Would You Spend $$$ On Rankings?
September 7, 2010 by Ian Hutchinson
Anybody who has read my columns and blogs of the past knows my opinion in respect to golf course rankings being nothing but manufactured controversy, so I don’t plan to beat a dead horse today after the recent release of the ScoreGolf Top 100.
As a matter of fact, I don’t even plan to launch an opinion.
This time, it’s your turn to offer your thoughts, not on the final list that ScoreGolf is beating the drums about, but the behind-the-scenes lobbying that apparently needs to take place for a golf course to make the top 100.
In a recent contribution, ScoreGolf blogger Rick Young suggests that golf courses in New Brunswick, or anywhere else for that matter, open their wallets and bring in panelists from around the country to play their properties.
You decide if you have the budget for that before commenting.
According to Young, the investment is worth it because he says placement in the top 100 is a cornerstone to a course’s marketing for years to come. Do you agree? Are rankings in general based on merit or money?
These are all issues that affect the industry and now it’s time for the industry to comment. To read the blog Top 100 Business Advice, click here. Once you’re done, come on back and offer your thoughts on this matter in the Comments section below.
Ian Hutchinson is a veteran Canadian golf writer, whose history in the game includes an extensive background with Canadian golf trade publications. A golf columnist with Sun Media, Hutch is also a regular contributor to publications and websites in Canada and the United States.
Related Posts:
- PGA/Score Cozy Up, Zokol On The Ball And More…
- Short Courses, Tiger, CPC Notes And More…
- Would You Take A Pay Cut?
- New Look Shows Could Face Same Old Problem
Loading ...
I have been saying for years their needs to be a Star Rating for Golf Courses in Canada. A Canadian system that would fairly not politicaly or monitarily look at courses. We at one time set up a program of have 12 twosomes to play and rate each course. Those results would come back to an industry panel. We could not get a buy in.
Tourists that come to play often get less than they bargained for if they are not given some way to understand the level of course they signed up for.
Based on Rick’s comments, the first priority is obviously based on money and who can afford (or chooses to afford) dishing it out to have someone come and play your course with still no guarantee that you will get on the list. Let’s hope that the second is merit but who really knows, it is only one persons opinion. Being from New Brunswick, I was obviously very disappointed that no courses from our Province made the list and we certainly have at least 3 or 4 that very well should be there. I would like to see a Province by Province listing of the best “Public” courses which could be voted on by the golfers during the golf season and then a panel of industry people from each Province review and make the final listing with the assistance of a Score Golf panelist. My bigger concern here is how many people might base their golfing decision on this list and if they happen to be travelling to New Brunswick for the first time, the golf clubs might be staying home. Being in the industry, I also have similar concerns for the other 3 Atlantic Canada provinces all of which have a number of top quality courses that very well should be on the list but don’t make it because they chose not to dish out the monies.
Nobody should care about these lists. Heck, even the most naive golfer should know by now that they are manufactured to generate revenue for the publication. And to suggest that spending money is good advice is nothing less than adding insult to injury. What the list does do, by omission, is suggest that the rest of the courses in this country are somehow lesser-thans, don’t-bothers, or, stay-away-froms.
Here is my TOP 100 advice for NB and others – if you feel jilted (and you were), then simply mark that next box of free Score magazines as Return To Sender. Maybe, they will get that message.
On the brighter side, everyone who is not on the list may take solace in the fact that next to nobody reads Score anyway.
I’m off to enjoy another great round at a non-100 course. With my non-conforming driver.
As a golf publisher, I am happy with our position not to ever get involved with course ratings and rankings. It’s a complete waste of time and effort, and there are no winners, (but lots of losers). Imagine the course that is ranked #100 on a ‘Top 100′ list. That poor course came in LAST!! How’s that going to help any marketing campaign? In reality, there are no bad golf courses in this country, so I say, ‘play them all’, and ‘enjoy them all’. And shame on you Rick for your “fly me to New Brunswick and I’ll rate your golf course” suggestion.
Hmmm . . . Interesting topic but allow me to clarify a few points made in Ian’s original post as well as some of the comments.
1. The suggestion about bringing in panelists to rate golf courses is nice, but, unfortunately totally against our rules. Raters may accept a green fee for themselves and one other guest and carts, but no other benefits. We’re pretty strict on this rule and a number of panelists have been removed from our list due to trying to take advantage of golf courses seeking to improve their position.
