THESH Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllillll I L 3 1293 01051 5520 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Market Segmentation of Gull Lake View Golf Club presented by Tzung-Cheng Huan has been aecepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters degree in Park & Recreation Resources . .Cfiwm Major professor Datedbvéleeoze/sz 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN BOX to roman this chookom from your rooord. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or More data duo. . DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 'i'W’ Ill ' \ v. - ' I 0‘). i _"' ' I ‘si l - J ‘ l 4?. FEB 2 21,935 mm ’ ”" 1 | — . ‘ .F I D C. “-U l . ‘ l l , MSU to An Afflnnotlvo Action/Equal Opportunity lmtltuion Wows-m MARKET SEGMENTATION OF GULL LAKE VIEW GOLF CLUB BY Tzung-Cheng Huan A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1993 ma 3P ef or it ir. pc OI pr Le ar D] US it C] ac Cc f: ABSTRACT MARKET SEGMENTATION OF GULL LAKE VIEW GOLF CLUB BY Tzung-Cheng Huan Market segmentation is an important tool for defining markets and developing marketing strategies that fit the specifications and needs of targeted segments. When effectively applied, market segmentation permits an organization to employ its limited resources to better serve its markets and thereby realize greater return on its investments. Therefore, market segmentation is a potentially useful tool for recreation, park, and tourism organizations for application in their market planning and promotion activities.‘ The purposes of this study were to (1) profile Gull Lake View Golf Club (GLVGC) visitors by geographic origin and trip type, (2) develop possible useful segmentations for promotion and product development purposes, (3) evaluate the usefulness of the segments developed in marketing GLVGC. Basic cross-tabulation analysis was applied to information derived from a sample of GLVGC visitors to create segments linked to their residence and type of accommodation used the previous night. Of the 30 possible combinations or segments produced, six were found to account for over 75% of GLVGC's customer base. Furthermore, significant differences in socio-economic characteristics, prefe varia GLVGC effec mark: rela1 enhai wide most purp preferences for facilities and services, and media use variables were found across the segments. The results offer GLVGC the opportunity to target marketing efforts more effectively than would be possible using an undifferentiated marketing strategy. This study demonstrates that even relatively small commercial recreation businesses can enhance their market planning at a relatively low cost using widely accessible software on personal computers that they most likely already own but now use primarily for accounting purposes. Copyright by TZUNG-CHENG HUAN 1994 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Completion of this thesis would have been impossible without the efforts of many individuals who deserve special mention and thanks. My academic and research professor Donald F. Holecek was a constant source of guidance and encouragement. Graduate Committee Professor Gaylan A. Rasmussen and Dr. Julian J. Kielbaso also provided me with valuable counsel and advice. This study was assisted by the Travel, Tourism, & Recreation Resource Center. My gratitude is extended to Mr. Jon Scott and his family who own Gull Lake View Golf Club for their unique contribution and making available information about their golf club for my use in this research. Very special thanks and affection are offered to my girlfriend Hsing-Jung Tsai for endless patience and love, to my parents for spiritual and financial support, to Kuan-Chou Chen for worthwhile and helpful suggestions about my research and view of life, and to Professor Don Holecek for being the first person who guided me into the academic research world. iv LIST LIST Chap TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vi LIST OF FIGURES O O O 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Golf in America and Market Segmentation . . 1 Gull Lake View Golf Club (GLVGC) . . . . . . 2 Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 The Golf Market Situation in America . . . . 10 The Golf Market in.America . . . . . . . 10 Golf Participation in the United States (highlights) . . . . . . 11 Golf Facilities in.the‘U. S. and Michigan 14 Golf Facilities in the 0.8. . . . . 15 Golf Facilities in Michigan . . . . 16 Market Segmentation Theories and.Model . . . 17 Concept of Market Segmentation . . . . . 17 Theories of Marketing Segmentation . . . 18 Model of Market Segmentation . . . . . . 19 Market Segmentation in Park, Recreation and Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 III'.METHODOLOGY.................I 31 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cha' Chapter IV. The Sample Scheme Collection of Data Response Rate . . Weighting the Data Data Preparation . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . Market Segmentation . . . . . Why ADI ? . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Tests . . . . . . Chi-square (Crosstab) . . Mean Value Analysis . . . RESULT AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . GLVGC Respondents' Trip Type and Geographic ORIGIN I O O O O O O O O O O GLVGC Respondents' Characteristic Profile by Trip Type . . . . . . . . GLVGC Respondents' Golfing History by Trip Type . . . . . . . GLVGC Respondents’ Socioeconomic Status by Trip Type . . . . . GLVGC Respondents' Consumption by Trip Type . . . . . . . GLVGC Respondents’ Geographic Profile . Overall GLVGC respondents . . Grand Rapids-kalamazoo-Battle Creek., MI Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, MI . . Detroit, MI . . . . . . . Chicago-La Salle, IL . . . . Lansing-Ann Arbor, MI . . . South Bend-Elkhart, IN . . . Indianapolis-Marion, IN . . . Fort Wayne-Angola, IN . . . Toledo, OH . . . . . . . . . Others . . . . . . . . . . . . GLVGC Golfers' Satisfaction Levels, Preferences and Utilization of Courses Utilities, and Services . . Courses Played Rank by Trip Type . Course Preference by Trip Type . . vi Page 32 33 34 34 35 36 36 37 38 38 4O 41 42 45 45 47 51 53 58 60 62 64 66 68 7O 72 74 76 78 80 80 83 Chapt BIBL APPE Chapter Utilities Utilization by Trip Type . . . Proposed Services or Facilities That Will Make GLVGC Better by Trip Type Satisfaction Levels by Trip Type . . . Media that GLVGC Golfers Subscribed to, Received GLVGC Information from or Recalled Seeing GLVGC.Advertising in . Media Subscribed to by Trip Type . . . . Media that Provided Respondents Information on GLVGC by Trip Type . Media that Golfers Recalled Seeing GLVGC Advertising in by Trip Type . Summary of GLVGC'S Six Largest Market Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS . . . . BIBLOGRAPHY . APPENDICES Summary of the Study . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for GLVGC Marketing Planning and.Management . . . . . . Limitations of this Study and Needed Future Research . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A. B. C. D. E. F. Maps of GLVGC’S Location and Its Four Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Code Book for GLVGC Visitor Survey . . . . ADI Counties & Households of GLVGC'S Geographic Segments . . . . . . . . . . Recode Formula for Crosstab . . . . . . . Recode Formula for Mean Value . . . . . . vii Page 85 86 88 90 90 91 93 94 99 99 101 103 106 109 113 113 118 126 134 136 140 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2. 1 Demographic profile of U.S. golfers . . . . 12 2. 2 Major segmentation variables for consumer market 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I C O O O 2 9 2. 3 Selected researchers who have studied parks, recreation, and tourism markets, and the research variables they used in market segmentation studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4. 1 GLVGC respondents’ geographic distribution by their trip type . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4. 2 Respondent’s golfing history by trip type . 46 4. 3 GLVGC respondents’ socioeconomic status by trip type C O I O O O O O O O C O O O O O O 49 4. 4 GLVGC respondents’ consumption by trip type 52 4. 5 Group means of the GLVGC respondents’ golfing history by geographic segment . . . 56 4. 6 Group means of the GLVGC respondents’ socioeconomic background and consumption by geographic segment . . . . . . . . . ... 56 4. 7 Group means of the GLVGC respondents’ demographic backgrounds by geographic segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4. 8 Group means of the GLVGC respondents’ golf playing by geographic segment . . . . . . . 57 4. 9 Profile of overall GLVGC respondents . . . . 59 4.10 Geographic segment 1, Grand Rapids- ‘ kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI. ADI . . . . . . 61 4.11 Geographic segment 2, Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, MI 0 ADI I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 63 viii Page Geographic segment 3, Detroit, MI. ADI . . 65 Geographic segment 4, Chicago-La Salle, IL. ADI O O O O O O O I 0' O O O O O O O O O 67 Geographic segment 5, Lansing-Ann Arbor, MI. ADI O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O O I O 69 Geographic segment 6, South Bend-Elkhart, IN. ADI O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 71 Geographic segment 7, Indianapolis-Marion, IN. ADI O O O O O O C O O O O C O O O O O O 73 Geographic segment 8, Fort Wayne-Angola, IN. ADI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Geographic Segment 9, Toledo, OH. ADI . . . 77 Geographic segment 10, Other ADI . . . . . . 79 Course played percentage and rank by trip type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Course preference by trip type . . . . . . . 84 Utilities utilization by trip type . . . . . 86 Percentage of number one ranking by respondents' trip type for selected new facility or service offerings at GLVGC . . . 87 Satisfaction levels by trip type . . . . . . 89 Percentage of respondents who subscribed to selected media by trip type . . . . . . 91 Percentage of respondents receiving information about GLVGC by trip type . . . . 92 Percentage of respondents who recalled GLVGC advertising in selected media by trip type 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 4 Summary of GLVGC'S six largest dual variable market segments . . . . . . . . . 96 ix Fig LIST OF FIGURES Enter Cross-Classification Analysis of market segmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . Map of the ADI markets used in segmenting respondents by residence . . . . . . . . . . Local map of Gull Lake View Golf Club (GLVGC) Map of GLVGC’s East Course . . . . . . . . . Map of GLVGC’s West Course . . . . . . . . . Map of GLVGC's Stonehedge Course . . . . . . Map of GLVGC’s Bedford Valley Course . . . . Page 20 55 113 114 115 116 117 edi (NC 198 res sec and Off 487 tha: P80] reg.- app, CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Golf in America and Market Segmentation According to the National Golf Foundation's 1989 edition of its report, "Golf Participation in the U.S." (NGF, 19890, golf was a $20 billion industry in the U.S. in 1988 and is growing in regard to equipment, travel and resort lodging, fees and other golf operations revenues, second homes in golf developments, and tournament admissions and sponsorships. In 1988, nearly one million people teed off for the first time, and a total of 23.4 million played 487 million rounds of golf. The number of golfers has more than doubled in the past 20 years, up from 11.2 million people in 1970. Since nearly half of this growth was registered since 1985, the growth in interest in golf appears to have accelerated in recent years. Because of the boom in golf as well as the increased amount of attention given to the promotion of golfing, it is useful to use market segmentation to study golfers' behavior, characteristics, consumption, demographics, and preferences. Such information can enhance the ability of plat deci part for part Lake the ( Town: M-89 223,4 a lot Shep: Cour: West and r wateI V°0ds golf The I 2 planners and managers to make more efficient allocation decisions by allowing them to evaluate the potential of particular resources, facilities, or marketing strategies for providing specific types of experiences and benefits for particular types of users. Gull Lake View Golf Club (GLVGC) Gull Lake View Golf Club is located adjacent to Gull Lake, southwestern Michigan's largest lake. More precisely, the Gull Lake View Golf Club is established within Ross Township, Kalamazoo County, on North 38th Street and highway M-89 (see Appendix A). The county has a population of 223,411 (County Data Profile, 1991). The resort consists of a lodging complex (the villas) which contains 50 units, pro shops, eating and drinking facilities, and four golf courses. Gull Lake View's four courses all contain 18 holes. The West Course is the original. Its front nine is wide open and has no water; the back nine is more rolling and has water on six holes. A blend of fields, hills, valleys, woods, creeks, and ponds are combined to produce a challenging par 71 golf course. The East Course, rated among Michigan's top ten public golf courses in 1986, is also attractive and challenging. The par 70 East is only 5,712 yards long, and has relatively small greens, with fairways lined with trees. Michi place of th to nL The I geogx Stone West the Cour hole Pack and dri‘ Lake Qf1 Ir: 3 Gull Lake View's Bedford Valley Course hosted the Michigan Open for nine years. With long holes, many well- placed bunkers, woods, and big greens, it is regarded as one of the toughest courses in Southwestern Michigan. Gull Lake View's newest course, Stonehedge, is destined to nudge its way onto the list of Michigan's top courses. The rolling, wooded terrain and the blend of length and geography make Stonehedge a very attractive golf course. The most preferred course for all GLVGC's guests is Stonehedge; the East Course is second in popularity; the West Course is third in popularity; and Bedford Valley is the least preferred course. The Fairway Villas, located on Gull Lake View’s East Course, has 50 two-bedroom villas overlooking the finishing holes on the East Course. Gull Lake View also provides golf packages that include all-day green fees at all four courses and lodging at the Fairway Villa. With four 18 hole golf courses, three pro shops, two driving ranges, and lodging facilities for 168 people, Gull Lake View is the only golf resort in Southwestern Michigan. Problem Statement An important aspect of the marketing process is targeting markets for the service or program the firm has to offer. Private for profit firms usually position their product offering to appeal to specific target markets alth« info: take; thei ever tend grou disa pote to s will Simi Can bene °rga tod View unde 4 although success varies with the expertise of and information available to management. Traditionally, public recreation and park agencies have taken the stance that they are mandated to serve everyone in their jurisdiction, thereby they must offer programs to meet “ ‘M—'- 1...