The effect of offering reduced fees

[Simbo]

As we all know golf clubs are struggling with membership in general the procedure of trying to attract new members to golf clubs with the sliding scale for younger members up to 30 and reduced fees for seniors etc appears to have backfired dramatically at a well respected golf club near me. Last year They offered retired police/fire service memberships for a discount of more than 60% what an ordinary member was paying apparently without discussing it with members first. When the members found out about it the proverbial hit the fan. Vice captain who was a retired police officer as been forced to resign! Due to this there have been 100 members haven't renewed their annual subs this year..
as you can imagine this has left the club in a very dangerous situation, as much as we don't want to see clubs close you reap what you sow and the members quite rightly so we're raging at this and have voted with their feet.
So reducing fees for certain parties isn't the way forward IMO. 60% though!! Jeez! No wonder people were mad!

 

[fundy]

not sure its the reduction thats the problem but the size of it, if that number had been 10 or say 15% would it have caused the same issues, I expect not

 

[Deleted member 18588]

And why only retired police & fire officers? Why not all retired people?

Not suggesting that it should be all but the selectivity of the offer (given the VC's position) was always likely to alienate a fair number I would think.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The club I play at has fees of around £520. They offer a police / fire / ambulance worker the fee of £120. I'm on that as they expanded it to friend of.......If I was a full paying member I would be fuming about this, I can't see the justification for it.

 

[GreggerKBR]

As we all know golf clubs are struggling with membership in general the procedure of trying to attract new members to golf clubs with the sliding scale for younger members up to 30 and reduced fees for seniors etc appears to have backfired dramatically at a well respected golf club near me. Last year They offered retired police/fire service memberships for a discount of more than 60% what an ordinary member was paying apparently without discussing it with members first. When the members found out about it the proverbial hit the fan. Vice captain who was a retired police officer as been forced to resign! Due to this there have been 100 members haven't renewed their annual subs this year..
as you can imagine this has left the club in a very dangerous situation, as much as we don't want to see clubs close you reap what you sow and the members quite rightly so we're raging at this and have voted with their feet.
So reducing fees for certain parties isn't the way forward IMO. 60% though!! Jeez! No wonder people were mad!

Saddened to hear this story, but not surprised.
Truthfully I feel annoyed when people who play 4-6 times a week pay less subs than I do, just because I can only play at the weekends (peak time). Not matter who they are, aged, youth, etc. I believe you either all pay the same or you pay according to your level of usage would be the only fair models.

It's a fairly well known sales law that says to motivate people to buy, you incite this by offering a "deal" or motivate/inspire them to buy it based on a belief or acceptance of an idea (exclusivity, quality, brand etc). So some feel they have to discount where as others believe they can command a premium.

I actually tried this at a golf membership sales person, and the "deals" always lead to a very poor retention and transience.
When people bought into the ethos of being a part of a great club, good course, being an active member etc., they tended to pay ever increasing rates and stay at the club.

But when local clubs are offering discounts, it can be difficult if you are under pressure to compete.
That's when you need the owners/members to be most resolute and not crumble and reduce fees, offer discounts etc.

So when our GM told us at our AGM that fees were not going up this year, I confess I raised an eyebrow.
He's promising to improve things, but now I want to know, where will he get the funds to improve things?

Although... if you make your product superior - people will pay!

 

[Lord Tyrion]

My first club has a deal where anyone with 25yrs continuous membership pays around half fees. Unfortunately it is in an insular area that people don't move away from. Significant numbers are now on this level, all retired, hammering the course and the clubs revenues suffer. Bad idea.

 

[pool888]

The police, fire service, etc all do an important job which we are all grateful for, but it's a job they choose to do. As you climb the ranks I'm sure these are fairly well paid jobs with good pensions and they are just as able or probably more able to pay subs than most retired people. Bound to cause a lot of upset with the other members. We all want to be treated fairly.

 

[Dasit]

I agree fees should be the same for everyone, exception is people under 25 who have not had a chance to be able to pay.


Why the retired boys who play 5 or 6 times a week and dominate the schedules should get a reduced rate to the people who work hard and only get a chance to play every other weekend

 

[Simbo]

And why only retired police & fire officers? Why not all retired people?

Not suggesting that it should be all but the selectivity of the offer (given the VC's position) was always likely to alienate a fair number I would think.

Discrimination was a fairly well used word in the debate!

I'd imagine police are on a fairly decent pension aswell, they do seem to get a lot of benefits in regard to their profession but as has been said it's a job they chose to do. I don't really see why people in specific jobs should be treated differently, yes they do a hard hard job, but so do guys that work on a building site 10 hours a day in the freezing cold and rain so we have somewhere to stay.
Iv got young guys at my work paying nearly half of what I pay for fees, but earn the same money as me, giving their parents 30 quid dig money.

 

[Reemul]

I don't get the up to 35 age reduction common now days. It's like cheap for kids and juniors and still cheap for up to 25 and then 35 and expensive after.

