The decline of the country club

[Philomathesq]

> @"Hack Daddy" said:

> > @GolfChannel said:

> > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > **Spend a day in a modern class, rote memorization is the quickest way to get fired as a teacher**, but please continue to lecture me with your gospel via colloquialism.

> > > >

> > > > I don’t understand why some are so proud of their ignorance. You quite literally have an entire civilizations knowledge at your fingertips if you only clicked the search button.

> > > >

> > > > I would start with “inferences” since you enjoy making them about my sentiments. I would then work my way into “contradictions” and then edit your posts accordingly.

> > >

> > > I'm going to counter your extreme generalization with my own. When I moved to Texas, we decided to give the local public schools a try because they are all ranked in the top 1% of public schools in Texas. For example, the average SAT score at the local high school is 1310, which is over the 90th percentile. You know what they teach there? Rote memorization of useless facts. When we first moved here, my son was in 2nd grade and was already able to do algebra. His teacher assigned him addition and subtraction with three digit numbers. I met with her and told her that he could do the work, but he needed to be more challenged. Her response to me was that the school district mandated that all kids must learn the same material and no deviations would be allowed. She actually got emotional and said she wished she could assign him extra homework, but that she would get fired if she deviated one iota from the prescribed curriculum. So, we immediately dis-enrolled our kids and put them into a private school that could accommodate them.

> > >

> > > The point, though, is that it is absolutely not true that modern classroom teachers get fired for teaching rote memorization. My wife is a former teacher (taught in MI) and my best friend's wife is a current teacher (in WA), and they both believe that the state of public education is horrible because of the inflexibility of the system and the focus on teaching to tests. So, maybe MI, WA, and TX are the exceptions to the rule, but I just can't believe that the way your school works is the norm.

> > >

> >

> > No, your experience in these subject areas is accurate in the lower grades. In high school it isn’t allowed, but teachers are still essentially told what, how, and when they have to teach if it’s Math or English. This is why I said the educational system is failing this generation. It’s unfortunately holding them back in most cases because it’s still built on the factory model even though none of them will ever see the inside of a factory let alone work in one in their lifetimes.

>

> If his son was at an algebraic level of mathematical achievement, I'm a shocked the kid wasn't singled out for behavioral issues or failing the simplistic math they were assigned for curriculum, out of spite. Kids with that level of knowledge have an extremely difficult time functioning in a gen ed classroom, with age/grade appropriate subject matter.

 

Oh, we received calls almost daily about how our son was disruptive in class... Because he finished his assignment in three minutes and was joking around with other kids who weren't done. It was ridiculous. What do you expect from a 7-year-old who is told to sit down and be quiet for 15 minutes while everyone else is working?

 

 

[Hack Daddy]

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @"Hack Daddy" said:

> > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > @Philomathesq said:

> > > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > > **Spend a day in a modern class, rote memorization is the quickest way to get fired as a teacher**, but please continue to lecture me with your gospel via colloquialism.

> > > > >

> > > > > I don’t understand why some are so proud of their ignorance. You quite literally have an entire civilizations knowledge at your fingertips if you only clicked the search button.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would start with “inferences” since you enjoy making them about my sentiments. I would then work my way into “contradictions” and then edit your posts accordingly.

> > > >

> > > > I'm going to counter your extreme generalization with my own. When I moved to Texas, we decided to give the local public schools a try because they are all ranked in the top 1% of public schools in Texas. For example, the average SAT score at the local high school is 1310, which is over the 90th percentile. You know what they teach there? Rote memorization of useless facts. When we first moved here, my son was in 2nd grade and was already able to do algebra. His teacher assigned him addition and subtraction with three digit numbers. I met with her and told her that he could do the work, but he needed to be more challenged. Her response to me was that the school district mandated that all kids must learn the same material and no deviations would be allowed. She actually got emotional and said she wished she could assign him extra homework, but that she would get fired if she deviated one iota from the prescribed curriculum. So, we immediately dis-enrolled our kids and put them into a private school that could accommodate them.

> > > >

> > > > The point, though, is that it is absolutely not true that modern classroom teachers get fired for teaching rote memorization. My wife is a former teacher (taught in MI) and my best friend's wife is a current teacher (in WA), and they both believe that the state of public education is horrible because of the inflexibility of the system and the focus on teaching to tests. So, maybe MI, WA, and TX are the exceptions to the rule, but I just can't believe that the way your school works is the norm.

> > > >

> > >

> > > No, your experience in these subject areas is accurate in the lower grades. In high school it isn’t allowed, but teachers are still essentially told what, how, and when they have to teach if it’s Math or English. This is why I said the educational system is failing this generation. It’s unfortunately holding them back in most cases because it’s still built on the factory model even though none of them will ever see the inside of a factory let alone work in one in their lifetimes.

> >

> > If his son was at an algebraic level of mathematical achievement, I'm a shocked the kid wasn't singled out for behavioral issues or failing the simplistic math they were assigned for curriculum, out of spite. Kids with that level of knowledge have an extremely difficult time functioning in a gen ed classroom, with age/grade appropriate subject matter.

>

> Oh, we received calls almost daily about how our son was disruptive in class... Because he finished his assignment in three minutes and was joking around with other kids who weren't done. It was ridiculous. What do you expect from a 7-year-old who is told to sit down and be quiet for 15 minutes while everyone else is working?

>

>

 

That's so angering to hear. They should have made accommodations for him. Glad, at least, you recognized that and remedied the problem. To be honest, that district was liable. You could have sued them - and won. That is not an offer of FAPE.

 

Sorry for the thread derail, lol.

[GolfChannel]

> @wkuo3 said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > This is a discussion on the decline of country clubs and we've got a guy providing . > @wkuo3 said:

> > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > >

> > >

> > >

> > > True as in every segment of the society, even at work place.

> > >

>

> > Re: behavior of the millenials stated in your post

> >

> > Maybe they had others things to do after golf aside from sitting around telling war stories.

> > Maybe they liked playing with a familiar group and found that to be "enough" for what they wanted from golf.

> > Maybe they liked listening to music.

> >

> >

> >

> The decline of membership in the Golf Country club gas everything to do with what the younger generation is trending with their life besides working.

> The general attitude today is everything for "one's self", I have encountered many in my line of work whom are doing well in life but overly protective to themselves for the worng reasons.

> Of course there are just more things to do these days then when we were young, which is good because with the booming in population we certainly would have run out of space for everyone going to outdoors at the same time.

> Bottomline is lack of commitment and anthing that requires work to get better ( enjoyable) is out of the picture.

> I don't know, maybe the younger generation is smarter ? Why not sit on the couch and drink hand cafted beer and play video games with friends ? For one thing, sitting on the couch with VR goggles is closer to the kitchen and the bathroom.........

>

>

>

 

Fun fact, if you took everyone on Earth and put them shoulder to shoulder and back to front they would only fill up the city of Los Angeles. So there is plenty of room outside for everyone.

 

> @tbowles411 said:

> > @freeze16172002 said:

> > I think country clubs and all sports we will be damaged by the internet and video games. Kids today dont leave the house. School yards that were full are empty.

> I don't know about this. My kid loves his Fortnite. But all I have to do is say, "Grab your clubs and lets go." He'll drop everything like a hot rock and beat me to the truck.

>

 

I understand technology is pervasive, but this is my experience as well. My daughter loves golf. She only just turned 5 and we play 9-18 every Friday. We also have a hitting bay in our carriage house.

 

> @BNGL said:

> > @GolfChannel said:

> > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > @"Hack Daddy" said:

> > > > > @Shilgy said:

> > > > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > > > > @dpb5031 said:

> > > > > > > @GolfChannel said, "Open the courses, charge whatever you want per round to attract the clientele you want while still maintaining the course standard."

