The Aging of Golf, Part 1: The Next Generation of Golfers
Golf is a sport that has always had a fairly negative stereotype. It has been long viewed as a sport (by some, not even as a sport) that is played by rich, older, white men. The stereotype of the sport has held the game down in many ways.
The data that the golf industry has today, though, seems to indicate that the stereotype is no longer true - particularly relating to age. According to the National Golf Foundation, at the end of 2008 there were 28.6 million golfers age 6 or older in the United States. Of those, 26.2 million of them are over the age of 18. Approximately 45 percent - almost half - of all golfers are under the age of 40; one-third of golfers are over the age of 50.
Recently, the hope for the future of the professional sport has grown immensely. Perhaps reminiscent of the changing faces of the sport is that the best golfer in the world is a mix of races and began dominating the sport at the age of 21. But on the European Tour alone, two amateur players have won tournaments this season. Several players under the age of 20 have made a global splash in the last 12 months that has invigorated the sport with talk of the future of the game.
Despite the changing faces of the game, golf remains a sport that is dominated by older people - those above the age of 40. Consider the names of the people that are most influential in our sport. PGA Tour Commish Tim Finchem is 62. The President of the USGA, Jim Vernon, is 58. Mark King, CEO of TaylorMade-adidas, isn't under 40. The LPGA Tour Commissioner, Carolyn Bivens, is almost 57 years old and really the only woman on the list.
Take a look at the Sports Business Journal 40 Under 40 list. Only one golf man made the list: the USGA's Chief Business Officer Pete Bevacqua.
Even if golf is becoming a younger person's game, the game is still largely run (capably, I should add) by older white men, apepals to older white men, and is priced so that older white men can afford the hobby.
For the future health of the game, there have to be more young voices that are prominent guide the game. The way that the game is sold and marketed to the public has to appeal to an audience that skews younger. And, the media that cover the sport and present it to fans and the public alike has to learn to appeal to the younger generation of golf and sports fan. All of this has to happen - and fast.
Over a series of posts, we will take a look at each of the aspects of the game that suffer from the older slant. We'll frame the problem of excluding youth from the sport and talk about ways in which we can improve the game by making the sport a little bit younger.
Part 1: The Next Generation of Golfers
Baby Boomers are closer to Social Security and they're not replacing at a rate that will produce the next generation of the same size. There will be fewer people getting older behind them, making for a smaller pool from which some of these people will take up the game as they age. In order for golf to maintain its participation levels, much less grow the game, the sport will have to adapt and appeal to the younger set quickly.
So far, golf has not been able to respond effectively. Golf has lost almost 1.5 million golfers in the last three years. Certainly, there are a variety of factors that can be attributed to the loss. Global economic conditions have made playing the game more of a luxury than in the past.
In the United States, though, there are a variety of other bigger factors that have had a negative impact on participation. While there are golfers leaving the game in what seems like droves, there do not appear to be a next wave of golfers to take their place. Surveys and industry data show that there are a host of factors that keep people from playing the game.
Rounds of golf routinely take between five and six hours to play. People of all ages are less willing to commit up to a fourth of their day to play a single round of golf. Families and individuals have more entertainment options than ever before, and many of them are light years faster than a round of golf.
The game is flat out expensive. The average cost for an 18 hole round on a public or daily fee course is $42. Individuals complain about the cost of going to a sporting event at fees less than that. The golf industry cannot expect that people are willing to play poorly, get frustrated, and sweat the day away for that kind of price.
Golf is hard. The average score of players that maintain USGA handicaps has steadily improved over the last decade, but the average score for the weekend hacker has not. Even with technology that is aimed to improve the games of the casual golfer, scores don't indicate that it has been working. Improvement takes practice, money, and patience - things that aren't exactly overflowing in the casual player.
The combination of these negative factors creates a huge stumbling block for younger players that seek to take up the game, especially after these kids leave the parental nest. Golf must respond to these changes by making all aspects of the sport more affordable, with quicker options, and make it more fun. There are a variety of ways to do this.
