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… 

Return & Ridicule - My Mercurial Relationship with the PGA Show

This week is the golf industry’s annual pilgrimage to Orlando for the PGA Show and I’m hitting the double-digit mark for years attending at 10.  I’m looking forward to seeing old friends, meeting new ones and checking out the latest and greatest.

One of the things I noticed last year was an overall sense that folks were opening up.   There wasn’t the feigned confidence of the mid 2000s.  There wasn’t as much of the territorial isolationism of the early 2010s.  The overall vibe seemed to be “this has sucked for a long time so let’s recognize that and focus on making it better.” 

Take a deep breathe of that fresh air, folks.  Feels good.  Let’s keep it going.

Writing this from the plane, I find myself reflecting on the mercurial relationship I’ve had over the years with the PGA Show.  I used to cringe on the flight over as I prepared for a week’s worth of frustrating conversations.  I’m not great at small talk and I’ve historically struggled with managing the traditionalist culture of the golf industry. 

We receive our fair share of criticism at TGA.  People disagree philosophically with our for-profit model.  They think golf should be taught solely at a golf course.  They disagree with our decision to employ coaches who aren’t PGA Professionals.   They believe we’re glorified babysitters since we teach kids under the age of 10.  They dismiss us solely for being in the same vague realm as The First Tee.  And so on.

We have responses to all of this, of course.  You can check out our website for our positions on these subjects.

What has frustrated me about the PGA Show was the feeling that I spent a week answering these questions and defending my company.  We’ve introduced hundreds of thousands of kids to golf, created hundreds of jobs, provided business ownership opportunities to dozens of entrepreneurs, and yet I still felt like a punching bag.

But these past few years, the feeling has been different.  I’ve learned something important.  The concept of return and ridicule.

I realized that not only are naysayers and critics part of life for an entrepreneur, but they’re things that should make us smile.

Yes, smile.  Why?  Because skepticism is a sign of one of two things:

The first is that you may just have a weak concept.  In which case, be thankful for the honest feedback.

The second is that, if you’ve had some early wins, you’re likely making people uncomfortable.  People have a lot riding on the norm – job, identity, etc. – and your innovation is threatening that sense of security.  When people feel uneasy, they push back.  Bad for them, good for you.

One of the things I enjoy most about the PGA Show is the countless amount of entrepreneurs who arrive hoping to strike gold.  For many, with the investment a booth requires, they’ve put all of their company’s young eggs in this show’s basket.  I have tremendous respect for the magnitude of these three days for them.

For my partner Josh and I, we’re going to meet with a bunch of PGA Sections and try to recreate with them what we’re doing with the SCPGA.  We’re also going to meet with leaders from the PGA and other industry associations.  And I’ll spend some time looking for products we can incorporate into our programs across the country.

We’ll undoubtedly have some interactions this week with questions/criticisms like the ones I described above.  Assuming they aren’t too frequent, I’ll smile at the uneasiness I’m causing.  Because that’s what entrepreneurship is all about. 

And, hopefully, there will be an equal amount of conversations about how our concept is a key solution to a nagging and challenging problem.  I’ll smile then too, because that’s also what entrepreneurship is all about.

For all the entrepreneurs descending on Orlando this week, I wish you all the best and encourage you to embrace the feedback.  Learn from it.  Win with it.

Have a great week, everyone.  Happy entrepreneuring…

Two Sets of Rules Are Better Than 20 Million

Hi All,

It’s been a while, but I’ve been gone for good reason.  2013 is turning into a memorable year for me and TGA.  We’re in the throes of building the TGA Sports Foundation, YTD franchise startups are double any previous year, we’re undergoing a shift in corporate structure as well as organizational culture, and it’s all given me a lot to write about.  I just need to (and will) do a better job of allocating time for it.

There are several half written blogs saved on my computer from the past four months, things I found interesting and started writing about but never finished.  One involved anchoring and bifurcation, topics that came full circle this week.

