GM Spike Bar-Debate.

[Dodger]

I have just read this and to say it has left me fuming is an understatement.

The question is asked if clubs should offer incentives for younger age brackets.

Now this is an area that the club I work for has looked very closely at over the past 12 months and since implementing the new age bracket membership rates in September we have seen a great up take of the offers and things are looking great for the future with many enquiries from prospective new members under the age of 30.(See report on page 143)

Fergus Bisset is in the NO camp but the fact that he has based his argument around 'discriminating on the grounds of age should not be one of the methods clubs should employ' is what has got me riled...

Discrimination??!! I cannot actually believe GM have actually printed this nonsense.- If it was discrimination it would not be lawful!!!

These offers are being made (lawfully) because we as a club can see that we need to be doing something to address the dire shortage of members that we currently have in the 30 year old and under age bracket and this is a proportionate way of redressing the age imbalance.

This has been done in a bid to secure the clubs long term future,a future, that without an upsurge of younger members, could well be in the balance in years to come.........nothing to do with any sort of discrimination at all and this is exactly the sort of inward rather than forward looking persons opinions that I come up against daily within golf clubs.

I have to say I am somewhat surprised to see GM run with the wording of Fergus's no argument as it is opinions like this that Joe Public will read and believe and will only make the battle of safeguarding the future of golf clubs up and down the country harder.

Fergus I suggest you take a read of the Equality Act Advice Note- 4th Addition found at the link below and come back with another argument because it is hee-haw to do with 'discriminating on the grounds of age'.

]http://www.scottishgolf.org/go/clubservices/legislation]

 

[MizunoGreyhound]

I don`t know whether you are able to answer this yet, but will those on incentivised membership keep re-newing once their subs are due to rise when they reach the next age bracket?

Please excuse my ignorance of the membership status of golf clubs in your area and whether or no there is a waiting list for any/all of them.

We are very lucky that our club has a full membership and a waiting list of 18-24 months.

 

[Dodger]

That will not be known until January 2012 and will be a 'suck it and see' but what I can tell you that at last years renewal and in previous years 99% of the guys going from the last reduced slot of 18-21 year old to full membership disappeared overnight......this was a jump from £175 to £350.With the new brackets the increases are from 21 year up to 31 as follows -

18 TO 21 YEARS- £95

22 TO 25 YEARS- £150

26 TO 28 YEARS- £235

29 TO 30 YEARS- £315

FULL MEMBERSHIP- £350

So to summarise things can only get better and I believe it will with the new brackets.We only have a membership number of 400 with circa 90% being over the age of 45 and many nearer 60 than 45.

 

[JustOne]

I'm with you Dodger but when you are talking about such small amounts of money then it is hard to side with the reasoning behind doing it. Why a 26yr old can't afford £350 is beyond me!

Our junior rate is £150 and a full adult is £1200 so it almost makes sense to have something in the £500-£900 range if we need some new blood, but an extra £100 here or there doesn't seem worth it to me... that's giving away money for the sake of it.

 

[Imurg]

It's not quite so bad when you're only paying 350 quid for full membership. Reducing the cost by 50% when you're younger doesn't mean your subs sky-rocket when you reach 30. If your subs are over £1000 it does.

Now while I agree each club must attract younger members, it shouldn't be at the expense of other members.

Assume for a moment that me and Fragger went to join a club at the same time. I'm 29 (I wish!) And he's 30. Why should he pay twice what I pay for the same product/service/entitlements?? How can that be fair?

If Honda wanted to attract youngsters to their cars, they wouldn't offer them 40-50% discounts would they? They would make the car more attractive to the age of people they wish to attract.
That's what clubs should be doing, having different scales of memberships to suit age, time and wallet. That way, someone with the time and finance to play often can do just that. A young Dad, with just a few hours a week spare can pay less but have reduced tee availability.

 

[Dodger]

The club is situated in the area with the lowest income in the UK.....so money isn't growing on trees particularly for the youngsters.

Again I am seeing the inward thinking golfers here,look after myself not the future of the club.

 

[medwayjon]

I think that full membership is full membership and that should be it.

I would argue that younger people can quite often be much better off in say the under 30 age bracket than people in the 30-40 age bracket. The young, free and single, many of whom still live at home or in cheaper house/flat shares have much more disposable income than a 30 year old man married with 2 kids, mortgage, 2 cars to run etc.

I know if I was a 60y/o member of 30 years standing at full subscription and all of a sudden 25 year olds were getting in at 50% I would feel cheated and very agrieved.

 

[MizunoGreyhound]

The most revealing aspect of this appears to be the difference we all have to pay for our memberships. When subs are £350 for full members as in Dodgers case the reduction is appreciably smaller than Imurgs. If the facilities are so much better for Imurg than Dodger then great, but somehow I doubt it.

If you have to find the equivalent of Dodgers full subs cost or more as you get a year older, then it does become a huge issue.

I suppose this is where we start arguing about a north/south wage divide

 

[MizunoGreyhound]

Sorry. Too slow with my typing

 

[Marko77]

I would prefer such promotions to be salary based rather than by age.

 

[SammmeBee]

I would prefer such promotions to be salary based rather than by age.

Free membership for the umemployed??!!

 

[Dodger]

To be honest we are getting away from the whole reason for my post,I believe in what we are doing 100% and I believe that without a drive for youngsters the club could be in a precarious position come 10 years time.If others do not believe in it than that is up to them.

Mt gripe was that Fergus said that 'discriminating on the grounds of age should not be one of the methods clubs should employ'.....................................this journalism that is so far from the truth it is laughable.