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Funny, most private clubs do this exactly. Dues and course quality determine who joins based on perceived value and affordability.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > In a market that allows it. Where you lived in NJ you basically had to join a club, whereas I almost had to in Charlotte. In a major city like Orlando with all the international traffic there is absolutely no necessity to join a club as everything a club offers I can get for almost none of the cost sans the round of golf. Most clubs in Orlando for that reason are semi-private.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The question is whether the full private model works long term? Also, I added the question does that model promote access and growth of the game?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No one has actually answered that they think private clubs are growing in terms of membership or whether they think that model will create more new golfers.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I understand that just like NJ and Charlotte, in terms of experience I am an outlier as well in terms of access.

> > > > >

> > > > > You cannot get what a private club offers elsewhere at public tracks. You can get the golf.... You can get the dining and the bar.... But you absolutely are not replacing the comraderie of a private. The people make a club, not the course or restaurant. But as you do not seem to need that fellowship a club of not for you.

> > > > >

> > > > > Just because it's not for you does not mean it is a broken model. But it does seem clear that your generation does not in general put a very high value on that fellowship.

> > > >

> > > > It is a broken model. All I want is the golf, a meal, and a drink. Myself and everyone I know don't need all the other fluff of a club. It's like a fraternity - paying for friends.

> > > > Another thing is, as a highly educated Black man, in a white collar job, making over six figures - I STILL get "looks" when I demo a club. As GC said, the culture of the Club is going to be its demise.

> > >

> > > The golf clubs demise has been written about for over 50 years.

> > >

> > > You stated you just need "golf, a meal and a drink" and none of the other fluff. That's a golf club and they are readily available in most areas. Not all private golf clubs are the big huge country clubs many of you speak of.

> > > If the golf meal and drink are all you need then stay playing at publics. If you ever look for the comraderie of like minded folks then you'll want to join a golf club.

> >

> > You do know just like a private club, some public golf clubs do all the same things in terms of course access, socializing, and camaraderie without the extra cost? So, everyone keeps bringing that up as if it’s a selling point when it really isn’t. Even then, I live in area where most of the private clubs aren’t really private, and the best courses in the area are public anyways. So, I don’t face the decisions many of you have to when it comes to having to find a consistent place to play.

> >

> > That said, I don’t hide my biases whether founded or unfounded towards private clubs. I have an issue with the culture. Many, if not most, of the hurdles we have had to overcome to grow the game are a direct result of the hurdles put in place by private clubs and the toxic culture they let pervade through the game because we decided to build a closed game versus an open one in the US. I understand like anything it is never simply bad or good, but more than likely somewhere in the middle evidenced by all the glowing accounts of private clubs in this thread.

> >

> > Okay, now I am going to catch up on the other posts. Thank you so much for your open, honest, and reasoned responses.

>

> Just curious what you think the best course in Orlando is?

 

I took 5 years off from the game and the courses I used to rate the highest are under new management or out of business (Magnolia Plantation) or struggling to find that sweet spot again in terms of being the best at particular aspects of the game (Celebration had the best greens in Orlando, but now they are average).

 

So picking a favorite is hard. I enjoy the new Park 9. My favorite course close to home is either RedTail or Black Bear. That said, when I say Orlando I really mean Central Florida because I like to play a new course every week and I’m willing to drive up to 50 miles for a round. Streamsong Blue is my personal favorite, but if you want more local either OCN course or El Campeon at Mission In. is amazing. I like the International at Championsgate. Bay Hill is technically private, but not really. So the long answer to your short question, I have no idea because so many of them are really good.

 

> > > I'm going to counter your extreme generalization with my own. When I moved to Texas, we decided to give the local public schools a try because they are all ranked in the top 1% of public schools in Texas. For example, the average SAT score at the local high school is 1310, which is over the 90th percentile. You know what they teach there? Rote memorization of useless facts. When we first moved here, my son was in 2nd grade and was already able to do algebra. His teacher assigned him addition and subtraction with three digit numbers. I met with her and told her that he could do the work, but he needed to be more challenged. Her response to me was that the school district mandated that all kids must learn the same material and no deviations would be allowed. She actually got emotional and said she wished she could assign him extra homework, but that she would get fired if she deviated one iota from the prescribed curriculum. So, we immediately dis-enrolled our kids and put them into a private school that could accommodate them.

> > >

> > > The point, though, is that it is absolutely not true that modern classroom teachers get fired for teaching rote memorization. My wife is a former teacher (taught in MI) and my best friend's wife is a current teacher (in WA), and they both believe that the state of public education is horrible because of the inflexibility of the system and the focus on teaching to tests. So, maybe MI, WA, and TX are the exceptions to the rule, but I just can't believe that the way your school works is the norm.

> > >

> >

> > No, your experience in these subject areas is accurate in the lower grades. In high school it isn’t allowed, but teachers are still essentially told what, how, and when they have to teach if it’s Math or English. This is why I said the educational system is failing this generation. It’s unfortunately holding them back in most cases because it’s still built on the factory model even though none of them will ever see the inside of a factory let alone work in one in their lifetimes.

>

> If his son was at an algebraic level of mathematical achievement, I'm a shocked the kid wasn't singled out for behavioral issues or failing the simplistic math they were assigned for curriculum, out of spite. Kids with that level of knowledge have an extremely difficult time functioning in a gen ed classroom, with age/grade appropriate subject matter.

 

Good math teachers are the hardest to hold onto.

[thesamwise]

> @MtlJeff said:

> I think we keep looking at millenials like they are aliens sometimes. I don't know that they are that different from any other generation in a general sense. Greater access to technology, and being able to use that technology to grandstand about how great they are is certainly different....but we would have done those same things

 

I agree with your second sentence. The sentiment expressed is why it's such a bummer to hear folks in this thread explaining how millenials "have no commitment" and "aren't willing to put in the time to socialize" or whatever. I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed...

 

However, (and not to beat a dead horse...) the material realities for younger generations are clearly different from previous generations, and any serious discussion about this topic should include that. For example: if it takes an extra five years to buy your first home, it make take an extra five years to have your first kid, which may put retirement off an extra eight years, which might put you in a club (if at all) at a later age. If, for example, you are putting (or helping to put) your kids through college near traditional retirement age, you might delay retirement or retire but choose not to join a club.

 

My point is that I think many (not all) of the changes that people see having to do with clubs have to do with material realities of the day and not the ethos of millenials. Obviously, there are a lot of anecdotal counter points to these claims, but the data as a whole shows millenials marrying later, buying homes later, having kids later, and having less financial security throughout life.

 

It seems clear that clubs will remain (and may get more extravagant and exclusive as they become smaller but more wealthy), but it also seems that the era of every mid-sized town having two or three clubs with a vibrant social scene is over.

 

Anyway, interesting discussion here. Lots to think about.

 

[Hack Daddy]

Perfect point in case - get stale Jim Nantz off my TV.

Want to keep the attention of the younger generation - put Gus Johnson on the call. Could you imagine if he called Agusta?!

[MtlJeff]

> @thesamwise said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > I think we keep looking at millenials like they are aliens sometimes. I don't know that they are that different from any other generation in a general sense. Greater access to technology, and being able to use that technology to grandstand about how great they are is certainly different....but we would have done those same things

>

> I agree with your second sentence. The sentiment expressed is why it's such a bummer to hear folks in this thread explaining how millenials "have no commitment" and "aren't willing to put in the time to socialize" or whatever. I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed...

