How to navigate an FDD + the link between "Junior Golf" & "Entrepreneurs"

One of our rituals at TGA is that we do internal trainings every quarter where each staff member trains the rest of the team on a core function of his/her job.

We're scheduling our Q2 training which has me thinking about the last one I did, which was to attempt to make sense of our 240+ page Franchise Disclosure Documents (FDD) in a simple, "Cliffs Notes" format.  This is particularly relevant for us as we are currently in the middle of filing our new annual FDD's so I'm shoulder-deep in this information right now.

You can find a lot of FDD guides on the Internet but all the ones I saw looked almost as cumbersome as the FDD itself.  Therefore, I wanted to share my presentation in the hopes that it would be a helpful guide to anyone out there looking into a franchise system.




In separate but related news, TGA is fortunate to be featured in the current edition of Golf Range Magazine, a publication operated by the same group as PGA Magazine.

The title of the article is: "Junior Golf the TGA Way: Entrepreneurs Go Where the Kids Are - School.

I share this because it's a cool thing to see the words "junior golf" and "entrepreneurs" side by side.  11 years ago when we started TGA, it felt like taboo at times within the golf industry to be a for-profit junior golf company.  It's nice to see that perception has developed to the degree that our entrepreneurial approach is now being recognized and complimented.  This is an important development as I believe that entrepreneurs will need to be the heart-and-soul of industry growth and innovation moving forward.

Thanks to Golf Range Magazine for their kind words and kudos to the 52 entrepreneurs who comprise the TGA family for making TGA part of this important conversation.

Have a great week and happy entrepreneuring...

The Junior Golf "Dream" Has Arrived

Last Sunday was the Drive Chip & Putt Championship at Augusta National and it was the most important moment we've had in junior golf in a long time.

Leading up to it, I wasn't sure what to expect.  On one hand, the old version of DC&P never really got traction and I was suspicious of whether something like this would "grow the game" as the participants would already be part of the golfing population.  On the other hand, there was the "wow" factor of Augusta and the intrigue of an event for children as young as 7 that focused on specific skills as opposed to the ability to navigate a lengthy golf course.

It turns out that the event was spectacular and all the organizations behind it - Augusta National, the PGA of America and the USGA - deserve a standing ovation.  So does the Golf Channel for their masterful production job.

What struck me about DC&P during and after the championship was that its value is much bigger than the event itself.  It fills a void we've long struggled with in the world of junior golf.

The best companies and organizations in youth sports are masters at selling "the dream."  Children learn, practice and play in pursuit of the dream.  In baseball it's making the all star team.  In karate, it's the awesome prestige that comes with being a black belt.  In basketball and soccer, it's making the traveling club team. And so forth.

In golf, the "dream" starts with tournament play and ends on the PGA TOUR.

The challenge is that tournament play isn't available until the age of 12 for most tours.  Golf courses are too long and challenging for children younger than that to walk and play, especially the 10 and under crowd.  Golf doesn't have a dream for these players that is immediately achievable in the way that making an all star team or earning a black belt are.  And, we know that the time to capture a child into any activity is before the age of 10.

At TGA, we've replicated Karate and many other activities by having a multi-level program that culminates with a black level, but the "prestige" element of it is still a work in progress as prestige takes time to build.

The true value of what DC&P accomplishes is that it gives the thousands of junior golf organizations and instructors this missing "dream" that we can sell to our young players.

We're already talking at TGA about how we can promote the upcoming DC&P qualifiers to our families and incorporate preparatory activities/events into our programming model.  Incidentally, two of Sunday's winners have ties to TGA as former students.  It's a very real thing to be able to tell our current students that if they practice hard now during our spring session programs, they'll be ready for the DC&P qualifiers in June/July and they could be on TV next year.  It's a goal that is available, viable, immediate and awesome.  That's the best kind of dream there is.  We're going to sell it at TGA and I think every other junior golf organization/instructor should as well.

Thank you to golf's governing bodies for the impressive accomplishment of creating a "dream" that is inclusive of all junior players and available to the entire industry.  It is exactly what the junior golf ecosystem needed.

The new PGA Task Force - another meeting about a meeting? Here's what I'd do if I ran the PGA of America:

The PGA of America announced the formation of a 'Growth of Game Task Force' last week and I can't help but sigh.

Here is the announcement from PGA President Ted Bishop on Morning Drive:

The task force is described as having three focal points:

1. Redefine what the golf experience is.
2. Explore innovative alternative methods to playing golf.
3. Develop an alternative set of guidelines that will allow recreational players to enjoy the game with more relaxed rules.

