Membership in decline...

[blackpuddinmonster]

Bit harsh mate... Most of us would like to think that the course we play is going to be in as good a condition as possible. I'd prefer to pay a bit more and have less members. Some people would prefer to pay less and not be as concerned about numbers/condition etc. There is room for both in the market, but the falling numbers of golfers will weed out the clubs who don't do enough to cater for their respected market...

More members=more money=more fulltime staff=course kept in good nick.
The op was about the decline of membership at clubs and what needs to be done to reverse this decline, so that the sport has a future. IMHO the answer is not to go down the more elitist route were only the posh clubs remain open.
If i've got you wrong then i apologise but i can't see the reasoning behind keeping prices high and memberships low in a thread about encouraging more people into this game.

 

[pokerjoke]

So I'm finally getting round to reading the Darren Clarke GM edition and was intrigued by two things. Firstly good luck to the guys at the Centurion Club. From the photos I saw it looked good but not as good as their proposed pricing model. The second thing was the clothing debate, or more crucially the premise under which the article was started...

The suggestion was that golf club membership was reducing and ageing and that somehow this was linked to dress codes. I don't think there's evidence of this and think the problems are more to do with the speed, cost and brand of the game.

When I think about why I hadn't started golf sooner it was because I believed the game was too expensive, took too long and was for old people. What's worse is now I play golf I recognise that it costs me a fortune, takes so long my Mrs gives me earache every time I play and is predominantly played by older people...

So what do you think needs to be done to boost club membership?

I have not read the article purely because my mag has not arrived for the last two months[god that makes me mad].
However the clothing debate is imo a screen for bigger issues.
A shirt,trousers,socks and shoes,not the hardest to get,however your probably on about the clubhouse not the course.
I think numbers are dwindling for many reasons.
Mainly money,the whole british economy is struggling,purses have to be tightened,golf and other
luxurys have to go first.
A lot of clubs want the whole year up front and offer a discount if you do.
If you want to pay monthly they tie you in to a contract and charge you an additional 6%.
Time,golf is time consuming,people with familys have to balance out their lives.
Access to the course is not always available,comps,societys etc means some have to play
around them,this reduces their time to play.
I think its up to our generation to bring the next generation through,us dads have to teach
our kids the ettiquette needed so they do feel comfortable going out on the course.
The problem also extends to what clubs offer.
Dwindling memberships means a course will cut green staff,effecting the course.
Dwindling members will effect the pro,and his shop stock.
Dwindling members means club will cut bar staff,chefs,meaning less food on offer all day.
A reduction in members has a knock on effect everywhere.
The only way to increase members is to reduce fees,keep the course in great nick,and offer
incentives,otherwise the dwindling numbers will carry on,imo.

 

[Qwerty]

1. It needs to be cheaper.
2. It needs to encourage younger, more open-minded people to participate.
3. It needs to rid itself of the perception / stereotype that it's played by old, boring, narrow-minded, elitest, beligerent, arrogant, poorly dressed, arrogant, egotistical, sneering twonks.

The last one is the most difficult to change, because they are not just perceptions / stereotypes. They exist. Even on this forum, I'm sorry to say.

Id hazard a guess that if you start to reduce membership fees at private clubs your going to see the standard/condition of the course suffer.

See point 3 post number 2.

I don't see how reducing membership fees (which would affect the green keeping budget and therefore the condition of the course) has any relation to point 3 post 2.

Are you relating me to point 3 post 2 ?

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

Which one of the above descriptions are you levelling at me? I only ask because I'm not sure you understand the terms..

Narrow-minded, elitist, beligerent, sneering :thup:

 

[User20205]

More members=more money=more fulltime staff=course kept in good nick.
The op was about the decline of membership at clubs and what needs to be done to reverse this decline, so that the sport has a future. IMHO the answer is not to go down the more elitist route were only the posh clubs remain open.
If i've got you wrong then i apologise but i can't see the reasoning behind keeping prices high and memberships low in a thread about encouraging more people into this game.

that's simply not true. the sport will always have a future, the point is that there are too many clubs due to a building boom in the 80's/90's it wouldn't hurt anyone if a few of these were returned to farmland. The membership is spread too thinly.

re the second point, the only new courses/clubs are those that cater for the more exclusive section of the market, and the only clubs that are thriving are those that have the more traditional values.

I don't see these widespread clichéd attitudes that people often refer to. I think that this is more do with a collective chip on a few shoulders

 

[bluewolf]

More members=more money=more fulltime staff=course kept in good nick.
The op was about the decline of membership at clubs and what needs to be done to reverse this decline, so that the sport has a future. IMHO the answer is not to go down the more elitist route were only the posh clubs remain open.
If i've got you wrong then i apologise but i can't see the reasoning behind keeping prices high and memberships low in a thread about encouraging more people into this game.

My point, if you had taken the time to understand it, is that there is place in the market for both types of clubs. Some people would prefer to pay more for certain conditions. Some would prefer to pay less and accept that they may lose some of these conditions. The clubs that fail, will be the clubs that don't do enough to cater for their respected market.

