Widening Participation in Golf Clubs: Responses to GolfMark

1. Widening Participation in Golf Clubs: Responses to GolfMark David Piggott Gary Leslie

2. Outline • Participation demographics in golf. • Background to GolfMark. • Project aims and questions. • Cluster analysis of English golf clubs. • Case studies of three clubs. • Discussion and conclusions.

3. Golf participation(APS 2010)

4. GolfMark • EG’s variation of ClubMark. • Little published research in the area; problem of classifying haves and have-nots (Nichols & James 2008). • Rewarding clubs for becoming more ‘beginner friendly’: • Junior golfers; • Female golfers. • Benefits: Coaching grant, workshop discounts, Tri-golf/Golf Extreme courses, Volunteer Recruitment and Retention toolkit (heavily focussed on juniors). • 412 clubs accredited at the time of the research (21% of all clubs in England).

5. Questions and sampling • What impact is GolfMark having in terms of widening participation in golf clubs? • What barriers remain to the successful implementation of GolfMark? • Initial assumption that golf clubs are very different in nature (history, cost, management structure – private, proprietary, municipal – and GM status). • Different kinds of clubs are likely to confront policies like GM very differently. • Initial need to profile ‘types’ of clubs in order to select case studies.

6. Cluster analysis: variables(Source: EGU Membership Survey 2010) *Adult male membership fee is significantly correlated with adult female membership fee (P<0.01) junior membership fee (P<0.05) and adult male joining fee (P<0.01). **The variable ‘membership hurdles’ denotes the number of processes required to become a member of the club. The four possible responses were: written application, proposed, interview, other.

7. Two-step cluster analysis in SPSS (version 19 – ‘Direct Marketing’). • ‘Inputs’ or variables selected to generate clusters based on exclusivity. • These four final inputs generated the most robust and clearly defined solution. • Other relevant variables – e.g. management structure, age, full-time employees, application hurdles – were coded as nominal data by the EGU and therefore skewed the cluster solutions too heavily.

8. Cheap male clubs 29.1% of sample clubs Key Median and range of sample Median and range of cluster

9. Typical clubs 64% of sample clubs Key Median and range of sample Median and range of cluster

10. Exclusive family clubs 6.9% of sample clubs Key Median and range of sample Median and range of cluster

11. Additional measures

12. Case studies • The same basic methodology was followed in each case study. • Data were collected by the second author: a PGA professional of 30 years, well recognised in the area. • In each case, a series of visits took place over the course of 3-4 weeks, with the following data collection methods: • Observations (clubhouse and on-course) • Semi-structured interviews with: • Secretary or manager • Professional coach • Male members (group) • Female members (group) • Junior members and junior organiser (group)

13. Sample Three clubs from Lincolnshire: a county characterised as ‘average’ in terms of size, development of CGP infrastructure, and % of clubs with GM.

14. Club A (non-GM, exclusive) • “…we need someone fired up to get stuck in and go for it [GM], either me or if we had a pro-active professional…” (Manager) • “We have a system where we have an interview with the captain and president and myself and we will decide whether they get in or not.” (Manager) • “I got told off about it [dress] when I first came here so I found out the hard way but that’s ok. You learn. In the interview you need to be formal so people know the basic etiquette.” (Male member) • “We are not accepted. There are too many little cliques at the club: people don’t mix and there is a stigma [about junior players].” (Junior member) • “I certainly wouldn’t go into schools delivering to large groups of children of any age. It is not my style.” (Coach)

15. Club B (working towards GM, typical) • “These days we have collective meetings of all new members, so not an interview as such but a chat to let them know what is going on and who is who at the club.” (Male member) • “It’s a no brainer for me: it has to be a PGA pro. I have a 9 handicap and he has a 12 at [club x] so why should he coach kids? …You can’t just go to night school and get the badges; you have to do it properly.” (Male member) • “It is really difficult getting the mix of starters and experienced players of any ages playing on the same course at same time. There is bound to be conflict and problems.” (Coach) • “It’s gonna take time for traditions and beliefs around golf to change – you must be rich to play, drive a jaguar and wear Pringle clothes – but by having more juniors certain stigmas will slowly disappear over time.” (Male member)

16. Club C (GM high achiever, cheap male) • “All the things that are expected from GM we can do straight away, whereas they [private clubs] would have to go to the committee and seek approval.” (Coach) • “Clubs have to tailor themselves to get members and do what they have to do to keep going. When you have a really good club with a large membership they feel that they can keep old rules. But when clubs don’t have a joining fee or low subs then members can leave and move somewhere else quite easily. The exclusive clubs can set their own rules in a way…” (Manager) • “A lot of players here don’t know or care about etiquette. There are lots of divots and unrepaired pitch marks out there… the better clubs still have some control systems to check who is playing. We don't have that here.” (Male member) • “My experience [of joining] here was that everyone seemed friendly and helpful and an easy group to get on with. But I have been to clubs that are snobby and those clubs keep the snobbyness and stigma alive.” (Junior member)

18. Summary More closed and exclusive clubs exhibit: • Conflict between paid professionals and volunteers. • Resistance to recruitment of volunteer coaches and junior organisers (required for GM). • Resistance to granting increased freedom and playing rights to female and junior members (a core feature of GM). GM is ineffective in combatting traditions and deeply embedded cultural practices in golf clubs (not its purpose?). Clubs that operate with a non-traditional ethos gain GM easily, but struggle to attract full paying members.

19. Thanks for listening… Any questions?