The Pellucid Perspective - October 2019 - 5

haver and Hueber starting in 2008 also pointed out the fact that
courses were built which discouraged walking, raised the price
and increased the time required to cover longer distances from
green to tee - especially for the almost 50% of new courses built
with residential components.
Please excuse this lengthy history lesson, but it's important. As
we essentially deal with same industry problems that were present in the mid-1980s; you all know the facts:
*
*
*
*

Rounds demand is down 16% since 2001
Participation has dropped at least 20% by the NGF
count and even more according to Pellucid's National
Sporting Goods Association data
Subscriptions to USGA Handicap services has fallen
40%
60% of golf rounds are played by people over 55

While nobody is suggesting that building 3,000 new courses
will "rescue" the golf industry this time around; the actions of
some major golf organizations have the chance to be just as
misguided as the "build a course a day" solution of 30 years ago.
The UW-Stout presentation at the 5th USGA Golf Innovation Symposium in March, 2019 details the major divergence
of what golfers want and what golf course operators think they
want.
About the only thing golfers and facilities agree on is the
importance of golf course conditions - but now the USGA and
R&A are instructing superintendents, club Boards and operators to convince golfers that they should accept lesser playing
conditions in the name of "sustainability". "Some golfers think
they know what they want but it may be up to you to challenge
their beliefs and show why a sustainable approach is really best
for their course and best for their game." R&A, January, 2018
The recent reorganization of the USGA basically eliminated
the field staff of the Green Section. They attributed part of their
decision to the lack of demand for their agronomic services. I
have watched those services change over the last 30 years from
assistance in the efficient use of resources to deliver quality playing conditions to more technical issues. In their quest for sustainability, they have also perpetuated the myth that golf courses were not always the best stewards of the land; and obscured
the fact that golf courses provide green space air quality benefits
and are more efficient users of resources than the farmland they
generally replaced. I could go on, but the best superintendents
I have met (and there are many) have always been dedicated to
controlling inputs - and realized that a sound "natural agronomic balance" was the most effective and economical deterrent to weeds and disease. Where is that guidance today? The
USGA's new focus on videos instead of re-focusing the outreach efforts of the Green Section is both throwing in the towel
and leaving many in the industry to face the oncoming traffic
by themselves.
And then there is the NGF and their embrace of digital
golf alternatives such as TopGolf, Drive Shack and a seemingly
endless bunch of imitators. As we pointed out in our State of
www.PellucidCorp.com

the Industry in January, every bay and/or simulator represents a
"new" golf course in terms of tee space. We understand the rationalization that all this new exposure to "golf " will ultimately
benefit traditional green grass participation. There have been
over 40 Million visitors to Topgolf over the last 4 years with no
impact in terms of increasing green grass participation. At this
point, the NGF embrace of all things digital is simply adding to
the congestion coming down the pike.
If we circle back to the UW-Stout study, we see two predominant golfer desires - golfers like the challenge and want
to improve plus they enjoy spending the time with friends and/
or family (or both). Those two desires dovetail into the leading
answer of why they play - love of the game. The real question
becomes how we move beginners from dating to love. We all acknowledge that golf is a difficult game and it's easy to continue
to talk about time, money and skill as barriers to golf participation. First, let's dispel time. People can and do spend time
doing things they enjoy. As we have pointed out before, noted
philosopher Betrand Russell said even philosophy can be fun if
you are good at it.
As for money, the most recent NGF study showed the average greens fee in the US is currently about $35, less if you
exclude resort courses. According to Pellucid's data, in 2003 the
average greens fees was also in the mid-$30s. Even though inflation has been relatively low, today's $35 cost is significantly
less in real dollar terms. In the last two weeks, we have revisited
Charlotte, Chicago, Houston, Nashville and Williamsburg to
find significant "price compression" continuing to occur.
As further evidence, even Top 100 courses apparently confirm some pricing softness. Industry pundit Jim Keegan played
the Top 100 courses in the 1990's and sent me a note indicating
that the average greens fees of the courses he played was about
$178. We later confirmed that number when we helped appraiser Bill Sherman with the tax appeal for a Top 100 private course
where the municipality fortunately missed conversion to public
as a potential "highest and best use". We asked Mike Dickoff of
Apparation Golf for updated pricing data on the current Golf
Digest and Golf Magazine Top 100 Public Courses from our
cooperatively developed IGDB. It's $235 for Golf Digest and
$237 for the Golf Magazine. While the lists are slightly different and the 1999 lists also varied - inflation over the last 20
years should have produced higher pricing. What we have here
is a rare classic case where the Supply (100 course) is "constant"
and the Demand price elasticity proves that people don't want
or need the product as much as they used to.
If golf is increasingly affordable in real terms, money shouldn't
be a factor, and if people will spend time on what they're good
at; logic leads us to skill as the major culprit. This is where golf
has really changed - "good" used to be a relative term thanks to
the handicapping system that helped make golf a game where
players of varying ability levels could play together and compete for modest wagers that can range anywhere from money to
household duties. We might add that the handicap system also
validates game improvement (or lack thereof for some of us as
we get older). As Jon Last's Sports and Leisure Group surveys
indicate, golf is becoming more "stroke play" oriented. This helps
The Pellucid PersPecTive

http://www.PellucidcorP.com

The Pellucid Perspective - October 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of The Pellucid Perspective - October 2019