1 / 15

JIM KOPPENHAVER

JIM KOPPENHAVER. President, Pellucid Corp. “Golfer Development Programs Evaluation”. WE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE ANSWERS TO FOUR BASIC CONSUMER QUESTIONS. What “types” of golfers (new, former, current) were the current attract/retain programs drawing?

roland
Download Presentation

JIM KOPPENHAVER

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. JIM KOPPENHAVER President, Pellucid Corp. “Golfer Development ProgramsEvaluation”

  2. WE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE ANSWERS TO FOUR BASIC CONSUMER QUESTIONS • What “types” of golfers (new, former, current) were the current attract/retain programs drawing? • Could we “profile” program respondents to help refine future geography, course selection and consumer acquisition decisions? • What were the key barriers to play or more play for this consumer group? • What was the financial value of the retained players in year one for the individual courses?

  3. NIKE GOLF LEARNING CENTERS (NGLC) “TEE IT UP” PROGRAM RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS

  4. WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS” THAT THE NGLC PROGRAM ATTRACTED? • Largest draw in current program is current golfers • Surprising given the program’s positioningand curriculum • Again, points back to the retention strategy as key part of 20/20 • NGLC is attracting and potentially retaining golfers that are likely candidates to fall out of the bottom of the funnel Current Golfers 47% Never Golfed 40% Former Golfers 14%

  5. PROFILING THE RESPONDENTS BY INCOME AND AGE VS. THEIR GEOGRAPHY PROVIDE INSIGHT • Not surprisingly, respondents skew to higher income HHs • Saw particular strength in HH income $50,000+ • Age of head of HH skewed to middle age HHs • Here head of HH ages 35-64 • Net, this profile is very consistent with current golfer profile • Reinforces the retention aspect of any potential program

  6. WHAT DID PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS TELL US THE KEY BARRIERS TO PLAY/MORE PLAY WERE? Total % • Whatever program we develop, it will have to address recurring themes of time & money(flexibility & value?) Time/Work 60% Fee Costs 51% Time/Family 39% Low Ability 25% Access 21%

  7. WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL WEIGHT OF AN AVERAGE CONSUMER? Annual Transactions Per PlayerTop 1/3 12Revenue Players Middle 1/3 3Revenue Players Bottom 1/3 1Revenue Players All Players - Avg. 5 • On average we succeeded in driving 5 rounds of follow-on play per golfer in the one year period • Again, what defined revenue success was frequent play vs. higher transactions

  8. THIS PROGRAM ALSO SHOWED AN ABILITY TO GENERATE WEEKDAY ROUNDS FOR OPERATORS 47% 53% Monday • Almost 50% of follow-on play went to weekday rounds • Would seem to be a “win/win”, learning players play on less crowded courses, operators fill some weekday capacity • But, the fact that the other 50% went to weekend reinforces “discretionary time” consumer constraints Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

  9. NATIONAL GOLF COURSE OWNER’S ASSOCIATION “CITY BLITZ” TOPLINE RESULTS

  10. WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS” THAT THE CITY BLITZ PROGRAM ATTRACTED? • Largest draw in current program is Never Golfers • Not too surprising since 90% of population doesn’t golf • Relative to their % of the total universe (about 11% nationally), current golfers are “over-represented” in this program • Again, emphasizes the role of the current golfer, retention strategy Current Golfers 26% Never Golfed 60% Former Golfers 14%

  11. PROFILES OF PARTICIPANTS BY GOLFER STATUSAND PROMOTION VEHICLE RESPONSE Promotion Vehicle Golfer Income Follow-onProgram Other 11% $100K+ 29% Friend 15% • Toplines of 3 key variables collected • Income distribution of respondents weights heavily to higher income ($100K+ indexes 400 vs. US population) • Newspaper by far the most effective response vehicle • Adult follow-on programs got most play • Not noted here, but program drew 300 unique HHs across 450 respondents, good multiple family member draw $0-50K+ 28% Flyer 5% Men(16+) 62% Newspaper 69% Youth(<16) 14% Women(16+) 24% $51-99K 43%

  12. SUMMARIZING OUR ANSWERS TO THE FOUR BASIC QUESTIONS…… • Golfer “types” – We found that these two programs were attracting a mix of all three desired golfer types, not just “never played” • Consumer “profile” – This group does have a unique profile relative to the population that could be used in future selection, acquisition decisions • Key barriers – Time and money constraints continue to be hurdles we’ll have to overcome in program development for successful golf participation growth • Course economics – Results varied but median values suggest that the program should be financially viable for operators committed to growing golf participation

  13. OUR 20/20 OBJECTIVES • Focus on “Making the Connection” to Impact both Attraction and Retention • Explore Other Potential Approaches & Programs • Discuss Implementation Issues • Reach a Consensus on 2001 Strategy

  14. “LINK UP 2 GOLF” BREAKOUT SESSIONS 1. OTHER APPROACHESWhat other ideas that can be implemented on a nationwide basis are worth considering? 2. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUESWhat are the solutions to the difficult task of implementing a program at multiple facilities on a standardized basis? 3. NEXT STEPS, 2001 OBJECTIVES

More Related