2008 11:58 AM EST up reply actions

it's personal...

…just me…I just don’t like things like this or “these girls rock” or other silliness that candy coat a sport.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 12, 2008 12:06 PM EST up reply actions

I think the name is kinda ridiculous

Would agree with you there. Golf needs some better PR people. They’re the same folks that brought us the P&G Beauty Northwest Arkansas Championship Presented by John Q. Hammons… :)

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 12, 2008 12:11 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe I'm missing something...

…but whereas I want the game to be healthy, I don’t necessarily care if it grows.

Consider the complaints that were mentioned:

The golf industry has been listening to the many complaints from golfers of all kinds that the game takes too long to learn, is hard to access, costs too much, and is tough to do with a family.

Replace “golf” with baseball, football, NASCAR, ice hockey, skiing or any of a bunch of other sports/activities, and the “complaints” are the same.

Why does golf need to permeate every household? It’s simply not a game some people will enjoy or will be able to play much because of economic, family, or job reasons.

Growth is a concept that benefits companies that make money off the game. To me, growth means more crowded courses and more people out there who have no care about etiquette and no love for the game.

by Double Eagle on Nov 12, 2008 1:16 PM EST reply actions

Tiger-wannabes

Mike, I agree with you completely. Even with the number of rounds decreasing, when my foursome of women get a mid-morning weekend tee time we’re sure to end up behind three guys with garbage swings, no concept of keeping the ball in play and an aversion to hitting from anywhere but the black tees because Tiger would play from there. Five-plus hour rounds are pretty standard. On those days when no one is in front, we get around in under four hours (our indexes are upper-teens to mid-twenties, but we don’t screw around).

If the number of active golfers decreases for awhile, I’m good with that. I retire in about four years (maybe three if I’m lucky) and my intent is to play three to four times a week. I don’t want to have to haggle for a tee time.

Truth has a well-known liberal bias.

by dianemarie on Nov 12, 2008 7:35 PM EST up reply actions

The Viiiilllaageessss...

“Florida’s friendliest home town..” :-)

Come on D – launch a few drives into the pokey group, then pull out the “oh we’re sorry – we’re just girls” act and play through. :-)

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 12, 2008 9:49 PM EST up reply actions

Those commercials are great

I halfway want to move to The Villages and I’m only 34. It’s America’s friendliest home town!

Great, now you stuck that jingle in my head.

by Double Eagle on Nov 13, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions

it's not personal...

…it’s business (cue the Godfather theme)

I agree wholeheartedly, Double E. These business designs don’t really include the golfers who have been playing for a long time.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 12, 2008 1:22 PM EST reply actions

It is a business thing

For me, I think that “growing golf” is much more than just getting new players to replace the ones that leave. You gotta keep the ones you got, like court said. It’s a positive for existing golfers to get new ones in the sense that it makes golf more accessible for them. More golfers means more golf courses. More golfers means demand for better technology. Again, like court said, that also lines the pockets of the industry. But I don’t think it’s a zero sum game. Golfers can benefit too – even if courses and driving ranges get more crowded. :)

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 12, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

Traffic vs. Revenue

I have a little different take on this comment:

"Better pricing structures at public courses – courses may take a hit on deeper discounts and extending twilight hours into earlier in the day, but more traffic at a lower price is better than little traffic at a high price. "

It’s not necessarily true for golf. It’s a lot easier to drive 20 golfers at $50/round versus driving 40 golfers at $25/round, especially when the gist of the article is “trying to get more people to golf” -that tells me increasing traffic is the heart of the problem to begin with. If there aren’t 20 additional golfers out there that want to play your course during early twilight, or whenever, you just discounted rack rate to get the same 20 golfers and LOST revenue instead of grown revenue. If the course is worth $50 then people will pay to play it for $50 most of the time. If it’s over-priced at $50 then owners must adjust based on the competition or the local economy. If you keep discounting all your rates, golfers will start seeing your course as a $25 golf course and nothing more. They won’t be loyal customers once you raise rates, you get slower play due to the quality of golfers playing the course, and course maintenance is delayed with all the potential extra golfers clogging up the course during routine maintenance time frames (that is if you can drive extra traffic based solely on price which is easier said than done).

In the end, golf course owners need to understand that deep discounting is a dangerous practice that is hard to reverse once the economy comes back- or at any time, really. I would rather see them build revenue by creating more junior and women’s groups that are more likely to create loyal golfers as they progress in skill and utilize the course more as they grow up (becoming rack rate players).