Rounds of golf cannot continue to cost $36/round on the average. In an era when hundreds of Starbucks are closing because customers will no longer pay $4 for a mediocre cup of joe, how can golf expect to charge that kind of money for what can be a very frustrating experience? It's a bad business model. Yes, courses must make up the cost of maintaining their tracks and don't want to lower prices to the point that any ole hack will come out and tear up their digs. But, golf green fees need to be more affordable for middle-class, young players.
That's just part of it. Equipment manufacturers continue to market the latest in golf technology to players with a price tag of $400 or more for a driver. While Daddy Warbucks may still be able to shell out that kind of cash for a club that probably won't help him a lick, the younger player is both not as rich and more cynical. Young golfers that look to take up the sport are not going to shell out between $700 and $1000 for clubs and equipment just to get started. That price has to be halved. Some manufacturers have been able to develop "value lines" that offer slightly dated technology at a decent price. But I promise you that few new golfers are aware that this kind of equipment exists. Instead, they take up the game with the golf set from 1988 that has been sitting in their parents' garage. Golf equipment today is a lot better than that and is more likely to keep these does and fawns playing. Make solid, well-priced golf equipment visible and prominent. The margins may not be there at the start, but once players get hooked, they'll upgrade. Starting golfers do not need a sleeve of Pro V1s. Give them a Rock Flite and they won't know the difference.
The perception of the sport is that it requires an investment not only in equipment and fees, but a whole new golf wardrobe. Sure, many golfers really get into fashion, but golf fashion and accessories need to get cheaper. While an avid player may not mind shelling out $50 for a cool belt, the young player taking up the sport wants to wear a $20 shirt. There is a huge market for value-priced golf attire.
Last, golf needs to find ways to let golfers know that they can enjoy the sport without having to make a life commitment to it. We need to market golf as a sport that doesn't always require 18 holes, six hours, and the loss of a day. Give players more options. Make 9 hole rounds a popular option by promoting it to young golfers after a long day at work. How about happy hour specials on course so that players can hit the links for a quick nine and a brew? Introduce the 6 hole round. Why not. It can't hurt. Remember the craze of cosmic bowling where teenagers hit the lanes with cheap bowling and pizza? Driving ranges could encourage younger players to practice by offering group specials with decent food and drink deals.
The only way to fix a problem is to attack its root causes. The industry has been slow to respond in doing so in a way that is visible, innovative, and engaging. It is not that difficult to do. The sport can grow younger - which it needs to do to continue the way that it is today. Once players get in the door, they're likely hooked for life. But, if the industry fails to extend the affordable and fun invitation to golf, then the sport will wilt.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yup
That’s a pretty good summary. Similar to a lot of what we touched on too: http://golftwitt.com/f52a
I also think that in addition to getting younger, it needs to get more diverse in gender and race. It is no where near where it could be on both fronts.
Of course there is the ‘but what can I do’ about it question :). So ya know there’s that for you to solve.
I didn’t know there was any doubt about the future of the PGA Tour. If pure numbers of golfers are how you figure out if there will be enough professional tour golfers – wouldn’t you have to ask where so many great golfers in previous generations came from before the Tiger Woods explosion ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I think you certainly hit the high points on why golf is declining in popularity among America’s youth. It’s expensive, it’s hard, and it takes too long. We also have to face the fact that we live in an instant gratification society and golf doesn’t exactly fit in that category.
I also think the cost of just going to the driving range is as important a factor as the $40 average green fee. I don’t know what it’s like where you are but unless you buy a monthly or yearly pass at the range it costs $6 for a bucket of about 30 balls here. That takes a beginning golfer what… 15 minutes, maybe… to pound through. In order to get better you have to practice but it costs a fortune to practice.
The PGA Tour, or even the LPGA Tour isn’t the question. As long as the men get paid over a million dollars for a week’s work and the women make $300,000 for the same thing, plenty of folks will show up at Q-Schools.
Last Saturday I took my grandchildren, ages 11 and 9, for their first lesson. They’re both hooked already. My granddaughter just had her volleyball league canceled due to lack of interest, so I’ll pick up the tab for First Tee. She’ll do well.
My son-in-law plays about twice a year. He bought a pretty marginal set of clubs for $40 on Craig’s List. (I know they’re crappy because I played 18 with them). He’ll get hooked sooner or later.
