JIM KOPPENHAVER

1
(No Transcript)
2
JIM KOPPENHAVER

• President, Pellucid Corp.
• Golfer Development ProgramsEvaluation

3
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?

4
NIKE GOLF LEARNING CENTERS (NGLC)

• TEE IT UP PROGRAM RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS

5
WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY STATUS THAT THE
NGLC PROGRAM ATTRACTED?

• Largest draw in current program is current
  golfers
• Surprising given the programs 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
6
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

7
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
8
WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL WEIGHT OF AN
AVERAGE CONSUMER?
Annual Transactions Per Player Top
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

9
THIS PROGRAM ALSO SHOWED AN ABILITY TO GENERATE
WEEKDAY ROUNDS FOR OPERATORS
53
47
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Sunday

• 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

10
NATIONAL GOLF COURSE OWNERS ASSOCIATION

• CITY BLITZ TOPLINE RESULTS

11
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
  doesnt 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
12
PROFILES OF PARTICIPANTS BY GOLFER STATUSAND
PROMOTION VEHICLE RESPONSE
Promotion Vehicle
Golfer Income
Follow-onProgram
100K 29
Other 11
Friend 15
0-50K 28
Flyer 5
Men(16) 62
Newspaper 69
Youth(lt16) 14
Women(16) 24
51-99K 43

• 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

13
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 well 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

14
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

15
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