— ___,.... reveryone's needs. In actual practice, however, they have tended to give preferential treatment to certain targeted groups - the poor, youth, teens, senior citizens, the disabled, and sports enthusiasts (Schroeder, 1987). One part of the marketing process is to determine what potential market segments exist in the population served and to select the target markets toward which the organization will direct services. This process is usually accomplished by dividing the population into groups of people who have similar needs or interests. Service or products, pricing strategies, location of services and promotional strategies can be developed for each group, thereby maximizing the benefits to that group and the profitability of the organization. The central purpose of the research reported herein was to develop a meaningful market segmentation of Gull Lake View Golf Club’s customers in order to improve management's understanding of the market segments served and to better target and serve the segments. Objec objEC 5 Study Objectives Objective A. Profile GLVGC visitors by geographic origin and trip type. The GLVGC golf market was segmented and profiled by geographic origin and trip type to: identify GLVGC’s market segments, better recognize each segment’s characteristics including: their socioeconomic characteristics, golfing history, and consumption patterns. Through such understanding, management can better serve the different targeted visitors and increase profits. The GLVGC golf market can be classified into three groups by trip type, golfers who stayed overnight: 1. at home. 2. at GLVGC. 3. at other accommodations. Objective B. Develop possible useful segmentations for promotion purposes and for product development purposes. When markets are heterogeneous, it is desirable to segment them by their customer's geographic, demographic, psychographic, and behavioristic characteristics. The GLVGC golf market was segmented by geographic origin and trip type in this research. To be meaningful, the segments identified must be 6 homogeneous in that they tend to respond differently to the firm's promotional activities and product offerings. When such results are achieved they help the manager to improve the product and design effective marketing stimuli. Objective C. Analysis to evaluate usefulness of segmentation. While promoting to a heterogeneous mass market is less effective than to homogeneous specific markets, the latter promotion strategy can not always be implemented. In some cases, information available may not be adequate to identify homogeneous market segments, and, in others, it may not prove possible to exploit clearly identifiable market segments because, for example, no differences may exist across segments in media used in promotion selection. In this study, each segment’s characteristics and the variables which are accessible to GLVGC's promotional activities (media used for advertising) and ‘product development (courses, utilities, and services preference) are analyzed and compared across trip types and visitor origins to evaluate the usefulness of market segmentation. 601 601 601 the Gul thi abo- the DQ1- Und 7 E E’ .!. Golfers who stayed overnight at home (overnight at home): GLVGC visitors who played golf during the day and stayed overnight at home during their visit. Golfers who stayed overnight at GLVGC (overnight at GLVGC): GLVGC visitors who played golf during the day and stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (i.e. the villa) during their visit. Golfers who stayed overnight at other accommodations (overnight at others): GLVGC visitors who played golf during the day and who did not stay overnight at their homes or in GLVGC accommodations, rather they overnighted at motels, hotels, inns, second homes, relatives' houses and so on during their visit. Thesis Overview This thesis contains five chapters. In chapter one, the Introduction, an overview of the golf market in America is presented. It also serves to introduce the reader to the Gull Lake View Golf resort which was the specific focus for this study, an application of market segmentation analysis. In chapter two, the Literature Review, relevant references about the golf situation in America and market segmentation theories are reviewed which helped to put this study in perspective and served to guide its design and the analyses undertaken. It includes segmentation studies from the pa tr. st ch sa: re: ob; of mar enh str. 8 parks, recreation, and tourism literature. In chapter three, Methodology, the data sources, analyses, and the statistical tests used in this research are presented. In chapter four, Results and Discussion, survey data from sampled GLVGC visitors are presented and analyzed, and the results are discussed in the context of the study objectives. In chapter five, Conclusions, the implications of the findings are reviewed for relevance to GLVGC's marketing strategy focusing especially on their potential to enhance promotion and product development aspects of this strategy. seg bee marl tool stra seq: 9011 fire thEC the Sact reCr appl CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Since Wendell Smith’s pioneering article on market segmentation appeared in 1956, the segmentation concept has been a focus of a considerable amount of research. Today, market segmentation is recognized as an important marketing tool for defining markets and developing marketing strategies that fit the specifications and needs of a target segment (Menezes and Chandra, 1989). In this chapter, the golf market situation in America will be reviewed in the first section. In the second section, market segmentation theories and models will be presented which are relevant to the objectives of this study. Finally, in the third section, several market segmentation applications in parks, recreation, and tourism will be discussed to illustrate applications of the concept in situations somewhat related to those posed in this study. was 9 repox equal reven devel and s milli 23.4 ; more 1 golfe: Clubs The n1 Years 17.5 1 gOlfe: 10 The Golf Market Situation in America The Go Market ' e ica Golf was a $20 billion industry in the U.S. in 1988 and was growing. In that year, golfing equipment sales were reported to equal $5.7 billion, travel and resort lodging equaled $7.8 billion, fees and other golf operations revenues equaled $2.1 billion, second home sales in golf developments reached $3.8 billion, and tournament admissions and sponsorships equaled $0.3 billion. In 1988, nearly one million people teed off for the first time, and a total of 23.4 million played 487 million rounds of golf; more and more women played golf, 41% of new golfers were women. Most golfers had high incomes in 1988, around half (49%) of golf clubs are bought by people with incomes of over $50,000. The number of golfers has more than doubled in the past 20 years, up from 11.2 million people in 1970. There were only 17.5 million golfers in 1985, so growth in the population of golfers has been especially high in recent years (NGF, 1989‘) . Recreational enjoyment is the number one reason for people golfing. The number two reason was to socialize with family and friends. Three was exercise while four was to enjoy the outdoors. Some golfers said that business was the reason they began playing golf (Store, 1989). Currently, in the north and Pacific regions, where the game is extremely P0P the FOUJ of 1 mil: fro: Foul in g thrt th 9011 popu Tabl c003. twem 11 popular, the availability and cost of land already inhibit the development of new courses (Waldrop, 1990). o ' ' at'o ' ' States hi i ht In a 1989 report (NFG, 1989?, the National Golf Foundation pointed out that between 1987 and 1988 the number of golfers increased 7.8 percent, from 21.7 million to 23.4 million, while the total number of rounds played increased from 434 million to 487 million. The National Golf Foundation (1989”) also predicted that if the net increase in golfers was just one percent per year compounded from now through the year 2000, there would be 24.7 million golfers in the year 2000. If the growth rate in golf population is two percent, by the year 2000 there will be 28.1 million golfers. A three percent growth rate would push the number of golfers up to nearly 32 million by the year 2000 with the population passing the 30 million mark in 1998. Demographic highlights of golfers in 1988 are listed in Table 2.1 and are further highlighted below (NGF, 1989?: Gender: One in every six American males plays golf, while the rate for females is less than one in 20. .As a consequence, more than three-fourths of all golfers in the U.S. are males. Age: Americans, including males and females, in their twenties and thirties have the highest golf participation 65 ac Lea 12 Table 2.1: Demographic profile of U.S. golfers. e o 'c , ' o . G fe Percent of U.S. Number of Percent Population Golfers of all Population (Age 5 and over) (Thousands) Golfers Total 10.4% 23,400 100% Gender Male 16.6 18,151 77.6 Female 4.5 5,249 22.4 Age 5-14 years 2.9 983 4.2 15-19 years 8.8 1,591 6.8 20-29 years 15.0 6,200 26.5 30-39 years 12.9 5,230 22.4 40-49 years 12.2 3,561 15.2 50-59 years 11.2 2,419 10.3 60-64 years 10.4 1,123 4.8 65 years and over 7.6 2,293 9.8 Household Income Less Than $10,000 3.9 1,048 4.5 $10,000-19,999 5.9 2,582 11.0 $20,000-29,999 8.5 3,736 16.0 $30,000-39,999 12.0 4,164 17.8 $40,000-49,999 13.8 3,687 15.8 $50,000-74,999 15.9 5,736 24.4 $75,000 and Over 17.6 2,447 10.5 Geographic Region New England 11.4 1,387 5.9 Middle Atlantic 9.0 3,120 13.3 East North Central 13.8 5,458 23.4 West North Central 13.5 2,240 9.6 South Atlantic 9.0 3,582 15.3 East South Central 7.6 1,052 4.5 West South Central 8.1 2,012 8.6 Mountain 12.1 1,497 6.4 Pacific 9.5 3,052 13.0 Education Non-High School Grad 4.0 1,264 5.4 High School Grad 8.2 6,107 26.1 Some College 11.0 6,692 28.6 College Grad 16.0 9,337 39.9 Occupation Prof./Mgmt./Admin. 15.3 10,572 45.1 Clerical/Sales 12.2 4,388 18.8 Blue Collar 8.5 6,475 27.7 other 7.5 1,965 8.4 source: Adapted from National Golf Foundation, Golf Participation in the United States, 1989 edition (Jupiter, Florida: National Golf Foundation). rat gr01 HOWc onl} roux unde pert part four $74 head IEpr in 1 hOus play Part. Of t] golf! publj nunic 13 rates, 15 percent and 13 percent respectively; these two age groups combined constitute almost half of all U.S. golfers. However, senior golfers (those at least 60 years old), while only 15 percent of all golfers, accounted for 35 percent of rounds played. On the other hand, junior golfers (those under age 20) are 11 percent of all golfers and play only 6 percent of all rounds. Income: The mean household income of golfers, $45,000, is 29 percent above the national average, and golf participation rates are highly correlated with income. A fourth of all golfers come from households with $50,000 to $74,999 in income. I Education: One in every six members of households headed by a college graduate plays golf, and such golfers represented 40 percent of the total U.S. golfer population in 1988. Occupation: Likewise, almost one in six Americans whose household head is a professional, manager, or administrator play golf, and these golfers comprised 45 percent of all U.S. golfers in 1988. As with income and education, golf participation rates are strongly related to the occupation of the head of household. Public/ Private: In 1988, nearly four out of five ‘golfers said they played at least half of their rounds on public golf courses, defined as either daily fee or :municipal courses. However, private golfers (e.g., country clul ver: from was rour play golf less four the Perc are affl golf golf reDO; whic diff Dar- reSt; Priv. 14 club members) play considerably more rounds per year, 31.4 versus 17.8. Frequency: Total rounds played increased 12.2 percent from 1987 to 1988, and the mean (average number per player) was also up from 19.4 to 20.8 rounds. The median number of rounds played stayed at eight, meaning half of all golfers played fewer than that number in 1988. In 1988, frequent golfers, defined as playing 25 or more rounds annually, are less than a fourth of all golfers but account for three- fourths of all rounds. Beginners: Nearly 10 percent of all golfers played for the first time in 1988. These beginning golfers are 41 percent female, whereas only 23 percent of all U.S. golfers are female. The beginners are also generally younger, less affluent, and play less frequently than more experienced golfers. lef Facilities in the U.S. and Michigan The NGF annually publishes a geographic analysis of golf facilities in the U.S. (e.g., NGF, 19893. In these reports, a golf facility is defined as a club or complex which contains at least one nine hole course and may include different types of courses, such as regulation length and par-3 length courses. It may be a private facility which .restricts its use to members, a daily fee facility which is ‘privately owned but open to public play, or a municipal faci city of la are 1 exec1 sizec with cours with a par cours under than 1989 two~t remai only Of ex ragil half 15 facility which is owned by a tax-supported agency such as a city, county, or state. A golf course is defined as a tract of land containing from nine to 18 separate holes. There are three types of golf courses: regulation-length, executive-length, and par-3. A regulation-length is full- sized with a total length of over 5,200 yards for 18 holes with a par rating of 66 or more; an executive-length golf course is a compact version of the regulation-length course with a total length of 4,000 to 5,200 yards for 18 holes and a par rating of 58 to 66; and a par-3 course is a short course comprised solely of par-3 holes with a total length under 4,000 yards for 18 holes with a par rating of not more than 54 strokes. Q91: Facilities in the U.S. According to the National Golf Foundation (1990), in 1989 there were 12,658 golf facilities in the U.S. Nearly two-thirds (62%) were public (daily-fee and municipal). The remaining 38 percent were private facilities. The great