My point is, people get introduced to golf early in life. They probably like the sport but don’t have the time or income to pursue it beyond the occasional social round. As they age, their income increases as does their interest in a slightly more sedentary past-time. Golf fits the bill. There was a surge of interest in the game when Tiger turned pro. The next “Tiger” will attract new people to the game.
Golf interest, or lack thereof, is cyclical. The economy is costing the industry some rounds, but It will come back sooner or later. Worrying about decline using snapshot statistics is akin to crying wolf. As we baby-boomers die, the total population will decline slightly. The percentage of those who play the game will probably remain fairly stable. Golf is not a publicly traded stock, so it doesn’t have to show growth year-over-year to appear healthy. That’s a silly expectation. The game has survived for 500 years through wars, famines, plagues, depressions, and just about anything else humanity can do unto itself.
I believe the current “crisis” is nothing more than industry CEOs worrying about their unjustified bonuses. Let ’em eat cake!
Truth has a well-known liberal bias.
Sums it nicely
That sums up my feelings DM.
We went around about this on Twitter today and I just don’t understand why a crusade to lower costs must be undertaken. Golf costs what it costs. I truly welcome everyone into the game, but some people simply can’t afford it.
What’s interesting is that I took up the game almost exactly 15 years ago and that costs are not significantly different. Greens fees at average public courses in this area are about the same, and equipment isn’t much more expensive. It wouldn’t surprise me if inflation accounts for any differences. I paid about $400 for my first set of new irons about 12-13 years ago and those were not top of the line models. You can easily get a middle of the road set for that today. Even low-end and middle of the road balls cost nearly the same. Ryan, your sample prices are for top of the line equipment. A new player that doesn’t have a lot to spend could get outfitted for less than half of that, especially if used clubs are considered. That’s how I started in the game. When I decided I was going to stay, I then figured out how I could afford upgrades.
But the point about golf not needing to show yearly growth to be healthy is absolutely dead on. Golf isn’t growing. So what? We’re eliminating the sexism and racism that was once institutionalized. The game is inclusive for everyone who can afford it. There are tons of juniors playing. Hell, I found out this year that there’s actually a girls golf team at my old high school. There was never a girls team when I was there. The point is, the “keep out” signs are just about gone and people are welcome.
That just leaves the economic barrier. And I don’t know that it can or should be broken. Not because I want people kept out, but simply because golf is a fairly expensive game. Golf courses cost a ton to maintain. Equipment costs a pretty penny partly because people will pay it and partly because a lot of R&D goes into it.
We can say that we want it to be cheaper so more people can afford it, and that’s a noble idea, but I just don’t think it’s grounded in reality or even in necessity.
by Double Eagle on May 30, 2009 2:17 AM EDT up reply actions
How To Save Golf From Itself
Amen brother. Golf is in trouble and has been for years. The dirty little secret of the industry is that players are leaving the game as fast as they are joining (approx 3m/yr).
SortaGolf has proposed a common sense solution for restoring golfer satisfaction and growing participation.
Here is our manifesto: http://sortagolf.manilasites.com/manifesto
by SortaGolf Assoc on May 29, 2009 11:36 PM EDT reply actions
"GOLF is in trouble" ???
How is GOLF in trouble ? Do you mean some of the equipment companies ? Some of the high priced courses ? The professional tours because of sponsors being put out of business ?
Golf has gone through an explosion on the back of Tiger Woods (players, equipment, equipment R&D, courses, pros, sponsor dollars for the pros…) – and trends like that can’t last forever. At some point, those exaggerated numbers have to calm down and fall back to a more stable number – the players who truly enjoy the game. The people who took up the game as a fad are bound to quit sooner or later.
GOLF isn’t in trouble. The game will always be the game. It’s just the decorations and excesses that will fall away.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Exactly my feelings
Golf has been around for centuries. It’s not going anywhere. The Tiger Woods boom led many to believe that we were on a ship bound for the moon. I don’t need to watch golf on TV or own a $500 driver to enjoy the game. If it all crumbled tomorrow, I’d head out to the course with a set of persimmon woods and would have the exact same fun.
Golf isn’t about equipment or promotion or publicity. The lure is the game itself. That hasn’t changed.
Did someone say...
