Grow Golf? What Does that Even Mean?

Written By: Tony Covey

Earlier this week Golf Digest’s Mike Stachura reported that the Japan Golf Goods Association (the country’s trade organization for golf equipment manufacturers) announced it would support the distribution of non-conforming golf equipment.

As you might guess, the discussion quickly turned to the possibility that major US golf companies might start producing non-conforming clubs (more on that soon enough). As is the case when the idea of bringing non-conforming clubs to the masses is tossed around, the suggestion is that it will make the game easier, more fun, and therefore, more appealing to a disinterested generation.

Non-conforming clubs are a way to grow golf.

What does that actually mean?

The problem as I see it is that, like many other facets of the golf industry, there doesn’t appear to be any uniform standard of measurement.

How do we actually measure growth?

Everybody Has a Stick

The National Golf Foundation talks in terms of rounds played and the number of golfers (both recreational and core).

Equipment companies talk in terms of sales and profits.

A growing list of golf, but not-quite-golf, businesses like TopGolf and indoor golf facilities (in their many forms) measure success in asses through the door, cheeseburgers and beer.

The Hack Golf initiative is now on hiatus to give its members time to, among other things, “synthesize the critical frustration factors, and solutions for fun, identified in Phase 1“.

Should we even talk about Foot Golf? Give me a minute.

With the industry playing a figurative game of tug of war against itself in the name of supposed growth, I can’t help but notice that this whole Grow Golf thing has little to do with preserving the game and much to do with preserving revenue streams.

Our Best Options, Really?

Participation in actual golf on the decline. The idea is that Foot Golf could create alternative revenue streams for otherwise empty courses, but I’d wager there’s positively zero evidence that suggests foot golfers will become core golfers or even recreational golfers.

Has golf grown if the new guys aren’t carrying clubs?

Indoor Golf is great fun, and in some cases provides an additional revenue stream to PGA Professionals, but the actual population of indoor golfers consists largely of existing golfers. Indoor golf doesn’t create golfers in any substantial numbers. It simply provides an alternative when it’s too hot, too cold, or too dark to play outside.

Has golf grown if the guys playing inside were already playing outside?

TopGolf is the wildcard. It’s still very much in its infancy, it sure as hell looks like a lot of fun, and people are talking about it with their excited voices (which is more than we can say for the rest of the industry).

I’m optimistic, but it’s way too soon to know what, if any, lasting impact TopGolf will have on actual golf. Early returns suggest the business will be good for its owners (including Callaway Golf), but is it sustainable, and more to the question at hand, will Top golfers ever become what I suppose we must now call traditional golfers?

Has golf grown if the Top golfer never brings his game to the course?

I’m not going to pretend I have the answers, because to do that, I’d have to first pretend I understand what exactly qualifies as growth.

We Can All Agree on Money

The fact that we don’t have any universally accepted measuring stick for growth illustrates the total lack of cohesiveness of the entire grow golf movement.

In reality, it’s hardly a movement at all. It’s a loose collection of semi-affiliated organizations, each protecting its own interests. The only true commonality is that everyone is interested in making money.

Can’t we do better?

What’s the right way to measure growth in the game of golf. I’d certainly love to hear your thoughts.