Discounting should be left to historically underutilized portions of the tee sheet where zero revenue was coming in already. I am all for “Growing the game” but golf is already a much cheaper form of entertainment for four hours than pro sports and is a very healthy alternative to sitting stil watching games at a stadium, too.

by GolfMarketingGuy on Nov 13, 2008 9:45 AM EST reply actions

I would partially agree

Using the example you provided, I totally see your point. It’s simple economics given a static pool of golfers and that the service being offered is actually worth its price point. The problem, though, is that many golf courses charge too much money during non-twilight hours. There are a good number of courses that charge between $10-50 more per round than what it really is worth to play it. You indicated this in what you said.

I think my wording kinda spurred on your whole point, though, because I used the phrase “deep discounting.” So, let’s replace “deep” with some other level of discounting. Maybe drop 10% or 15% on a daily basis across the board at all times of the day for these courses that are just charging too much. I wouldn’t call that deep, but I do think it would have a positive impact. I’d like to hear your perspective on that approach.

I definitely agree that courses would be better served to have a more holistic approach to making money. But I didn’t mean to suggest that they should sell their course out to the lowest bidder – rather, price their greens fees at levels that actually reflect their real market values.

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 13, 2008 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

Deep vs. Smart

Yes, “deep” is four-letter word in my book. If an owner looks on their tee sheet and sees, historically, that no one plays their course after 5pm in the summer with a price that is already discounted from, say $50 to $35 for twilight, the customer might be telling you something – “I still won’t play for $35 in twilight.”

Owners can test the waters with an email or online special of, maybe, $15 after 5pm (basically, play until it gets dark) and see what happens. If people who normally can’t afford $50 all the time but love the course come out to play, you just opened yourself up to a whole new level of golfers who WILL become loyal to your course for any amount of golf they want to play after 5pm. If you end up selling 1 foursome at $15 each you just improved your revenue by $60 when $0 was coming in before. To me , that’s smart discounting. Odds are, also, that an owner will be able to RAISE that $15 price over time until he sees the price ceiling for the time frame (after 5pm) max out to where people still golf and it doesn’t cost an owner money to keep staff around to service those golfers – Pro Shop guy to check them in and a cart kid to clean and stage carts is the most you might need outside of a bar and grille staff member or the occasional beverage cart attendant.

To me, that’s smarter than discounting prime times without seeing traffic increases and it opens your course to a whole new demographic of golfers to fill your tee sheet. If an owner was seeing zero revenue and now has some revenue, the price per golfer isn’t necessarily as big an issue anymore. You can get your rack raters on the course all day (or whenever its busiest in their market) and then take low-utilized times and dangle a good price out there to see who bites. There is always the chance that you will move some rack rate players to after 5pm but I doubt that most seniors, annual passholders, business outings, etc. don’t want to play after 5pm to begin with. You open up a huge potential market for Juniors and their dads/moms to play together in the evening. And at a price like $15, who cares if you just play 9 holes with your kid? It’s $30 for two players, in this example.

Plus, if you give them good service and a good product, they will occasionally play on a weekend for $50. You just grew traffic by hooking them at a lower price when an owner can afford it and then getting them out during higher-priced times, and probably with 3 other buddies in tow.

by GolfMarketingGuy on Nov 13, 2008 10:56 AM EST up reply actions

twilight

Not sure how many times you have run into this – but I’ve seen a number of courses that don’t start twilight until it is so late that you can’t get more than 9, 10,11,12 holes in, and if you figured out the actual per hole cost, it was actually more expensive to play at twilight than it would be to pay the regular rate and get in all 18.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 11:08 AM EST up reply actions

That sounds very reasonable to me

I think that makes a lot of business sense. You’re making a good case that discounting across the board just to drive up traffic is not good long term. In effect, price changes should be in relationship to the market – which anyone should be able to discern. What golf courses should try to do is rope people in who are not as likely to play either initially or at all at full prices during times when the course is un/underutilized.

I like it. So, here’s the big question. How many courses actually employ this strategy, given that so many are closing?

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 13, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions

around here ?

not many. Atlanta is a golf mecca, and there have been course closings galore over the last few years. The market is saturated and courses just can’t fill up tee sheets with so many options – but so many are not willing to adjust their greens fees.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 12:31 PM EST up reply actions

Not enough

Unfortunately, for the consumer many golf course owners or operators aren’t better economists nor do they understand price structuring as it relates to their market or how it impacts revenue long-term. Nor do they have the technology to look at past trends – they mostly go off “feel”. Feel isn’t going to get your revenue goals met or drive new players to the course when you need their business. Investing and embracing technology helps understand the biz better.