This has the feeling to me of planning a meeting to schedule a meeting.

Three years ago there was the Boston Consulting Group report that identified the challenges faced by the sport (time, cost, difficulty) and growth opportunities (lapsed golfers, baby boomers, minorities, women, children).

Golf 2.0 was then created to develop player development strategies that targeted the consumer segments identified above.

HackGolf was then created to crowdsource ideas.

And now we have a task force to discuss these ideas.

There are a few issues with all of this.

The first is the vast spectrum of definitions people have for "golf."  Is "golf" hitting a ball with a club?  Is it getting a ball in a hole?  Is it both?  Here's what Merriam-Webster has to say about it:

golf

 noun, often attributive \ˈgälf, ˈgȯlf, ˈgäf, ˈgȯfsometimes ˈgəlf\

: an outdoor game in which players use special clubs (called golf clubs) to try to hit a small ball with as few strokes as possible into each of 9 or 18 holes

I've posed the question about golf's definition to many people within the industry and received many different responses.  If we cannot define what golf is, how can we "redefine" it?

The second issue is that a task force is more talk and less action.  For all the discussion around BCG, Golf 2.0, HackGolf - has anything tangible come from them?  Not that I'm aware of.

This focus on being unfocused is a liability.  HackGolf will not succeed for a simple reason - people who have "cutting edge ideas" aren't going to just hand them over to a website.  They're going to want credit, upside, ownership.

So the flavor of this week is FootGolf.  Last week it was Mark King of Taylor Made proposing larger holes.  The week before that it was bifurcation.  Next week it sounds like it could be pay-by-the-minute timecards (which is a concept with numerous issues).  So many ideas, so many opportunities, so little execution.

The most successful companies, products and organizations succeed through long-term commitment to a few causes based around a central strategy.  That's what we need to do here.

The final issue is that none of this really matters without serious industry collaboration and we have a large hill to climb in this regard.  The PGA of America can do everything Bishop describes, but would it matter?  The USGA made their stance on recreational golf clear last year when they told tens of thousands of weekend warriors that they had to switch the most important club in their bag or be labelled a cheater.  Is the PGA ready to assert itself as the all-encompassing authority on golf in the same way that the USTA has for tennis?

If I were in charge of the PGA, here's what I'd do:

Step 1 - I'd establish that the definition of golf is the way Webster has it, except I'd eliminate the last clause about "9 or 18 holes."

Step 2 - I'd establish a central strategy that focuses on three product elements - 1) the golf course experience, 2) the golf facility experience, 3) the mobile golf experience.

Step 3a - For the golf course experience, I'd create a set of recreational rules.  Key elements would include playing all penalties as hazards and having looser guidelines on equipment.  This would preserve the core tradition of the game (i.e. no "redefining" needed) while speeding up play and making the game more enjoyable.

Step 3b - For the golf facility experience, I'd find a way to partner with TopGolf and replicate their core value of turning the driving range a social and recreational hub for avid players and beginning golfers alike, just like a bowling alley.

Step 3c - For the mobile golf experience, I'd partner with SNAG on the equipment side and my company TGA on the delivery model side to bring golf out into the community through programs at schools, parks, senior centers and elsewhere.

Step 4 - Before rolling out this plan, I'd go to golf's other governing bodies to get their support so we could operate as one cohesive unit.  If they didn't provide it, I'd move forward anyways with confidence that my plan was the best for long-term sustainable growth.

Step 5 - Finally, I'd sell the plan to PGA members.  Many won't agree with something like this so I'd prepare for the backlash.  But all it takes is a few early adopters and some early successes to change the political tides.

Step 6 - This would be the one and only plan for the next three years.  All focus and resources would be dedicated to executing it at the highest level possible.

Hopefully something like this is being developed within the PGA's walls.  From what I know, it is.  But  the hard part is not the talking or planning.  It's the doing.  Historically, bold ideas stall out because people and organizations in the golf industry don't want to rock the boat.  Well, the data clearly tells us that the boat needs a rocking.

I support the Task Force in the same way that I do anything that is trying to move the needle forward within our industry, but I support with trepidation as I worry that it's more of the same.

I'd prefer more of a proactive approach.  An entrepreneurial approach.

Everyone says they’re growing the game. Here’s a framework for actually doing it:

It’s been two weeks since the PGA Show and the feedback from folks around the industry has been generally positive.  It should be.  TaylorMade kicked things off in grand fashion with some provocative statements and the introduction of HackGolf.  From there, everyone I encountered seemed to have a good understanding and acceptance of the challenges we're facing and an upbeat disposition about our ability to overcome them.

