Flexible Membership

[r0wly86]

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.

Only anecdotal I know but for me time is not a problem, but cost most certainly is. Any golf course around my way is going to be £1000+ which is £80 odd per month (I don't know anyone my age in the area spending that much on media, I know it's possible to but no one I know does it).

Add on my previous comment about joining fees, around this way you could easily be looking at £1000 joining fee and £1500 annual subs, so for me and my wife to join would cost £5,000 in our first year. Can we afford it? yes just about, can we justify it, hell no.

The course I grew up on in Devon which is a lovely course, far better than a lot of course down here, costs £500 per year, Hounslow Heath which is no closed was the cheapest in the area at £680 and it had a portakabin as a clubhouse. If I lived back home I would pay that in a shot, likewise if the clubs down here charged that I would be joining up.

Cost definitely matters to me

 

[patricks148]

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.

spot on.

comparisons with Gym membership makes no sense either chalk and cheese springs to mind

 

[DCB]

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.

Even with flexible gym memberships the average retention period for a member is between 7 & 8 months ......

 

[Grant85]

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.

Both factors are relative to each other.

If you have the time, £1000 to £1500 for unlimited golf is great.

If you are playing every other Saturday, and the odd day you can finish work early and not have to put the kids to bed, then it is not.

Also, both of us are not wrong. In some cases (and locations) Flexible memberships are probably going to become a permanent fixture of golf and become part of the culture. In other places (with fewer people of work / family age) clubs will continue to do well with full time members.

I also think the Jaguar analogy is relevant. Sure people become old, but it doesn't mean they start liking things that their parents liked. Marketing is more about introducing new people to something than it is about encouraging repeat business from existing clientele.

 

[patricks148]

Only anecdotal I know but for me time is not a problem, but cost most certainly is. Any golf course around my way is going to be £1000+ which is £80 odd per month (I don't know anyone my age in the area spending that much on media, I know it's possible to but no one I know does it).

Add on my previous comment about joining fees, around this way you could easily be looking at £1000 joining fee and £1500 annual subs, so for me and my wife to join would cost £5,000 in our first year. Can we afford it? yes just about, can we justify it, hell no.

The course I grew up on in Devon which is a lovely course, far better than a lot of course down here, costs £500 per year, Hounslow Heath which is no closed was the cheapest in the area at £680 and it had a portakabin as a clubhouse. If I lived back home I would pay that in a shot, likewise if the clubs down here charged that I would be joining up.

Cost definitely matters to me

but many clubs can't run on the fee's generated by a cheap flexible fee's pure and simple its great if you can get something for nothing,but thats not helping the clubs or the sport IMO.

Wages, equipment hire, rates, and materials all have to be paid, every year. if a club is full of flexible members, what happens over winter??? club has no money for 6 months, clubs can't survive on 6 month fee no matter how many play if it was a good summer, and what if its not.... a club going under is what.

if you can't afford it maybe you shouldn't do it, or find somewhere or something you can.

 

[Grant85]

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/news/golf-participation-statistics/

Interesting article that certainly confirms suspicions that Golf is not attracting new participants and overall numbers are falling quickly.

A lot of the points have already been moved on in my experience, albeit there will still be places with formal dress codes and with a very low regard for ladies or juniors.

 

[Crazyface]

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.

Agreed!!!! I've left my club this year and joined another place on a 6 day £350 a year deal. No H/C no comps, and love it. The spare cash has been used to play other places. Have I mentioned Disley??? LOL It's definitely the way forward. I cannot see myself rejoining another place on full membership. I'm lucky enough to have the time to play much more than others but hate playing in the cold of winter, so if it's bad then I don't play. Now that's a waste. Six months of golf paid for but not used. I'd pay £500 for 6 months membership but £800 for full? Nope!

 

[r0wly86]

Both factors are relative to each other.

If you have the time, £1000 to £1500 for unlimited golf is great.

If you are playing every other Saturday, and the odd day you can finish work early and not have to put the kids to bed, then it is not.

Also, both of us are not wrong. In some cases (and locations) Flexible memberships are probably going to become a permanent fixture of golf and become part of the culture. In other places (with fewer people of work / family age) clubs will continue to do well with full time members.

I also think the Jaguar analogy is relevant. Sure people become old, but it doesn't mean they start liking things that their parents liked. Marketing is more about introducing new people to something than it is about encouraging repeat business from existing clientele.

spot on and a much better written post than mine.

cost and time aren't separate from one another they intrinsically linked. i.e. can I justify the cost for the amount of time I'll use the facilities.

I golf no more than when I lived in Devon but expected to pay 2-3 times down here ,that makes the cost/time ratio tip away from being justifiable.

So to make it more justifiable either people have to have more free time, or the amount of time spent playing golf is reduced or price has to come down.

You can either reduce the traditional membership rates, or introduce a flexi scheme.

Neither scheme is ideal for the club as it has been written before is affects their ability to budget.