My brother in Law is 34 and his membership would be 40% cheaper than mine, I chose not to join and just pay to play there occasionally. He has a better job than me, less kids than me and more time off than me. Which mean she also plays way more than me.

My son joined a local 9 hole course where he has lessons, he is 10 and got 6 months full membership for £40. It's a bargain, I wish I was 10

 

[Simbo]

The club I play at has fees of around £520. They offer a police / fire / ambulance worker the fee of £120. I'm on that as they expanded it to friend of.......If I was a full paying member I would be fuming about this, I can't see the justification for it.

Extend it to friends!! That's shocking! As if giving it to anyone isn't enough they can get mates rates aswell! I could get someone in the police who doesn't even play golf to join and pay that £120 for them then my own at £120-mates rates. And have enough left over for a nice new set of wedges!! Disgraceful.
It's just another example of normal long term customers of businesses, getting the rough end of the stick whether it's sky, virgin or the golf club their only goal is to get more members/customers while crapping on the ones you already have.
Iv no sympathy for the club involved, serves them right.

 

[Nickrat]

I don't get the up to 35 age reduction common now days. It's like cheap for kids and juniors and still cheap for up to 25 and then 35 and expensive after.

My brother in Law is 34 and his membership would be 40% cheaper than mine, I chose not to join and just pay to play there occasionally. He has a better job than me, less kids than me and more time off than me. Which mean she also plays way more than me.

My son joined a local 9 hole course where he has lessons, he is 10 and got 6 months full membership for £40. It's a bargain, I wish I was 10

I think when most clubs look at there membership age they probably see that most members fit into the over 50-60 category. Clubs probably worry that once these members retire from golf they wont have any new blood to fill there gap. I think encouraging younger people into golf is a good thing and will help golf grow. I think the problem with these offer's is that someone will always end up getting the shaft.

I'm 33 and the only discounts my club run are for students. It didn't really bother me when I joined but I'm really into golf and I know I will get my moneys worth, I think people who are 50/50 it might just convince them to join.

 

[Val]

I have a view regarding fees and membership along the lines as follows;

The golf membership at many clubs across the country is that over 50% of the membership are 50 and older, many clubs offer "veteran" membership to members aged 65 and older where fees can be as little as a third of what an "ordinary" member pays. These veteran members can continue their membership at some cases for over 20 years. Most if not all are not hard up financially, quite the opposite. Do they really need the discount?

Golf clubs are struggling for new and younger members. Young members aged 18-24 have heads easily turned by women, booze and other social activities and not all have a high disposable income. If membership is affordable they'll continue to pay it, if it tips over a point then it's the first thing to go.

I would suggest that anyone over 30 pays an ordinary member fee and that these veteran fees be scrapped

A stepped membership for those 18-30 year olds as follows

18-21 - 35% of ordinary fee
21-25 - 50% of ordinary fee
25-30 - 75% of ordinary fee

At the age of 30, most members are "captured" by clubs and tend to be settled in life. The fee for this group is almost academic as most will have the disposable income to be able to afford their fees.

The bottom line for clubs is they have to remain financial secure without compromising the quality of the product. Sure we would all like our fees to be less but at what cost? A greenkeeper less meaning the course gets less maintenance? No investment in the clubhouse meaning less folk will use it? etc etc. Right now many clubs with these veteran fees are seeing many members year on year fall into the catagory and are not being replaced by a new member therefore income drops, and not only that, costs are rising too.

I also have a pet hate on levy's. Levys tend to get added for developments (locker rooms, extensions etc etc) but the rarely drop off once the investment is paid for. If your club needs investment then ask the members for it or if you would rather have a levy then publicise the time scale and keep members advised of progress of paying off, some clubs may do this already but i've not heard of any.

 

[GreggerKBR]

Let's say both players A and B earn £35k/ann. and have the same job, same circumstances.
Both play 100 rounds a year and both play off 3 and between them win loads of matches/competitions.
But one is 24 and one is 31 years old.

But the 31yr old should pay double what the 24yr old should pay?
Just because of age?

Is that fair - is this what the players really both expect and actually think is reasonable and fair?
What about the 30 year old who plays 20 times a year - what does he think of this?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

We offer discounts on a sliding scale to 18-30's. In addition those over State Retirement Age qualify for a reduction provided they have held continuous full membership for at least 30 years.

We have had levies in the past but these have been fixed term and not subsequently absorbed into the subs.

In addition we continue to charge joining fees.

 

[Reemul]

I would actually disagree with the 30 + points. More and more people are having their kids in their thirties and are struggling to get on the housing ladder so are saving like hell.

It was true that once in to the thirties your kids were getting older and you were job secure and had spare income I no longer think that group exists until you are in the fifties.

Really discounts need to be scrapped and a fair cost policy needs to be worked on, if that includes reductions on age or rounds played etc so be it but it needs to be fair and reasonable not disproportionate. I live in Dorset and there are no £500 a year memberships anywhere, try £1000+ and these are not for top 100 courses either.