>

> However, (and not to beat a dead horse...) the material realities for younger generations are clearly different from previous generations, and any serious discussion about this topic should include that. For example: if it takes an extra five years to buy your first home, it make take an extra five years to have your first kid, which may put retirement off an extra eight years, which might put you in a club (if at all) at a later age. If, for example, you are putting (or helping to put) your kids through college near traditional retirement age, you might delay retirement or retire but choose not to join a club.

>

> My point is that I think many (not all) of the changes that people see having to do with clubs has to do with material realities of the day and not the ethos of millenials. Obviously, there are a lot of anecdotal counter points to these claims, but the data as a whole shows millenials marrying later, buying homes later, having kids later, and having less financial security throughout life.

>

> It seems clear that clubs will remain (and may get more extravagant and exclusive as they become smaller but more wealthy), but it also seems that the era of every mid-sized town having two or three clubs with a vibrant social scene is over.

>

> Anyway, interesting discussion here. Lots to think about.

>

 

I guess I don't see that around here as much. We have a lot of companies hiring. The starting salary for the job I took coming out of college 15 yrs ago has risen 40% or thereabouts. University here is relatively inexpensive. Most of the 20 somethings at my company that I know are largely debt free. I don't think it's that uncommon here, though people live at home longer than they used to because real estate is expensive right now

 

But golf is cheap here. If you're under 35 it's probably no more than 3000$ for most clubs. If you make 60k and are taking home 37k or whatever it is. That's 8% of your disposable income. Not too crazy

[molecularman]

As a "millennial" it's simply a matter of cost vs. benefit. There is only one true country club in my general area - It's prohibitively expensive and doesn't offer any real benefit to my current situation.

The local semi-private course is almost half the cost, but still not really a great deal all things considered. I'd love to join a club that was reasonably priced, that had a nice pool my family could use and a nice fitness facility with actual weights. I could drop a pool and fitness membership and justify membership to a club at that point. But alas, that isn't the case.

 

 

[thesamwise]

> @MtlJeff said:

> > @thesamwise said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > I think we keep looking at millenials like they are aliens sometimes. I don't know that they are that different from any other generation in a general sense. Greater access to technology, and being able to use that technology to grandstand about how great they are is certainly different....but we would have done those same things

> >

> > I agree with your second sentence. The sentiment expressed is why it's such a bummer to hear folks in this thread explaining how millenials "have no commitment" and "aren't willing to put in the time to socialize" or whatever. I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed...

> >

> > However, (and not to beat a dead horse...) the material realities for younger generations are clearly different from previous generations, and any serious discussion about this topic should include that. For example: if it takes an extra five years to buy your first home, it make take an extra five years to have your first kid, which may put retirement off an extra eight years, which might put you in a club (if at all) at a later age. If, for example, you are putting (or helping to put) your kids through college near traditional retirement age, you might delay retirement or retire but choose not to join a club.

> >

> > My point is that I think many (not all) of the changes that people see having to do with clubs has to do with material realities of the day and not the ethos of millenials. Obviously, there are a lot of anecdotal counter points to these claims, but the data as a whole shows millenials marrying later, buying homes later, having kids later, and having less financial security throughout life.

> >

> > It seems clear that clubs will remain (and may get more extravagant and exclusive as they become smaller but more wealthy), but it also seems that the era of every mid-sized town having two or three clubs with a vibrant social scene is over.

> >

> > Anyway, interesting discussion here. Lots to think about.

> >

>

> I guess I don't see that around here as much. We have a lot of companies hiring. The starting salary for the job I took coming out of college 15 yrs ago has risen 40% or thereabouts. University here is relatively inexpensive. Most of the 20 somethings at my company that I know are largely debt free. I don't think it's that uncommon here, though people live at home longer than they used to because real estate is expensive right now

>

> But golf is cheap here. If you're under 35 it's probably no more than 3000$ for most clubs. If you make 60k and are taking home 37k or whatever it is. That's 8% of your disposable income. Not too crazy

 

That's great to hear. I should have specified that I was basing my claims on US stats, so thanks for sharing your side of things to balance them out.

Also, my quick research says that that average debt for a Canadian grad is 16k, which is less than half of what the average US grad has. What a difference! That's awesome. Sounds like you guys got it figured out up there (other than real estate, I guess, but that's a problem here, too). And you're right--the cost of golf sounds pretty reasonable at 3k at year.

[mrp116]

> @GolfChannel said:

> > @Philomathesq said:

> > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > **Spend a day in a modern class, rote memorization is the quickest way to get fired as a teacher**, but please continue to lecture me with your gospel via colloquialism.

> > >

> > > I don’t understand why some are so proud of their ignorance. You quite literally have an entire civilizations knowledge at your fingertips if you only clicked the search button.

> > >

> > > I would start with “inferences” since you enjoy making them about my sentiments. I would then work my way into “contradictions” and then edit your posts accordingly.

> >

> > I'm going to counter your extreme generalization with my own. When I moved to Texas, we decided to give the local public schools a try because they are all ranked in the top 1% of public schools in Texas. For example, the average SAT score at the local high school is 1310, which is over the 90th percentile. You know what they teach there? Rote memorization of useless facts. When we first moved here, my son was in 2nd grade and was already able to do algebra. His teacher assigned him addition and subtraction with three digit numbers. I met with her and told her that he could do the work, but he needed to be more challenged. Her response to me was that the school district mandated that all kids must learn the same material and no deviations would be allowed. She actually got emotional and said she wished she could assign him extra homework, but that she would get fired if she deviated one iota from the prescribed curriculum. So, we immediately dis-enrolled our kids and put them into a private school that could accommodate them.

> >

> > The point, though, is that it is absolutely not true that modern classroom teachers get fired for teaching rote memorization. My wife is a former teacher (taught in MI) and my best friend's wife is a current teacher (in WA), and they both believe that the state of public education is horrible because of the inflexibility of the system and the focus on teaching to tests. So, maybe MI, WA, and TX are the exceptions to the rule, but I just can't believe that the way your school works is the norm.

> >

>

> **No, your experience in these subject areas is accurate in the lower grades.** In high school it isn’t allowed, but teachers are still essentially told what, how, and when they have to teach if it’s Math or English. This is why I said the educational system is failing this generation. It’s unfortunately holding them back in most cases because it’s still built on the factory model even though none of them will ever see the inside of a factory let alone work in one in their lifetimes.

 

This is actually not true anymore. I agree that there was a period of about 12 years where it was, but with the newer computer adaptive tests and the use of growth models to measure effectiveness rather than an aggregate pass/fail percentage, the days of rote memorization are over even in the lowest grades. I started in an elementary classroom in 1995 and have seen it all from whole language to trying the constuctivist approach to teaching math, the advent of standards based testing, and the recent emergence of the newer testing models. Rote memorization, worksheets, and everyone doing the same thing will get you on an intensive PIP and nonrenewed very quickly.

[ChillyDipper]

> @augustgolf said:

> Well....I'm back - at least for a day - as I've been busy trying to resurrect an old (built mid 1960's) "country club". And, believe me, the attitude of what a country club is - the arrogance, sense of entitlement, etc - is a major reason that this is no longer called a country club, but rather a golf club.

>

> The challenges I face have to do with all the things that courses everywhere in America are facing: declining participation, too many "new" distractions, a still recovering economy (at least, in our part of the state/country). Challenges that were signaled, but no one really paid any heed to.

>

> For our part - the resurrection will start with the newer way of doing business that the larger demographic (ages 24-38) are familiar with: we will offer a "subscription" whereby a monthly "subscription" will allow the subscriber the opportunity to play at prices discounted from rack rate. Instead of giving away my starting times to Golf Now or EZ Links - I will manage the database, marketing, etc with a new "product" that I will bring forward as we introduce it at our facility. We are proud to be the first in the state to offer this program - and, I hope to bring these good folks on to GolfWRX as possible sponsors, or to at least promote what it is that they are doing, and how it will affect the business of golf.