Anchoring has never felt right to me, but there’s also no evidence (even according to the USGA) that it helps.  I understand on a philosophical level why they decided to make and uphold this rule change, but from a practical level it makes little sense to me for a governing body to allow something for decades and then decide to abolish it.  Seems like they need to sleep in the bed they made as opposed to negatively altering the most important part of the game for dozens of professionals and thousands (millions?) of amateurs.  There’s a reason the USGA wrote their ruling the way they did and have been hording hundreds of millions of dollars (while simultaneously eliminating their grants program), and I wish the magnitude of the legal battle they’re preparing for served as the writing on the wall about their wisdom (or lack thereof) with this decision.

More disappointing to me is the opportunity lost for the USGA to have strongly considered adopting two sets of rules – “bifurcation” – to prevent the anchoring ban from making the game of golf even harder for many amateurs. 

I’ve heard great arguments against bifurcation, but at the end of the day my belief is this – golf doesn’t have one set of rules, it has 20 million as most amateurs create (knowingly or unknowingly) their own versions.  Therefore, it makes sense to me to have one set of simplified amateur rules that the most casual of golfers can understand and follow.  Make it three pages max.  Allow anchoring.  Play all OB, lost ball and hazard penalties like lateral hazards.  Allow winter rules year-round.   Etc.  All of these things would make the game less difficult/frustrating and speed up pace-of-play, two of golf’s most painful ailments.  And they would make the rules less confusing and create more conformity.  Seems to me that steps like these would be the ones that are really "for the good of the game."

For the professionals, keep the existing rules unchanged and make them theirs.  Every other major sport – baseball, basketball, football, etc. – has separate sets of rules for amateurs and professionals, even up to the competitive college level, so what’s the big deal about doing the same with golf?

I think it’s going to be a fascinating several months/years as this plays out with the PGA of America being angry about the decision, the PGA Tour claiming it will consider adopting its own rules, equipment companies considering lawsuits and amateurs facing the decision between worsening their game or being possibly labeled a cheater.  Not a good situation, in my opinion, for the USGA to put everyone else, and themselves, in.  For those of us in the industry and all the golf entrepreneurs out there, it’s worth following closely as the outcomes will have a big impact on what threats and opportunities exist.

Thanks for your patience with my lack of blogging, hope you’re doing well and I look forward to having a much more engaging dialogue for the rest of 2013.  Happy entrepreneuring…

Best,

Steve

2013 Will Be A Great Year For The Golf Industry

I love New Year’s Day.  It’s a day in which most of us are reflecting on the past, thinking about the future, and doing so in a purely optimistic and hopeful way.  One of my goals for 2013 is to approach every day like that.

I didn’t write a New Year’s blog in 2012.  That’s because, while being optimistic and hopeful about most things, I wasn’t for the golf industry.  I thought early on that 2012 was going to be painful, and in many ways it was. 

More industry professionals lost jobs, saw decreases in pay and were forced to look elsewhere for career pursuits.  I know because they were calling me.  Unfortunately most didn’t have the capital to start their own business with TGA as they had been living paycheck to paycheck for years as golf professionals waiting for the industry to turn around.

The USGA didn’t help matters by telling pros and amateurs alike that they’re cheating if they anchor (i.e. use) a long putter, literally causing backaches for the ever-important baby boomer generation.

The PGA Tour further hurt matters by literally wiping away the dream for journeymen professionals of making it onto Tour with a few good weeks at Q School.

But, as in all years, good things happened too.  Year over year rounds were up 7.7% through August, hopefully not the sole result of weather being more golf-friendly this year than last.  And there's new leadership at the PGA of America, with Peter Bevacqua as the newly-appointed CEO and Darrell Crall filling the newly-created COO position, both of whom come from business and development backgrounds.  These are positive steps forward.