The Show for us (TGA) was excellent.  We’re starting, slowly but surely, to see the industry embrace our model and impact.  The Southern California PGA’s acquisition of two of our franchises has played a big role in that.

The Show for me personally was also very good.  In addition to my TGA commitments, I had the pleasure of meeting several readers of this blog and learning about some of the awesome things this community is working on.

Since leaving Orlando, however, I’ve found myself with this nagging and growing discomfort about the Show’s central theme – the concept of “growing the game.”

What bothered me this year was how loosely this phrase was being thrown around.  Countless people were wearing pins on their badges that proclaimed: “I’m growing the game.”  Everyone from equipment companies to PGA Professionals to industry associations to teaching aid companies to basically everyone else was touting how they grow golf. 

They’re not wrong.  What’s the definition of “growing the game” anyway?  Is it making golf easier?  More enjoyable?  Faster?  Cheaper?  More accessible?  Yes yes and yes.  By this vague description, basically everyone in the industry is in some way shape or form trying to “grow the game.”  That’s a good thing from a 100k foot level.

My issue is that the phrase is becoming shallow.  It’s used more in self-aggrandizing ways than in meaningful ones.

What does “growing the game” actually mean?  Is it our goal as an industry to increase the number of overall players?  Overall rounds?  Annual spending?   Enjoyment?  TV viewership?  What?  In the tennis industry, they measure success by ball sales.  What's that metric (or metrics) for golf?

And that’s where my discomfort resides.  When everyone believes they’re growing the game through countless different ways without a clear overarching strategy or collective objectives, we’re accomplishing everything but accomplishing nothing.

It’s important to note that the lens I view the golf industry through is almost entirely influenced by player development.  I have a deep personal relationship with the concept of “growing the game” as my entire career has been dedicated to bringing new players into the sport.  Within this context, here’s how I’d create an industry-wide framework and strategy for growing golf:

Step 1 – Identify the three categories of players:

Group 1 – Core golfers

Group 2 – Occasional golfers

Group 3 – Non-golfers

Note that I do not differentiate between lapsed golfers and those who have never played the sport as BCG and Golf 2.0 do.  My view is that, either way, the reasons why they stopped playing or never started are very similar.

Step 2 – Define what “growing the game” means in each category:

Core golfers – increased annual spending

Occasional golfers – increased rounds and memberships

Non-golfers – increased overall participation

Step 3 – Identify the key drivers of Step 2 goals:

Core golfers – equipment/apparel, lessons, training aids, tournaments, travel

Occasional golfers – time, cost, course availability

Non-golfers – knowledge, availability, time, cost, difficulty

Step 4 – Identify strategies for each driver (only some of many listed below):

Core golfers – equipment/apparel advancements, cost-effective lesson packages, regional tournaments and social outings

Occasional golfers – increase pace of play, decrease costs, define/promote other ways to play and enjoy “golf”

Non-golfers – target youth and millennials, embrace alternate forms of “golf,” create simple and cost-effective introductory programs

Step 5 – Partner with key stakeholders for each driver (only some of many listed below):

Core golfers – TMAG/Callaway/etc., PGA of America, PGA Professionals

Occasional golfers – Tee it Forward, TopGolf, TMAG’s 15” cup, PGA Junior League Golf, Speedgolf, more customizable holes/courses

Non-golfers – Get Golf Ready, TGA, FootGolf

Conclusion:

Not only would a concise and straight-forward outline like this give the industry a framework within which to operate, but it would help identify for all stakeholders where their value proposition lies compared to others and what their focus should be.  Imagine the collaboration, idea-sharing, acceptance, resource-sharing, etc. that could come from this.  How great would it be for the dialogue to shift from buttons that state “I’m growing the game” to real conversations where someone could say - “I’m growing the game by focusing on group 2 with the incorporation of Speedgolf during twilight hours.” - and everyone involved understood what was just said and how it aligned with their own strategies?

I understand that the common counter-argument to my view is “golf is a niche sport and we should accept that” but I disagree.  That, to me, is a deferral of responsibility for declining participation.  Every day I see people pick up a club for the first time and have an amazing experience who aren’t part of the “niche.”  That is why I believe golf has tremendous room to grow through both traditional and non-traditional ways.  But we need to start with a plan.  And there needs to be objectives we all buy into.

Thank you for reading this far along in my post and taking the time to hear my thoughts on how we should frame the conversation and craft the strategy to accomplish “growing the game.”  I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

Have a great weekend and Happy Entrepreneuring… 

Who’s Really an Entrepreneur? You? Me? A Franchisee?