“golf on the moon” ?? Nah – it’s already been done. Too many complaints of the astronauts not raking the bunker – footprints everywhere. :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Not only that...
…but if I was to go to the moon and block one right, it’s going to be a little further off than the next fairway. ;)
by Double Eagle on May 31, 2009 10:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t think that I would venture to say that golf is “in trouble.” Golf isn’t as healthy as it was at the peak of Tiger’s influence on people like you and me to take up golf, but that was bound to happen. The number of players taking up and leaving the game are – from what I’ve seen – close to equal these days, if not skewed slightly toward more leaving. This is especially true with female golfers, less so with male golfers.
My thing is that I would love to see golf become a sport I can play with my friends and not have to wait until I’m 35, can shoot 75 at will, and they don’t want to play with me cause they shoot 110.
I don’t really believe that this problem with golf is cyclical. Golf is a sport that requires time and patience – something that the world is growing to have less and less. People just don’t want to commit a whole day to golfing. I don’t want to commit a whole day to golfing. I want to be done in 4 hours max, get a hot dog, and go do the next thing. Golf should be a part of – as Will Ferrell put it – a pretty nice little Saturday.
The number of people playing golf is decreasing for the reasons I mentioned. There’s enough survey data there to indicate it. The thing, then, is what to do about it.
While there certainly can be a corporate slant to “growing golf,” that’s not what I’m talking about here. I think golf would be healthier if it was appealing to people like me at a younger age – their late teens and 20s. Not have it introduced to them when they’re 8 and then they finally decide to play when they’re 30. And I don’t like the fact that golf really lacks a social education system to teach people golf etiquette. Don’t play the back tees. If you have a snowman, pick it up. Fix your divots and ball marks, please!
And golf needs to be more affordable. I don’t think that golf should have the financial barriers to entry that it does today. It is preposterous that someone would pay $40 to play Fairway Hills here in Columbia. Almost all year it is a dog track. That course should be $10 to play. And there are places that price way too high like that everywhere. I loath the notion that there is that kind of financial barrier to playing. A kid can learn to play basketball for the minimum price of $15 – the price of a ball. Golf will never become that affordable, but we sure could do a lot better than we do now.
DE, I did mention that there are more value lines out there, but that the manufacturers do nothing to promote them. In fact, they really should promote it to all golfers because we’ve reached an equipment plateau in many ways.
diane, I don’t think what I’m using here is a snapshot of statistical data. I talk about/follow golf participation probably more than any blogger because I just find it such a fascinating topic. A lot of indicators over the past 8 years (post 9/11 recession) indicate golf’s waning popularity. Some of that is definitely the Tiger-effect wearing off. A lot of it, though, is more the social and economic indicators because they continually come up in research about why people quit playing golf.
My slant on the data is that it’s ok if people leave golf (it ain’t a cult!) but why does golf market itself so much as a sport for older white men? Golf may be more inclusive in that clubs don’t actively discriminate against women and minorities, but the sport doesn’t really do much to reach out to those groups – or young people (again, people in their late teens and 20s, not junior golfers) in those groups – like they should.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
Hmmm...
Some interesting thoughts and wishes there.
I wonder just how “healthy” golf was at the height of the Tiger boom. Just because something has grown out of control doesn’t mean that it is healthy. Healthy is where something is steady and sustainable. Some kids are great athletes in a sport, then they hit a growth spurt and they lose their balance, or joints change too fast and they end up in a lot of pain trying to do the old things. Cancer grows fast, too – but it’s not called “healthy.” Growth is one thing – out of control growth will either end up making a company top heavy so they eventually fall over, or they will figure it out and slow things down so they can get to a healthy state of growth.
How is golf going to catch on in a generation where video games and other “I want it NOW” things are the popular things to do ? There are still lots of kids who will grow up with parents who teach them the game – but it’s not going to be like it has been the last 10 years under Tiger. You may have to wait until you’re 35, like you said, for your friends to grow up and be ready to handle golf. (lol) I looked down on golf when I was a kid – it was a “sissy” game, even though my dad played…sort of. He never let me hit balls, so baseball was my game until high school. I didn’t pick the game up until I was in my mid 20’s.
TANG, baby !!!!