But there was a bigger thing that happened in 2012, a bright spot that was/is very bright, that fuels my optimism and hope for 2013.  That is the early sign of a significant and critically important cultural and philosophical shift within the industry.  It’s difficult to describe this paradigm shift with concrete examples as it’s more of a feeling – little things picked up by open ears and eyes.  People being more open-minded to new ways of thinking and acting.  New ways to enjoy the game being thought of and tested.  People being less territorial and more collaborative.  I see it and hear it every day.  The number of golf entrepreneurs is growing.  The status quo is diminishing.  And I believe this is exactly what needs to happen for the industry to rebound, the game to grow and those of us within it to thrive with viable opportunities to build a career and generate wealth.

For this reason, I think 2013 is going to be a great year for golf as this feeling hopefully becomes cemented in strategies, decisions and actions – and we’re investing in that belief at TGA.  We’ve doubled our staff and increased overhead.  We’ve identified and are pursuing new revenue streams.  We are trying to execute an aggressive growth strategy.  And because I believe so much in these things, I recently increased my equity position in the company.

I hope 2013 is a year of innovation, collaboration and entrepreneurship for the golf industry and I wish you all the best in it.

The PGA Tees it Back While Telling Us to Tee it Forward

Adam Schupak had an interesting tweet recently that I’ve been thinking about.  It said:

Adam Schupak ‏‪@GolfSchupak

‪@JoshuaJTGA True but a mixed msg to say avg golfer should play fwd while pushing the pros back. If pros at 7700, whose going to play 6500?

There was intriguing dialogue back and forth about this concept between industry vets I know well and good points were made on both sides.  But the more I thought about it, the more I agreed with Schupak’s stance.

When you’re a kid shooting hoops in the backyard, what does everyone dream about?  Scoring 60 and hitting the game-winning shot in Game 7 of the NBA Finals, of course.  Or, at least that’s the scenario that played out in my mind almost every afternoon for years.

Fast-forward to adulthood and the same concept applies.  When you’re on the putting green lining up 8 footers, what do you imagine?  Is this the putt to win the U.S. Open or to shoot 88 instead of 89 on the local muni?

Kiawah's 9th Hole, a 494 Par 4

Tee It Forward is a great program and one that I want to succeed.  I bet we’ve all had too many bad experiences being behind a player or group that was playing inappropriate tees and holding everyone up.  A recent NGF study determined that the average round of golf takes 4 hours 17 minutes and 30% of golfers think that this is too long.  This is important considering most golfers cite golf’s time commitment as one of the two main limiting factors in how much they play (the other being cost).  Therefore, speeding up and maintaining a healthy pace of play is critical to the industry.

People want to play the courses the pros play.  The want to play under the same circumstances as the pros to gauge how far away they are from being as good as them.  It’s the kid in us that still likes to dream and play make-believe every once in awhile.  And telling folks to tee it forward while the pros are teeing it back eliminates the opportunity to do so.  Which is why people don’t play from their appropriate tees as it is.

Of course, the PGA of America has an obligation to the players and fans to provide a tough and fair test of golf, as does the PGA Tour and USGA.  However, I agree with Schupak that they’re sending a mixed message by using a 7,676 yard course for their national championship while promoting Tee It Forward during commercial breaks.

Next year the PGA Championship is at Oak Hill in NY.  Wouldn’t it be neat if they kept it at the length currently listed on the PGA’s website of 7,134 yards, or even shortened it to under 7,000, to align with their campaign?  That would send a powerful message, especially if they used other means besides length to challenge the players.  Otherwise, as long as the pros keep teeing it back, I believe the PGA will have a hard time convincing the weekend warrior to tee it forward.

Not Feeling the Love? You're Probably on to Something Good

There was an article in the Harvard Business Review last weekend that caught my attention.  It was called "If You're Not Pissing Someone Off, You're Probably Not Innovating."  I found myself agreeing with much of it and finding it especially relevant to the golf industry.

The premise of the article is that industries are controlled by incumbents who do not look kindly on new ways of doing things.  As a result, a "fundamental obstacle to innovation that all would-be disruptors must be prepared to face is the potentially hostile response of incumbents who don't want to see their market advantages threatened."

