JIM KOPPENHAVERJIM KOPPENHAVERPresident, Pellucid Corp.President, Pellucid Corp.

““Golfer Development Golfer Development ProgramsPrograms

Evaluation”Evaluation”

President, Pellucid Corp.President, Pellucid Corp.

““Golfer Development Golfer Development ProgramsPrograms

Evaluation”Evaluation”

WE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE ANSWERS TO FOUR BASIC CONSUMER QUESTIONS

WE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE ANSWERS TO FOUR BASIC CONSUMER QUESTIONS

• What “types” of golfers (new, former, What “types” of golfers (new, former, current) were the current attract/retain current) were the current attract/retain programs drawing?programs drawing?

• Could we “profile” program Could we “profile” program respondents respondents to help refine future geography, course to help refine future geography, course selection and consumer acquisition selection and consumer acquisition decisions?decisions?

• What were the key barriers to play or What were the key barriers to play or more play for this consumer group?more play for this consumer group?

• What was the financial value of the What was the financial value of the retained players in year one for the retained players in year one for the individual courses?individual courses?

NIKE GOLF LEARNING CENTERS

(NGLC)

NIKE GOLF LEARNING CENTERS

(NGLC)““TEE IT UP” PROGRAM TEE IT UP” PROGRAM RESULTS HIGHLIGHTSRESULTS HIGHLIGHTS

WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS”

THAT THE NGLC PROGRAM ATTRACTED?

WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS”

THAT THE NGLC PROGRAM ATTRACTED?• Largest draw in current Largest draw in current

program is current golfersprogram is current golfers

– Surprising given the Surprising given the program’s positioningprogram’s positioningand curriculumand curriculum

• Again, points back to the Again, points back to the retention strategy as key retention strategy as key part of 20/20part of 20/20

– NGLC is attracting and NGLC is attracting and potentially retaining potentially retaining golfers that are likely golfers that are likely candidates to fall out of candidates to fall out of the bottom of the funnelthe bottom of the funnel

Never GolfedNever Golfed40%40%

Current GolfersCurrent Golfers47%47%

Former GolfersFormer Golfers14%14%

PROFILING THE RESPONDENTS BY INCOME AND AGE VS. THEIR GEOGRAPHY PROVIDE INSIGHTPROFILING THE RESPONDENTS BY INCOME AND AGE VS. THEIR GEOGRAPHY PROVIDE INSIGHT

•Not surprisingly, respondents skew Not surprisingly, respondents skew to higher income HHsto higher income HHs

– Saw particular strength in HH Saw particular strength in HH income $50,000+income $50,000+

•Age of head of HH skewed to middle Age of head of HH skewed to middle age HHsage HHs

– Here head of HH ages 35-64Here head of HH ages 35-64

•Net, this profile is very consistent Net, this profile is very consistent with current golfer profilewith current golfer profile

– Reinforces the retention aspect of Reinforces the retention aspect of any potential programany potential program

WHAT DID PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS TELL US THE KEY BARRIERS TO PLAY/MORE PLAY WERE?WHAT DID PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS TELL US THE KEY BARRIERS TO PLAY/MORE PLAY WERE?

•Whatever program Whatever program we develop, it will we develop, it will have to address have to address recurring themes recurring themes of time & moneyof time & money(flexibility & (flexibility & value?)value?)

Time/WorkTime/Work 60%60%

Fee CostsFee Costs 51%51%

Time/FamilyTime/Family 39%39%

Low AbilityLow Ability 25%25%

AccessAccess 21%21%

Total %Total %

WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL WEIGHT OF AN AVERAGE CONSUMER?WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL WEIGHT OF AN AVERAGE CONSUMER?

• On average we On average we succeeded in driving succeeded in driving 5 rounds of follow-5 rounds of follow-on play per golfer in on play per golfer in the one year periodthe one year period

– Again, what Again, what defined revenue defined revenue success was success was frequent play vs. frequent play vs. higher higher transactionstransactions

AnnualAnnualTransactionsTransactions

Per PlayerPer Player

Top 1/3Top 1/3 1212Revenue PlayersRevenue Players

Middle 1/3Middle 1/3 33Revenue PlayersRevenue Players

Bottom 1/3Bottom 1/3 11Revenue PlayersRevenue Players

All Players - Avg. All Players - Avg. 55

THIS PROGRAM ALSO SHOWED AN ABILITY TO GENERATE WEEKDAY ROUNDS FOR OPERATORS

THIS PROGRAM ALSO SHOWED AN ABILITY TO GENERATE WEEKDAY ROUNDS FOR OPERATORS

• Almost 50% of follow-on play went to weekday roundsAlmost 50% of follow-on play went to weekday rounds– Would seem to be a “win/win”, learning players Would seem to be a “win/win”, learning players

play on less crowded courses, operators fill some play on less crowded courses, operators fill some weekday capacityweekday capacity

