GolfNow Rewards and Loyalty 2015 (What a difference a year makes!)

[turtleback]

Do we even know if Golfnow is profitable?

I wondered and did a search and while nothing on point came up, this site, of a company that advises golf courses on business issues - specifically marketing - came up.

http://acegolfmarketing.com/profitable-golf-course-or-golf-course-crisis/

One of the things they say in their comparison between the profitable golf course and the golf course in crisis is:

Quote:

The golf course in crisis is still discounting tee times to their death, desperately trying to sell golf on third party vendors like golf now, golf 18, and the many others. This further destroys your courses’ brand equity or in laymen terms, you will never be able to get these customers to play your course at “rack rate” and they are now bargain hunters for life. - See more at: http://acegolfmarketing.com/profitable-golf-course-or-golf-course-crisis/#sthash.rojJTCku.dpuf

I do not know if this is true or not, mind you, but the fact that at least some golf courses are being told that may be reducing the total number of slots GolfNow and companies like them can offer.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Do we even know if Golfnow is profitable?

I wondered and did a search and while nothing on point came up, this site, of a company that advises golf courses on business issues - specifically marketing - came up.

http://acegolfmarketing.com/profitable-golf-course-or-golf-course-crisis/

One of the things they say in their comparison between the profitable golf course and the golf course in crisis is:

Quote:

The golf course in crisis is still discounting tee times to their death, desperately trying to sell golf on third party vendors like golf now, golf 18, and the many others. This further destroys your courses’ brand equity or in laymen terms, you will never be able to get these customers to play your course at “rack rate” and they are now bargain hunters for life. - See more at: http://acegolfmarketing.com/profitable-golf-course-or-golf-course-crisis/#sthash.rojJTCku.dpuf

I do not know if this is true or not, mind you, but the fact that at least some golf courses are being told that may be reducing the total number of slots GolfNow and companies like them can offer.

Seems like a reasonable extrapolation to me.  Look at The OP.  It doesn't seem like he ever pays full price for a round of golf.  That might be a bit of a quick judgement, but all He ever mentions is the deals he get/got through golf Now and similar sites.  When I look up Colorado courses on GolfNow, I don't see any of the busiest courses listed.  It's mostly the courses I never play anyway that I see there.  That seems in keeping with that article.

[Rick Martin]

has anyone seen that GN ad where you can win free golf for your foursome for a year? Well, guess the value of the prize is about $20k and if you win, the IRS wants it's share (20-30% of the winnings?)......so if you win, be prepared to share w/ the US Gov't........boo!

[dkolo]

has anyone seen that GN ad where you can win free golf for your foursome for a year? Well, guess the value of the prize is about $20k and if you win, the IRS wants it's share (20-30% of the winnings?)......so if you win, be prepared to share w/ the US Gov't........boo!

Can you just invite Uncle Sam to be your fourth each time and call it even?

[bigstack]

A bit off topic but somewhat related....but I've never really understood the push to continually increase profits year over year.  Fundamentally I do understand why companies must but at what point is it just okay to be profitable?  Why must a business grow or expand year after year?

I believe it's that mindset that leads to unethical business practices and the lack of true customer service in a lot of businesses as they look for ways to cut costs and improve profits.

you have to keep in mind that when the people at the top mention "we must do what is in the best interest of the shareholder"...they are really saying we must do what is in OUR best interest cause we are the largest shareholders. they hold large swaths of stock and want it to go up in price so they can become richer. thus if they can layoff a few thousand and see their stock price jump up $1 per share they will do it.

on some level i dont blame them...but they should in my mind be forthcoming about it...but that wont happen as they dont want to look like asses.

the truth is that once a company IPOs/sells stock itself the company as an independent entity gets 0 benefit from the stock price going up or down, unless the company owns some of its own stock and even then that doesn't matter unless it plans on selling/releasing more at a later date, but even then it is theoretical money. think about it ..when joe blow sells his shares of xyz does company x get the profit? no, of course not.

[bigstack]

Seems like a reasonable extrapolation to me.  Look at The OP.  It doesn't seem like he ever pays full price for a round of golf.  That might be a bit of a quick judgement, but all He ever mentions is the deals he get/got through golf Now and similar sites.  When I look up Colorado courses on GolfNow, I don't see any of the busiest courses listed.  It's mostly the courses I never play anyway that I see there.  That seems in keeping with that article.

I can attest that many times i have thought "hmm i dont want to play there for $65 cause i can get it cheaper on a hot deal", even though that hot deal is no longer available that week. so yes it turns people myself into value/price comparison driven consumers. good for us bad for the courses.

I live in dfw where there are a ton of open to the public courses and munis. so the competition is high and likely keeps prices in check to some degree and i see this when i travel. a course i would only pay $30 in dallas for is often $50+ in other locales.