>

> There are only 2 golf facilities in our county, which is in very rural North Carolina, and the one that I am trying to revive was ready to close the doors for good, until it was brought to my attention. Now, for the past 2 months, I haven't had to borrow money to keep the lights on, I have a new cart fleet, and the clubhouse will be re-opening for meals in the next 2 weeks.

>

> Anyone interested in how I am doing this, please feel free to contact me. While I don't visit the forum as often as I did (busy working...gotta pay the bills, ya know) I will be happy to respond personally and/or through this thread.

>

> Golf may be down and a bit wounded, but - with a new attitude and by embracing the technologies the next generation of golfers utilize daily, we feel confident that we will bring our facility back for all to enjoy!

>

> Oh...by the way - I would welcome any and all to help me "save golf course" which will be debuting on social media very soon, and will hopefully assist in the revival of not only this course, but other courses like this one.

>

> I appreciate all the support of people here on WRX, and I hope to give back to the game in a big way!

 

That is amazing, and a great way to look at it. I'm in that target demographic of 24-38, and I can say that I would love to find a way to get the country club experience without the country club price tag, and while still keeping it viable to play other courses without also feeling guilty. I'm sure your project will be a success if there is a decent population nearby.

[bulls9999]

Haha!, I've never done that (or perhaps never noticed people disagreeing or agreeing?)!!

> @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > @bulls9999 said:

> > How do you see that? (i.e., the name of person who 'disagrees' with a post?)

> > > @No_Catchy_Nickname said:

> > > > @GolfChannel said:

> > > > 38 year old young professional with an established home and family. I can afford to join a club, but why would I when I live in an area where the best courses are public and it’s far cheaper to pay per 18 holes versus some crazy monthly or annual fee not worth what you get out of it (thanks GolfNow and the like).

> > > > I think the common sense answer for the decline in club membership is our culture has largely moved beyond “clubs” and exclusion, but the clubs haven’t evolved with the change.

> > > > If we can save the courses and kill the clubs I am all for their demise. I have never understood “Country Club” culture. I would be wary of joining anything where there are requirements to membership whether financial or demographic in nature. It just seems like an old world mindset for close mindedness. Open the courses, charge whatever you want per round to attract the clientele you want while still maintaining the course standard.

> > >

> > **> I think you make some great points there about changes in the golfing population affecting country club memberships. The evolution of golf, if you will. Which is why I smiled when I saw the username of the one person who clicked "disagree" on your post. **

> > >

>

> Magic, obviously!

> OK, I hover the mouse over the disagree tab, and the names pop up. Does that not happen with you?

 

 

[Ferguson]

**Re: ** @Ferguson, you're making a lot of assumptions, not paying attention to detail, and putting a lot of quotes around statements that did not come from me. I said member surveys AND exit interviews, not just exit surveys, and the responses were both clear and informative.

 

We've done plenty to change and adapt the business model and the culture, but to be honest, we were founded in 1995 and were always relatively laid back compared to many old school-type clubs. Some examples would be allowing for jeans and other more casual forms of dress in the mixed grill, not serving food on slow days, reducing club tournament schedule by 20% to free up more weekend tee times, allowing push carts and walking 7 days per week with no restrictions, adding an unlimited cart plan for an upfront fee, installing a high quality synthetic turf hitting area primarily for outside outings and inclement weather days, expanding our short game practice area, making the final day of the men's member-guest completely casual, with no formal dinner dance like the old days..lol.

 

We're far from attempting to create cookie-cutter members. We were down to 126 full members when I was elected to the BOD post-recession. When I left last year we were at 220 fulls (still down from the boom years of over 300), but more importantly, we were able to get the maintenance budget back up to where it needed to be to keep the course pristine and still be profitable overall. Next will be some much needed capital improvement projects for the course.

 

I don't disagree that It's important for any existing club (or business) to be attractive to Millennials, but you can't do it at the expense of your existing base...especially when about 30% of your existing membership accounts for 75% of your revenue. For every person you make happy, you've got to be careful not to tick two others off. What we've found, contrary to your beliefs, is that those of the younger generation who get involved, tend to enjoy themselves and ultimately become spenders at the club. Those who don't get involved become "club hoppers"...chasing the latest young exec deal being offered across town.

 

You wouldn't believe how many new members I reached out to (most of whom had never belonged to a club previously) who had absolutely zero idea what a Men's Member-Guest even was, but once explained to them, ended up participating and having a blast. It's now sold-out in advance with a waiting list. Same goes for our spring inter-club matches and men's night out which we put together for the after work crowd one weekday evening per month that allows members to bring guests out for golf and a prime steak dinner for barely more than the price of the steak and a cart fee, no guest fee.

 

So tell me again how reaching out to new members to welcome them and explain all that the club has to offer is a bad thing. Several years of feedback tells us the opposite.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Rarely do I get so fervently involved with topics (apart from those related to Casey Martin, Phil and Kuchar’s dad).

Despite what you think, I did take the time to read your posts, especially and carefully.

 

Look at what is driving your action as it relates to “reaching out to new members.” Your so-called welcome wagon approach is motivated by one thing only – get “more spend” from the newbies. You said in an earlier post that clubs are a business, and I agree with that. However, I am not in favor of of the way you portray your approach. I read “your approach” as a portrayal of some sort of “club concierge of hospitality” when all you really care about is gaining more share of wallet. In other words, I get the idea of you being the person “from the BOD” who shows people around, but do you sincerely care about “the member experience?” I think not.

 

Again, there is nothing wrong with what you do in terms of the welcome wagon but let’s be clear as to the primary reason why you are doing it. Revenue.

[No_Catchy_Nickname]

> @"Hack Daddy" said:

> > @cardoustie said:

> > As a 51 year old guy at a private club for the last 16 years I can tell you things have changed dramatically

> > - less attendance at events, less interest in them overall (especially weekend stuff)

> > - way WAY less drinking

> > - way less hanging around the club for spurts before and after the round

> > - less family dinners

> > - the entrance fee has faded from a high of $75k to nearly nothing

> > Now my place is more of a golf club. It doesn't have a pool or a gym. It does have a sauna and steam room and hot tub. We do have reciprocals where we can play 30 other courses for no charge.

> > I love how I never need a tee time and like Dewey I love going to the range and sneaking out for a handful of holes at night on a cart by myself

> > The Wed 2pm shotgun, up to 120 guys, and the Member Guest are the highlites of the year.

>

> I wonder if the drinking decline has come about due to the exponential increase in dui/dwi enforcement. I drink way, WAY less than I did even 10 years ago after a round, because I'm worried about getting hit with one. The far reaching effects of a dui nowadays are way crazier than they were for a prior generation. I've seen peers get hulk smashed for even their first offence. For that reason, at least for me, limits my post round social time.

 

I think that's a good point. Certainly affected the club I played at as a junior. I would walk off the course in the evenings and see a group of regulars at the bar drinking like it was their local pub. A dozen cars in the car park. Last time I was back in the UK, I drove past the place a couple of times in the evening and there were only one or two cars in the car park.

That said, people in the UK are drinking out less and less anyway due to costs (booze is so much cheaper at the supermarkets).

But, yeah, I am pretty sure that stricter enforcement of drink-drive laws has had an effect on golf club bar revenues. Certainly saw -- and heard -- that around me.

[Roody]

> @jvincent said:

> > @Roody said:

> > * No tee times. As the guy who was usually in charge of making the tee times for my foursome, it's rather nice to just be able to show up and go

>

> I've seen a few people mention this. At our club, that would be total chaos. We have a fairly decent number of members and there's no way that would work during busy times like the weekend.