Of course places in tourism regions such as parts of Atlantic Canada, always arrange FAM (or familiarization) trips for journalists, some of whom are on our panel, where all expenses are paid. That’s done to hopefully solicit editorial. I’ve been on those and so has the proprietor of this blog. Is there a big difference since the end game is marketing the facility?
2. As to David’s comments, the first priority is not and never has been money. If it was about money then the list would look a lot different, I can assure you. Also, see above about the rules for voters – it can’t really be about money and I can assure you that your suggestion that people buy their way on to the list is completely unfounded. As to a province-by-province public course list, we did that in 2009 (the list is on SCOREGolf.com) although it was done by our panel, not the public. We did a public vote on several occasions but found that many places “stuffed” the ballot box so to speak (nice to be able to track voters!) that it became useless. We fully admit there are weaknesses to our voting system and one is that courses that are somewhat off the beaten path don’t get the proper attention and that can mean a course such as The Algonquin doesn’t get a proper review. But there’s no buying of votes, I can assure you.
3. Just because a course doesn’t make our Top 100 list does not suggest it is, as Sand Shark suggest a “lesser-thans, don’t-bothers, or, stay-away-froms.” Far from it — it means that our panelists didn’t consider it among their selections. I have several personal favourites that didn’t make it. But there’s no right or wrong list — everyone will have their own top 100. And Sand Shark . . . if “next to nobody” reads SCOREGolf then this really won’t matter, would it? Or apparently bother you so much. Oh, and there are no “free” SCOREGolf Magazines — the vast majority of clubs pay for the publication and then distribute it to their members or players. By the way, SCOREGolf continues to have the largest circulation and readership of any golf magazine in Canada.
3. And with full respect to Norm, a colleague, a complete waste of time? Come on Norm. I guess that’s why several hundred thousand people tuned in to the Top 100 broadcasts, and why this issue is the most popular of anything we do at SCOREGolf. As for the comment about Course No. 100 feeling bad, gee. . . wasn’t it just this week that I received an e-mail ad via Golf Scene boasting of Tarandowah GC making the Top 100? Not only is a course proud to be included in the top 100 (it was No. 95), but your business is apparently benefiting financially from that. Nice to see your position to “not to ever get involved with course ratings and rankings” is so firm.
Hey Weeksy, thanks for chiming in on this topic.
I’m just going to concentrate on the FAM part of your reply and let the respondents come back on the other topics you brought up.
Yes, I do admit to taking FAMs for purposes of travel stories as most of us have in media. I think the difference is that when we do a travel story, we’re not ranking one destination against the other, just writing about the destination we visit.
With rankings, if you go by Rick’s blog, it would seem that those with the money to bring in rankers would be at an advantage over those courses that don’t have the budget for such things and therefore, be ranked higher.
Also, it would seem that those outside the major centres such as Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are at a disadvantage because the courses in those areas can just invite people out for a round, while those farther away need to spend thousands of dollars to bring rankers in.
When I do go on a FAM, it’s because the travel destination has decided that it’s worth the investment to bring writers in and it’s done by invitation instead of me telling them their business. And again, the ensuing stories never stack up one destination against another as rankings do.
I realize that it’s a tough job you’ve undertaken in producing these rankings, but I just don’t think it can be done properly and, if it’s the basis of a course’s marketing or an important story to be told, it needs to be done with prudence.
Let me clarify my position here since the proprietor of this blog and Mr. Woods seem intent on twisting the point I was trying to get across to create negativism toward a biennial project that alot of people work extrememy hard to make happen. To be fair Ted McIntyre and OG Magazine also work dilligently on its biennial Top 50, a ranking I’m also pleased to serve on as a panelist. First, what I’m saying is in strict accordance with how we rank: you have to play a golf course to rank it. That’s it. No other option. No other way. By extension that means a golf course has to get rankers to it IF it wants to be ranked. That’s not a hard concept. How courses do that is up to the individual course. To your point Mr. Woods, thanks for the public scolding. I’m not telling people in New Brunswick or B.C. or Alberta to fly me anywhere for rankings. FAMS? Sure I’ve particpated in those for years based on future editorial travel and business content. BUT I also get the secondary benefit of being able to rank a golf course once I play it. Perhaps that’s why I’ve been on Score’s ranking panel all these years:my course list is extensive coast-to-coast. Of course Norm you wouldn’t know anything about or accept a FAM, right? Since my wife is from N.B. and I holiday there every year I’ve played all of the major courses in that province. I’m invited to play because I’ve been a big proponent of the province’s golf product in the past. No one flew me in from anywhere. As I said in the blog as a ranker I was invited to a lot of courses this past year. I could not play them all. I won’t re-hash what I wrote. I’ll simply reaffirm from a business perspective that the ranking of courses in Canada by ScoreGolf is a significant marketing and promotional tool for courses on the list and something courses not on the list might want to aspire to. If Norm Woods or Ian Hutchinson or other folks think otherwise they are entitled to their opinion.
