The effect of offering reduced fees

[Deleted member 15344]

No, I think members should all pay the same fee to be a member and be entitled to a limited usage.
And then be charged additional fees based on usage.
It's the only successful golf membership business model I have seen (leaving aside the old school members not-for-profit clubs).
Then, it's commensurate financial equality for everyone.

My point was if both people are playing the same amount of golf, why should one be paying double what the other pays?

I can tell you from an insider perspective, over a 5-year period, these graduated age related fee schemes have not brought loads of new players into golf membership.

Offer him a discount and he'll learn to make sure he always gets a discount.

This graduated age related schemes have been successful at my club and continue to be so - the ones who have benefitted from the reduced fees are fully integrated into the club now , a number have moved onto full fees and are not looking for further discounts. We have dramatically reduced the average age of our membership and continue to attract the younger players. If it's marketed and sold correctly it can be a successful model

 

[GreggerKBR]

fair point, I stand corrected!

 

[Val]

No, I think members should all pay the same fee to be a member and be entitled to a limited usage.
And then be charged additional fees based on usage.
It's the only successful golf membership business model I have seen (leaving aside the old school members not-for-profit clubs).
Then, it's commensurate financial equality for everyone.

My point was if both people are playing the same amount of golf, why should one be paying double what the other pays?

Offer him a discount and he'll learn to make sure he always gets a discount.

Most clubs in the UK are this.

 

[C&R]

Personally couldn't disagree with this more. I live in Surrey so my part of the world has some of the highest house prices and whilst an abundance of courses they aren't cheap. For me, I played more golf and had a higher disposable income between the ages of 25-35yrs than I do now. I am 37yrs have a 2.5yrs old and we're down to one income so being able to shell out a higher membership fee but not playing nearly the amount of rounds of golf isn't appealing.

I think it's actually the young family life-stage that struggle with golf fees more than the younger pre-family or the seniors.

Very true 👍🏻

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Personally couldn't disagree with this more. I live in Surrey so my part of the world has some of the highest house prices and whilst an abundance of courses they aren't cheap. For me, I played more golf and had a higher disposable income between the ages of 25-35yrs than I do now. I am 37yrs have a 2.5yrs old and we're down to one income so being able to shell out a higher membership fee but not playing nearly the amount of rounds of golf isn't appealing.

I think it's actually the young family life-stage that struggle with golf fees more than the younger pre-family or the seniors.

Just across the border in Berkshire but agree with you. We have age reductions up to 35 and as you can imagine it causes a bit of consternation given that it's still a reasonable hike from that price to the full cost. I'm not totally convinced it's actually done a lot to attract members into that 30-35 bracket and while it has brought younger members in the 24-29 category as I said it leads to a bitter taste for some members.

As for the OP, I can see how it would cause mayhem and its not a great position for that club to find itself in. Wouldn't it need to be run past an AGM for such a significant change of constitution?

 

[clubchamp98]

After retiring a few years ago I have noticed you don't see many under fifty year olds a the club midweek .
This is because they are all working.
This age group thing is a bit skewed as your personal circumstances dictate your golf opportunities
I was a shift worker for forty years so had lots of time to play everyday if I wanted to,
I can see why some full paying fee members don't like concessions.
They can see members paying less than them who earn a lot more than them.
My club has age concessions to bolster the membership also no joining fee for Ladies .
There is no real answer to the problem but clubs have to try different models to fill future age related problems.

I would go along with a set membership fee then a pay as you play fee structure up to the full membership price so you can't pay more than you would if you just paid your fees up front.

so anyone just playing once a week would not pay as much as I do .

my model is
membership fee £500 a year
fee per round £5 = £260 so play once a week is £760 a year.
max fee per year £1200 this is my fee this year.

This is a bit unclear for the club as they don't know how much revenue they will have each year.

as I said you can't please everybody but something has to be done.
.