>

> How many members do you have?

When I joined in August of last year we were at about 190. I was told the other day we're at 308, which is 2 short of our 310 maximum.

 

So far I have not really noticed an issue with getting off the 1st tee. I think the longest I've had to wait was 15-20 mins. Our pro is pretty active out there. He will wrangle people up, and get them moving.

[Ferguson]

30 years ago country clubs smelled of lofty perspiration, Macanudos and Fleur de Rocaille.

 

They don't make them like they used to - thank goodness.

[Bonneville85308]

> @Ferguson said:

 

> Look at what is driving your action as it relates to “reaching out to new members.” Your so-called welcome wagon approach is motivated by one thing only – get “more spend” from the newbies. You said in an earlier post that clubs are a business, and I agree with that. However, I am not in favor of of the way you portray your approach. I read “your approach” as a portrayal of some sort of “club concierge of hospitality” when all you really care about is gaining more share of wallet. In other words, I get the idea of you being the person “from the BOD” who shows people around, but do you sincerely care about “the member experience?” I think not.

>

> Again, there is nothing wrong with what you do in terms of the welcome wagon but let’s be clear as to the primary reason why you are doing it. Revenue.

 

When a club I used to belong to was towards the bottom of its death spiral, a few other members and I left and joined a different local club that had a somewhat better financial footing. We were given great incentives to join. We were probably seen as those horrible "trunk slammer" members, as we tended to walk the course, were not drinkers, did not use the pool or tennis, did not attend the boozy themed dinner party events in the clubhouse, our wives rarely visited the property, and we generally used up our food minimums with post-golf grilled chicken sandwiches in the pub instead of $50 filet mignons in the formal dining room. We overheard numerous conversations in the first year where people on the board or membership committee were complaining that the newer members/younger members in recent years did not spend like the longer-term ones, especially on F&B. We were people who paid our dues on time and in full every month, were courteous and friendly to everyone, respected/took care of the course, were probably some of the fastest players in the club, etc. I guess that wasn't good enough. We were probably seen as second-class members by the old guard. One member (not a golfer, a social member on the board who ate and drank at the club just about every day, financial advisor/schmoozer type) even came up to me and told me I need to "step up" and get more involved with the social events and utilize the dining facilities more.

No golf-only private club with minimal facilities existed within an hour of that area I lived in. All were full-service country clubs. And all but maybe 1 of 6 or 7 have been hurting for members in recent years, where pre-2008 they were full.

[Ferguson]

> @Bonneville85308 said:

> > @Ferguson said:

>

> > Look at what is driving your action as it relates to “reaching out to new members.” Your so-called welcome wagon approach is motivated by one thing only – get “more spend” from the newbies. You said in an earlier post that clubs are a business, and I agree with that. However, I am not in favor of of the way you portray your approach. I read “your approach” as a portrayal of some sort of “club concierge of hospitality” when all you really care about is gaining more share of wallet. In other words, I get the idea of you being the person “from the BOD” who shows people around, but do you sincerely care about “the member experience?” I think not.

> >

> > Again, there is nothing wrong with what you do in terms of the welcome wagon but let’s be clear as to the primary reason why you are doing it. Revenue.

>

> When a club I used to belong to was towards the bottom of its death spiral, a few other members and I left and joined a different local club that had a somewhat better financial footing. We were given great incentives to join. We were probably seen as those horrible "trunk slammer" members, as we tended to walk the course, were not drinkers, did not use the pool or tennis, did not attend the boozy themed dinner party events in the clubhouse, our wives rarely visited the property, and we generally used up our food minimums with post-golf grilled chicken sandwiches in the pub instead of $50 filet mignons in the formal dining room. We overheard numerous conversations in the first year where people on the board or membership committee were complaining that the newer members/younger members in recent years did not spend like the longer-term ones, especially on F&B. We were people who paid our dues on time and in full every month, were courteous and friendly to everyone, respected/took care of the course, were probably some of the fastest players in the club, etc. I guess that wasn't good enough. We were probably seen as second-class members by the old guard. One member (not a golfer, a social member on the board who ate and drank at the club just about every day, financial advisor/schmoozer type) even came up to me and **told me I need to "step up" and get more involved with the social events and utilize the dining facilities more.**

> No golf-only private club with minimal facilities existed within an hour of that area I lived in. All were full-service country clubs. And all but maybe 1 of 6 or 7 have been hurting for members in recent years, where pre-2008 they were full.

 

 

I can't stand being told what to do with my time and money.

 

[NJpatbee]

Most exclusive private golf clubs with high initiation and annual fees will continue to thrive since their clientele is the rich, which there are many in NJ. Some of these clubs are snooty and some are not, while some still discriminate based race, religion, and ethnicity. But this is not the majority of golfers and there are plenty of private, semi-private, and public golf courses to accommodate the rest of us. You can join a good, non-exclusive private club in NJ for a $50k initiation fee and spend $12k - $15k annually which is somewhat affordable for many people who want the comaraderie and sense of ownership these clubs offer. I could never justify that expense for my situation but know people that have made these clubs the center of their social life. Who I see suffering are the housing developments that were built with a golf course as its main attraction. Likely, the high housing costs and maintenance makes the golf course membership a discretionary expense that they could pass on. As for myself, I just joined a good semi-private club which will accept tee times from non-members to subsidize the course and keep our dues reasonable. Members have a full tournament schedule and other privileges and events that make it interesting and very cost effective. But my main interest is playing golf on a well maintained course and my needs are met. Of course there are many resort style courses and a couple of counties in NJ have some excellent courses. And finally, there are public courses that are competitively priced that offer another alternative. But have no fear, the exclusive private clubs will remain in business for the few that can afford them.

[Bonneville85308]

> @"Hack Daddy" said:

> I wonder if the drinking decline has come about due to the exponential increase in dui/dwi enforcement. I drink way, WAY less than I did even 10 years ago after a round, because I'm worried about getting hit with one. The far reaching effects of a dui nowadays are way crazier than they were for a prior generation. I've seen peers get hulk smashed for even their first offence. For that reason, at least for me, limits my post round social time.

Same trend I noticed at a club I was at for over a decade.

The town surrounding the club stepped up DUI enforcement bigtime, and for a while, even for awhile seemed to target people leaving the club by stationing an officer with his car lights off by a stop sign on one of the main roads out of the club area.

The club also stopped booze from counting towards the monthly minimum, raised drink prices, and reduced pour size.

Most of the under-50 members would play in the morning, MAYBE stay for a quick burger and one beer, then leave.

In the 1980s and 1990s at that club, most of the men would play golf in the morning, then go to the grill room to play cards and/or and drink all afternoon. Literally nobody does that anymore at the club I was at.

 

I am all for DUI enforcement and keeping drunk people off the roads, but it is just one of many factors that has led to a decline in revenue for many clubs in the last decade or so.

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

> @Caddykev said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > The reality, country club membership will always be out of reach for average Joe golfer. Everything about country club life costs more than public golf. Regardless of what some people want or think, private country clubs will remain because they cater to a certain population segment that can afford that life.

> >

> They will remain, especially the high end ones. However, if the millennial trend of not being golfers continues, and clubs don’t get some new blood in before they age out clubs will be shutting their doors and being developed in the next 20 to 30 years.

>

>

 

"High end" is subjective. I don't buy that supposed millennial trend either or believe millennial's define much, least of all in the golf, sports world or real estate. I played yesterday at a well-kept daily-fee course, that's "Tuesday", and there were millennial's on the range...go figure. My son's a married millennial and he doesn't play golf unless I pay. He and a few friends said more than once, they will more than likely play more golf later on in life when they can afford it; as it should be.