 

[Imurg]

Earth to Dodger

Money's not growing on trees anywhere near here either. If I want to play golf I have to find the money from the budget. Just because I'm 47 doesn't mean I've got millions in the bank.
I hear what you're saying but :from a legal standpoint or not, if I have to pay more for the same thing just because I am of a different age, that is discrimination and should not be allowed. You're a few years younger than me. Would it be fair if you paid £20 less than me to go and see Celtic? If I knew you were doing that I wouldn't go or I'd kick up a fuss because its not fair. If you paid £350 for unlimited golf and I pay £700 for the same playing/voting rights how long do you think I'd stick around? I'd move club to somewhere that didn't have that policy.

And yes, I am probably inward thinking in this. But if you annoy your current membership and they all leave, where is your club going to be when all the youngsters leave to join another club or have to give up when money gets tight.

Attract them in other ways.

 

[Dodger]

Thankfully everyone in the club knows the issues that the club are facing Imurg.Thank god you aint a member there with that take on things,sounds like you would rather it went to the wall.....you are correct in saying you are inward thinking.

 

[Imurg]

Thank god you aint a member there with that take on things,sounds like you would rather it went to the wall....

No golfer ever wants to see another club go to the wall but I'm glad I'm not member up there and having to subsidise others when I can barely afford to play myself.

Different money for the same thing isn't fair, regardless of the impact on the future of a club. Find other ways to bring new blood in.

 

[GB72]

Is price reduction the answer though. My club and alot of others I know have trouble attracting the 25-35 age group so this would appear to be a far wider problem and may be more than cost related. Perhaps golf and clubs need to look at image, attitude, facilities off the course etc rather than assuming thit is purely price related. Take the average club social function, how many in the 25-35 age group want to go to a dinner/dance which is almost entirely populated by people older than them. If clubs want to attract this age group then they need to gear themselves to what that age group wants but e prepared to annoy a few of the more traditional members. After all, if a pub wants to attract a certain age group they change the surroundings, events etc they do not slash the prices.

 

[JustOne]

Again I am seeing the inward thinking golfers here,look after myself not the future of the club.

Not sure which part of my post about there being an intermediate membership at my club and me not having a problem with that is inward thinking? If money is that tight up your way and a reduction of £100/year will bring in more members then that's fine by me.

My club on the other hand is run so poorly that it's hard to want to stay, no atmosphere and a stuck up attitude run by school master 'old boy' networks. It's more like the club itself is pressing the self destruct button but then again there will always be someone to fill my shoes should I leave.

Clubs should do more to attract members other than just lowering the prices, but if all else fails then sometimes there's no alternative. I'd rather see something like a 2for1 offer, that way you fill up spaces quicker and get double the rewards in a few years.... also more money is spent behind the bar/clubhouse. Bums on seats is what makes business tick.

As an aside: My club has recently scraped SKY TV, so that's another option gone out of the window... it's getting duller by the day.

 

[percy_layer]

I'm sticking up for Dodger on this one.

Attracting the younger adults into a golf club is a concern for many golf clubs and so far there are not many real world solutions. Doing something is much better than doing nothing, when doing nothing will only guarantee the failure of the club. It is a bold step to implement the new pricing structure but from the members i have spoken with, they all understand why it is in place and are supportive. If it means the difference between a club surviving and thriving or failing, what would you rather happen?

 

[DCB]

Interesting thread here guys. Definately two distinct camps here unfortunately. There's the 'progressive camp' and the 'head in the sand camp'.

From Dodgers original post I'm happy to see that the club he's working at are a progressive club. Without that thinking, there may well not be a club in 15-20 years time.

There are many reasons golfers give up their membership after they leave the Junior section. Mostly it is down to cost. They can't afford to pay the Ordinary Membership while they are at uni or are completing an apprenticeship. That's understandable. The new incentives are surely a way to keeping younger golfers feeding into the club membership rather than see them dissapear from the game altogether.

Having had this discussion with some of our own Juniors who are just coming to the end of their Junior Membership, the only way they can afford to keep their membership going is with one of these incentive schemes. My own club has had a system in place for many years where a Juniors joining fee was reduced by a set % for each year of Juior membership. This in effect would mean someone who was a Junior member from 11-18 would pay no joining fee. However, the annual subs were still an issue. With a reduced annual sub during their early 20s we should be able to keep more of them within the club. That's where our future is coming from.

At a recent meeting I heard figures that sent a shudder up the spine. We had at that time less than 5 members between 20-30 as Gents Ordinary members. That's the lifeblood of the club. We now have an incentive scheme in place and hopefully we will be able to keep the younger golfers.

If this doesn't work, then the future is not too rosy I'm afraid. And that goes for all clubs not just my own one.

As an aside, I was fortunate to be able to join a club and play through my mid 20s. The guys I used to see that were 'the old guys' are now the 'coffin dodgers' I'm now in 'the old guy' bracket. There are a heck of a lot of older members than me at the club, how do we replace them as they won't be there for ever and neither will I!

 

[jeffc]

Sorry guys but I think you are missing the point, the fact is that the average age of golf club members is 58.
The 20-35 age group are not the major age group for playing golf and the majority of this age group chose to do something else until they are so knackered that golf is the only thing left to do.
Synical I know but golf clubs should be targeting the true golf market in terms of age instead of brassing them off.
Surely there is options such as discounted first year membership for say a 3 to 5 year commitment etc etc clubs need to get them in and keep them with a good social side,comps,events, social membership for families,cheap beer and food not inflated prices.

Just an opinion !!
(must admit that I do like the way the Germans take the mickey out of golfers with the question " are you still having sex or have you started playing golf ?" or words to that effect)