Probably the cheapest local is Bulbury Woods. £880 for full membership, £625 is 36-40 £440 22-35. That is a big difference. This course has no practice area at all.

Dudsbury is £1,100 which is more than twice the cost my BiL pays for Bulbury. I see Dudsbury as better value but for my BiL obviously wouldn't.

For once a week golf in the summer and when ever in the winter pay and play seems like a better deal even though I would like to join a club at some point.

 

[Maninblack4612]

At the age of 30, most members are "captured" by clubs and tend to be settled in life. The fee for this group is almost academic as most will have the disposable income to be able to afford their fees.

And then again, they could still have young kids, preventing the wife from working, kids at university & a big mortgage, whereas the 20 to 25 year old could be unattached, have a good job, live at home & have nothing to spend his money on but cars, drink & entertainment.

Some of our senior members have decent pensions & few commitments but others, on poor pensions, living in property where the rent & living costs continue to escalate, are really struggling to pay their subs.

Unless you're going to means test your members it's a matter of setting fee levels at a place where the maximum revenue will be generated.

In the future I think the trend will be towards flexible membership, with people paying an amount partly dictated by how much & when they play. This seems the fairest way to go, although I doubt that many of our seniors would see it that way.

 

[TheDiablo]

I have a view regarding fees and membership along the lines as follows;

The golf membership at many clubs across the country is that over 50% of the membership are 50 and older, many clubs offer "veteran" membership to members aged 65 and older where fees can be as little as a third of what an "ordinary" member pays. These veteran members can continue their membership at some cases for over 20 years. Most if not all are not hard up financially, quite the opposite. Do they really need the discount?

Golf clubs are struggling for new and younger members. Young members aged 18-24 have heads easily turned by women, booze and other social activities and not all have a high disposable income. If membership is affordable they'll continue to pay it, if it tips over a point then it's the first thing to go.

I would suggest that anyone over 30 pays an ordinary member fee and that these veteran fees be scrapped

A stepped membership for those 18-30 year olds as follows

18-21 - 35% of ordinary fee
21-25 - 50% of ordinary fee
25-30 - 75% of ordinary fee

At the age of 30, most members are "captured" by clubs and tend to be settled in life. The fee for this group is almost academic as most will have the disposable income to be able to afford their fees.

The bottom line for clubs is they have to remain financial secure without compromising the quality of the product. Sure we would all like our fees to be less but at what cost? A greenkeeper less meaning the course gets less maintenance? No investment in the clubhouse meaning less folk will use it? etc etc. Right now many clubs with these veteran fees are seeing many members year on year fall into the catagory and are not being replaced by a new member therefore income drops, and not only that, costs are rising too.

I also have a pet hate on levy's. Levys tend to get added for developments (locker rooms, extensions etc etc) but the rarely drop off once the investment is paid for. If your club needs investment then ask the members for it or if you would rather have a levy then publicise the time scale and keep members advised of progress of paying off, some clubs may do this already but i've not heard of any.

That bit in bold couldn't be farther away from reality, especially down in London/SE. I'm 30 this year and the most 'settled' of any of my 10 best friends, and I've only lived in the area I live in for 3 years! None of us have kids yet, I'm the only one married etc etc. And as for disposable income for a golf club membership, once you've paid mortgage, bills and expenses down here - only if you're on £50k plus and golf is your only hobby does it become remotely affordable to spend £1500 on fees on top the other associated costs of enjoying this great sport. Clubs need to be far more flexible for those in the 30-40 age bracket - intermediate fees, different membership levels, discounts for groups etc to be able to attract any of us. Senior fees are the biggest joke - play every day, mortgage free and get reductions! I'm fully for Senior discounts in most circumstances but it just doesnt add up with golf membership.

 

[Nickrat]

Let's say both players A and B earn £35k/ann. and have the same job, same circumstances.
Both play 100 rounds a year and both play off 3 and between them win loads of matches/competitions.
But one is 24 and one is 31 years old.

But the 31yr old should pay double what the 24yr old should pay?
Just because of age?

Is that fair - is this what the players really both expect and actually think is reasonable and fair?
What about the 30 year old who plays 20 times a year - what does he think of this?

The average earnings of the population correlate with age, the older you are the more you earn on average.

There will be always be instances of a lucky 16 year old billionaire and the likes of me that re-trained into a different profession and now earn less than I did when I was 24 (now 33). Would you suggest it is based on earnings because that would open a big can of worms?

 

[muttleee]

At the age of 30, most members are "captured" by clubs and tend to be settled in life.

Perhaps this was true in the old days when you probably had to pay a joining fee to get into a club in the first place. Back then, very few would've considered leaving and having to pay another fee somewhere else, unless they absolutely had to. Nowadays clubs with joining fees are the exception and there's much less reason to stay long term if you think you can get a better deal elsewhere.