Flexible Membership

[DCB]

Dont know that much about golf club finances, but I don’t necessarily agree with this. It’s just a different way of thinking.

Instead of getting c.£1,000 off everyone in March they get less up front and more throughout the year. Sure, bad weather is going to harm them, but this will even itself out with early springs and Indian summers in other years.

Now if you work the flexible model with your similar number of members, it is probably not going to work. But the main thing is overall increasing participantion levels. This will benefit all golf clubs in the long term.

Currently an adult beginner is not going to spend £1,000, but many might spend £200 or so and get into golf that way.

Also think of regular players, they may take up membership at multiple clubs and spend a similar amount of money on annual fees.

Golf must must must be more flexible and more like a business as the participation levels are not improving and too many clubs are not doing their bit to arrest the decline.

I've seen at first hand the work that goes in to preparing a budget that will keep the Club above water for the next year. When special membership categories are introduced the "Full Member Equivalent" becomes a very important part of the calculation. For every ten "flexible" memberships, you have to have a a defined number of "Full member Equivalent" to balance the equation. If a membership costs £1000 and a Flexible Membership costs £200, you need 5 Flexible Memberships to make one FME. The budget has to be set on, amongst other things, the Full Membership subscription. A Club needs to be taking in new Full Members as well as Flexible Members to make the scheme work. Unfortunately the likely outcome of a scheme like this will be current members wanting to move to the reduced Fee rather than stay on Full membership. A Members Club just can't function without a challenging but achievable budget.

the solution ... well... if I knew that I'd be able to make a lot of money as Clubs up and down the land are searching for that very solution.

 

[Grant85]

I've seen at first hand the work that goes in to preparing a budget that will keep the Club above water for the next year. When special membership categories are introduced the "Full Member Equivalent" becomes a very important part of the calculation. For every ten "flexible" memberships, you have to have a a defined number of "Full member Equivalent" to balance the equation. If a membership costs £1000 and a Flexible Membership costs £200, you need 5 Flexible Memberships to make one FME. The budget has to be set on, amongst other things, the Full Membership subscription. A Club needs to be taking in new Full Members as well as Flexible Members to make the scheme work. Unfortunately the likely outcome of a scheme like this will be current members wanting to move to the reduced Fee rather than stay on Full membership. A Members Club just can't function without a challenging but achievable budget.

the solution ... well... if I knew that I'd be able to make a lot of money as Clubs up and down the land are searching for that very solution.

I agree that it is definitely a risk, but as I said, the solution is to increase golf participation.

Too many clubs have gotten by on squeezing the same 200 members for cash each year. I appreciate this is not the case for a lot of clubs who are doing well, who will be less inclined to change. And for struggling clubs they are not able to change.

Think a bit more like a business and try and get more people into the game by offering something that they want. Even if the flexible membership is only available for 2 years, it is a good way of introducing people to the game and once they get a handicap, that is much more likely to make them regular players.

Previously a lot of Gym's used to have minimum 12 month membership periods and 1 or 3 months notice periods. But what has happened? They have adapted to what people want and now offer fully flexible membership to cope with consumer demand. Now, I'm not saying this is what has helped to grow the gym culture (it was growing anyway) but it has helped increase the pace and meant few barriers to entry.

 

[shortgame]

this way, they have got some money, which is better than nothing. Also, 3 or 4 of my colleagues have also joined when the wouldn't have normally so I think the club has come out on top.

Trouble is it devalues their product.

What clubs need is loyal full members who will be there for years to come not discoubted transient members. Easier said than done.

The unrest I've seen at a club local to me when they introduced a points membership is troubling. Many are leaving their £1000 memberships to re-join on a £400 points basis - why not when the course is virtually unplayable in the winter.

The club might now be viewed as £400 bargain club and not a £1000 club one might aspire to join (£1000 being towards the top end for courses in the W.Mids)

I can only imagine the club is in dire financial straits and desperate for short term income.

 

[duncan mackie]

I agree that it is definitely a risk, but as I said, the solution is to increase golf participation.

Too many clubs have gotten by on squeezing the same 200 members for cash each year. I appreciate this is not the case for a lot of clubs who are doing well, who will be less inclined to change. And for struggling clubs they are not able to change.

Think a bit more like a business and try and get more people into the game by offering something that they want. Even if the flexible membership is only available for 2 years, it is a good way of introducing people to the game and once they get a handicap, that is much more likely to make them regular players.