[turtleback]

the truth is that once a company IPOs/sells stock itself the company as an independent entity gets 0 benefit from the stock price going up or down, unless the company owns some of its own stock and even then that doesn't matter unless it plans on selling/releasing more at a later date, but even then it is theoretical money. think about it ..when joe blow sells his shares of xyz does company x get the profit? no, of course not.

Unless, of course the company ever needs to raise capital by a stock offering.  Or wants to complete a transaction to buy another company using its stock.  Which almost every company of any size does repeatedly during its existence.  Or does not want to be bought out and taken over by another company because its stock price is so low.

[newtogolf]

At some point a business like GolfNow has to show a profit, then increased profits year after year.  Their original business model was a loss leader and now that they have built up a loyal base of customers they are going to attempt to profit from them.  It's seems to be the current business model for web based businesses, offer free or very low cost services to acquire customers while you burn through investor money then try and monetize the customer base.

The model makes sense unless you have a new startup following behind you that has investor money to burn through and is willing to offer similar services at the prices you used to.

Given your loyalty to GolfNow, you deserved a better response that the form letter you got.

[Harp stein]

I used GN a half dozen times last year, but the first time I would play a course from a GN booking that course would go all-out to make sure I knew about their website and the ability to book tee times from there without the service charge. And the prices on the course's website were always the same or better than what GN listed.

[Strandly]

Do we even know if Golfnow is profitable?

I wondered and did a search and while nothing on point came up, this site, of a company that advises golf courses on business issues - specifically marketing - came up.

http://acegolfmarketing.com/profitable-golf-course-or-golf-course-crisis/

One of the things they say in their comparison between the profitable golf course and the golf course in crisis is:

"The golf course in crisis is still discounting tee times to their death, desperately trying to sell golf on third party vendors like golf now, golf 18, and the many others. This further destroys your courses’ brand equity or in laymen terms, you will never be able to get these customers to play your course at “rack rate” and they are now bargain hunters for life."

I do not know if this is true or not, mind you, but the fact that at least some golf courses are being told that may be reducing the total number of slots GolfNow and companies like them can offer.

EA tried to make this EXACT same argument when explaining why they won't put their games on steam and it's absolutely laughable imo.

You have people that always complain that stuff is too expensive yet someone will always come along and say well, you know, it's capitalism and if folks are willing to pay that... then that's what the price is going to be.  This "brand equity" argument is the other side of the same coin.  If people aren't willing to pay more than what you consider to be a bargain basement price for your product then I'm sorry to tell you but that's all your product is worth.  The reality of what something is worth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Anyway, this brand equity argument is one thing that really kind of makes my blood boil because it's arrogant, condescending, and reeks of weasely marketer's rhetoric.

[iacas]

EA tried to make this EXACT same argument when explaining why they won't put their games on steam and it's absolutely laughable imo.

You have people that always complain that stuff is too expensive yet someone will always come along and say well, you know, it's capitalism and if folks are willing to pay that... then that's what the price is going to be.  This "brand equity" argument is the other side of the same coin.  If people aren't willing to pay more than what you consider to be a bargain basement price for your product then I'm sorry to tell you but that's all your product is worth.  The reality of what something is worth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Anyway, this brand equity argument is one thing that really kind of makes my blood boil because it's arrogant, condescending, and reeks of weasely marketer's rhetoric.

You're right that the reality is probably in the middle.

Some courses can't do the GolfNow thing because they will, as stated, set expectations in the minds of customers that can be damaging. First impressions are important. Worth is subjective, but almost nobody will willingly pay MORE than they previously paid (outside of normal costs of inflation expectations).

We see this in every business, from software (look up App Store stuff and the race to the bottom, and how people now "expect" to get quite a lot of app for $0.99 and how it's nearly impossible to sell something for even $5.99). It's a very real thing.

"Brand equity" might be a choice of words that bother you, but it means the same thing in any market. Once you set a lower price, you're not going to be able to go to a higher one any time soon and without significant effort/change.

[Strandly]

You're right that the reality is probably in the middle.

Some courses can't do the GolfNow thing because they will, as stated, set expectations in the minds of customers that can be damaging. First impressions are important. Worth is subjective, but almost nobody will willingly pay MORE than they previously paid (outside of normal costs of inflation expectations).

We see this in every business, from software (look up App Store stuff and the race to the bottom, and how people now "expect" to get quite a lot of app for $0.99 and how it's nearly impossible to sell something for even $5.99). It's a very real thing.

"Brand equity" might be a choice of words that bother you, but it means the same thing in any market. Once you set a lower price, you're not going to be able to go to a higher one any time soon and without significant effort/change.