majority of facilities (88%) consisted of only regulation courses, and 9 percent were composed solely of executive or par-3 courses. A large portion of facilities, 39 percent, contained only nine holes. Over half (54%) of all facilities had exactly 18 holes, and 7 (percent contain 27 or more holes. Florida, California, and New York ranked highest in tota and were regu muni and 1 Wash. 8.202 hole Flori 67% W and 1 facil 16 total facilities while Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Alaska had the fewest. Some golf facilities had more than one course. There were a total of 13,738 golf courses, 89 percent were regulation-length and 62 percent were public (daily-fee or municipal). Paralleling the facilities count, Florida, California, and New York led the nation in total courses and Delaware, Washington, D.C., and Alaska rank lowest. Of the 13,738 total courses, 5,536 were nine-hole and 8,202 were 18-hole. New York, Texas, and Iowa led in nine- hole courses, while the leaders in 18-hole courses were Florida, California, and Ohio. Golf Facilities in Michigan In 1988, Michigan had a total of 10,440 golf course holes, 8,073 of which were public golf course holes and 2,367 of which were private golf course holes. Michigan ranked second in the nation behind Florida in terms of the number of public golf course holes, tenth in terms of number of private golf course holes, and sixth in terms of total number of holes (NGF, 1989%. In 1989, Michigan had 660 golf facilities. Of these, 67% were daily fee facilities, 21% were private facilities, and 12% were municipal facilities. The majority (58%) of facilities in Michigan in 1989 were 18-hole facilities; about facil more. 10,65 cours and 1 who c t0 ca lOcat natur COUdu 1972) the e R. Sn 17 about a third of all golf facilities in Michigan were 9-hole facilities; Michigan also had 55 facilities with 27 holes or more. In 1989, Michigan had a total of 727 golf courses and 10,656 golf course holes. Sixty-eight percent of the golf courses were daily fee courses, 20% were private courses, and 12% were municipal courses (NGF, 1990). Market Segmentation Theories and Model Concept of Market Segmentation It has long been known that markets and the customers who comprise them are heterogeneous. Early marketers tended to cater to particular groups of consumers, usually those located in a relatively compact geographic area. This was natural, given the problems of transporting goods and conducting business over wide areas (Frank, Massy, Wind, 1972). The concept of market segmentation emerged early in the evolution of the market concept. As defined by Wendell R. Smith (1956): Segmentation is based upon developments on the demand side of the market and represents a rational and more precise adjustment of product and marketing effort to consumer or user requirements. In the language of the economist, segmentation is disaggregative in its effects and tends to bring about recognition of several demand schedules where only one was recognized before. Ko require segment buyers mixes. market segment each se the mar POSitio PIOduct segment more re geOgrap Practic market. Variabl accurat Th alterna Wind, 1 18 Iheerie§_ef_Market_§egmsntetien Kotler (1986) pointed out that target marketing requires three major steps. The first is market segmentation, dividing a market into distinct groups of buyers who might require separate products or marketing mixes. The company identifies different ways to segment the market and develops profiles of the resulting market segments. The second step is market targeting, evaluating each segment's attractiveness and selecting one or more of the market segments to enter. The third step is market positioning, formulating a competitive positioning for the product and a detailed marketing mix. As for market segmentation, markets consist of buyers who differ in one or more respects. They may differ in their wants, resources, geographical locations, buying attitudes, or buying practices. Any of these variables can be used to segment a market. A marketer has to try different segmentation variables, singly and in combination, hoping to find an accurate way to view the market structure. The following criteria are useful for evaluating alternative bases for market segmentation (Frank, Massy, and Wind, 1972): 1. The variables should divide a market into homogeneous segments that tend to respond differently to the firm's promotional activities. More specifically, this requires the establishment of the following relations: 19 a. Between the segmentation variable(s) and the criterion variable in the segmentation problem (for example, total consumption of a given brand, and brand loyalty). b. Between the variable(s) and the performance characteristics of the various marketing inputs (such as media usage, physical distribution, and pricing). 2. The variable(s) should be measurable. 3. The variable(s) should be accessible to the firm's promotional activities. The specific nature of the accessibility differs, however, according to the method the firm selects for targeting its marketing effort. If the firm aims at a controlled coverage of marketing effort, the variables have to be accessible through media or channels of distribution. If, on the other hand, the firm decides to rely on customer self-selection, all that is required is that the segmentation variable(s) enable the design of a marketing stimuli (message, package, and so forth) that will increase the probability of self-selection by the desired market segment. 4. The variable(s) should lead to increased profits from segmentation. Mogel of Market Segmentatign There are different models of market segmentation, varying from simple analytical procedures to those involving a series of more complex procedures. An elementary model of market segmentation is presented in this section to illustrate the content. Frank, Massy, and Wind (1972) proposed a method to ascertain the relationship between total household consumption of a particular grocery product and selected socioeconomic and demographic variables, such as income and education of the household head. Figure 2.1 illustrates the Sun- Dependent Variables (Y9 _, Total ‘—_. Consumption I Cross I Start—D r—fl Classification | Analysis | L_ _ _ _ .1 Independent Variables Demographic (X9 N and Socioeconomic —U Characteristics Figure 2.1: Enter Cross-Classification Analysis of market segmentation. Source: Adapted from Frank, Massy, and Wind, Market Segmentation (Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prince-hall, 1972), P. 140. 20 logical Th we are classif more no educati bottom separa' togeth 14a the;;) 3130 regre Orig; bane Sale Par} Qt: Ix 21 logical flow of the proposed analysis. The dashed box represents the central issue with which we are faced at this stage, namely, the use of cross- classification analysis to estimate the parameters of one or more models involving total consumption and income and education. The flows through the boxes at the top and the bottom of the figure indicate that information on two separate sets of variables must be obtained and then brought together in the cross-tabulation analysis. Market Segmentation in Parks, Recreation, and Tourism The travel and tourism industry has already recognized the potential of market segmentation. Many researchers have also focused on the topic of segmenting of parks, recreation, and tourism markets by consumers' geographic origin, age, sex, income, education, religion, life style, benefits sought, attitude toward product, and so on. Selected studies concerning segmentation of recreation, parks, and tourism markets are discussed below. Gitelson and Kerstetter (1990) reported an empirical test of the relationship between sociodemographic variables, benefits sought, and subsequent vacation behavior. The data were obtained using a questionnaire administered to consumers who requested the 1984 North Carolina Travel Information Packet. The findings demonstrated that a Sociodemographic segmentation scheme could allow different promO' measu: segmel other genera tarqe‘ 115-1- devell media socio. chara- and T“ of th Parti reSul notio SOCio traVe to Ce 22 promotion strategies to be developed. It is easier to measure sociodemographic variables than the more complex segmentation variables such as lifestyle preferences or other behavioral measures; thus, promotion agencies can generate more reliable and valid descriptions of their target markets if they rely on sociodemographic variables in \xé‘r'Z‘Z‘L: I #4 . developing market segments. In addition, the advertising media have a_better handle on their audience's sociodemographic profiles than they do on their behavioral characteristics. For example, newspapers, radio stations, and TV/Cable stations can provide sociodemographic profiles of their audiences, but may not be able to indicate the particular life-style of these same individuals. The results of the Gitleson and Kerstetter study supported two notions: that a relationship does exist between some sociodemographic variables and that the benefits vacation travelers seek and the benefits sought are in turn related to certain travel behaviors. (:fi;:/‘\ ,w, 3.. Anderson and Langmeyer (1982) developed a questionnaire on travel which was distributed to 1,000 households in 1979, fine—n .—_..._.-. k and they found that under-50 year old travelers and over-50 year old travelers differ clearly on a number of important dimensions which indicates that age can be used as a segmenting variable. Furthermore, the demographic lobaracteristics of the over-50 year old segment suggest that 'this group of individuals would be an excellent target for the tri segmen‘ youngeJ the ya! expend: differ: more pl than tr practic and ex; them to PaCkage finding economi has bee; markEteJ Shc °f 5, ooc Smaller Pifisure hot one with its One 89% 23 the travel marketer since: 1. family obligations of this segment (time and financial) are fewer than those of the younger segment, 2. their incomes equal or exceed that of the younger segment, and 3. they have fewer required expenditures. With respect to lifestyles, the major differences appear to be that the under-50 group engages in more physical activities when on vacation more frequently than the over-50 group. The findings indicate that, for practical purposes, the over-50 travelers have certain needs and expectations for vacations which could, in turn, cause them to respond to promotions, advertising, and travel packages that would be ignored by the under-50 group. The findings also indicate that the over-50 group is an economically lucrative market, one which the authors suggest has been largely neglected and untapped by travel industry marketers. 7 Shoemaker (1989) segmented a senior market, consisting of 5,000 Pennsylvania residents age 55 or older, into smaller homogenous groups based upon the purpose of seniors’ .‘Hw pleasure travel. Findings suggest that the senior market is not one large homogenous group but many submarkets, each with its own needs. Three market segments were developed. iOne segment of the senior market he identified includes those who use pleasure travel as a way to spend time with their immediate families. Programs and promotions building «on this reason for travel could include "family reunions," where 1 whether hotel. include intelle escape sociali reasons sponsor SUbject by loca reveal demonst aetivit is incl Stress Te Percept and tra destina that tr UnitEd interns are 0n: Segmem that In 24 where families from many areas gather in one location, whether it be on a cruise boat, motorcoach, or at a resort hotel. A second segment of the senior market identified includes those who use pleasure travel as a way to seek intellectual and spiritual enrichment, to rest, to relax, to escape the everyday routine, and to meet people and socialize. Programs and promotions building on these reasons for travel could include "learning weekends" sponsored by hotels to encourage intellectual enrichment; subjects ranging from history to gardening could be taught by local college professors. Although the study did not reveal why members of the third segment travel, it did demonstrate that they like their trips filled with activities and they like to stay in places where everything is included. Programs promoted to this segment should stress these characteristics. Teye (1989) conducted a study that focused on perceptions of major foreign tour producers (tour operators and travel agents) of Arizona as an international tourist destination. Projections for industrialized countries show that travel expenditures will continue to increase. The United States is currently the leading destination for international visitors. However, some states, like Arizona, are only beginning to try to expand the international segment of their tourist industry. In the study, Teye found that Arizona has a number of important assets upon which to build a conclud having indust: liabil: H; Public classi Collec was ds the b: Discr into anal) diffs into t3X0 into 25 build a successful international tourist industry and concluded that foreign tour operators perceive Arizona as having opportunities to develop into a strong tourist industry for foreign markets if a number of perceived liabilities are eliminated. Havitz (1989) examined the attitudes held toward the public and commercial sectors as variables relevant to classifying recreation participants. His data were collected in a controlled experimental setting. A taxonomy was developed which can be used to categorize individuals on the basis of their attitudes toward the two sectors. Discriminant analysis was used to place individual subjects into one of nine groups in the taxonomy. Using discriminant analysis, he identified statistically significant differences in the attitudes of individuals who were placed into the various groups. Further analysis revealed that the taxonomy may be simplified by collapsing the nine groups into three groups. The three groups are :(1) people who have more favorable attitudes toward the public sector than toward the commercial sector; (2) people who have more favorable attitudes toward the commercial sector than toward the public sector; and (3) people who have similar attitudes toward both sectors. Woodside and Jacobs (1985) investigated representative samples of Canadian, mainland American, and Japanese vacation visitors to Hawaii in 1983 and discovered that the 26 benefits realized from product use may differ widely for different market segments. The benefits experienced from traveling to the same vacation destination by three