There is a place for very high cost, high expectation courses. I may not like them, but some do. These people should be catered to. There is also a place for low cost, high volume courses. I may not wish to join them (for reasons other than being elitest, thank you), but some do, and they should be catered for. If you wish to be inclusive, and encourage new golfers, then why do you appear to be dismissing any clubs that you do not wish to join. Your idea of inclusiveness appears to be very, ahem, narrow minded?

 

[scratch]

The only way to increase members is to reduce fees,keep the course in great nick,and offer
incentives,otherwise the dwindling numbers will carry on,imo.

Catch 22!

If you can find a solution to this conundrum I'm voting you in as Prime Minister!!

 

[bluewolf]

Narrow-minded, elitist, beligerent, sneering :thup:

Excellently put. Well thought out, concisely structured......I've never had those terms thrown in my direction before, especially by someone who has never met me... Judging by your own appalling narrow mindedness on this thread, I'll take them as a compliment and move on... Thanks for your input...

 

[pokerjoke]

Catch 22!

If you can find a solution to this conundrum I'm voting you in as Prime Minister!!

True but you cant just keep increasing prices.

 

[Qwerty]

More members=more money=more fulltime staff=course kept in good nick.
.

Great Idea :thup:
I must tell our committee about this. Just think if we start charging £300 pound a year we could get 2000 members on board. We wouldn't be able to get a Teetime or get on the comp' sheet but it wouldn't matter because the fees are only £300.

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

Great Idea :thup:
I must tell our committee about this. Just think if we start charging £300 pound a year we could get 2000 members on board. We wouldn't be able to get a Teetime or get on the comp' sheet but it wouldn't matter because the fees are only £300.

They're only 395 were i play, with 500 members and no problems getting to play in comps or any other time for that matter.

 

[scratch]

True but you cant just keep increasing prices.

I'm afraid you can. It's a fact of life, everything goes up just hopefully not faster than inflation. Talk to the old boys at your club, I'm sure they'll tell you about the annual subs being 15 shillings when they joined. In a few years time we'll all be paying £3k a year (apart from Scotland where they will have rocketed to £42.50)

 

[Birchy]

They're only 395 were i play, with 500 members and no problems getting to play in comps or any other time for that matter.

Its all relative though depending on course quality etc. Where do you play?

If its the course i think it is then theres a glaringly obvious reason its a lot cheaper.

 

[scratch]

They're only 395 were i play, with 500 members and no problems getting to play in comps or any other time for that matter.

That equates £197,500pa income before any visitors or bar takings, you are really going to struggle to run a club on that sort of budget

 

[Qwerty]

They're only 395 were i play, with 500 members and no problems getting to play in comps or any other time for that matter.

Theres only 3 members at my club. General Ponsomby-Smyth, Colonel Roger Farquar and me. Its 20 Grand per year and we don't bother playing in comp's, we just sit in the clubhouse drinking Gin.

 

[scratch]

Theres only 3 members at my club. General Ponsomby-Smyth, Colonel Roger Farquar and me. Its 20 Grand per year and we don't bother playing in comp's, we just sit in the clubhouse drinking Gin.

Is that the same place that the Rt Hon Sir Percival Glynbourne-Jenkins, Earl of Uphimself got blackballed from?

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

Excellently put. Well thought out, concisely structured......I've never had those terms thrown in my direction before, especially by someone who has never met me... Judging by your own appalling narrow mindedness on this thread, I'll take them as a compliment and move on... Thanks for your input...

Thankyou,:thup:
I actually agree with you with reguard to my narrow mindedness.
IMO, in a civilised society there is no place for elitism in any walk of life, and certainly not in sport. I believe this vehemently, and unlike some people i appreciate fully that this intransigence makes me appear narrow minded, beligerent and arrogant but hey c'est la vie. I'am not going to loose any sleep other it. Infact when these accusations are thrown my way depending on whose doing the accusing like you i take it as a compliment.
Well what do you no, common ground.

 

[bladeplayer]

3. It needs to rid itself of the perception / stereotype that it's played by old, boring, narrow-minded, elitest, beligerent, arrogant, poorly dressed, arrogant, egotistical, sneering twonks.

.

This , or the perception this is the case , is a big thing for non golfers id say . also Golf Clubs need to be pro active , most schools have sports classes each week invite a group out , get them chipping & putting on the practice greens , show them a good time , get inter club competitions between rugby, soccer , GAA clubs etc .. if you want peoples money now you have to attract their attention & most of all make it fun experience ....

 

[Qwerty]

Is that the same place that the Rt Hon Sir Percival Glynbourne-Jenkins, Earl of Uphimself got blackballed from?

Yep, the same place. The Gentleman in question called Ponsomby-Smyth a 'Crashing Bore' one evening Down at the Bullingdon Club and we've Held it against him ever since.

 

[bluewolf]

They're only 395 were i play, with 500 members and no problems getting to play in comps or any other time for that matter.

Just out of interest, how much would you be willing to pay to play at Birkdale, Lytham, Hillside etc?