Getting people to play more golf or come back to the game is a decent universal strategy but its different at each course across the country. And as for discounting, 2 for 1’s makes you feel really busy, but the cash register can feel just as light, or lighter, at the end of the business day when you employ a discount strategy. The crew works really hard and the course is stressed but the bills can’t be paid because you just got the same revenue for twice the players – or worse you got the same amount of players but discounted them when they were expecting to pay more upon arrival. Basically, if very few golfers can play between 11am and 3pm why discount it? Price isn’t driving behavior, external factors (like work or extreme heat) are.

by GolfMarketingGuy on Nov 14, 2008 10:34 AM EST up reply actions

Non-twilight Rates

If people are willing to pay the non-twilight greens fees, then I’m not sure it’s fair to say that courses are charging too much during those times. It comes down to one simple indicator – if the tee sheet is consistently filled during a certain time of day, then the course isn’t charging too much and may not even be charging enough.

And on another note, I’ve seen what happens when a course goes deep discount. It’s not pretty. It’s not about keeping out “undesirables” or any such nonsense. It’s about bringing in people that don’t understand how to care for the course. Plus, you bring in increased traffic without significantly increasing revenue to the point where the conditions can’t be kept at a high level. Then, the people who pay the prime-time rates bail and the $15 twilight crowd isn’t providing enough revenue to keep the place afloat.

by Double Eagle on Nov 13, 2008 12:18 PM EST up reply actions

"undesirables"

how are you defining that word ? personally, I include those people who don’t repair divots or pitch marks or rake bunkers. course upkeep is everybody’s business.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 12:29 PM EST up reply actions

I do too

I’m just pointing out that my reasoning isn’t about keeping people out who simply can’t afford to pay full price.

You know how people get when you mention golf and wanting to keep someone out. The conversation tends to turn to some sort of -ism and the supposed desires of elitists to keep “those people” out.

by Double Eagle on Nov 13, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions

That's a good point

At what price point are you trading off traffic to your course for additional upkeep costs because of hackers that don’t do their part?

I should be clear, though, about lowering prices. If a course is having no problems being busy at their current price point, then they shouldn’t change a thing.

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 13, 2008 12:35 PM EST up reply actions

then again...

…is it always fair to make the assumption that just because someone can afford to pay a higher greens fee, they will also take better care of the course ? I can’t afford to play most courses in Atlanta, but I always repair more than 2 pitch marks, repair my divots, and have been known to rake bunkers I wasn’t even in.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

True also

I should take that point back because I have played with a number of people who have plenty of money but don’t bend down to repair ball marks.

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 13, 2008 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

Etiquette is money-blind

It certainly has nothing to do with wealth, because I play at a decent course (not upscale though) and sometimes the greens look like Pointe du Hoc (WWII history buffs will get that).

At the same time, when someone pays a $15 cut-throat rate, it’s a lot easier to say, “I don’t care if they throw me out for X, it was only $15” When it’s $50 or $60 or $100, it’s a bit different. Meanwhile, the $15 guy is driving his cart on greens or crashing it into trees.

by Double Eagle on Nov 13, 2008 1:03 PM EST up reply actions

lol

OR – the guy with the money says “I paid good money to play the course – let THEM pay someone to fix what I leave behind.”

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions

I've seen plenty of those

I’m amazed at the number of “I paid my money and can do what I please” players.

by Double Eagle on Nov 13, 2008 1:37 PM EST up reply actions

I was about to say

You covered it for me. So, basically, we need a factor to correlate with etiquette?

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 13, 2008 1:52 PM EST up reply actions

catholic nuns as marshalls ?

let them roam the course with a ruler to slap the wrists of offenders ! :-D

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 2:17 PM EST up reply actions

good points

I think the idea of “deep discounts” works only for a short period of time – but eventually, the course suffers from the extra play and the need for upkeep and repairs goes up. We have a number of courses in Atlanta that have gone way downhill because they started charging a low price and the course got beat up by people who don’t know how to fix a divot or a pitch mark on the green or rake bunkers. Eventually, people didn’t want to play there because the greens were so bad.

GMG’s point about courses needing to be willing to adjust to market forces was key. Courses that start out as $100 courses, but lose steam when the “new car smell” wears out, or some other new course comes along to steal the thunder have to be willing to lower their expectations slightly to keep a steady flow of players.

My thing about public courses vs country clubs is this – I don’t WANT to play the same course day in and day out unless East Lake or Augusta National send me an invitation. :-) That’s the great thing about NOT being a country club member. If I want to play a favorite, I can do that – if I want to try the new kid on the block, or just find something new, it’s not a problem. But what’s good for me is what makes owning a public course like walking through loose sand. It’s hard to keep a regular set of players when there are so many other options.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 13, 2008 11:04 AM EST up reply actions