Reducing their standards membership rates means they would have to get more members into cover the costs of reduction, which is risky because if you don't the club will be further in the hole, and introducing the flexi scheme may mean full members move onto it which means the clubs has less money.

But for clubs who are struggling and need more members then they have to do something, otherwise they will eventually die anyway

 

[r0wly86]

but many clubs can't run on the fee's generated by a cheap flexible fee's pure and simple its great if you can get something for nothing,but thats not helping the clubs or the sport IMO.

Wages, equipment hire, rates, and materials all have to be paid, every year. if a club is full of flexible members, what happens over winter??? club has no money for 6 months, clubs can't survive on 6 month fee no matter how many play if it was a good summer, and what if its not.... a club going under is what.

if you can't afford it maybe you shouldn't do it, or find somewhere or something you can.

It's a catch 22 though, a lot of people won't bother becoming members at current prices. Why bother when you can play decent courses £20 a pop with deals.

I understand the problem with current full members moving to the flexi scheme will hurt the club, but not getting in new members will also hurt the club, and stats show most new golfers don't want the traditional 7 day membership.

My dad who is still a member at the Devon club says that if he lived where I do he wouldn't be a member anywhere and just play nomad golf.

What I don't understand is the difference in price, the Devon club has a small membership, £500pa subs yet turns a profit, clubs down here have much larger memberships and charge 3 times as much? and they charge twice as much for green fees.

I know wages will be higher in the SE England but that wouldn't account for such a discrepancy would it?

 

[patricks148]

It's a catch 22 though, a lot of people won't bother becoming members at current prices. Why bother when you can play decent courses £20 a pop with deals.

I understand the problem with current full members moving to the flexi scheme will hurt the club, but not getting in new members will also hurt the club, and stats show most new golfers don't want the traditional 7 day membership.

My dad who is still a member at the Devon club says that if he lived where I do he wouldn't be a member anywhere and just play nomad golf.

What I don't understand is the difference in price, the Devon club has a small membership, £500pa subs yet turns a profit, clubs down here have much larger memberships and charge 3 times as much? and they charge twice as much for green fees.

I know wages will be higher in the SE England but that wouldn't account for such a discrepancy would it?

i would imagine running a small club in Rural area would cost significantly less that one in and around London and HC, wages would be double for a start.

Main culprit was the mass building of courses in 70's and 80's, its these clubs on the whole who must now be struggling. and with the advent of these mega cheap deals 2 for one etc it has devalued the product IMO.. its a long slippery slope.. Rather than save golf, i think Nomad and flexible memberships are what is killing it

 

[r0wly86]

i would imagine running a small club in Rural area would cost significantly less that one in and around London and HC, wages would be double for a start.

Main culprit was the mass building of courses in 70's and 80's, its these clubs on the whole who must now be struggling. and with the advent of these mega cheap deals 2 for one etc it has devalued the product IMO.. its a long slippery slope.. Rather than save golf, i think Nomad and flexible memberships are what is killing it

For sure it will be more expensive down here than in Devon, I just can't see how it is so much more expensive. Clubs near me have double the membership numbers and triple the fees! I just can't fathom how is can cost 6x more to run a club.

I'm not suggesting I have the answer, but we have to understand why nomadic golf and flexi memberships are so popular. Which comes down to the time/cost comparison. Full memberships are very expensive and if you don't feel like you are getting much out of it people won't join. Nomadic golf and flexi schemes offer an alternative which I guess will contribute to drop in numbers as people have more choice.

But I don't think getting rid of flexi schemes or raising green fees will have a yield a massive increase in full members, if people still think it's not good value.

The answer is for clubs to look like they are better value, but god only knows how they do that

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

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.

You're right, it is my choice. Currently I'd choose a media package over a full membership as family get use out of it, and I can enjoy it at home when the kids are asleep (I can't leave them alone and go play golf for the evening) and not needing to invest 5 hours at a time. I therefore rate that more highly at this time in my life.

If nobody offered a flexible membership then that's fine, I wouldn't join and incur the price of green fees as I went which if increased would probably mean I play less but again my choice. Last place I was a full member I was lucky to play 20 rounds a year, so that worked out substantially higher per round than normal green fees at the club.

However, there are clubs that have an offering so I select those over full membership. I'll play either 10 rounds or may upgrade to 20 rounds next year at a course, mainly at non-peak times when it's quiet and will sign people in increasing green fees and bar takings. I'm also likely to sign in at other courses as I play with lots of non-members bringing them green fees. Likelihood is that as I get more time I'll convert to full membership and I'd expect may recruit people so there are benefits to the club.

Appreciate the challenge for the club is to price it in a way that's attractive to me to top up membership base, but not attractive to those who want to play regularly so the full membership continues to work out cheaper per round. My dad now retired is playing at least twice a week - going to a flexible membership (including the limitations) wouldn't work for him as would double his cost of golf.