Well, Mr. Young. Thank you for your comments. As far as creating negativity towards the rankings, I’m not sure if you read the blog that started this discussion. All I did was put it up for discussion by the industry. You decide from the comments that have come in whether the respondents agree with you or not. Certainly, I’ve let yourself and Bob Weeks have your say just as I would anybody who has an opinion whether I agree or disagree personally. I don’t think this is an argument about FAM trips, but instead, it’s whether golf courses in various regions can afford to shell out money to make it into the rankings and does that make it fair to everybody involved? As I said to Bob, does that give the advantage to courses in major centres such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver? If you’re going to do it right, rankers have to get to every golf course in the country, probably a few times in the couple of years between rankings. Can that be done? Of course not. If it can’t be done, then why are we passing it off as some sort of marketing tool? Therefore, it is definitely a discussion for the industry as opposed to negativity.
Ian: The problem with fam trips and travel writing is that they produce the same every time — every destination is great and every course is great. That’s why golf travel writing is basically a waste.
And if every rating is for sale, as you suggest, how do you explain the fact that private clubs are often at the top, and an out of the way place like Highlands Links has done so well through the years?
New Brunswick is complaining, but frankly the golf in the province is largely sub-par. St. Andrews by the sea is solid, but not great, and the rest is average at best. Maybe if someone built a course better than the horrible Royal Oaks, then some of the courses would be higher. Fox Creek? Another real estate project. Come on.
It is very obvious Mr. Truedough that you have not played much golf in New Brunswick. When you consider that one of the courses in our Province (which you have not even mentioned) has twice hosted a National RCGA event and was voted in 2003 by Golf Digest as the Best New Public Golf Course in Canada and has since received several additional awards from Golf Digest, Travel & Leisure Golf and Golf Range Magazine, that certainly doesn’t strike me personally as “sub-par”. I would love to know just how many in the Score Golf Top 100 have those credentials.
1 Rankings —- I think it was back in the late eighties or early nineties that Score Mag first started the business of rankings — It has become a sore subject for many which is the reason that myself and my colleague at the time, Doug Carrick , politely declined to serve on the panel —-
2 – FAM trips — For what it’s worth , throughout the decade of the seventies and into the early eighties , I served as Director of Golf at E. P. Taylor’s South Ocean Beach Resort in Nassau Bahamas . Talk about FAM trips !!!! Like how about every week !! But I made damn sure they at least paid for their carts !!
Another FYI — During all my time in the Bahamas , I met , and became friendly with many prominent people in the world of golf . One such individual was Ross Goodner , who later became a senior editor of Golf Digest . Upon my return back here in 1982 , and after I started my company Golf Plus Inc. , part of my mandate was to promote the GTA as a golf destination —-
I tracked Ross down in Norwalk Conn. , and after begging & pleading , finally convinced him to come to Toronto and see for himself . The Metro Toronto Convention & Visitor’s Assoc. ( MTCVA ) offered to ” pick up the tab ” , but Ross told me it was totally against Golf Digest policy to have ( in this case a senior editor ) go on a ” freebie ” — Interesting , don’t you think ??
To finish this story , and I forget the year , but the June , U S Open issue of Golf Digest that year
carried a 14 page , 4 color story entitled ” TORONTO THE BEST KEPT SECRET IN GOLF ”
And nobody had to pay for it !!!!
Dave: you’re talking about the “Lynx” at Kingswood Park? Isn’t that just like a bad version of Fox Harb’r without the ocean? Glad to hear it got a prestigious award from “Golf Range” magazine. I suspect you are right — I bet St. George’s and the National never got an award from “Golf Range.” Pretty sure neither won a T&L award either. I guess that makes the LYNX a better course.
Okay, so explain to me where the LYNX would rank? Ahead of what course? I’ll give you St. Andrews, but I think the point is that NB isn’t exactly populated by tons of great golf courses. Good, yes, but I don’t think the Score deal represents “good.”
As a Golf Digest panelist, I can certainly attest to the fact that we cannot accept anything other than a comped round, if so offered by the course. We cannot accept any travel or lodging, and if the course asks us to pay for a cart, you must pay.