Previously a lot of Gym's used to have minimum 12 month membership periods and 1 or 3 months notice periods. But what has happened? They have adapted to what people want and now offer fully flexible membership to cope with consumer demand. Now, I'm not saying this is what has helped to grow the gym culture (it was growing anyway) but it has helped increase the pace and meant few barriers to entry.

A quick analysis of a fairly mature membership structure which includes a relatively standard flexi option shows that far more established golfers were moving to it than were new golfers joining. This is especially valid where members are seasonal.

A route is to restrict the flexi members (common restrictions include not being eligible to play matches or play in the club's Trophy events (however defined) but the dangers of such rules are both complexity (especially if tee time restrictions are added) and the concept of second class citizenship quickly takes hold; which is completely counter productive to introductory memberships.

The other huge issue comes when people are only looking to play their limited golf at times that are already oversubscribed by the full 7 day membership - as has already been recognised 5his category pays a super premium to be able to play such periods (if thats the only time they play). Obviously not a great problem for a 200 member club but there arent that many of them around (in England anyway).

It is possible to have a managed membership structure that works reasonably well for everyone, but it needs constant management and, if managed with hard (large) and fast changes, the membership will loose confidence over time. As a generalisation the more no brainer membership decisions a structure creates the weaker it will be over time - with the single exception of introductory memberships.

 

[Grant85]

A quick analysis of a fairly mature membership structure which includes a relatively standard flexi option shows that far more established golfers were moving to it than were new golfers joining. This is especially valid where members are seasonal.

A route is to restrict the flexi members (common restrictions include not being eligible to play matches or play in the club's Trophy events (however defined) but the dangers of such rules are both complexity (especially if tee time restrictions are added) and the concept of second class citizenship quickly takes hold; which is completely counter productive to introductory memberships.

The other huge issue comes when people are only looking to play their limited golf at times that are already oversubscribed by the full 7 day membership - as has already been recognised 5his category pays a super premium to be able to play such periods (if thats the only time they play). Obviously not a great problem for a 200 member club but there arent that many of them around (in England anyway).

It is possible to have a managed membership structure that works reasonably well for everyone, but it needs constant management and, if managed with hard (large) and fast changes, the membership will loose confidence over time. As a generalisation the more no brainer membership decisions a structure creates the weaker it will be over time - with the single exception of introductory memberships.

I don't disagree with much of that and fully accept it would be a big change for a club who was well established and doing ok on the membership front.

And there is clearly a cultural thing whereby members pay a full sub and play at one course (or one site). But with flexi memberships, regular players may take several out at different clubs.

My main point is that it is in the interests of all clubs to try and grow participation levels and all clubs have a duty to try and do that.

Introductory memberships I have seen often do not allow for a handicap or Saturday play. If you look at a marketing technique for a subscription service such as Sky or Virgin Media - they would do penetration pricing, where you get the full use of the product for a period of time on a low rate. By the time the low rate has finished, many people have got so used to having the product that they are inclined to keep it.

Sure, you get lot of people cancelling or changing provider - but I feel a good Golf Club is likely to be more sticky than a TV or Internet provider.

 

[patricks148]

I don't disagree with much of that and fully accept it would be a big change for a club who was well established and doing ok on the membership front.

And there is clearly a cultural thing whereby members pay a full sub and play at one course (or one site). But with flexi memberships, regular players may take several out at different clubs.

My main point is that it is in the interests of all clubs to try and grow participation levels and all clubs have a duty to try and do that.

Introductory memberships I have seen often do not allow for a handicap or Saturday play. If you look at a marketing technique for a subscription service such as Sky or Virgin Media - they would do penetration pricing, where you get the full use of the product for a period of time on a low rate. By the time the low rate has finished, many people have got so used to having the product that they are inclined to keep it.

Sure, you get lot of people cancelling or changing provider - but I feel a good Golf Club is likely to be more sticky than a TV or Internet provider.

your tow ideals are counter productive IMO, "growing the game" and "running a Business"

if its a decent club with good course and facilities people will pay to be members simple as.

people want there cake and eat it, thats not going to grow the game or keep clubs running TBH

 

[Grant85]

your tow ideals are counter productive IMO, "growing the game" and "running a Business"

if its a decent club with good course and facilities people will pay to be members simple as.

people want there cake and eat it, thats not going to grow the game or keep clubs running TBH

I'm pretty sure that has not been the case for the past few decades with golf members and regular players steadily declining.