Yeah, and how many new golf courses start out lowballing themselves on golfnow?  Probably none.  The real problem, if there even is one, is that there are simply too many courses around.  When all the courses in your area are of comparable quality then the only way to get business is to price war, and I simply don't see that as the fault of the consumer.

In fact, worrying about training a society of bargain hunters is something I would expect to hear from a company who hates the idea of competing... which from what I've read over the years is all of them.

[iacas]

Yeah, and how many new golf courses start out lowballing themselves on golfnow?  Probably none.  The real problem, if there even is one, is that there are simply too many courses around.  When all the courses in your area are of comparable quality then the only way to get business is to price war, and I simply don't see that as the fault of the consumer.

It's not anyone's fault. It's just the way it is. Courses are constantly struggling to find the best place on the cost vs. demand vs. supply vs. "damage to the course" vs. "perception of future value" vs. "current perception" vs. "other courses in the area" vs. "several other factors" curve(s). GolfNow can upset that balance.

In fact, worrying about training a society of bargain hunters is something I would expect to hear from a company who hates the idea of competing... which from what I've read over the years is all of them.

Of course they don't like competition, but sometimes competition simply results in a race to the bottom, and in the end, that benefits nobody, particularly when you're not talking about software, but things with very real, actual costs.

[ay33660]

Was in Phoenix a couple of weeks ago.

The good thing that GolfNow has accomplished is to push all the courses to provide internet booking.

I booked great tee times on the JS Merriott Wildfire Palmer course and on the Dinosaur Mountain course at Golf Mountain. In both cases I was able to get the same deal as the Golf Now price by booking directly with the golf course. So by doing that it was actually cheaper because I don't have to pay the booking fee.

I do however believe that if GolfNow were to fold it would not be good for the golf industry and for guys like me that golf all over the place and usually don't know where the good courses are.

For a lot of the courses it is still cheaper (even with the booking fee) and easier to book thru GolfNow.

I booked at Quintero Golf Course, Trilogy Vistancia and Legend Trail Golf Club using GolfNow.

[Divot Master]

The good thing that GolfNow has accomplished is to push all the courses to provide internet booking.

I booked great tee times on the JS Merriott Wildfire Palmer course and on the Dinosaur Mountain course at Golf Mountain. In both cases I was able to get the same deal as the Golf Now price by booking directly with the golf course. So by doing that it was actually cheaper because I don't have to pay the booking fee.

I have observed much the same thing.

In my home town (Erie, PA), very few courses have ever used Golf Now, and very few courses have adopted their own online booking system, but I do not think we are typical.

In the various larger cities and resort areas I travel to and look to play some golf, GolfNow seemed to have pretty good market penetration a couple years ago, but now they have several copycat competitors, and many of the courses are offering similar deals on their own web site booking functions.  It also seems to me that the courses will often have more available times.

So I am thinking that Golf Now is a concept whose window of opportunity has likely passed, and they are desperately trying to maximize revenue as they circle the drain.

[PooN]

I agree, the fees are garbage.  The issue is with Comcast - who owns GolfNow/Golf Channel/NBC Universal.

GolfNow booked over 11 million rounds in 2013 (source: wikipedia).  Just think how much money they are bringing in with $2.49 fee on each round booked!  Do you think they need that kind of revenue to run a website or advertise (heavily I might add) on the same channel that they own?  I sure don't think so.

Pretty sure they should be able to supplement whatever revenue they need to survive - no, let's say 'thrive' - from sponsors who would like a part of the 11 million rounds of traffic coming through the website.

Shame on you GolfNow/Comcast.

[David in FL]

I agree, the fees are garbage.  The issue is with Comcast - who owns GolfNow/Golf Channel/NBC Universal. GolfNow booked over 11 million rounds in 2013 (source: wikipedia).  Just think how much money they are bringing in with $2.49 fee on each round booked!  Do you think they need that kind of revenue to run a website or advertise (heavily I might add) on the same channel that they own?  I sure don't think so. Pretty sure they should be able to supplement whatever revenue they need to survive - no, let's say 'thrive' - from sponsors who would like a part of the 11 million rounds of traffic coming through the website. Shame on you GolfNow/Comcast.

It's a business. Their job is not to merely survive . I have NO gripe with them making money. Even a lot of money. As a businessman, and formerly loyal customer, I'm simply disagreeing with their change in strategy in doing so.

[PooN]

It's a business. Their job is not to merely survive. I have NO gripe with them making money. Even a lot of money. As a businessman, and formerly loyal customer, I'm simply disagreeing with their change in strategy in doing so.

To make close to $30M to run a website is simply absurd!  I can see ~$1 per transaction (not per golfer) and still raking in a couple million to offset their cost of doing business and put some money in their pocket... but raking me over the coals to do so is bad business, and I (and many others) will simply stop using them to let them know.