 

I am a firm believer "Supply and Demand" plays an important role in expansion or contraction of our economy. If that means more courses close so be it. One nearby course recently closed. Not because of millennials but just lack of play. It started as a private club but that didn't work so they turned semi-private, that didn't work either, so it's going to seed till it's rezoned for homes. The owner will finally make some money.

[JohnnyCashForever]

> @Ferguson said:

 

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Rarely do I get so fervently involved with topics (apart from those related to Casey Martin, Phil and Kuchar’s dad).

> Despite what you think, I did take the time to read your posts, especially and carefully.

>

> Look at what is driving your action as it relates to “reaching out to new members.” Your so-called welcome wagon approach is motivated by one thing only – get “more spend” from the newbies. You said in an earlier post that clubs are a business, and I agree with that. However, I am not in favor of of the way you portray your approach. I read “your approach” as a portrayal of some sort of “club concierge of hospitality” when all you really care about is gaining more share of wallet. In other words, I get the idea of you being the person “from the BOD” who shows people around, but do you sincerely care about “the member experience?” I think not.

>

> Again, there is nothing wrong with what you do in terms of the welcome wagon but let’s be clear as to the primary reason why you are doing it. Revenue.

 

Truth=Ferguson

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

People need to stop buying into bias research projects and poorly founded articles by media. Research projects like those are based on campus generations. Though "81-96" Millennials are a touch different than prior generations when it comes to lifestyle choices, values maybe even moral ideals researchers made similar distinctions back in the late sixties and early seventies from prior years.

 

Apply some critical reasoning and incubation and you'll see they are comparable to past generations. Differences ultimately change as their lives take on more conventional responsibilities, they adapt and hold-down jobs that allow them to figure out what they want in life and how they want to live life. For that reason using millennials as a basis for predicting golfs future is a recipe for ignoring history and lousy judgment.

 

As I said, my son and his wife are millennials as are their friends. As a group, they now face the same life challenges and choices as I did back in the early seventies. Their end game depends greatly on their upbringing or lack thereof. In other words, works in progress.

[Pepperturbo]

> @thesamwise said:

> > @MtlJeff said:

> > I think we keep looking at millenials like they are aliens sometimes. I don't know that they are that different from any other generation in a general sense. Greater access to technology, and being able to use that technology to grandstand about how great they are is certainly different....but we would have done those same things

>

> I agree with your second sentence. The sentiment expressed is why it's such a bummer to hear folks in this thread explaining how millenials "have no commitment" and "aren't willing to put in the time to socialize" or whatever. I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed...

>

> However, (and not to beat a dead horse...) the material realities for younger generations are clearly different from previous generations, and any serious discussion about this topic should include that. For example: if it takes an extra five years to buy your first home, it make take an extra five years to have your first kid, which may put retirement off an extra eight years, which might put you in a club (if at all) at a later age. If, for example, you are putting (or helping to put) your kids through college near traditional retirement age, you might delay retirement or retire but choose not to join a club.

>

> My point is that I think many (not all) of the changes that people see having to do with clubs have to do with material realities of the day and not the ethos of millenials. Obviously, there are a lot of anecdotal counter points to these claims, but the data as a whole shows millenials marrying later, buying homes later, having kids later, and having less financial security throughout life.

>

> It seems clear that clubs will remain (and may get more extravagant and exclusive as they become smaller but more wealthy), but it also seems that the era of every mid-sized town having two or three clubs with a vibrant social scene is over.

>

> Anyway, interesting discussion here. Lots to think about.

>

 

I take exception to one phase of your post. "I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed..."

 

Making a statement or conclusion does not necessarily mean the speaker/research is putting him/herself above others. To get there one has to let his bias run amuck. Work ethic, character, and views of college-age students are relevant and easily identified by professionals. I run a forty-four year old N.A. Human Resources Consulting Corp that provides many HR services to high-tech corporate America, including recruiting 'research' and campus representation, etc. Research conclusion interprets a collection of Q&A interviews, evaluations, and fact stats that provides an overall breakdown of said subject for corporate American's HR depts to make recruiting decisions. When average Joe opines about subjects he's not an expert in, he more than likely lets bias guide those opinions. Bias may include aspects that have no value to the research, such as time variables which do not define generations or work ethics but choice. Parenting or lack thereof define generations, work ethics, choices, and desire.

[thesamwise]

> @Pepperturbo said:

> > @thesamwise said:

> > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > I think we keep looking at millenials like they are aliens sometimes. I don't know that they are that different from any other generation in a general sense. Greater access to technology, and being able to use that technology to grandstand about how great they are is certainly different....but we would have done those same things

> >

> > I agree with your second sentence. The sentiment expressed is why it's such a bummer to hear folks in this thread explaining how millenials "have no commitment" and "aren't willing to put in the time to socialize" or whatever. I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed...

> >

> > However, (and not to beat a dead horse...) the material realities for younger generations are clearly different from previous generations, and any serious discussion about this topic should include that. For example: if it takes an extra five years to buy your first home, it make take an extra five years to have your first kid, which may put retirement off an extra eight years, which might put you in a club (if at all) at a later age. If, for example, you are putting (or helping to put) your kids through college near traditional retirement age, you might delay retirement or retire but choose not to join a club.

> >

> > My point is that I think many (not all) of the changes that people see having to do with clubs have to do with material realities of the day and not the ethos of millenials. Obviously, there are a lot of anecdotal counter points to these claims, but the data as a whole shows millenials marrying later, buying homes later, having kids later, and having less financial security throughout life.

> >

> > It seems clear that clubs will remain (and may get more extravagant and exclusive as they become smaller but more wealthy), but it also seems that the era of every mid-sized town having two or three clubs with a vibrant social scene is over.

> >

> > Anyway, interesting discussion here. Lots to think about.

> >

>

> I take exception to one phase of your post. "I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed..."

>

> Making a statement or conclusion does not necessarily mean the speaker/research is putting him/herself above others. To get there one has to let his bias run amuck. Work ethic, character, and views of college-age students are relevant and easily identified by professionals. I run a forty-four year old N.A. Human Resources Consulting Corp that provides many HR services to high-tech corporate America, including recruiting 'research' and campus representation, etc. Research conclusion interprets a collection of Q&A interviews, evaluations, and fact stats that provides an overall breakdown of said subject for corporate American's HR depts to make recruiting decisions. When average Joe opines about subjects he's not an expert in, he more than likely lets bias guide those opinions. Bias may include aspects that have no value to the research, such as time variables which do not define generations or work ethics but choice. Parenting or lack thereof define generations, work ethics, choices, and desire.

 

 

Good point, and thanks for adding that. I figured it would be understood that my comment was primarily addressing anecdotal statements, which is how folks usually talk about large groups of people (and what is mostly happening in this thread). It has been my experience that these types of non data-driven views on younger generations do often privilege the older generations. There's a reason that the old "In my day we had to walk ten miles to school, uphill each way" joke exists and gets passed on from generation to generation, right? I think it might be in our nature to privilege our own experience and struggles as a way to justify and elevate our own lives. As you point out, we can get around this, of course, it just takes a little more thinking and self awareness.

 

I don't mean to suggest that one group of people can't speak intelligently about another group; they just have to get the data first. I'd be interested to hear the data your company has compiled about generational differences as it relates to the discussed in this thread.

[Shilgy]

> @JohnnyCashForever said:

> > @Ferguson said:

>

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> >

> > Rarely do I get so fervently involved with topics (apart from those related to Casey Martin, Phil and Kuchar’s dad).

> > Despite what you think, I did take the time to read your posts, especially and carefully.

