Two for one schemes - good or bad for golf?

[JezzE]

Afternoon all,
Next month's magazine debate will be arguments for and against the continued spread of two for one and other discounted green fee schemes.

Clearly, on the face of it, they're great for golfers because they're making the game less expensive to play. But are they good for the game - are there any of you out there who either work at clubs or sit on committees that perhaps feel they're not?

The best three or four short sharp comments will make their way into the May issue.

As ever, thanks for your input and thoughts

 

[john0]

I would say good, they help get people on courses that they might not normally play due to the cost. Which is good for the golfers, and also extra income for the club that without the 2-4-1 they might not normally get

 

[richart]

Only time i have used them is on courses i would not have paid full rate to play. On that basis the clubs have done well out of me by offering 2 fore 1.

 

[Dodger]

Sharp comments??

Do you really want a sharp comment??

Nah, I best not or it'll be a lifetime ban!!

Great for the punter but a cancer for golf clubs.

 

[thecraw]

Great idea, played some good tracks at a very decent price, golf clubs don't have to accept them but those that do will benefit through the bar as well with drinks and a meal. The course is there, get people using it and your facilities will also benefit.

 

[Imurg]

It's good. Although a club will only get one green fee per pair, it's more than they would have got if they didn't sell the tee time at all.
If a club needs more golfers playing then these 2-4-1 schemes will bring in revenue. Better than getting nothing at all.

 

[Toby_LeRhone]

Everyone's a winner.

 

[Owen_Thomas_14]

Somewhere in the middle

 

[HRC99]

The proliferation of golf clubs in this country means that supply exceeds demand and, until the market adjusts, the 2-Fore-1 is here to stay at great cost to clubs and their members who effectively underwrite the cost of these marketing schemes.

 

[daveyc2k2]

Personally I think they are good for both golfers and clubs. For golfers obviously they offer cheaper rates to play and in the current climate that's a very good thing. For the clubs, they attract players that wouldn't necessarily play their club because of the cost. And if the player enjoys the course is more likely to go back, therefore paying green fees again.

 

[stef92]

If it means that you can play courses such as Gleneagles, which is what I did, they are a fantastic thing for the golfer. But, also I think they help the clubs, especially the more expensive ones. This is because if the clubs did not offer 2-Fore-1 many might be turned away, and for some it more than doubles the visitors, therefore they make more money!

 

[Toby_LeRhone]

It allows a club to attract additional custom without having to resort to more permanent changes in their other subscription schemes.

 

[HRC99]

Whilst some clubs may attract additional income from it, many have seen reduced revenue and are forced to use such schemes or see a vital part of their income dwindle even further.

For casual/nomad golfers, they are a great thing but for clubs not so much. And if it is your club that is suffering as a result of such schemes, then as a member, you're paying for it.

 

[GB72]

I have no problem with them only due to the restrictions that are generally applied. If they bring in new golfers when the club is quiet fine but if we started taking 2 fore 1 vouchers on a Saturday or Sunday morning then I would be concerned.

 

[DCB]

Time to pin my colours to the mast here.

Yes the itinerant golfer gets a good deal for him and his mate as they go off to play a course they may not otherwise have played.

However, golf clubs appear to have been pressurised into accepting the system for fear of missing out on the 'additional' visitor traffic. Have they been good for the clubs... No

The clubs have to very careful how they allow the vouchers to be used. More bad press (some on this forum) is laid at the clubs feet due to problems with small print on the various voucher systems than many other visitor issues.

Are they good for the future of golf...... No I'm afraid I don't think so. Anyone who thinks that a few reduced visitor fees during a midweek is good money for a club doesn't have a clue how a clubs finance system works.

We've already seen Pay & Play venues suffer as a result of competition that these voucher schemes can bring to the marketplace. So as time goes on and Private Members clubs face the same stark reality, as they surely will, where will the voucher golfers go then ? What will be left for them ?

The only winner is the operator of the scheme that produces and sells these vouchers. They are laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.

Wake up and smell the fairways guys, these things are killing our game

 

[Smiffy]

16 of us from the forum went down and played East Brighton a few weeks ago, and are planning to go back on March 9th.
Using 2 fore 1 vouchers we got on for £15.00 each. Bargain.
Would we pay £30.00 each? Nope. As nice as East Brighton is, it's not worth £30.00.
The club took £240.00 in green fees along with whatever was spent in the bar on food and drink.
Can clubs like East Brighton afford not to take 2fore1 vouchers?
The Wentworths of this world will get by without them. But I think they offer some of the smaller clubs a much needed lifeline in the current financial climate.

 

[feary]

I think they're a good thing. At the end of the day they're getting money into the club and whether the club accepts them could persuade people to play your course.

 

[HRC99]

It is wrong to think that these vouchers "bring" money into clubs.

If your club takes them (and there is very much an expectation now that they should do), then the club needs to achieve twice the number of green fees with this scheme that they would otherwise.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Good if you want to go somewhere on a bit of a whim as you don't really lose that much cash if its the proverbial goat track. Are they the future. No really. I think a lot of clubs or the members find it frustrating in the summer if the course is suddenly full of visitors paying nominal cash when they've whacked out fair chunks of money on membership and are strugglign to get on when they want

 

[Imurg]

It is wrong to think that these vouchers "bring" money into clubs.

If your club takes them (and there is very much an expectation now that they should do), then the club needs to achieve twice the number of green fees with this scheme that they would otherwise.

But what if they're selling green fees they normally wouldn't be able to sell? Surely taking a few quid is better than none?
On a quiet winter's day would it be better to have 20 2-4-1 green fees or 2, maybe 3 normal ones?