You’re apparently not watching the same commercials I am during a golf broadcast. I see kids in commercials quite a bit. Would you prefer these companies just willy-nilly run out commercials to appeal to people who don’t play the game and aren’t interested in anything other than video games, X-Games, NBA and NFL ? Wouldn’t make much sense. They have to market their products to the people who actually consume them.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
There is definitely a place for TANG in all of this. Nice plug!
The conundrum in making golf hip to younger players is exactly what you described. Golf is a patient sport and kids today aren’t very patient. But, kids are willing to beg their parents to spend $500 on a PlayStation 3, which sucks. So, I’m not that worried about the money hump for kids. My worry is people in their late teens and 20s who might be in college, not sitting on a ton of money, are beginning to mature into people who go out to have fun – and not just at the 19th hole :)
I think if golf can be presented as pretty affordable, fun (sure, you can booze on the course), and sort of quick, then it’d appeal more to younger players. Wacky fashions of today can certainly help. I bought pink and red belts this weekend to play golf in since I’m trying to get all fashion-y. Maybe that kind of helps.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 11:12 AM EDT up reply actions
I was in college on and off from 79 to 86 – it was the same way back then. Golf was “too expensive”, yada yada yada. That’s just the way it appeared back then. Of course, I didn’t have trouble finding $25-$35 for a concert ticket, or $10-$20 for a baseball game, or whatever – it wasn’t what I was into at the time.
PATIENCE, RB – people come around. What is different for kids the last 20 years or so is mechanization. Before carts became mandatory at most course, kids got jobs carrying bags around courses. That group has all but disappeared.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Younger People
Golf is really only suited to younger people who are of a certain temperament. It requires patience and hard work to be good at, which is not something most teens embrace. On top if it, they have to kind of have a little bit of an introverted side because those hours spent practicing or walking the course in the evening can be lonely at times. It’s not quite the same as for adults that don’t really care to play well and just show up to knock back a few beers in the fresh air. That doesn’t work for teens because they have other outlets for that.
Then you have the financial situation. Most could never afford to pay their own way, so they rely on parental backing. And how much does that hinge on having parents that play? When I was a teen, there was no way I was going to play because my parents didn’t and there was no way I was going to convince them to spend a good chunk of money outfitting me and buying greens fees or a membership. Really, it probably had more to do with the fact that I was never introduced to the game at that age, but it’s all related.
by Double Eagle on Jun 1, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
That’s interesting that you didn’t really play because your parents didn’t. My dad played baseball (and later softball) for many, many years. I started as a young’un playing three sports – soccer, basketball, and baseball. Then, when I was at the batting cages, I would whack balls with the driver at the complex that had a range and cages. I realized that I was better at hitting golf balls than baseballs and I decided to play golf instead of baseball (and eventually basketball and soccer too). My dad tried to pick up the game but it just didn’t click with him. Both of my parents, though, were incredibly supportive of me playing golf. They’d drive me to junior tournaments, high school events, etc, until I could drive myself. They’d pay the entry fees, which were actually very reasonable.
I think that the junior golf tournament model is what I cling to when I talk about this topic. Junior golf events were well organized and didn’t ever cost more than like $30. Got a bag tag, a tournament round, and a hot dog or something. What a great deal. And that was less than 10 years ago. Why can’t we do that more often, but with just regular rounds and people in their 20s (and 30s, 40s, etc)?
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 12:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Well...
I probably shouldn’t say there was no way they would have paid to get me started, because they were always supportive of my sporting endeavors. It’s probably mostly the fact that I was never introduced to the game until I was 18 or 19, so the issue was never brought up. Still, it would have been tough for them to foot the bill at that time.
The thing about the junior events, though, aren’t they sponsored many times? I know for certain that at the course I worked at years ago that high school tournaments were partially subsidized by the course in the name of good will and promotion of the game. Even when team members came out to practice in between matches, they were given a heavily discounted rate.