different national samples were reported. Canadian visitors most often reported rest and relaxation as the major benefits realized from their Hawaii visit; mainland Americans reported cultural experiences; and Japanese visitors reported family togetherness. Understanding the benefits realized by a destination’s visitors from major market segments may be helpful for planning unique positioning messages to appeal successfully to each segment and may be useful in adjusting advertising messages, improving physical facilities, and changing attitudes and behavior of residents towards visitors. Gladwell (1990) studied Indiana state park inn)users. (‘fl,_____~. The objectives of the study were to determine whether identifiable groups or types of state park inn users exist, and if so, whether differences exist between the user groups in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, behavior predispositions, vacation behaviors, and sources of vacation information. There is evidence to suggest that, on the basis of vacation life-style measures, different types of state park inn users can be identified. The inn users surveyed in the study were divided into three groups: Knowledgeable Travelers, Budget-Conscious Travelers, and Travel Planners. There is also evidence to suggest that these t terms 0 predisp and sou Mi charact Texas t was seg These 5 and frc Charact Texas 5 Strateg Charact market Came fr Skiing houSeho Darticu TeXas S propert 27 these three user groups have significant differences in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, general predispositions, life-style measures, vacation behaviors, and sources of vacation information. Mills et al. (1986) investigated the expenditures and characteristics of Texans who travel to places outside of Texas to participate in snow skiing. The Texas skier market was segmented into two groups, heavy and light spenders. These segments proved to be differentiated from one another and from other Texans in terms of socio-demographic characteristics. Ski area operators seeking to attract Texas skiers might be advised to develop different marketing strategies which take into account the sociodemographic characteristics shown to differentiate the Texas skier market in this study. The largest proportion of snow skiers came from east Texas, and they tended to spend more on skiing trips. Texas skiers also tend to have higher household incomes than other Texas households, and this is particularly true for the heavy half. The majority of all Texas skier households have children; for the heavy half the proportion with children is 70%. Kotler and Armstrong (1987) declared that there is no single way to segment a market. A marketer has to try different segmentation variables, singly and in combination, hoping to find an accurate way to depict the market structure. As is illustrated in Table 2.2, the most commonl general psychog four gr segment Parks . present Ma marketi as a wa money 5 Profilj Product 9 bette eaSier being a Can be CUStQm conCep alter“ knowl e 28 commonly used segmentation variables can be grouped into general categories including: geographic, demographic, psychographic, and behavior segmentation variables. These four groups of variables were used to summarize the segmentation study articles in the field of recreation, parks, and tourism reviewed for this study, and results are presented in Table 2.3. Market Segmentation and its corollary, target marketing, are increasingly being recognized and practiced as a way of improving the effectiveness and efficiency of money spent on marketing (Menezes and Chandra, 1989). Profiling a given group of consumers, to include its needs, product preferences, and purchase decision process, leads to a better understanding of the segment. It is generally easier to attract consumers who are similar to those who are being served presently; hence, studies of current customers can be effective in developing information to target new customers. Through such studies, strategies can be conceptualized for broadening visitation and determining alternative ways to better satisfy visitors. This kind of knowledge could have major implications for destination planning and promotional strategies. Table 2‘ Variablc Gaograpl Region County si City size Density Climate Dalogra] Age Sex Family 81 Family 11 Income °°CUPatio EdUCatiOn Religion Race Nationali Table 2.2: 29 Major segmentation variables for consumer markets Variable Typical Breakdowns Geographic Region County size City size Density Climate Demographic Age Sex Family size Family life cycle Income Occupation Education Religion Race . Nationality Psychographic Social class Life style Personality Behavioristic Purchase occasion Benefits sought User status Usage rate Loyalty status Readiness stage Attitude toward product Pacific, Mountain, West North Central, West South Central, East North Central, East South Central, South Atlantic, Middle Atlantic, New England A,B,C,D Under 5,000; 5,000-20,000; 20,000—50,000; 50,000- 100,000; 100,000-250,000; 250,000-500,000; 500,000- 1,000,000; 1,000,000-4,000,000; 4,000,000 or over Urban, suburban, rural Northern, southern Under 6, 6-11, 12-19, 20-34, 35-49, 50-64, 65+ Male, female 1-2, 3-4, 5+ Young, single; young, married, no children; young, married, youngest child under 6; young, married, youngest child 6 or over; older, married, with children; older, married, no children under 18; older, single; other Under $2,500; $2,500-$5,000; $5,000-$7,500; $7,500- $10,000; $10,000-$15,000; 515,000-520,000; $20,000- $30,000; 530,000-550,000; $50,000 and over Professional and technical; managers, officials, and proprietors; clerical, sales; craftsmen, foreman; operatives; farmers; retired; students; housewives; unemployed Grade school or less; some high school; high school graduate; some college; college graduate Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, other White, black, oriental, Hispanic American, British, French, German, Scandinavian, Italian, Latin American, Middle Eastern, Japanese Lower lowers, upper lowers, lower middles, upper middles, lower uppers, upper uppers Belongers, achievers, integrateds Compulsive, gregarious, authoritarian, ambitious Regular occasion, special occasion Quality, service, economy Nonuser, ex-user, potential user, first-time user, regular user Light user, medium user, heavy user None, medium, strong, absolute Unaware, aware, informed, interested, desirous, intending to buy Enthusiastic, positive, indifferent, negative, hostile Source: Adapted from Philip Kotler, Principle of Marketing (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-hall, 1986), P. 265. Table 2 Researc Anderson Backman I Blazey (I Blazy (1! Calantonc Cromptom Darden ax Davis anc Gitelson Gitelson Gladwell GOOdrich Graham at Elihti ar JQCObfl et Jami! at K319 and KaYnak 2t 30 Table 2.3: Selected researchers who have studied park, recreation, and tourism markets, and the research variables they used in market segmentation studies. Researchers: Variables: Behavioristic demo- Geo- Psycho- graphic graphic graphic Anderson and Langmeyer (1982) Age Backman et a1. (1986) Benefit sought Blazey (1987) participant Age Blazy (1988) State Calantone and Johar (1984) Benefit/Seasonsl Cromptom (1979) Motives Darden and Perreault (1975) Media user Davis and Sternquist (1987) Attitude Gitelson and Kerster (1990) Benefit sought Demo-2 Gitelson and Crompton (1984) Repeat user Gladwell (1990) Demo-2 Psycho-3 Goodrich (1977) Benefit sought Graham and Wall (1978) Attitude Haahti and Yavas (1983) Perception Jacobs et a1. (1986) Seasons‘ Jarvis and Mayo (1986) Users status Hale and Weir (1986) Perception Kaynak et a1. (1986) Usage rate Kaynak and Yavas (1981) Trip purpose Mark (1989) Attitude McQueen and Miller (1985) User stage /‘ Menezes and Chandra (1989) Distance M1118 at - 91,: (1986.1, _ _ Armedisur..e._ Ronkainen and Woodside (1980)“User status Schewe and Calantone (1978) Psycho-3 Schul and crompton (1983) Demo-2 lifestyle Scott et al. (1978) Attitude Shoemaker (1989) Senior Shih (1986) Psycho-3 Snepenger (1987) Novelty-seeking Thanopopoulos and Walle (1988) Ethnicity Teye (1989) Nationality Uzzell (1984) Psycho-3 Usal an McDonald (1989) Length of stay 'WSodside and Pitts (1976) Lifestyle Woodside et al. (1980) Benefit sought Woodside and Jacops (1985) Benefit sought Woodside et al. (1987) Usage rate. ' In this research, Calantone and Johar segmented the travel market by showing how different factors influenced choice in different seasons. In fact,the tourists' seasonal needs is their situational needs for benefit sought. ‘ 2 Demo- denotes Demographic variable. 3 Psycho- denote Psychographic variable. ‘ In this Jacobs' study, seasons means tourists' purchase occasion. I n thesis i and rel! Segmenta Summari: in this emPIOYec is deta; PTQSent, employe( Prepara1 PrOcedm Segment: Thy center estimat CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY In the first two chapters, the research focus of this thesis was introduced along with a set of study objectives, and relevant literature about golf in America and market segmentation in park, recreation, and tourism was summarized. The methodology used in this study is discussed in this chapter to include the type of statistical analyses employed. In the first section, how the data were collected is detailed, and, in the second, how they were analyzed is presented. The first section covers the sample scheme employed, data collection, response rate, and data preparation. The second section introduces the detailed procedures used in an attempt to develop meaningful market segments and the statistical tests used to evaluate them. Data Collection The data utilized in this study were collected by researchers in the Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center at Michigan State University for the specific purpose estimating the regional economic impacts of the GLVGC 31 facilit} and its Th4 View Go; types: (1 GO ot 51 90 re ov Ca an re tr 32 facility. The questionnaire used is provided in Appendix B, and its Code Book is provided in Appendix C. The Sample Scheme The sample frame utilized was provided by the Gull Lake View Golf Club. Specially, the records used were of two types: (1) Golf cart rental slips. Golfers who stayed overnight at home, at GLVGC, and at other accommodations were drawn from golf cart rental slips dated from May 1991 to July 1991. The overall golf cart sample frame indicates that only 11% of total rounds of golf were played by golfers who stayed overnight at GLVGC. Since this low efficiency in capturing golfers overnighting at GLVGC was anticipated and since it was important to the goals of the overall research project that a larger pool of respondents from this segment be available for anticipated analyses, it was necessary to select more golfers who stayed overnight at GLVGC via another means, in this case villa registration cards. Note, however, that this yielded a combined group of respondents which is not reflective of the GLVGC golfing population because the sampling scheme was purposely designed to favor selecting villa users. (2) Mos fr< Ju A was dre total 5 were ji howeve; and 19. impact StBYQd 33 (2) Villa registration cards. Most golfers who stayed overnight at GLVGC were drawn from villa registration cards dated from April 1990 to June 1991. A systematic sample of 400 potential study respondents was drawn from each of the two sample frames yielding a total sample of 800 GLVGC guests. Villa registration cards were judged to represent a complete listing of villa users; however, only 15% of the cart rental slips contained a full and legible address. The degree to which this may have impacted the "randomness" of the sample of the golfers who stayed overnight at home or other accommodations is unknown. 9211mm On July 5, 1991, a structured, self administered questionnaire was sent via certified mail to each of the selected respondents. A reminder postcard was mailed after one week to increase the response rate. An incentive was offered to encourage participation and to minimize non- response bias. Babbie (1986) and Dillman (1978) stated that the use of incentives increases the response rate and makes respondents feel a sense of responsibility for answering carefully. The incentive used in this study consisted of one free round of golf, good mid-week, for the next calendar year. In 34 Re 0 3 ate A total of 800 questionnaires were mailed to the selected two groups of GLVGC visitors. Of these, 56 questionnaires were not deliverable. Of the 744 delivered, 538 completed usable returns were received for analysis. The response rate is the proportion of the eligible respondents in the sample who were successfully surveyed. This study had a response rate of 72.31%. This is quite good for a study of this type especially since the time constraint permitted only one initial mailing followed by a reminder postcard. W ' ° h a As noted above, the original purpose for which the data used herein were collected resulted in a sampling scheme which produced a disproportionally high representation of villa users with respect to the total GLVGC user population. It was necessary to develop a weighting scheme to adjust the existing data set for purposes of this study which reduces the possibility of bias introduced by over representation of villa users. The weighting scheme used is discussed below. In the 538 respondents, the ratio of the respondents who stayed overnight at GLVGC to overall GLVGC respondents is 287 : 538. However, the overall golf cart sample frame indicates that 11% of total rounds of golf are played by golfers who stay overnight at GLVGC. Respondents who stayed overnig; given 9: in the ‘ calcula' I1 is 9 stayed weighte To regardi ClaSsif golfing Year), statuS' meal Dr enVir°n courst souchs (Satisf adverti 35 overnight at home and at other accommodations should be given greater weight to offset overweighting of villa users in the total respondents. The weighting factor, '1, can be calculated using the following formula: 4287 11 287 + (538-287)*W1 = 100 W1 is 9.3 (near 9). In this study, the respondents who stayed overnight at home and at other accommodations will be weighted nine times more heavily than villa users. Data_£rebarati2n To achieve the objectives of this study, the data regarding Gull Lake View Golf Club respondents were classified into: golfer golfing history (experience in golfing, first or repeat GLVGC visitor, rounds played last year), demographic variables (education, employment, marital status, etc.), consumption variables (total expenditures, meal preparation in GLVGC