– But, the fact that the other 50% went to weekend But, the fact that the other 50% went to weekend reinforces “discretionary time” consumer constraintsreinforces “discretionary time” consumer constraints

MondayTuesdayWednesdayThursdayFridaySaturdaySunday

53%53% 47%47%

NATIONAL GOLF COURSE OWNER’S ASSOCIATION NATIONAL GOLF COURSE OWNER’S ASSOCIATION

““CITY BLITZ” TOPLINE RESULTSCITY BLITZ” TOPLINE RESULTS

WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS” THAT THE CITY BLITZ PROGRAM ATTRACTED?WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS” THAT THE CITY BLITZ PROGRAM ATTRACTED?

• Largest draw in current Largest draw in current program is Never Golfersprogram is Never Golfers

– Not too surprising Not too surprising since 90% of since 90% of population doesn’t golfpopulation doesn’t golf

• Relative to their % of the Relative to their % of the total universe (about total universe (about 11% nationally), current 11% nationally), current golfers are “over-golfers are “over-represented” in this represented” in this programprogram

– Again, emphasizes the Again, emphasizes the role of the current role of the current golfer, retention golfer, retention strategystrategy

Never GolfedNever Golfed60%60%

Current GolfersCurrent Golfers26%26%

Former GolfersFormer Golfers14%14%

PROFILES OF PARTICIPANTS BY GOLFER STATUSAND PROMOTION VEHICLE RESPONSE

PROFILES OF PARTICIPANTS BY GOLFER STATUSAND PROMOTION VEHICLE RESPONSE

• Toplines of 3 key variables collectedToplines of 3 key variables collected– Income distribution of respondents weights heavily to Income distribution of respondents weights heavily to

higher income ($100K+ indexes 400 vs. US population)higher income ($100K+ indexes 400 vs. US population)– Newspaper by far the most effective response vehicleNewspaper by far the most effective response vehicle– Adult follow-on programs got most playAdult follow-on programs got most play– Not noted here, but program drew 300 unique HHs across Not noted here, but program drew 300 unique HHs across

450 respondents, good multiple family member draw450 respondents, good multiple family member draw

Golfer IncomeGolfer Income$100K+$100K+

29%29%

$51-99K$51-99K43%43%

$0-50K+$0-50K+28%28%

NewspaperNewspaper69%69%

Promotion VehiclePromotion Vehicle

FlyerFlyer5%5%

OtherOther11%11%

FriendFriend15%15%

Follow-onProgramFollow-onProgram

MenMen(16+)(16+)62%62%

YouthYouth(<16)(<16)14%14%

WomenWomen(16+)(16+)24%24%

SUMMARIZING OUR ANSWERS TO THE FOUR BASIC QUESTIONS……SUMMARIZING OUR ANSWERS TO THE FOUR BASIC QUESTIONS……

• Golfer “types” – We found that these two programs Golfer “types” – We found that these two programs were attracting a mix of all three desired golfer were attracting a mix of all three desired golfer types, not just “never played”types, not just “never played”

• Consumer “profile” – This group does have a Consumer “profile” – This group does have a unique profile relative to the population that could unique profile relative to the population that could be used in future selection, acquisition decisionsbe used in future selection, acquisition decisions

• Key barriers – Time and money constraints Key barriers – Time and money constraints continue to be hurdles we’ll have to overcome in continue to be hurdles we’ll have to overcome in program development for successful golf program development for successful golf participation growthparticipation growth

• Course economics – Results varied but median Course economics – Results varied but median values suggest that the program should be values suggest that the program should be financially viable for operators committed to financially viable for operators committed to growing golf participationgrowing golf participation

OUR 20/20 OBJECTIVESOUR 20/20 OBJECTIVES

• Focus on “Making the Connection” to Focus on “Making the Connection” to Impact both Attraction and RetentionImpact both Attraction and Retention

• Explore Other Potential Approaches Explore Other Potential Approaches & Programs& Programs

• Discuss Implementation IssuesDiscuss Implementation Issues

• Reach a Consensus on 2001 StrategyReach a Consensus on 2001 Strategy

“LINK UP 2 GOLF” BREAKOUT SESSIONS“LINK UP 2 GOLF” BREAKOUT SESSIONS

1. 1. OTHER APPROACHESOTHER APPROACHESWhat other ideas that can be What other ideas that can be implemented on a nationwide basis implemented on a nationwide basis are worth considering?are worth considering?

2.2. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUESIMPLEMENTATION ISSUESWhat are the solutions to the difficult task What are the solutions to the difficult task of implementing a program at multiple of implementing a program at multiple facilities on a standardized basis?facilities on a standardized basis?

3.3. NEXT STEPS, 2001 OBJECTIVESNEXT STEPS, 2001 OBJECTIVES