Happy New Year to the Golf Entrepreneur community.  I hope everyone had a happy and healthy holiday season.

Over the past few months I’ve found myself in numerous conversations around the central theme/question of – “Is someone who owns a franchise really an entrepreneur?”

I’ve heard several schools of thought with the most common response being “no” under the pretense that “entrepreneurship is about having that big idea and then doing something great with it, whereas franchisees get the idea and everything else they need handed to them.”

What strikes me about this sentiment is how it highlights for me in a highly personal way the differing perceptions and opinions about what “entrepreneurship” is.  Many folks fall within the camp of believing it is “idea” based, which makes sense because all new companies and products start with a central idea.

However, I offer a different perspective, one that defines entrepreneurship as “execution-based with risk.”

Let me tell a story that highlights what I mean.  I co-founded a company called GLinks in 2010 after winning a business plan competition and some seed capital.  My partner Joshua Jacobs created the original idea for GLinks, and it was to host events for singles at the golf course where they switched partners each hole in a modified speed-dating format.  I liked this idea because it captured the inherent socialization of golf – the concept that you can learn more about a person in four hours on a golf course than in four years in an office.  I brought the idea into a business school program, put it through the feasibility funnel and developed a formal business plan. 

The end result for GLinks was “a social golf network for young professionals who want to play golf, meet other like-minded people and learn a valuable business asset.”  This final concept included elements of Josh’s original idea while also incorporating my own ideas plus the ideas of many strangers that we learned through market testing.  As a result, the landing point for the “idea” of GLinks cannot be claimed by any one individual as it was a living, breathing thing with countless contributors.  Just as TGA started as an overnight camp for teenagers and is now a school-based program predominately for kids under the age of 10. 

This is why the definition of entrepreneurship as an “idea” doesn’t sit well with me.

When I talk about entrepreneurship being “execution-based with risk,” the first part refers to the ability to succeed in a highly unstable environment over a long period of time.  The second refers to having significant personal risk tied to the outcome. 

Let me expand by reverting back to the GLinks example.  Josh and I made the tough decision a few months ago to close down GLinks after two years of stagnation.  The reality is that we didn’t execute at a high level over a period of time.  There are valid reasons for this but we also made a lot of mistakes along the way.  The bottom line is that we didn’t accomplish what we set out to do and that’s a humbling thing.  Were we entrepreneurs?  Absolutely, we took an idea, risked our personal capital and launched a company.  But in this case we failed because we missed the “execution” part.  And that’s okay.

The question is – was I any more of an “entrepreneur” with my GLinks experience than one of our TGA franchisees who has risked their capital – often including home equity, 401k’s, savings accounts, etc. – to start and succeed with their franchised business?  Absolutely not.

We as the franchisor may provide the idea and business tools, but a sales/marketing strategy (and everything else in a franchisor’s “operations manual”) is meaningless if not executed at a high level.  We provide a lot of things, but we don’t (and can’t) provide the grit it takes to wake up every day determined to successfully navigate the roller-coaster of worrying about cash flow, overcoming naysayers, hitting sales targets, leading a team and everything else a franchisee is responsible for.  Because if they don’t accomplish these things, they may not have the funds to make their next mortgage payment. 

That’s entrepreneurialism, and it’s “execution-based with risk.”

I’d like to leave you with this article that discusses similar themes and features several folks in the golf industry, including myself and one of our new franchisees and Master Developers up in Canada, Joe Barnes.

I wish you all the best in 2014 and hope it’s a year of big dreams, big accomplishments and lots of happy entrepreneuring…

Let's #GrowGolf Through Honest & Open Dialogue

I am a firm believer that the solution to the golf industry’s troubles is to grow the game amongst new players as opposed to trying to squeeze more money, time and participation out of existing players.  This may seem like an obvious statement but not everyone in the industry agrees with me, starting with some major equipment manufacturers who have told me as much.

In order to grow the game amongst new players, we need to do two things:

1.    Be honest in our assessment of where we stand and why.  We don’t always see this, as evidenced by this recent Tweet by SNAG on February 13:

snaggolf‏@snaggolf – 10 million kids learning #golf using SNAG! http://tinyurl.com/7d7fn8j

If you click on SNAG’s link, you’ll see that it’s a Press Release not for SNAG, but The First Tee (and SNAG is not mentioned once) announcing The First Tee's goal of reaching 10 million children.  It caught my attention because I know there are only 2.5 million kids total playing golf in the U.S.  Nevertheless, I saw industry members Retweeting this post believing it to be accurate.  I know and respect SNAG’s executive team and like what they’re doing for the game, so I hope this misleading Tweet was a mistake.  Regardless, it's a good example of what many golf companies and organizations are doing – claiming lofty achievements that aren’t really there.  And it needs to stop.