 

[duncan mackie]

Appreciate the challenge for the club is to price it in a way that's attractive to me to top up membership base, but not attractive to those who want to play regularly so the full membership continues to work out cheaper per round. My dad now retired is playing at least twice a week - going to a flexible membership (including the limitations) wouldn't work for him as would double his cost of golf.

Actually the challenge for the club is to survive and maintain the course long enough to be around when you decide to become a full member!

My earlier point seems to have been badly made; I spent 27 years as a pay and play muni course member ( the ultimate flexi membership!), brief couple of years club member then back to occassional play before retiring and choosing a club to play at as a lifestyle choice. I have older vehicles, use pick up balls and buy second hand clubs....but I can play as much golf as I choose.

It's relatively expensive, but my choice. However, a full Sky package isn't financially much less - back to choices.

 

[r0wly86]

Actually the challenge for the club is to survive and maintain the course long enough to be around when you decide to become a full member!

My earlier point seems to have been badly made; I spent 27 years as a pay and play muni course member ( the ultimate flexi membership!), brief couple of years club member then back to occassional play before retiring and choosing a club to play at as a lifestyle choice. I have older vehicles, use pick up balls and buy second hand clubs....but I can play as much golf as I choose.

It's relatively expensive, but my choice. However, a full Sky package isn't financially much less - back to choices.

Is that a particularly good business model, pinning your future survival on the hope that one day people will become full members?

Life has changed for majority of people, we have less time and less money. Just hoping that one day that will be different and we will all join golf clubs is a bit optimistic.

Golf clubs need to sell themselves, so those people can justify their more limited time and money is spent on membership. How they do it I don't know, but I think the flexi schemes is their attempt to get people in the door to experience what it's like to be a member.

What would help is for rounds to be shorter, perhaps having 12 hole comps so you can be done and dusted in 2 hours.

Having other activities based at the club, so partners and children can spend time down there if they don't want to play golf. Social events, fitness classes, kids groups things like that.

If your partner doesn't play it's hard to explain that you will be disappearing early morning and won't be back until later afternoon, after you stop for a couple of drinks.

I honestly don't know the answer, I've never ran a golf club. I have/do run a rugby club and it has similarities, the older rugby players who played in the 90s seemed to go out and stumble in at 3 o'clock. The younger rugby players want to involve the partners and kids more and so socials are more geared to be inclusive, (not all of them).

Obviously a golf club is much harder to run but if it follows the same trends

 

[backwoodsman]

What I don't understand is the difference in price, the Devon club has a small membership, £500pa subs yet turns a profit, clubs down here have much larger memberships and charge 3 times as much? and they charge twice as much for green fees.

I know wages will be higher in the SE England but that wouldn't account for such a discrepancy would it?

As a "fr'instance" only - as I don't know how typical we are - but we are SE England (SE London actually)...

£110,000 per year rent for the course.
15 or so full time staff - all needing a viable wage for the area
And every single one of our contractors & suppliers with the same levels of burden of overheads & staff costs.

It all adds up.

Subs & green fees are set at a level to be a break-even budget (or a very small profit)

Ok, we could get a few more green fees onto the course at quite times, but more people paying less money isn't going to work - at popular times, the course is already full.
,

 

[r0wly86]

As a "fr'instance" only - as I don't know how typical we are - but we are SE England (SE London actually)...

£110,000 per year rent for the course.
15 or so full time staff - all needing a viable wage for the area
And every single one of our contractors & suppliers with the same levels of burden of overheads & staff costs.

It all adds up.

Subs & green fees are set at a level to be a break-even budget (or a very small profit)

Ok, we could get a few more green fees onto the course at quite times, but more people paying less money isn't going to work - at popular times, the course is already full.
,

Is it common for SE clubs to be leaseholders and pay rent? That would be the difference, as I believe the Devon club own the land so that's obviously a huge saving

 

[backwoodsman]

Is it common for SE clubs to be leaseholders and pay rent? That would be the difference, as I believe the Devon club own the land so that's obviously a huge saving

Short answer - don't know (but l suspect most own their own)

 

[duncan mackie]

Is it common for SE clubs to be leaseholders and pay rent? That would be the difference, as I believe the Devon club own the land so that's obviously a huge saving

Business rates will generally be higher in the SE but not exclusively. Royal Birkdale has a pretty hefty bill! Not up there with Wentworth though 🤔

 

[IanM]

Check out St Enodoc annual subs... cheap as chips... that the place to retire to!

Residential – Annual subscription £560
Holiday House – Annual subscription £470
Country – Annual subscription £370
International – Annual subscription £260

 

[backwoodsman]

Just been doing a bit of research.

Bearing in mind we are not a "grand club" - just a nice club with a decent course in London ...

Our annual operational costs are approx £1.5 million - with just short of £700k of that going on wages alone. Even with like for like staffing levels, l doubt a west country course would be anywhere near that for staff costs.

Our income is approximately the same amount - with about £500k coming in from various income streams - including green fees. The rest has to come from subs. Hence subs aren't cheap.