 

[Nickrat]

No, I think members should all pay the same fee to be a member and be entitled to a limited usage.
And then be charged additional fees based on usage.
It's the only successful golf membership business model I have seen (leaving aside the old school members not-for-profit clubs).
Then, it's commensurate financial equality for everyone.

My point was if both people are playing the same amount of golf, why should one be paying double what the other pays?

Offer him a discount and he'll learn to make sure he always gets a discount.

Your right it probably is the "fairest" business model but i'm not sure it will help to promote the game to younger age populations. The golfing boom of the 2000's is over and other leisure activities like cycling, which are much more family friendly are competing.

 

[Val]

No, I think members should all pay the same fee to be a member and be entitled to a limited usage.
And then be charged additional fees based on usage.
It's the only successful golf membership business model I have seen (leaving aside the old school members not-for-profit clubs).
Then, it's commensurate financial equality for everyone.

My point was if both people are playing the same amount of golf, why should one be paying double what the other pays?

Offer him a discount and he'll learn to make sure he always gets a discount.

The problem you get with a pay as you go model (or a limited usage plus PAYG) is a club cannot budget for the year ahead.

 

[brendy]

No, I think members should all pay the same fee to be a member and be entitled to a limited usage.
And then be charged additional fees based on usage.
It's the only successful golf membership business model I have seen (leaving aside the old school members not-for-profit clubs).
Then, it's commensurate financial equality for everyone.

My point was if both people are playing the same amount of golf, why should one be paying double what the other pays?

Offer him a discount and he'll learn to make sure he always gets a discount.

As a 1 day member (full member but can only really make Saturdays) I pay the most, in any other retail/service I cant think of many where the highest users pay the least. The Northern Irish RHI scandal is the only other one I can think of currently.
What gets my goat at my club is that the comps run Friday and Saturday through the normal season and winter league all week, presumably to widen the net for entrants, why would anyone want to be a 7 day member if you can enter the same comps paying a percentage of the membership.

I truly think golf clubs are becoming the new gyms, people enter and leave as they will as they have no reason to stay where the likes of us that have been members for 5, 10 years plus etc paid a fairly hefty joining fee. A better business model is required. Maybe there should be no such thing as a "full" member but a house member with various stages of membership governed by games paid for with credits pre loaded then more being possible to buy at a reduced rate from non members green fees. I know some clubs already have a similar type of thing going.

 

[devonlad]

As someone who isn't a member I have no problem paying a lump sum once a year but the worry is I wont be able to play every week due to family commitments, so every week I can't play the average amount per round is going up and up. I would prefer to buy 30/40 rounds at a reduced rate once a year. This way the club can plan for the year ahead whilst I know I have value for money. Pay for what you use seems pretty obvious to me

 

[User 105]

The reality is fairness and loyalty should have little to do with this. It's a financial decision by the club to get the revenue they need to maintain and run the facilities.

BUT, they do need to factor in those things into the decision.

No point in having a membership model that awards loyalty with reduced fees which means you have full membership but it doesn't generate the revenue you need.

No point in having a model that offers reduced fees to new members or 'types' of members if that hacks off the majority of existing members who then leave for other clubs where they can get a better deal.

The club has to balance this based on their particular circumstances.

Personally doesn't bother me a jot what everyone else is paying at my place. I base my decision on what it costs me and if I think I'm getting what I need for my money.

 

[IanM]

Subs for the under 30s are on a sliding scale on the basis that that's the age traditionally where folk are supposed to have less disposable income. But there are always exceptions! A few with good jobs who still live with their parents spring to mind.

I thought that Clubs need to cover fixed costs from subs... everything else is for investment, profit etc. Of course Proprietary Clubs and Members' Clubs can operate very differently.

Either way, there needs to be an understanding of value for money looks like. The nearly £1000 a year on the invoice looks bad until I view it as £20 a week... (approx.) And I tend to average one round a week as I still work (and currently work 150 miles away too!) Some of the retired folk must play at least 4 times a week... a fiver a round is tough to beat.

So - if all's rosy in the financial garden, great, carry on. If not, need to have a long think about how you operate, what your product is and who's your market.