This is very true in the golf industry where "tradition" is the cornerstone of a powerful culture.  "Innovation" to many is seen as a direct threat to the sanctity of the game they love and this causes emotions, both positive and negative, to run especially high.

Additionally, the industry is controlled, like most industries, by an exclusive "inner circle" that is difficult to penetrate. 

Fred Wilson talks about this concept in a blog titled "Insurgents vs. Incumbents."  In it he says: "The startup world is about insurgents. A person or a few people with an idea. And they drop everything and go for it. They are going up against the incumbents and that doesn't just mean the big companies that occupy the market position they want. That means all the people, institutions, and organizations that are in cahoots with the big companies."

In golf, this would be the PGA of America, PGA Tour, The First Tee, USGA, LPGA and a few others.

If you're a current or aspiring golf entrepreneur, be prepared to feel the opposite of loved by these groups.  And that's okay.  The golf industry has been contracting for a decade so these folks have reason to be defensive, and the data clearly shows that the current way of doing things is not working.  It's also a $76 billion industry in a volatile environment, making it a great time/place for disruption.

Being an "insurgent" is awesome.  It's thrilling, purposeful, educational, humbling and an opportunity to do something significant and meaningful.  But be prepared to face people every day - every hour, even - who don't share your vision.  Who will try to derail you.  Who will be dismissive.  Who will react negatively to the very premise of your concept.

But if you're getting this type of response from incumbents, know that you're on to something good.  Be resilient.  Because if what you were doing wasn't a threat to them, they either wouldn't care or would try to help.

We've faced this for years at TGA with success so it's definitely possible to overcome.  And now that we've reached a point where our footprint is too large to ignore - two franchise systems, 67 franchisees, >150k students, strong growth and huge opportunities on the horizon for 2012 - the "inner circle" is starting to open up their arms. 

I'm okay with having to prove ourselves to the incumbents and you should be too.  The goal is to be one of them, soon.  We just need to make sure that if/when that happens, we continue to be innovators.  It goes back to something I wrote about in the past - it's the pace of innovation that determines the winners, not the original idea.

Leadership Change at the PGA

This week saw more big news in the golf industry as Joe Steranka, CEO of the PGA of America, announced that he is retiring at the end of 2012 following 25 years with the PGA and 7 as its Chief Executive.

I met Joe once to discuss a potential partnership with TGA Premier Junior Golf.  He was cordial (and is generally well-regarded throughout the industry as a nice guy and universally respected) but we didn't agree philosophically.  He said: "I don't believe in privatizing or profiteering from junior golf."  My stance was (and still is) that this mentality is why we've seen a 34% decline in youth golf since 2005 (when he became CEO) while other sports with different philosophies have grown.

It will be interesting to see how Mr. Steranka's legacy unfolds.  Based on the state of the industry, it won't be positive.  Golf has contracted significantly since 2005 and that is why I think this is a positive and necessary change.  Whether or not the contraction has been the result of his policies, or bad luck with the economy - or even if he's done an incredible job at minimizing the bleeding - we'll probably never know.  Like any administration presiding over tough times, the causes don't matter as much as the results.  However, ultimately I believe his legacy will be handcuffed to the success of Golf 2.0, which is good news as I believe it has a great chance of success if executed properly.

I look forward to seeing a change at the top of the PGA and hope that Mr. Steranka's successor is collaborative, embraces innovation and supports entrepreneurship.  I encourage his successor to study the inclusive and open-minded culture of the United States Tennis Association, which has led to a 13% growth in tennis participation since 2005 while golf has seen a 13% decline in that same time.

I wish Mr. Steranka all the best in the next step of his career and thank him for his service to the golf industry.  He was dealt a tough hand and had mixed results, but from I've seen and heard, he deserves gratitude and applause from everyone in the industry for his commitment to the game. 

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?