2.    Have active, open and engaging conversations about ways to grow the game.  To that end, two platforms have recently emerged that are facilitating good discussions: 

A.   The first is the Twitter hashtag #growgolf.  As to be expected, some people add it to Tweets that aren’t actually about growing golf but you can find some real idea gems if you read through the timeline.  More importantly, it’s a positive step towards initiating a valuable dialogue and I’m happy to see participation from industry leaders on down.

B.   The second is a LinkedIn group for Junior Golf that has had some compelling discussions.  If you’re in the world of junior golf, I encourage you to join the group and jump in on the conversations.  I know it’s been an educational resource for me.

My challenge to the industry is to stop focusing energy and money on PR campaigns about growing the game that serve as smoke screens for the fact that, in the last five years, youth participation has dropped 34% from 3.8 million to 2.5 million and overall participation has dropped 13% from 30 million to 26.1 million.  (The full participation report is below.)  Those are staggering statistics.  And, they tell me that none of us in the industry are doing a good enough job – myself included.

Once we take ownership of our reality, let’s have an open dialogue about solutions where innovation, entrepreneurship and efforts that have tangible proof of growing the game are embraced.  I’m happy to see this happening on Twitter and LinkedIn and I hope other platforms arise as well – starting with this blog.

A Significant, Sustainable & Non-Radical Solution to Golf's Participation Problem

The Wall Street Journal published an article last weekend called “The Battle for the Soul of the Game” and it captured the essence of this interesting time in the golf industry. 

The article discusses how the golf industry is thinking about combating the game’s declining participation, causes of which include 5-6 hour rounds, expensive green fees, increasingly difficult courses and little overall accessibility.  Industry leaders face difficult decisions because many of the popular solutions to these problems require a fundamental shift in the traditions, values and “soul” of the game.

Some of the more radical ideas include: two sets of rules – one for professionals and one for amateurs, golf balls that fly farther or shorter to accommodate courses of different lengths, doubling the size of the hole, building courses with less holes and so forth.

I understand why these ideas exist but I don’t support them because they disrupt a fundamental aspect of the game that I believe should be forever sacred – “the number.”  Every round of golf produces a score.  Golfers can compare it to previous performances.  It’ll make them feel good about themselves, or strive to be better, or both.  They can compare it to others.  It can be discussed at ease with both golfers and non-golfers alike.  They can even compare it to professionals.  Thanks to one set of rules, 18 holes, normal-sized golf courses, standardized equipment and a 3” hole, every score produces a number that means something.  In many ways it means everything.  And it should never be taken away.

There are traditional solutions as well – moving the tees forward, eliminating carts on courses where they have to stay on the path, increasing marketing efforts, etc. – but these all feel to me like using a band aid where stitches are needed.

There is one solution, however, that was discussed in the Comments section of the article that I think is game-changing because it would solve these problems in a significant and meaningful way while also preserving the traditions of the game.

The concept is to create a system where people need to be able to achieve a certain handicap on a short course and pass a rules/etiquette assessment before receiving a card that would allow them to play on an 18 hole regulation facility.  This policy would apply to juniors, men, women, everyone.  It makes a lot of sense and would do several things:

1.    Create inherent demand for building short courses and a sustainable business model to support them.

2.    Provide a nurturing, non-intimidating environment for beginners to try the game and develop some skills before going to longer, harder, more expensive and time-consuming courses.

3.    Offer all golfers more opportunities to enjoy the game in a relaxed setting for two hours or less.

4.    Speed up play at 18 hole facilities.

Failing golf courses could convert into a short course as opposed to closing, thus saving jobs and making the transition to this model smooth for everyone.  In the interim of building the short course, or in areas where it would be impossible to sustain one, regulation facilities could utilize the family tees or create a modified routing format (such as Tierra Rejada's innovative "Players Course") on certain days/times for beginners.  USGA members with a handicap below a certain number would be grandfathered in while all others would need to pass through the program.

I’m sure there are many more considerations as I dive deeper into the concept, including potential legal and political complications, but this to me makes a lot of sense on many levels… much more so than some of the alternatives.  It maintains the integrity of “the number,” preserves the game’s traditions, makes it more accessible to beginners, presents more opportunities for seasoned players to enjoy it and has a sustainable business model to support it. 

And, this model would present ample opportunity for entrepreneurs to capitalize on the shifting landscape.

What do you think?