> >

> > Look at what is driving your action as it relates to “reaching out to new members.” Your so-called welcome wagon approach is motivated by one thing only – get “more spend” from the newbies. You said in an earlier post that clubs are a business, and I agree with that. However, I am not in favor of of the way you portray your approach. I read “your approach” as a portrayal of some sort of “club concierge of hospitality” when all you really care about is gaining more share of wallet. In other words, I get the idea of you being the person “from the BOD” who shows people around, but do you sincerely care about “the member experience?” I think not.

> >

> > Again, there is nothing wrong with what you do in terms of the welcome wagon but let’s be clear as to the primary reason why you are doing it. Revenue.

>

> Truth=Ferguson

>

>

 

Who....cares?? The member joined the club for the golf and atmosphere the club provides. The member "from the BOD" asked questions about what exactly the new member was looking for in regards to games various days of the week and dining choices etc. To slam the BOD member because his overall goal was to raise revenue I say "so what". That would be like walking into a car dealership because you need to purchase a car and slamming the salesman for asking about your needs and price point because he is just trying to make a sale. Well duh! No where did DPB(the poster Ferg replied to) suggest that he pushed the new member into spending more at the club than the new member intended. He asked the questions any new member would need to answer to maximize his enjoyment-and yes a byproduct is likely more spending-at his new club.

[dpb5031]

> @Ferguson said:

> **Re: ** @Ferguson, you're making a lot of assumptions, not paying attention to detail, and putting a lot of quotes around statements that did not come from me. I said member surveys AND exit interviews, not just exit surveys, and the responses were both clear and informative.

>

> We've done plenty to change and adapt the business model and the culture, but to be honest, we were founded in 1995 and were always relatively laid back compared to many old school-type clubs. Some examples would be allowing for jeans and other more casual forms of dress in the mixed grill, not serving food on slow days, reducing club tournament schedule by 20% to free up more weekend tee times, allowing push carts and walking 7 days per week with no restrictions, adding an unlimited cart plan for an upfront fee, installing a high quality synthetic turf hitting area primarily for outside outings and inclement weather days, expanding our short game practice area, making the final day of the men's member-guest completely casual, with no formal dinner dance like the old days..lol.

>

> We're far from attempting to create cookie-cutter members. We were down to 126 full members when I was elected to the BOD post-recession. When I left last year we were at 220 fulls (still down from the boom years of over 300), but more importantly, we were able to get the maintenance budget back up to where it needed to be to keep the course pristine and still be profitable overall. Next will be some much needed capital improvement projects for the course.

>

> I don't disagree that It's important for any existing club (or business) to be attractive to Millennials, but you can't do it at the expense of your existing base...especially when about 30% of your existing membership accounts for 75% of your revenue. For every person you make happy, you've got to be careful not to tick two others off. What we've found, contrary to your beliefs, is that those of the younger generation who get involved, tend to enjoy themselves and ultimately become spenders at the club. Those who don't get involved become "club hoppers"...chasing the latest young exec deal being offered across town.

>

> You wouldn't believe how many new members I reached out to (most of whom had never belonged to a club previously) who had absolutely zero idea what a Men's Member-Guest even was, but once explained to them, ended up participating and having a blast. It's now sold-out in advance with a waiting list. Same goes for our spring inter-club matches and men's night out which we put together for the after work crowd one weekday evening per month that allows members to bring guests out for golf and a prime steak dinner for barely more than the price of the steak and a cart fee, no guest fee.

>

> So tell me again how reaching out to new members to welcome them and explain all that the club has to offer is a bad thing. Several years of feedback tells us the opposite.

>

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Rarely do I get so fervently involved with topics (apart from those related to Casey Martin, Phil and Kuchar’s dad).

> Despite what you think, I did take the time to read your posts, especially and carefully.

>

> Look at what is driving your action as it relates to “reaching out to new members.” Your so-called welcome wagon approach is motivated by one thing only – get “more spend” from the newbies. You said in an earlier post that clubs are a business, and I agree with that. However, I am not in favor of of the way you portray your approach. I read “your approach” as a portrayal of some sort of “club concierge of hospitality” when all you really care about is gaining more share of wallet. In other words, I get the idea of you being the person “from the BOD” who shows people around, but do you sincerely care about “the member experience?” I think not.

>

> Again, there is nothing wrong with what you do in terms of the welcome wagon but let’s be clear as to the primary reason why you are doing it. Revenue.

 

@Ferguson , you are ABSOLUTELY 100% wrong again. You are entirely off-base and have no idea what you're talking about. Who are you to tell me MY motivations?

 

My role as an advisory BOD member was as an elected volunteer. The club is for profit, owned by a private entity, not by the members. So it's not member-owned and the new owners had no prior experience in the golf business. None of us had any skin in the game from a business or investment perspective. Every member of our BOD was elected by the membership to be the conduit between membership and the owners. We were all extremely passionate about the club because it was a big part of our lives and none of us wanted to see it go away. We loved the place. Literally EVERYTHING we did (and tried to get the owners to do) was to "enhance member experience," so it wouldn't fail, which it nearly did post-recession. The extent of my selfishness was simply that I had tons of friends there, it was convenient to home, was a great course, and was affordable for me.

 

So in terms of revenue, absolutely... any place is going to fail without a good balance sheet, so it's obviously important. How shocking! But it was our belief that if the club provided a good membership experience, we'd retain members, and therefore revenue, at least from the golf side of the house, would take care of itself. We helped the owners prioritize capital improvements, membership categories (steep discounts for under 40 yoa, etc.) to meet member expectations for the course, the facilities, and perceived value. We were extraordinarily cognizant of shifting consumer trends, and helped ownership make changes to accommodate appropriately. I already mentioned many of the improvements and changes we made in a prior post. Most had to do with attempting to accommodate the upcoming generation's needs and expectations, while balancing that with keeping the existing membership happy. BTW, not easy.

 

One thing is for certain. Members who make friends and build a social network at a club are more likely to be retained. They have added incentive to stay if they have friends there, and that's a fact. Otherwise they're chasing the next deal across town, and that does nothing to enhance the member experience for those choosing to remain at our club.

 

An active membership also enhances the experience for ALL (of which I was obviously a part). Is it a good member experience playing on crappy greens and fairways because the maintenance budget had to be cut? Is it any fun playing in a member-guest with only 3 flights? How about a club championship against only a handful of other players? Or a group throw-in, etc., etc.? Whether you like it or not, golf clubs by their very nature are intended to be communal, otherwise it's simply a golf course with a bunch of random strangers playing golf, it's not "a club." You may argue that this is where things are heading, but I'd disagree.

 

In your previous posts you attribute several statements to me that were entirely false and that I never wrote. I can only assume that this was pure conjecture on your part based on your own apparently miserable experiences. You claim to have read my posts, yet you put several things in quotes that I never stated, and I take issue with that.I explained quite clearly that members who chose to keep to themselves were never pressured nor shunned. My outreach to new members was absolutely 100% with the most noble of intentions and the feedback I received was unanimously appreciative of the gesture. I never once disparaged Millennials or call them "abnormal" as you've accused me, though I did note some factual behavioral differences. I simply shared my observations of a shift in trends and I explained what our club was doing to appeal to the next generation, while at the same time trying to keep our core/base membership happy and satisfied. It's not necessarily an easy balance.

 

The topic is about the decline of private clubs. I've shared my experience as a dues paying member and also a non-equity advisory Board member involved in helping the club make the necessary changes to keep it sustainable. And guess what, the initiatives are working. We've made the place more welcoming to new members than was the "old school" way. The club now has a much more active group of members who are less than 40 years old all of whom continue to renew. Membership is up and it's not going anywhere soon.