accommodations, etc.), environmental preferences (services, facilities, and courses), marketing variables (media use, information sources, etc.), and consumer response variables (satisfaction level, future participation, recall GLVGC advertisement, etc.). The Appendix trip typ golfers’ consumpt subscrip and Appe Crosstat assess t and to 1 ‘th, 36 Data Analysis The data were first coded in the format shown in Appendix C. The GLVGC golf market was then segmented by trip type and visitor's geographic origin. The data about golfers' socioeconomic backgrounds, golfing history, consumption capacity, facilities preferences, media subscriptions, and the rest were recoded again (Appendix E and Appendix F) for purposes of statistical testing. The crosstab (Chi-square) and Mean Value Analysis were used to assess the usefulness of the above mention market segments and to profile GLVGC visitors. MW Respondents were classified into: a. three groups by trip type: golfers who stayed overnight (1) at home, (2) at GLVGC, and (3) at other accommodations, and b. ten groups by geographic origin (see Appendix D). The Arbitron ADI (Area of Dominant Influence) Market Atlas was used to classify respondents by their geographic origin. The Area of Dominant Influence (ADI) is a geographic market classification scheme for describing television markets based on measured viewing patterns. Each market's ADI consists of all the counties in which the home market stations received a preponderance of viewing. Every county in the continental U.S. is allocated exclusively to one ADI- -there is no overlap. The total within all ADI's represents the tote (Broadca The televis: means f¢ tool, i‘ promoti. Th this re Popular televis 901fers (76.3%) Well Se pr°Per1 edition GLVGC m 37 the total number of television households in the U.S. (Broadcasting & Cable Market Place, 1992). The ADI is a standard market definition. As a television buying tool, it is a geographical and demographic means for improving advertising efficiency. As a station tool, it has applications for sales, programming and promotion planning. EDY_ADI_2 The reason for using ADI for geographic segmentation in this research is that cable television is the second most popular media subscribed to by the GLVGC golfers. Cable television was subscribed to by almost 59.9% of GLVGC golfers, second only to local newspaper subscriptions (76.3%). Furthermore, cable television markets are already well segmented and each channel’s geographical reach is properly profiled in Broadcasting & Cable Market Place, 1992 edition. Utilizing ADI as a segmentation variable for the GLVGC market was considered to be potentially useful, because, if it proved to be a meaningful vehicle for segmenting GLVGC patrons, GLVGC management could better allocate television promotions among television stations in its market. Two analysis, mainly t: develope< GLVGC go relevant M The market 1 Null 11y; no diffs (Jumps e backgrOL The Sig! hYPotheE there a1 three 0, results segment. each Se t31139. ma with Se Play ' e 75% Of 38 S! !' !° 1 ! ! Two statistical tests, Chi-square and Mean value analysis, were utilized in this research. They were used mainly to evaluate the usefulness of the market segments developed and to profile similarities and differences among GLVGC golfers. A brief overview of theories and procedures relevant to these statistics follows. C '-s a e s b The Chi-square test was used to segment the GLVGC market into three different overnight groups and to test the Null hypothesis. The Null hypothesis states that there are no differences among the three overnight or ten geographic groups established to study in terms of their socioeconomic background, golfing history, satisfaction levels, and so on. The significance level selected to reject the Null hypothesis is 0.05. If the Null hypothesis is rejected, there are statistically significant differences among the three overnight and ten geographic groups. From the results, marketers can evaluate the usefulness of market segmentation and possibly exploit revealed variations in each segment’s characteristics. GLVGC’s 30 geographic-trip type markets can also be studied by crosstabulating them with selected variables such as media used, frequency of play, etc. Only the six largest segments, comparing over 75% of GLVGC's client base, will be detailed in this thesis. Procedure ProceduI Procedure 1: Procedure 2: a. Procedure 3: Procedure 4: 39 Recode variables as explained in Appendix E. This involves recoding: respondents’ geographic origin by 10 media defined geographic areas. respondents’ trip type by 3 different overnight groups. every interval, ordinal, or nominal variable relative to respondents’ socioeconomic background, golfing history, satisfaction levels, and so on. Run Crosstab to test the hypotheses. Crosstab CITY (geographic origin) by NITEGL (trip type). Crosstab all variables by NITEGL (trip type) NITEGL was recoded into three groups: stayed overnight at home. stayed overnight at GLVGC. stayed overnight at other accommodations. Crosstab all variables by respondents’ geographic origin to reveal GLVGC’s ten geographic markets. Crosstab all variables by both respondents’ trip type and geographic origin to reveal GLVGC’s thirty market segments. Mean Va Me obtain types a geograp GLVGC g satisfe Procedx 40 M an V lue a 8'8 Mean value analysis was used in this research only to obtain the mean values of every study variable for the three types of overnight groups within the ten different geographic origin groups. By using Mean value analysis, GLVGC golfers’ socioeconomic background, golfing history, satisfaction levels, and so on can be profiled. Procedure 1: Recode variables as indicated in Appendix F. a. Recode nominal or ordinal variables into interval variables. b. Recode nominal or ordinal variables into 0 or 1. The mean value can denote the percentage of "1" in the study variable. Procedure 2: Run Mean value for every study variable by ten geographic segments and by the three overnight groups. Res charactq Compare. Chapter relatio 9&09ra; socioec Capaci‘ 1“ the geOgra: Projec CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results from market segmentation and respondent characteristics analyses for each market segment are listed, compared, discussed, and profiled in this chapter. This chapter contains six sections. The first section reveals relationships between GLVGC visitor’s trip types and geographic origins. In the second section, the socioeconomic background, golfing history, and consumption capacity of the different trip type segments are profiled. In the third section, profiles of GLVGC visitors by their ’ geographic origins are presented. Total expenditures, projected increases in participation in golfing, market share captured by GLVGC, and so forth are displayed. The fourth section contains GLVGC visitor’s preferences for and utilization of GLVGC’s courses, facilities, and services, and their satisfaction levels by trip type. Such information can be used to improve GLVGC’s management and services. In the fifth section, the media to which the different trip type segments subscribe, recalled GLVGC ad, or received information about GLVGC are discussed. Finally, 41 in the type me thirty custome informe GI Ti is pres to Clas import: samPlec 42 in the last section, GLVGC’s six largest geographic-trip type market segments are discussed. These six of a possible thirty such segments account for over 75% of GLVGC’s total customer base and therefore are most likely to offer information relevant to its market planning efforts. GLVGC Respondents’ Trip Type and Geographic Origin The geographic distribution of respondents by trip type is presented in Table 4.1. The Arbitron ADI system was used to classify respondents by geographic origin. It is important to note that GLVGC golfers were not randomly sampled across all visitors, rather 50% were selected from those who used GLVGC’s overnight facilities and another 50% from day users using cart rental registrations as the sampling frame. In fact, the golf cart sample frame indicates that 11% of total rounds of golf are played by villa users. Thus, day user respondents were weighted by nine to simulate the real GLVGC market. Accordingly, the weighted trip type distribution in Table 4.1 can be assumed to represent the total GLVGC user population. As can be seen in Table 4.1, most GLVGC visitors (47.6%) are from the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, MI. ADI. Most Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek visitors (90.9%) stayed overnight at home; only 1.9% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, and 7.1% stayed overnight in other accommodations. The second largest number of GLVGC visitors Table 4.: t of cust ORIGI ... 1. GRAND KALAMA BATTLE arcs. 2. FLINT- SAGINP BAY C] 3. DETROI 4. CHICA LA sa 5- LANSJ ANN p 5- sour] ELde 7. INDI MARI 8‘ Fcur Aug 9, T01 m- or. All ( 53890; t *s 43 Table 4.1: GLVGC respondents’ geographic origin by their trip type. Count % of customer base Respondents All GLVGC Row% st v t at Respondents** Column% ome* GLVGC ot er* ORIGI *** 1035 22 81 Count= 1138 1. GRAND RAPIDS- 43.3% 0.9% 3.4% RALAMAZOO- 90.9% 1.9% 7.1% Total: 47.6% BATTLE CREEK, 77.2% 7.7‘ 10.6% MICH. 3 36 39 2. FLINT- 0.1% 1.5% SAGINAW- 7.7% 92.3% 1.6% BAY CITY, HIGH. 1.0% 4.7% 135 197 297 629 3. DETROIT, MICH. 5.6% 8.2% 12.4% 21.5% 31.3% 47.2% 26.3% 10.1% 68.6% 38.8% 18 23 117 158 4. CHICAGO- 0.8% 1.0% 4.9% LA SALLE, ILL. 11.4% 14.6% 74.1% 6.6% 1.3% 8.0% 15.3% 117 8 36 161 5. LANSING- 4.9% 0.3% 1.5% ANN ARBOR, MICH. 72.7% 5.0% 22.4% 6.7% 8.7% 2.8% 4.7% 27 4 27 58 6. SOUTH BEND- 1.1% 0.2% 1.1% ELKHART, IND. 46.6% 6.9% 46.6% 2.4% 2.0% 1.4% 3.5% 7 7 7. INDIANAPOLIS- 0.3% MARION, IND. 100.0% .3% 2.4% 7 36 43 8. FORT WAYNE- 0.3% 1.5% ANGOLA, IND. 16.3% 83.7% 1.8% 2.4% 4.7% 9 10 54 73 9. TOLEDO, OHIO 0.4% 0.4% 2.3% 12.3% 13.7% 74.0% 3.1% .7% 3.5% 7.1% 6 81 87 10. OTHERS 0.3% 3.4% 6.9% 93.1% 3.6% 2.1% 10.6% All GLVGC Count- 1341 287 765 2393 Respondents Total: 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% * The sample was weighted by nine. ** The samples were summed after being weighted. *** The A hi on I market at s was used to establish geographic boundaries for each origin. The largest city(ies) in each ADI is (are) used to label each ADI. However, all respondents do not live in these central cities. (26.3% of Detl accomml stayed stayed visitoz Only 5% overniq responc than 7c stayed GLVGC r ADI. Ne stayed LaSalle while 0 OVernig Tu GLVGC a accommo 70* (68 44 (26.3%) are from the Detroit, MI. ADI. Around 30% (31.3%) of Detroit respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations. As for the other Detroit respondents, 47.2% stayed overnight in other accommodations and only 21.5% stayed overnight at home. The third largest number of GLVGC visitors (6.7%) are from the Lansing-Ann Arbor, MI. ADI. Only 5% of the Lansing-Ann Arbor respondents stayed overnight at GLVGC. Another 22.4% of the Lansing-Ann Arbor respondents stayed overnight in other accommodations. More than 70.0% (72.7%) of the Lansing-Ann Arbor respondents stayed overnight at home. The fourth largest number of the GLVGC respondents (6.6%) are from the Chicago-LaSalle, IL. ADI. Nearly 15% (14.6%) of the Chicago-LaSalle respondents stayed overnight at GLVGC, but another 74.1% of the Chicago- LaSalle respondents stayed overnight in other accommodations while only 11.4% of the Chicago-LaSalle respondents stayed overnight at home. Twelve percent of all visitors stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, 32.0% stayed overnight in other accommodation, and 56.0 % stayed overnight at home. Around 70% (68.6%) of respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations are from Detroit. As for the respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations, many of them (38.8%) are also from Detroit. Almost 80.0% (77.2%) of the respondents who stayed overnight at home are from Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ADI. G] 9; Exc signific three 0* average 1990; c all Ame who pl; that (- A golfin 26.2% in GL) 1ongel resp0: who S fOr II 23-2: Vigi. ”is: 3r533: res] (BC) 45 GLVGC Respondents’ Characteristics by Trip Type GLVGC Bgspondents’ Gplfing flistopy by Trip Type Except for the total rounds played in 1990, there are significant differences in golfing histories across the three overnight categories as can be seen in Table 4.2. On average, 72.8% of respondents played 25 rounds or more in 1990; only 27.2% played less than 25 rounds. Compared with all American golfers, the percentage (72.8%) of respondents who played 25 rounds or more in 1990 is almost the same as that (73.0%) of overall U.S. golfers in 1987 (NGF, 1989fi. As for golf experience, 31.0% of respondents have been golfing more than 25 years, 42.9% from 11 to 25 years, and 26.2% less than 11 years. Respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations had a higher percentage (40.0%) of longer golfing experience (over 25 years) than the respondents who stayed overnight at home (30.4%) and those who stayed overnight in other accommodations (28.6%). Across all respondents, most (41.6%) had visited GLVGC for more than 5 years, 35.2% from 2 to 5 years, and only 23.2% for one year. Most of the latter are first time visitors as confirmed by the distribution of first time visitors (20.3%) and repeat visitors (79.7%). Most respondents who stayed overnight at home (80.6%) and respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (80.1%) were found to have been visiting GLVGC for more than GLVGC RE GOLF I NC a r: H H (D Table 4.2: 46 Respondent’s golfing history by trip type. SEGMENT GLVGC RESPONDENTS’ W TOTAL TEST SIG.” GOLFING HISTORY HOME GLVGC OTHER RESPONDENTS STT‘ LEVEL N = 1341c 287 765c 2393d % of customer base = 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% Golfing Experience 0-10 YEARS 25.0% 15.9% 32.1% 26.2% 11-25 YEARS 44.6% 44.1% 39.3% 42.9% 26+ YEARS 30.4% 40.0% 28.6% 31.0% 35.29 .00' Years Visited GLVGC 1st YEAR 19.4% 19.9% 31.0% 23.2% 2-5 YEARS 30.6% 38.8% 41.7% 35.2% 5+ YEARS 50.0% 41.3% 27.4% 41.6% 105.46 .00’ let time VS repeat visitor 1st time GLVGC visitor 13.5% 22.8% 31.3% 20.3% Repeat GLVGC visitor 86.5% 77.2% 68.7% 79.7% 95.26 .00‘ Times visited GLVGC in the past year 0 or 1 time 18.7% 57.4% 43.5% 31.3% 2 or more times 81.3% 42.6% 56.5% 68.7% 245.70 .00 Favor 9- OR 18- HOLES More favor 9- 27.2% 13.2% 9.8% 20.0% More favor 18- 46.3% 64.2% 59.8% 52.7% No preference 26.5% 22.6% 30.5% 27.3% 109.81 .00‘ Overnight at home VS Overnight away from home Overnight away from home 5.3% 100.0% 96.5% 46.0% Overnight at home 94.7% 3.5% 54.0% 2036.78 .00' Rounds played (in 1990) 0 - 24 ROUNDS 26.8% 26.2% 28.2% 27.2% 25+ ROUNDS 73.2% 73.8% 71.8% 72.8% .64 .72 ‘ Statistical test used is chi square (x5. “ The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant differences among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. ° The sample is weighted by nine. ‘ The samples are summed up after being weighted ' Mark means the variable tested is significantly different among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. one YBE overniq GLVGC 2 those : conside Ml hole r. 18- ho hole r. accomm in oth 9 hole far no they a to mOr T OVerni majori to the Finall gr°ups Most G El I signif 47 one year. About one third of respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations were found to have visited GLVGC for one year or less or were first time visitors, thus those staying overnight in other accommodations are considerably more likely to be new GLVGC customers. Most respondents (52.7%) preferred 18 hole rounds to 9 hole rounds; 27.3% expressed no preference between 9- and 18- hole rounds; and only 20.0% preferred 9 hole over 18 hole rounds. Most respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (64.2%) and respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations (59.8%) preferred 18 hole rounds to 9 hole rounds. Individuals who spent the night at home were far more likely to favor playing 9 holes probably because they are more likely to have less leisure time available due to more work, family, and other responsibilities. The data in the section of Table 4.2 concerning overnight at home versus away from home confirm that the majority of respondents appear to have correctly responded to the question concerning where they spent the night. Finally, approximately 75% of respondents in all three groups played over 25 rounds of golf in 1990 indicating that most GLVGC visitors are frequent golfers. ;-:..,._-, ’ _. 