Maybe it's not that much of a problem and obviously clubs who don't or can't attract new members will eventually not be able to continue - but I'm sure there will always be sufficient numbers of good courses and accessible clubs for those who want to play golf.

However, a business would try to grow the game as it would make business sense to 'invest' via marketing, promotional pricing, added giveaways. i.e. take a short term hit for longer term gain.

It would be interesting to know what %age of golf club members became regular players in adulthood and had not been a club member as a juvenile or played regularly with a family member as a child.

My guess is less than 50%. So potentially a huge market to encourage more people into the game as adults and have more clubs thriving rather than surviving.

Likewise, female participation in the UK will be tiny compared with America and other countries in Europe. Again, a massive area that a business would be working on how to capture.

 

[IanM]

Huge debate at our club a couple if years ago about keeping or suspending the joining fee or adopting a flex-membership scheme.

Talking to other local clubs, several spoke about a few large groups who seemed to move around every few years to places "doing deals."

The club took the decision to keep the joining fee (but allow repayement over longer periods) and scale fees on age to help younger members. The thinking being it attracts folk in for the longer haul and stabilises revenue. I didnt agree at the time, but it was the correct decision. We get a steady stream of new members and we hover around full in the 7 day category

 

[patricks148]

I'm pretty sure that has not been the case for the past few decades with golf members and regular players steadily declining.

Maybe it's not that much of a problem and obviously clubs who don't or can't attract new members will eventually not be able to continue - but I'm sure there will always be sufficient numbers of good courses and accessible clubs for those who want to play golf.

However, a business would try to grow the game as it would make business sense to 'invest' via marketing, promotional pricing, added giveaways. i.e. take a short term hit for longer term gain.

It would be interesting to know what %age of golf club members became regular players in adulthood and had not been a club member as a juvenile or played regularly with a family member as a child.

My guess is less than 50%. So potentially a huge market to encourage more people into the game as adults and have more clubs thriving rather than surviving.

Likewise, female participation in the UK will be tiny compared with America and other countries in Europe. Again, a massive area that a business would be working on how to capture.

there a a good number of clubs who have full waiting lists and full member ships who don't have to offer cheap deals to attract members and this has been the case for may years.

the whole getting younger people into golf is a Red Herring IMO, golf appeals more to older people who have a disposable income and the time to play and lets not forget what we are constantly told by the NHS and the Gov, we have an ageing population a growing demographic of golfers, without devaluing a product.

 

[shortgame]

Huge debate at our club a couple if years ago about keeping or suspending the joining fee or adopting a flex-membership scheme.

Talking to other local clubs, several spoke about a few large groups who seemed to move around every few years to places "doing deals."

The club took the decision to keep the joining fee (but allow repayement over longer periods) and scale fees on age to help younger members. The thinking being it attracts folk in for the longer haul and stabilises revenue. I didnt agree at the time, but it was the correct decision. We get a steady stream of new members and we hover around full in the 7 day category

Sounds like a sound business plan

 

[r0wly86]

Huge debate at our club a couple if years ago about keeping or suspending the joining fee or adopting a flex-membership scheme.

Talking to other local clubs, several spoke about a few large groups who seemed to move around every few years to places "doing deals."

The club took the decision to keep the joining fee (but allow repayement over longer periods) and scale fees on age to help younger members. The thinking being it attracts folk in for the longer haul and stabilises revenue. I didnt agree at the time, but it was the correct decision. We get a steady stream of new members and we hover around full in the 7 day category

I'm instantly put off by joining fees. Just at my age and where I am in my career, I don't know where I'm going to be in a few years time.

I could easily move back to Devon or East Mids, so anyplace looking for £1000+ joining fee is out of the question for me. Getting £1000 worth of savings is no easy thing in SW London so spend it on a club that a may not be a member of in 5 years time is daft.

I understand why clubs want/need them but it must put off a whole swathe of people in the same situation as me

 

[duncan mackie]

There is huge evidence that people currently move around based on price, and introductory offers form a big part of that, in a way that didn't happen before.

Clubs are increasingly questioning why they are offering intermediate memberships in the way they have developed - they were initially designed to transition their junior members into full 7 day membership, then they became a 'marketing opportunity' for new members.