 

I'll further suggest to you that next time you decide to get "fervently involved," either improve your reading comprehension or maybe ask a question or two before spouting your entirely faulty and condescending conjecture. I used to think you were clever...

[Pepperturbo]

> @thesamwise said:

> > @Pepperturbo said:

> > > @thesamwise said:

> > > > @MtlJeff said:

> > > > I think we keep looking at millenials like they are aliens sometimes. I don't know that they are that different from any other generation in a general sense. Greater access to technology, and being able to use that technology to grandstand about how great they are is certainly different....but we would have done those same things

> > >

> > > I agree with your second sentence. The sentiment expressed is why it's such a bummer to hear folks in this thread explaining how millenials "have no commitment" and "aren't willing to put in the time to socialize" or whatever. I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed...

> > >

> > > However, (and not to beat a dead horse...) the material realities for younger generations are clearly different from previous generations, and any serious discussion about this topic should include that. For example: if it takes an extra five years to buy your first home, it make take an extra five years to have your first kid, which may put retirement off an extra eight years, which might put you in a club (if at all) at a later age. If, for example, you are putting (or helping to put) your kids through college near traditional retirement age, you might delay retirement or retire but choose not to join a club.

> > >

> > > My point is that I think many (not all) of the changes that people see having to do with clubs have to do with material realities of the day and not the ethos of millenials. Obviously, there are a lot of anecdotal counter points to these claims, but the data as a whole shows millenials marrying later, buying homes later, having kids later, and having less financial security throughout life.

> > >

> > > It seems clear that clubs will remain (and may get more extravagant and exclusive as they become smaller but more wealthy), but it also seems that the era of every mid-sized town having two or three clubs with a vibrant social scene is over.

> > >

> > > Anyway, interesting discussion here. Lots to think about.

> > >

> >

> > I take exception to one phase of your post. "I get suspicious whenever folks make huge sweeping statements about the work ethic or character of any large group of people, especially when those statements allow the speaker to place himself above the group being discussed..."

> >

> > Making a statement or conclusion does not necessarily mean the speaker/research is putting him/herself above others. To get there one has to let his bias run amuck. Work ethic, character, and views of college-age students are relevant and easily identified by professionals. I run a forty-four year old N.A. Human Resources Consulting Corp that provides many HR services to high-tech corporate America, including recruiting 'research' and campus representation, etc. Research conclusion interprets a collection of Q&A interviews, evaluations, and fact stats that provides an overall breakdown of said subject for corporate American's HR depts to make recruiting decisions. When average Joe opines about subjects he's not an expert in, he more than likely lets bias guide those opinions. Bias may include aspects that have no value to the research, such as time variables which do not define generations or work ethics but choice. Parenting or lack thereof define generations, work ethics, choices, and desire.

>

>

> Good point, and thanks for adding that. I figured it would be understood that my comment was primarily addressing anecdotal statements, which is how folks usually talk about large groups of people (and what is mostly happening in this thread). It has been my experience that these types of non data-driven views on younger generations do often privilege the older generations. There's a reason that the old "In my day we had to walk ten miles to school, uphill each way" joke exists and gets passed on from generation to generation, right? I think it might be in our nature to privilege our own experience and struggles as a way to justify and elevate our own lives. As you point out, we can get around this, of course, it just takes a little more thinking and self awareness.

>

> I don't mean to suggest that one group of people can't speak intelligently about another group; they just have to get the data first. I'd be interested to hear the data your company has compiled about generational differences as it relates to the discussed in this thread.

 

Sorry, I am unable to provide the data. It's the property of our vendors that pay for research or services content. On a discussion board talking about a shaft, club heads, rules, players or generations is normal, not always anecdotal. It's left to the reader to properly comprehend what they read and determines whether or not that information has some level of experience and or credibility behind it or is it just bias and untrustworthy. Good judgment and insight come from experience and making decisions that result in consistently positive outcomes, not research data. A smart person won't assume because I am self-taught, low single digit and played blades for over twenty years that my experience is not worth regarding. It's not anecdotal because the experience has proven to be successful. On the other hand, if I was a 15 handicap offering thoughts about blades that would be theory, and anecdotal.

 

I won't go into the details of my life except to say there is pride associated with all my experiences. Whether or it has value to others though, depends on how a persons bias takes it in and their foundation or experience. IMO - where these discussions go awry is too many are skeptical and or they put too much faith in 2D superficial assessments and struggle to get past their own issues. Kinda like those people that get in their own way playing golf so never improve but like to theorize. Waiting for proof of data keeps people behind the curve, relying on their own limited experiences and perspective. One man's privileged viewpoint. Good chat. Have a good day.

[Golfnuck]

_Millennials: Researchers and popular media typically use the early 1980s as starting birth years and the mid-1990s to early 2000s as ending birth years._

So that would make them approx 24 to 39 years old.

Not sure why we are gauging the future health of country clubs based on what millennials are doing now.

I did not join my first country club till just before I turned 40 and I was one of the younger members there.

There was no way I could have joined in my early 30's or even in my mid 30's.

At that age most would be starting a family, likely not so senior in their career that they could foresee not having to move to another city for their careers and certainly not be in a financial position to make a commitment to join a country club.

IMHO we need to wait another 10 years at least before making a general conscientious as to whether or not millennials are going to join country clubs.

Our club is in a strange position right now. We have a waitlist to join the intermediate membership (21 to 35) and a waitlist of over 60 to join the full play membership and quite of few of those in the full play waitlist are under 50 years old.

 

 

 

[thesamwise]

> @Pepperturbo said:

It's left to the reader to properly comprehend what they read and determines whether or not that information has some level of experience and or credibility behind it or is it just bias and untrustworthy. Good judgment and insight come from experience and making decisions that result in consistently positive outcomes, not research data. A smart person won't assume because I am self-taught, low single digit and played blades for over twenty years that my experience is not worth regarding. It's not anecdotal because the experience has proven to be successful. On the other hand, if I was a 15 handicap offering thoughts about blades that would be theory, and anecdotal.

>

 

I agree with most of this, but it is somewhat beside the point here, and we're venturing off into a discussion about information literacy (certainly relevant in our age) instead of a discussion about milennials and country clubs.

 

That said, I love a good discussion after information literacy, so...this discussion about the decline of the country club, having to do with demographics and trends over time, is one that would be made richer and more meaningful with data. It can be fun and emotionally engaging without data, but it is not strictly speaking productive (unless one's goal in this discussion is either to expound and move on or look only for one's own views to be supported).

 

Comparing this larger discussion about generational change (I don't think you were fully doing this, but you were kind of doing this) to one about blades isn't productive for what seems to me to be pretty obvious reasons having to do with sample size, perspective, and bias. There are different types of discussions and claims, and some require data to be supported.

 

I understand your point about the information being protected, and so this is not me asking for it or challenging your claim that you have it. You're of course right that experience and expertise are important, but my general skepticism is willing to defer temporarily to authority or experience, but only until that authority is able to prove or support his/her experience. This is doubly true (for me) when the information being shared puts the sharer in a privileged position, for what I think are obvious reasons. I'd guess that we are alike in this way, but I guess the larger point you're making is that we're on a message board, so this kind of validation is not possible in this medium, and perhaps that sets the limit of this discussion, which I'm bumping up against.

 

Good chat, for sure. Have a good day yourself.

 

[RyanBarathWRX]

Millenial here -

I would love to join a club for all the golf reasons: pace of play, access to tee times, conditioning, overall course design, practice facilities... But the price point for any "club" near me is beyond any reasonable amount I could afford. So I'm a member of my muni and enjoy it BUT if I had the financial opportunity I would.