'o- .,.._._' , _. 'o l“,- The data in Table 4.3 reveal the existence of significant differences between the three groups of golfers with resl income, . highligh GLVGC go comparis Table 2. Th: be 45.9 U.S. gc average OVerni< Stayed “ation in M1 c GLVGC tluosee hatio markE eithq arui Sta? theE ‘VCJI <3\Ii €13. 48 with respect to age, employment situation, marital status, income, education, family size, and gender. These will be highlighted in this section along with differences between GLVGC golfers and all U.S. and Michigan golfers where comparisons are possible with information reported in Table 2.1. The overall GLVGC respondents’ average age was found to be 45.9 years old, older than Michigan golfers (36.7), and U.S. golfers (38.1) (NGF,1989W. Those overnighting at home average age is 47.9, older than the respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations (44.9) and respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (39.2). Nationally, 25% of golfers are older than 50 years old, and in Michigan 24% are older than 50; however, nearly 45% of GLVGC golfers are over 50 although the over 50 percentage of those staying in GLVGC’s villa (25.2%) is about equal to the national and statewide norms. Clearly GLVGC’s current market comprises a higher percentage of older golfers than either the overall Michigan or U.S. markets. Nearly 83% of respondents reported working full time and almost 11% are retired. Almost 90.0% of respondents who stayed overnight at home worked full time. Around 80% of the respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodation worked full time. Only 65.4% of respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations worked full time. Twenty- eight percent of respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC Table 4 GLVGC RES SOCIOECO! Hou88h01( O- $25000- 5105 I OOi Table 4.3: type. 49 GLVGC respondents’ socioeconomic status by trip SEGMENT GLVGC RESPONDENTS' .BE§2Q!2EEI§_§IAI§2_QYEBEI§§1_AI. TOTAL TEST .SIG-b SOCIOEOONOMIC STATUS HOME GLVGC OTHER RESPONDENTS STT‘ LEVEL N s 1341‘ 287 765° 2393‘ % of customer base = 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% Age 29 OR YOUNGER 11.0% 27.7% 12.8% 13.6% 30 - 39 9.0% 24.2% 24.4% 15.9% 40 - 49 28.3% 22.8% 23.3% 26.0% 50 - 59 34.5% 19.6% 29.1% 30.9% 60 or older 17.2% 5.6% 10.5% 13.6% 191.28 .00‘ mean - 48.2 40.0 45.3 43.2 (years old) Employment WORK FULL TIME 89.2% 65.4% 78.6% 82.9% RETIRED 6.1% 28.0% 14.3% 11.4% OTHER 4.7% 6.6% 7.1% 5.7% 113.12 .00’ Marital situation MARRIED 73.6% 89.0% 84.5% 79.0% OTHER 26.4% 11.0% 15.5% 21.0% 54.21 .00' Household income in 1990 $ 0- 25000 4.9% 3.0% 3.8% 4.3% $25000- 50000 33.8% 23.2% 28.8% 30.9% $50000-105000 47.2% 56.1% 46.3% 48.0% $105,000+ 14.1% 17.7% 21.3% 16.8% 31.07 .00' Education HIGH SCHOOL 16.4% 16.5% 9.5% 14.2% COLLEGE 59.6% 56.8% 58.3% 58.9% GRADUATE SCHOOL 24.0% 26.7% 32.1% 26.9% 29.56 .00' mean a 15.6 15.4 16.2 15.8 (years) Family size (#person) 2 OR LESS 48.3% 53.6% 53.6% 50.6% 3 OR MORE 51.7% 46.4% 46.4% 49.4% 6.52 .04' mean = 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 (persons) ' Statistical test used is chi square (x9). ” The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null‘ hypothesis is that there is no significant differences among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. ° The sample is weighted by nine. ‘ The samples are summed up after being weighted. ' Mark means the variable tested is significantly different among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. accommo who sta respond Se 89.0% o accommo overnig the res AF $50,000 $50,000 more th all U , 5 benchma Th responc‘ undergr only 14 suggest than m: an “ride over 3 . Re 2.9 DE] 50 accommodations were retired, while only 14.3% of respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations and 6.1% of the respondents who stayed overnight at home were retired. Seventy-nine percent of GLVGC respondents were married; 89.0% of respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations were married; 84.5% of respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations were married; and 73.6% of the respondents who stayed overnight at home were married. Approximately 65% of respondents earned more than $50,000 while only 35% of all U.S. golfers earn at least $50,000. Furthermore, 16.8% of respondents have incomes of more than $105,000 which is also higher than the 10.5% of all U.S. golfers who reached the somewhat lower $100,000 benchmark reported in Table 2.1. The average length of education for all GLVGC respondents is 15.8 years: 58.9% of respondents have an undergraduate education, 26.9% a graduate education, and only 14.2% a high school education. Data in Table 2.1 suggest that GLVGC respondents have a higher education level than most U.S. golfers. Only 28.6% of all U.S. golfers have an undergraduate education, 39.9% a graduate education, and over 31.5% only a high school education or less. Respondents reported their average family size to be 2.9 persons. Slightly more than 50% reported families with 2 or fewer persons; slightly fewer than half reported having larger families. 51 v ;-;..,,-, (I .,« u, '., -= - , . y '. _..- There are significant differences across respondent groups by consumption items such as: total expenditures in 1989, expectations of participation in golf next year, ever or never using professional golf instruction, and the frequency of combining golfing and vacation (Table 4.4). The percentage (51.2%) of GLVGC respondents who reported always combining golfing with vacations is similar to the percentage (48.8%) who seldom combine golfing with vacations. But respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations combine more golfing and vacations (66.3%) than the respondents who stayed overnight at home (42.6%). Their total expenditures last year at GLVGC are distributed across income categories as follows: 33.8% spent less than $250, 24.9% spent from $250 to $500, 20.5% spent from $500 to $1,000, and 20.8% spent more than $1,000. The expenditures of around half (48.1%) of respondents who stayed overnight at home was less than $250 last year, but about half of respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (49.5%) and respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations (54.0%) spent more than $500. About 98% of respondents have never used professional golf instruction at GLVGC. Around 53.2% of respondents reported that they expected to play the same amount next year, another 45.1% expected to play more, and only 1.6% expected to play less. 52 Table 4.4: GLVGC respondents’ consumption by trip type. SEGMENT ALL use src.“ CONSUMPTION ITEM HOME GLVGC OTHER RESPONDENTS STT‘ LEVEL N = 1341° 287 765° 2393‘ % of customer base - 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% Golfing + vacation FEW GOLF+VACA 57.4% 47.9% 33.7% 48.8% MORE GOLF+VACA 42.6% 52.1% 66.3% 51.2% 107.67 .00' Total expenditures in 1990 at GLVGC s 0 - 250 48.1% 13.9% 16.2% 33.8% $ 250 - 500 19.5% 36.6% 29.7% 24.9% s 500 - 1,000 15.8% 25.3% 27.0% 20.5% $1,000-> MORE 16.5% 24.2% 27.0% 20.8% 254.73 .00' Professional golf instruction USED this GLVGC trip 0.7% 0.3% 1.2% 0.8% NOT USED this GLVGC trip 99.3% 99.7% 98.8% 99.2% 2.48 .29 Professional golf instruction EVER USED 3.3% 1.7% 2.1% NEVER USED 96.7% 98.3% 100.0% 97.9% 20.84 .00' Play Next year PLAY LESS 2.0% 0.7% 1.2% 1.6% PLAY SAME 46.6% 59.2% 63.0% 53.2% PLAY MORE 51.4% 40.1% 35.8% 45.1% 56.48 .00' PACKAGE BUY PACKAGE 94.7% NO PACKAGE 5.3% WHICH N0 PACKAGE 8.3% 3DAYS 2NIGHTS 56.6% 4DAYS 3NIGHTS 35.2% Make breakfast at GLVGC NO 52.4% YES 47.6% Make lunch at GLVGC NO 68.6% YES 31.4% Make dinner at GLVGC NO 69.7% YES 30.3% ‘ Statistical test used is chi square (X5. ‘ The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant differences among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. ° The sample is weighted by nine. The samples are summed up after being weighted. Mark means the variable tested is significantly different among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. 53 There is no significant difference among the respondents with respect to use of professional golf instruction. On the average, 99.2% of the respondents reported not using professional golf instruction at GLVGC on this trip. Of respondents who stayed overnight at GLVGC, nearly 95% purchased a GLVGC package. About 56.6% purchased 3 days and 2 nights packages and 35.2% purchased 4 days and 3 nights packages; only 5.3% did not purchase any package. Half of GLVGC villa users (47.6%) prepared their breakfasts in their own rooms, but only around 30% of them had their lunch (31.4%) and dinner (30.3%) in their room. GLVGC Respondents’ Geographic Profile In the previous section, various characteristics of respondents were discussed after grouping them into three trip type segments linked to where they spent the night, at home, at GLVGC, or at other accommodations. In this section, respondents are examined after grouping them into 10 geographic segments in accordance with their reported residence. Three formats are used in this section to provide insight into similarities and differences of respondents across the 10 geographic segments established for purposes of this analysis. First, the means for study variables are reported for each of the 10 geographic sectors in 54 Tables 4.5-4.8. These tables provide the opportunity to explore respondent characteristics across the 10 segments. No interpretation of these tables is provided herein. Given the very large number of comparisons which would be possible and the simplicity of making these comparisons, it is assumed that the reader will be able to explore comparisons which may be of interest. Second, an index is provided at the beginning of the discussion presented for each of the 10 geographic segments. The index is designed to provide the reader with a quick grasp of each segment’s relative ranking across seven variables of key importance in market planning. Third, a table is presented under the discussion of each segment which permits comparisons within each segment across where respondents spent the night and selected demographic and use characteristics. The ADI concept was used to define these ten geographic segments. These are listed below (also see Figure 4.1) along with the number of respondents from each which was available for analysis. The relatively small sample size from many of the geographic segments should be noted. One should not ascribe a high degree of confidence to the results reported for segments based upon sample sizes much below 25. GEOGRAPHIC NUMBER OF ‘42mmmx1. EASE: 1. GRAND RAPIDS-KALAMAZOO-BATTLE CREEK, MI. 143 2. FLINT-SAGINAW-BAY CITY, MI. 7 3. DETROIT, MI. 236 4. CHICAGO-LA SALLE, IN. 36 5. LANSING-ANN ARBOR, MI. 25 6. SOUTH BEND-ELKHART, IN. 9 7. INDIANAPOLIS-MARION, IN. 7 8. FORT WAYNE-ANGOLA, IN. 11 9. TOLEDO, OH. 17 10. OTHER 14 Total (unweighted) . 505 Figure 4.1: Map of the ADI markets used in segmenting respondents by residence. 55 56 Table 4.5: Respondents’ golfing history by geographic segment. (Values in Table are group means) GEOGRAPHIC GLVGC GOLF GOLFING lsT TIME SEGIENT VISITS‘ EXPERIENCE AT GLVGC ROUNDS" VISITOR 1. G. Rapids 8.2 19.6 6.9 43.6 14.5% 2. Flint 1.5 17.7 10.5 44.3 2.6% 3. Detroit 2.0 22.6 4.5 47.0 25.1% 4. Chicago 2.5 23.2 3.4 34.1 27.9% 5. Lansing 2.3 22.0 8.5 42.8 11.2% 6. 3. Bend 1.9 17.7 7.6 50.6 31.0% 7. Indianapolis 1.3 18.4 1.9 44.4 57.1% 8. Ft. Wayne 1.5 20.5 5.9 60.0 46.5% 9. Toledo 1.7 21.3 2.8 70.8 38.4% 10. Others 2.3 24.3 8.5 56.7 37.2% Overall 5.0 21.0 6.1 45.5 20.3% Respondents times years years rounds ‘ Times visited GLVGC during the past year ” Rounds played by GLVGC respondents in 1989. Table 4.6: Respondents’ socioeconomic background and consumption by geographic segment. (Values in Table are group means) GEOGRAPHIC FAMILY OVERNIGHT TOTAL GOLF PLAY SEGMENT AGE SIZE AT GLVGC EXPENDITURE INCREASE‘ 1. G. Rapids 49.1 2.9 1.9% 801.5 18.8% 2. Flint 46.6 2.4 7.7% 686.3 14.6% 3. Detroit 43.3 2.9 31.3% 884.4 10.7% 4. Chicago 43.2 2.5 14.6% 617.1 8.8% 5. Lansing 45.5 3.4 5.0% 419.6 19.5% 6. S. Bend 42.5 2.2 6.9% 556.4 0.0% 7. Indianapolis 42.9 3.1 100.0% 688.9 28.6% 8. Ft. Wayne 45.3 2.6 16.3% 661.1 10.9% 9. Toledo 38.8 2.0 13.7% 541.1 0.7% 10. Other 43.4 2.8 6.9% 997.1 4.7% Overall 45.9 2.9 12.0% 792.1 14.4% Respondents persons U.S. Dollars ‘ Percentage expecting to golf more next year 57 Table 4 .7: Respondents’ demographic backgrounds by geographic segment. (Values in Table are group means) GEOGRAPHIC SEGMENT The Married Education Income‘ in 1990 1. G. Rapids 73.2% 15.4 2.9 ($ 47,500) 2. Flint 76.9% 15.0 2.8 (5 45,000) 3. Detroit 81.9% 15.8 3.4 ($ 60,000) 4. Chicago 87.3% 17.2 3.5 ($ 62,500) 5. Lansing 88.8% 15.7 3.7 ($ 67,500) 6. 