I never played junior golf, but is it possible that it was so cheap because there were sponsors or course subsidies that made it that way? If so, that kind of explains why it doesn’t translate to adults.
by Double Eagle on Jun 1, 2009 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions
By and large, the ones that I played in weren’t sponsored. The bigger events were. I never played AJGA, but the ones just short of that usually did have some kind of sponsorship. The courses definitely subsidized the events to some degree, but I don’t think ridiculously so. I know we’ve talked on here before about the balance point between a green fee that is too low and making golf more affordable. A big part of that balancing act is how much a course costs to maintain. And so many of the newer courses these days cost so much to maintain because they don’t use native grasses and plants, make them way too long, and want them all manicured like a tour stop.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Change for the better
I think as things begin to tighten up, course maintenance is going to change for the better. They’ll start to get more into playability instead of looks like that place in Martha’s Vineyard that’s completely organic. They’ll start looking away from so much chemical application and maintain things in a more natural way using natural grasses, better irrigation and disease prevention techniques.
That might lead to a cost-lowering trend. It makes things more labor intensive, but maintaining Tour-like quality has courses chasing conditions that they don’t have the budget for. If they go the other way, it could save on a lot on maintenance costs – if people are willing to focus on playability and not looks.
I think people might be taken aback at first by the natural look, but it really is beautiful and saves a ton of money in maintenance costs.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 1:56 PM EDT up reply actions
RB – you’re skipping right over the introduction phase, the practice phase, the lesson phase, and all those other steps that even kids go through BEFORE teeing it up in a kids tournament. Unless some super-talented little kid just picks up clubs and can hit it long and straight, most of the kids in those tournaments are going to be club member’s kids, or parks and rec kids whose parents take them out to play – but you don’t just give your kid a set of clubs and put them in a tournament.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Oh no, I don’t mean to imply anything about the junior golf events other than the cost. It was so reasonable to play.
When I was learning BEFORE the course, I was a member of a program where we could get a killer deal as a group as the driving range. Like $8 all I could hit for two hours. I blasted through like 200 or 300 balls back then! Then, I went and played the par 3 course for the same amount. It was beautiful.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions
What I saw was that you were talking about a future generation of golfers being interested in playing starting at a young age – but jumping right in at the tournament level. Most golfers never play a real tournament. Scrambles and the like aren’t real stroke or match play tournaments. You have to get the kids going early – and a majority of those kids are going to be from country club families or neighborhoods with a course.
Ok – $8 for balls and $8 for the par 3 course – great deal – but I haven’t seen a par 3 course with that kind of price lately…but we do have a really good public park 9 hole course for $10…might be $12 now. The 2 par 3 courses around here are $15 for kids on the 9 holer, and $18 at the 18 holer.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I would think that a good 18 hole price for anyone on a half-decent muni is $25, not like $36. $10 is a big deal. And it shouldn’t cost $65 on a $30 course to play on a weekday morning, that’s just crazy talk.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 3:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Capitalism, my friend
It’s going to cost what people are willing to pay. At least until the federal government starts taking over failing golf courses, too. Until then, the $30 course that has a booked-up tee sheet at $65 is doing something right.
I feel your pain, but I get a knot in my stomach when we start talking about what things should cost because the government is usually right there to “fix” the situation.
I don’t want the government to have any part in this. But, I honestly don’t think that the courses are thinking optimal capitalism when they charge what they do. I know they’re trying to pay the bills, but the combination of outrageous designs with high maintenance costs makes that a reality. I can understand the fee if people are willing to pay it, but I’m talking about clubs that might be struggling because their prices points are too high.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Any business owner with a shred of common sense is thinking how he can make the most profit with his business. If a $30 course is charging $65 on a weekday morning and the tee sheet is empty, then he/she is doing something wrong and natural selection will see that the course dies and is hopefully reborn under better management.
At the same time, a half-full tee sheet at $60 is the same as a full tee sheet at $30 with less wear and tear on the carts and course, so there could be some of that going on too.
For one, you might be giving too much credit to business owners :)
But, is it better to have a half full sheet at $60? That likely means the rep of the course might be that it’s too expensive and prices out a good number of people who might be willing to play the $30 course at $45.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
I had that point rattling around in my head
Splitting the difference might result in more play. Even if not, some other savvy course owner in the area will be smart enough to realize that there’s half a sheet of people priced out of the other course and will do what it takes to get them onto his.
The nerd in me keeps saying that it would be a lot of fun to do this study. :)
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jun 1, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions

by 