The modern paradigm is that there isn't any real loyalty; your product (membership services, course and price) is constantly reviewed by your customers and loss leaders are going to be loss makers in most cases. For many clubs significant losses will lead to a downward spiral quiet quickly.

In the absence of sheep and zero land rents the cost of running a golf course is very high, and if the membership (or ownership) isn't prepared to meet the costs it will head down the survival route of reduced expenditure, services and on to cheap green fees before it eventually dies (as they do). The only thing that's kept many recent courses (built 1980/90) around here is planning laws. Generally they change hands around here for a lot less money than they would if you could put a single residential property on them!

 

[Grant85]

The modern paradigm is that there isn't any real loyalty; your product (membership services, course and price) is constantly reviewed by your customers and loss leaders are going to be loss makers in most cases. For many clubs significant losses will lead to a downward spiral quiet quickly.

I appreciate there may not be a lot of loyalty about, but that's life. If your organisation / business / club is overly reliant on loyalty, then it isn't doing anything bad.

If clubs are finding groups of golfers moving from one club to the other for introductory rates, then that's just the way it is. Some of the clubs are still benefiting some of the time and the introductory rates will surely still help to encourage some new participants.

 

[duncan mackie]

I appreciate there may not be a lot of loyalty about, but that's life. If your organisation / business / club is overly reliant on loyalty, then it isn't doing anything bad.

If clubs are finding groups of golfers moving from one club to the other for introductory rates, then that's just the way it is. Some of the clubs are still benefiting some of the time and the introductory rates will surely still help to encourage some new participants.

None of the club's are benefiting at all. Those losing members they lured in with a loss leader have lost, and those aquiring them will lose (both their anticipated loss leader loss and the lack of any on going contribution).

Most intro deals are being fueled by dying organisations - their actions in that area simply damaging others in the short term. I'm certainly not blaming them - I would do the same if i felt forced; whilst it's generally just delaying the inevitable it will, for someone, enable them to move for again (just hasn't happened yet around here with quite a few now gone gone, some on last legs and others working furiously on some sort of planning deal to enable them to continue in some form or other (no one's managed that one yet though!)

 

[duncan mackie]

BTW - was going to pick up a poit earlier about late entrants. We have had a lot of people join when they retire who never played the game before. I accept that we have had more that have played at some point in the past but it's not the barrier you presented earlier. Keeping them playing isnt really a factor in how many play in later years.

 

[Britishshooting]

All the fault of the R&A who 20/30 years ago said there weren't enough golf clubs around so every man and his dog decided to build one. No we have massive overcapacity

This seems true within a 5 mile radius of me I have some cracking courses and beyond Hollinwell and Coxmoor as there the best by some margin the others are very competitive in terms of Membership as they're all decent courses:

- Coxmoor
- Hollinwell
- Oakmere
- Springwater
- Ramsdale
+ Another 4 or so within that zone that I don't much care for (Leen Valley, Bulwell Forest etc.)

 

[ScienceBoy]

One round our way offers a good one, will sign up in a year or two.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I know a few clubs locally that do the flexible membership schemes and they seem very popular and the clubs don't seem in too much financial strife. I think it is a system that if run properly and managed well could really take off in the next few years especially as fees continue to rise and the demands on spare time/work increase

 

[howbow88]

Some interesting posts on membership here. My take:

Younger people do not have the time or money to commit to ‘full-time membership’ these days. I work in a marketing role and I remember early on reading up on Jaguar’s client base. It was old and it was getting older, and the problem with that is a pretty simple one - old people die.

The future of golf in my opinion is not full-time membership, but more flexible gym type memberships.

 

[duncan mackie]

Some interesting posts on membership here. My take:

Younger people do not have the time or money to commit to ‘full-time membership’ these days. I work in a marketing role and I remember early on reading up on Jaguar’s client base. It was old and it was getting older, and the problem with that is a pretty simple one - old people die.

The future of golf in my opinion is not full-time membership, but more flexible gym type memberships.

Whoever wrote that marketing piece was no doubt fired shortly afterwards. They seem to have missed an equally relevant point - everyone is old at some point.

However, if they were being more specific in that Jaguars client base wasn't fundamentally age related but nostalgic then fine.

Generally golf is primarily time ddependent. If you don't have the time the rest (including whether you even want to play) is irrelevant. Some argue cost but that's neither specific to golf nor as relevant as it's frequently pitched - most media packages cost about the same as a membership; your choice.