8. Bend 81.6% 14.6 2.8 ($ 45,000) 7. Indianapolis 100.0% 18.1 3.3 (S 57,500) 8. Ft. Wayne 97.7% 14.8 3.1 ($ 52,500) 9. Toledo 74.0% 18.4 2.8 (S 45,000) 10. Other 88.5% 15.6 2.9 (5 47,500) Overall 78.9% 15.7 3.1 ($ 52,500) Respondents ' Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 $25,000-$49,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. Respondents’ golf playing by geographic segment. (Values in Table are group means) Table 4.8: Total rounds Rounds played % of play GEOGRAPHIC played in 1990 at GLVGC in 1990 at GLVGC SMHGWT JBLHQML_ZJELB IQJEEE_JLEQUQ .MLEQUL_2JEEE 1. G. Rapids 28.0 16.9 5.0 3.5 17.6% 20.7% 2. Flint 19.9 24.4 2.0 0.3 10.1% 1.2% 3. Detroit 35.9 11.7 5.6 0.6 15.6% 5.1% 4. Chicago 24.0 8.2 4.1 0.3 17.1% 3.7% 5. Lansing 23.5 19.4 2.9 0.1 12.3% 0.5% 6. 8. Bend 46.5 4.1 5.0 0.2 10.8% 4.9% 7. Indianapolis 27.4 3.6 5.1 0.1 18.6% 2.8% 8. Ft. Wayne 50.0 10.0 2.7 0.4 5.4% 4.0% 9. Toledo 61.1 9.6 5.6 0.5 9.2% 5.2% 10. other 46.0 10.1 3.2 0.1 7.0% 1.0% Overall 31.8 14.3 4.8 1.9 15.1% 13.3% Respondents 58 Ov l G VGC s o ts GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households ' 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 20.3% Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 12.0% The respondents’ total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 100.0% Respondents were from Michigan, Indiana, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, and Florida. According to Table 4.1, 56.0% of overall respondents stayed overnight at home, 12.0% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, and 32.0% stayed overnight in other accommodations. From Table 4.9, it can be seen that 20.3% of overall respondents are first time visitors. Their average reported age is 45.9 years; most completed college (15.8 years of education), and they earned relatively high incomes ($52,500/year). About 80% are married with family sizes averaging 2.9 persons. They have been golfing for 21.0 years; 6.1 years at GLVGC. About 80% of them are GLVGC repeat visitors. They averaged 5.0 visits to GLVGC in 1990. Their average total expenditures at GLVGC in 1990 was $792.1. Respondents will potentially increase their golf playing by 14.4 percent next year at GLVGC. 59 Table 4.9: Profile of overall GLVGC respondents. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Mean for overall v at at at all Study variable home GLVGC others Respgndentg N = 1341I 287 765 2393 % of customer base = 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% Age 47.9 39.2 44.9 45.9 % of the married 73.7% 89.0% 84.7% 79.0% Education (years) 15.6 15.4 16.2 15.8 Income3 in 1990 3.0 3.3 3.2 3.1 ($50,000 $57,500 $55,000 $52,500) Family size 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.9 Golf experience (years) 20.8 24.7 19.8 21.0 GLVGC golf experience (years) 7.2 5.7 4.6 6.1 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 7.1 2.0 2.3 5.0 % first time visitor 13.5% 22.7% 32.1% 20.3% Rounds played in 1990 43.4 49.4 47.5 45.4 Total expenditures 677.4 1054.3 1335.7 930.8 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) Expected % golfing increased 18.6% 12.1% 8.0% 14.4% next year at GLVGC The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 3 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 $25,000-S49,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-SlO4,999, 60 Grgpd Rapids-Kalgpazoo-Bgttlg Cpegk, Ml. AD; Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 111.4 ***** 18.4 Percentage of respondents on first visit to GLVGC 14.5% ** 20.3 Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 8.2 ***** 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight at GLVGC 1.9% * 12.0% Respondenets' annual incomes in 1990 $47,500 ** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $801.5 **** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 18.8% **** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 47.6% ***** Reliability due to (sample size): high (143) According to the index above, there are around 111.4 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Grand Rapids-Kalazoo-Battle, MI. ADI, which is the highest market density registered across the 10 ADIs. This segment ranks very high on the frequency of visitation and percentage of GLVGC’s customer base (47.6%), a little low on percentage of first time customers, and very low on use of GLVGC’s overnight accommodations. According to Table 4.1, 90.9% of the respondents in this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home, only 1.9% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, and 7.1% stayed overnight in other accommodations. This is the largest of the 10 geographic markets; it is very important to GLVGC’s profitability. Table 4.10 provides further information concerning this geographic segment. Surprisingly, 14.5% of respondents from this area are first time GLVGC visitors. Respondents from ' The code for interpreting index values is: * bottom 20% ** next to bottom 20% *** middle 20% **** 2nd from top 20% ***** top 20% 61 this area visited GLVGC 8.2 times in 1990. Their incomes averaged about $47,500 per year in 1990, and their average total expenditures at GLVGC in that year equalled $801.5; with respect to the latter, it ranks third highest among the 10 geographic segments. These respondents will potentially golf more by 18.8 percent next year at GLVGC. Table 4.10: Geographic segment 1, Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo- Battle Creek, MI ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Means for Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek, ADI . .mumngfumasflmifmnmm_emfinusht aui % of customer base - 90.9% 1.9% 7.1% 100.0% Age 49.3 39.0 49.1 49.1 % of the married 71.7% 85.7% 88.9% 73.2% Education (years) 15.4 15.2 15.4 15.4 Income3 in 1990 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.9 ($47,500 $52,500 $45,000 $47,500) Family size 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.9 Golf experience (years) 19.8 25.0 16.2 19.6 GLVGC golf experience (years) 7.1 6.1 4.6 6.9 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 8.4 2.6 5.3 8.2 % first time visitor 14.0% 9.0% 22.2% 14.5% Rounds played in 1990 43.8 42.6 41.4 43.6 Total expenditures 752.1 2132.7 1069.9 801.5 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) % expecting to golf more 20.0% 12.9% 5.6% 18.8% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 3 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-SlO4,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 62 F ' -Sa ° w- t . I Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 5.2 ** 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 2.6% * 20.3 Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 1.5 * 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 7.7% *** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $45,000 * $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $686.3 *** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 14.6% **** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 1.6% * Reliability due to (sample size): very low (7) According to the index above, there are only about 5.2 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Flint- Saginaw-Bay City, MI. ADI, which is one of the lower market densities registered across the 10 ADIs. This segment ranks very low on frequency of visitation, percentage of GLVGC’s customer base, and percentage of first time customers, and middle on use of GLVGC’s overnight accommodations. According to Table 4.1, none of the respondents from this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home, but only 7.7% of them stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations. The remaining 92.3% of the respondents stayed overnight in other accommodations which suggests the primary reason for visiting the Battle Creek-Kalamazoo area was for business or other reasons. Their projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is only 1.6 percent which ranks this segment very low among all geographic segments. This is not currently a good market for the GLVGC golf club, probably because golfers from there are closer to other comparable facilities. From referring to Table 4.11, it can be seen that 2.6% 63 of respondents from this area are first time visitors. Respondents from this area visited GLVGC only 1.5 times, and most of them are repeat visitors. Their incomes averaged almost $45,000 per year in 1990, and their total expenditures at GLVGC totaled $686.3, which was in the middle of all geographic segments. These respondents will potentially golf more by 14.6 percent next year at GLVGC. Table 4.11: Geographic segment 2, Flint-Saginaw-Bay City, MI. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Means for Flint-Saginaw-Bay City ADI o d ove h at at at all Stuex_xariable heme QLYQQ ether Beeegadsnte N - 0 3 36 39 % of customer base - 0.0% 7.7% 92.3% 100.0% % of the married - 100.0% 75.0% 76.9% Education (years) - 15.3 15.0 15.0 Income3 in 1990 - 3.0 2.8 2.8 ($50,000 $45,000 $45,000) Family size - 4.0 2.3 2.4 Golf experience (years) - 20.7 17.5 17.7 GLVGC golf experience (years)- 5.0 11.0 10.5 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 - 1.3 1.5 1.5 % first time visitor - 33.3% 0.0% 2.6% Rounds played in 1990 - 36.0 45.0 44.3 Total expenditures - 570.0 692.8 686.3 in 1990 at GLVGC (S’s) % expecting to golf more - ' 10.0% 15.0% 14.6% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 3 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, 575,000-5104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 64 232W Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 22.0 **** 18.4 Percent of respondents first time visited GLVGC 25.1% ** 20.3 Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 2.0 *** 5.0 Percent of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 31.3% ***** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $60,000 **** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $884.4 ***** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 10.7% *** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 26.3% ***** Reliability due to (sample size): high (236) According to the index above, there are around 20 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Detroit, MI. ADI, which is a high relative to other ADIs. This segment ranks very high as a percentage of GLVGC's customer base and on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations, lower with respect to frequency of visitation, and in the middle with respect to frequency of visitation. According to Table 4.1, 21.5% of respondents from this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home; 31.3% of them stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations; and 47.2% stayed overnight in other accommodations. This ADI represents a very good market given the size of its population and a relatively high market penetration. From Table 4.12 it can be seen that 25.1% of respondents from this area are first time visitors. Respondents visited GLVGC 2.0 times in 1990 which is in the middle in comparison to golfers from most other regions. Customers in this segment have golf experience of about 22 years but have only golfed 4.5 years at GLVGC. They reported relatively high incomes and expenditures at GLVGC 65 in 1990. Their incomes averaged about $60,000 per year in 1990, and their total expenditures at GLVGC were $884.4 which ranks them second highest among the 10 segments. These respondents will potentially golf more by 10.7 percent next year at GLVGC. Geographic segment 3, Detroit, MI. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Table 4.12: Means for Detroit, MI. ADI e v t at at at all Study variable figme, G VGC other gggpggggggg N = 135 197 297I 629 % of customer base = 21.5% 31.3% 47.2% 100.0% Age 42.3 39.3 44.2 42.3 % of the married 73.3% 87.8% 81.8% 81.9% Education (years) 16.4 15.1 15.8 15.8 Income3 in 1990 3.5 3.2 3.5 3.4 ($62,500 $55,000 $62,500 $60,000) Family size 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.9 Golf experience (years) 24.0 23.9 21.2 22.6 GLVGC golf experience (years) 4.5 5.6 3.8 4.5 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.0 % first time visitor 21.4% 23.0% 28.1% 25.1% Rounds played in 1990 39.7 49.1 48.6 47.0 Total expenditures 613.9 938.5 979.7 884.4 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) % expecting golf more 11.7% 13.2% 8.5% 10.7% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. ’ Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-SlO4,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 66 Chica -L . A I Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 3.2 * 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 27.9% *** 20.3% Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 2.5 ***** 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 14.6% **** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $62,500 ***** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $617.1 ** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 8.8% ** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 6.6% **** Reliability due to (sample size): moderate lower (36) According to the index above, there are around 3.0 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Chicago- LaSalle, IL. ADI, which is one of the lowest market densities registered across the 10 ADIs. This segment ranks highest on frequency of visitation, relatively high on the percentage of GLVGC’s customer base and on the use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations, and in the middle with respect to percentage of first time customers. According to Table 4.1, 11.4% of respondents from this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home; 14.6% of the respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations; and 74.1% of the respondents stayed overnight in other accommodations. The projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is 6.6 percent, ranking a little high among the 10 geographic segments. From Table 4.13, it can be seen that only 27.9% of respondents from this area were first time visitors, thus most are repeat visitors. They visited GLVGC 2.5 times in 1990 which is relatively very high among the 10 segments. 'They have been golfing for 23.2 years but only 3.4 years at 67 GLVGC. They reported very high incomes, but their spending at GLVGC was a little lower than for most ADIs. Their incomes averaged about $62,500 per year in 1990, and their total expenditures at GLVGC were only $617.1. These respondents will potentially golf more by 8.8% percent next year at GLVGC. Table 4.13: Geographic segment 4, Chicago-La Salle, IL. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Means for Chicago-La Salle, IL ADI e e ver ht at at at all Study variable home G VGC gghgg aggpgggggtg N a 18' 23 117‘ 1582 % of customer base = 11.4% 14.6% 74.1% 100.0% Age 43.5 40.7 43.6 43.2 % of the married 50.0% 91.3% 92.3% 87.3% Education (years) 18.5 16.3 17.2 17.2 Income3 in 1990 3.0 4.0 3.5 3.5 ($50,000 $75,000 $62,500 $62,500) Family size 2.0 3.1 2.5 2.5 Golf experience (years) 30.0 29.3 20.9 23.2 GLVGC golf experience (years) 3.0 4.1 3.2 3.4 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 3.5 1.7 2.5 2.5 % first time visitor 0.0% 34.8% 30.8% 27.9% Rounds played in 1990 50.0 36.3 31.2 34.1 Total expenditures 554.5 1033.6 523.0 617.1 in 1990 at GLVGC (S’s) % expecting to golf more 30.0% 6.3% 5.8% 8.8% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 3 The samples are summed after being weighted. 3 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 68 Iiflsiflg'enn 8:29: ”I an; Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 42.7 **** 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 11.2% * 20.3% Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 2.3 **** 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 5.0% * 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $67,500 ***** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $617.1 * $792.1 Percentage expecting to play more next year 19.5% ***** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 6.7% **** Reliability due to (sample size): moderate middle (25) According to the index above, there are around 42.7 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Lansing- Ann Arbor, MI. ADI, which is among the higher market densities registered across the 10 ADIs. This segment ranks very low on the percentage of first time customers and on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations, and ranks a little high on the frequency of visitation and percentage of -GLVGC's customer base. According to Table 4.1, 72.7% of the respondents in this area are the golfers who stayed overnight at home, only 5.0% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, and 22.4% of the respondents stayed overnight in other accommodations. Their projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is 6.7 percent, ranking third among all geographic segments. From Table 4.14, it can be seen that a very low 11.2% of respondents from this area are first time visitors, thus most are.repeat visitors. They have been golfing on average for 22 years and have golfed for 8.5 years at GLVGC. Respondents from this area visited GLVGC 2.3 times in 1990 which is relatively high. They reported the highest incomes but spent the least across the 10 ADIs. 69 Their reported average income was almost $67,500 per year in 1990, but their total expenditures at GLVGC was only $419.6. These respondents will potentially golf more by 19.5 percent next year at GLVGC. Table 4.14: Geographic segment 5, Lansing-Ann Arbor, MI. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Mean for Lansing-Ann Arbor ADI regpgndents who stayed overnight at at at all Air—w variab e Acme. 21.1% other W N = 117‘ 8 361 161 % of customer base = 72.7% 5.0% 22.4% 100.0% Age 46.4 43.5 43.0 45.4 % of the married 92.3% 100.0% 75.0% 88.8% Education (years) 15.2 16.5 17.0 15.7 Income3 in 1990 3.9 3.1 3.3 3.7 ($72,500 $52,500 $57,500 $67,500) Family size 3.5 2.9 3.3 3.4 Golf experience (years) 21.7 22.3 22.5 22.0 GLVGC golf experience (years) 9.5 8.6 5.3 8.5 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 2.3 1.8 2.5 2.3 % first time visitor 7.7% 0.0% 25.0% 11.2% Rounds played in 1990 36.6 94.9 51.3 42.8 Total expenditures 256.2 681.4 941.0 419.6 in 1990 at chcc (5's) % expecting to golf more 2.9% 30.0% 19.5% 17.5% next year at GLVGC . ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 3 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 $25,000-S49,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, 5 $105,000 or mere. 7O ut B - t A Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 11.8 *** 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 31.0% *** 20.3% Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 1.9 *** 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 6.9% ** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $45,000 * $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $556.4 ** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 0.0% * 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 2.4% ** Reliability due to (sample size): very lower (9) According to the index above, there are around 11.8 GLVGC respondents for every 10,000 households in the South Bend-Elkhart, IN. ADI, which is in the middle of the market densities registered across the 10 ADIs. This segment also ranks in the middle on percentage of first time customers and on frequency of visitation, and ranks a little low with respect to percentage of GLVGC's customer base and on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations. According to Table 4.1, 46.6% of the respondents in this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home; 6.9% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations; and 46.6% stayed overnight in other accommodations. Their projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is 2.4 percent, ranking very low among all geographic segments. This is not a significant market for the GLVGC. From Table 4.15, it can been seen that about 31.0% of respondents from this area are first time visitors, thus 70% are repeat visitors. They have been golfing for 17.7 years and for 7.6 years at GLVGC. Respondents from this area visited GLVGC 1.9 times in 1990 which ranks medium among the 71 10 segments. They reported neither high incomes or high spending at GLVGC. Their incomes averaged almost $45,000 per year in 1990 and their total expenditures at GLVGC were only $556.4. These respondents do not expect to change their golf playing rate next year at GLVGC. Table 4.15: Geographic segment 6, South Bend-Elkhart, IN. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Mean for South Bend-Elkhart, IN. ADI gespggdggtg who stayed overnight . at at at all Study variable N = 32922227? QQLEQ g%r W % of customer base = 46.4% 6.9% 46.6% 100.0% Age 41.7 28.5 45.3 42.5 % of the married 66.7% 100.0% 100.0% 81.6% Education (years) 14.0 14.9 15.5 14.5 Income3 in 1990 2.0 3.5 3.5 2.8 ($25,000 $62,500 $62,500 $45,000) Family size 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 Golf experience (years) 22.3 41.0 5.5 17.7 GLVGC golf experience (years) 11.7 9.5 3.3 7.6 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 2.7 3.5 1.0 1.9 % first time visitor 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 31.0% Rounds played in 1990 53.3 61.3 44.0 50.6 Total expenditures 185.0 3505.5 360.0 556.4 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% % expecting to golf more 0.0% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 2 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 72 a - 'o I Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 0.5 * 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 57.1% ***** 20.3 Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 1.3 * 5.0 Percent of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 100.0% ***** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $57,500 **** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $688.9 **** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 28.6% ***** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 0.3% * Reliability due to (sample size): very low (7) According to the index above, there are only 0.5 GLVGC respondents for every 10,000 households in the Indianapolis- Marion, IN ADI, which is the lowest market density registered across the 10 ADIs. This segment ranks highest on percentage of first time customers (57.1%) and on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations, and ranks lowest on frequency of visitation and on percentage of GLVGC's customer base. According to Table 4.1, none of the respondents in this ADI area are golfers who stayed overnight at home or in other accommodations. All respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations. Their projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is only 0.3 percent, ranking lowest among all geographic segments. This is not currently a significant market for the GLVGC golf club, but the high first time visitor rate may indicate some initial penetration of this market. From Table 4.16, it can be seen that respondents reported 18.4 years of total golfing experience but have been golfing at GLVGC for only 1.9 years. They visited GLVGC only 1.3 times in 1990, less frequently than all other 73 segments. They were all married, and their family size is 3.1 persons, the highest of all 10 segments. Their reported average incomes of almost $57,500 in 1990 and expenditures at GLVGC of $688.9 are somewhat higher than that recorded by other geographic segments. The percentage expecting to golf more at GLVGC will potentially increase by 28.6 percent next year. Table 4.16: Geographic segment 7, Indianapolis-Marion, IN ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Mean for Indianapolis-Marion, IN. ADI n at at at all §te§x.xeriehle heme GLEEQ ether Beeeeheehee N = 0 7 0 7 % of customer base 8 0% 100.0% 0% 100.0% Age - 42.9 - 42.9 % of the married - 100.0% - 100.0% Education (years) - 18.1 - 18.1 Income' in 1990 - 3.3 - 3 . 3 ($57,500 $57,500) Family size - 3.1 - 3.1 Golf experience (years) - 18.4 - 18.4 GLVGC golf experience (years) - 1.9 - 1.9 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 - 1.3 - 1.3 % first time visitor - 57.1% - 57.1% Rounds played in 1990 - 44.4 - 44.4 Total expenditures - 688.9 - 688.9 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) % expecting to golf more - 28.6% - 28.6% next year at GLVGC ' Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 $25,000-$49,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 74 F0 t W - o a N. I Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 11.1 *** 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 46.5% ***** 20.3% Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 1.5 * 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 16.3% **** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $52,500 *** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $661.1 *** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 10.9% *** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 1.8% ** Reliability due to (sample size): low (11) There are around 11 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Fort Wayne-Angola, IN. ADI, which is medium market density among the 10 ADIs. This segment ranks very high on percentage of first time customers, higher on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations, very low on frequency of visitation, and somewhat low on percentage of GLVGC's customer base. According to Table 4.1, none of the respondents in this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home; 16.3% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations; and 83.7% stayed overnight in other accommodations. Their projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is only 1.8 percent, ranking very low in comparison to the other geographic segments. This currently is not a significant market for the GLVGC, but the high first time visitor rate indicates some early penetration of this market. From Table 4.17, it can be seen that 46.5% of respondents from this area are first time visitors. They have been golfing for 20.5 years but only 5.9 years at GLVGC. Respondents visited GLVGC a relatively low 1.5 times in 1990. Their reported incomes and spending at GLVGC were 75 about equal to those for most GLVGC customers. These respondents will potentially increase their golf playing at GLVGC by 10.9 percent next year. Table 4.17: Geographic segment 8, Fort Wayne-Angola, IN. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Mean for Fort Wayne-Angola, IN. ADI re nd t wh d v r i ht at at at all §£mflLXELEEfl£ tame @QEE gamer sheeemgmee N - 0 7 36 43 % of customer base a 0% 16.3% 83.7% 100.0% Age - 44.1 45.5 45.3 % of the married - 85.7% 100.0% 97.7% Education (years) - 15.1 14.8 14.8 Income3 - 3.3 3.0 3.1 ($57,500 $50,000 $52,500) Golf experience (years) - 25.6 19.5 20.5 GLVGC golf experience (years) - 8.1 5.5 5.9 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 - 1.6 1.5 1.5 % first time visitor - 28.6% 50.0% 46.5% Rounds played in 1990 - 37.9 64.3 60.0 Total expenditures - 511.4 690.3 661.1 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) % expecting to golf more - 9.3% 11.3% 10.9% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 2 Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 76 Toledo 0 . ADI Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households 10.9 ** 18.4 Percentage of respondents first time visited GLVGC 38.4% **** 20.3 Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 1.7 ** 5.0 Percentage of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 13.7% *** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $45,000 * $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $541.1 * $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 0.7% * 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 3.1% *** Reliability due to (sample size): low (17) There are around 10 GLVGC customers for every 10,000 households in the Toledo, OH. ADI, which is a comparatively low market density in comparison to the other ADIs. This segment ranks relatively high on the percentage of first time customers, in the middle on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations and on percentage of GLVGC's customer base, and relatively low on frequency of visitation. According to Table 4.1, 12.3% of the respondents from this area are golfers who stayed overnight at home, 13.7% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, and a relatively high 74.0% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations. Their projected percentage of total GLVGC customers is 3.1 percent, very low in comparison to all geographic segments. This is also not currently a good market for the GLVGC. From Table 4.18, it can be seen that 38.4% of respondents from this area are first time visitors. Respondents have been golfing for 21.3 years but only 2.8 years at GLVGC. They visited GLVGC only 1.7 times in 1990. They reported low incomes and low spending at GLVGC. Their reported average income was about $45,000, and their total 77 expenditure at GLVGC in 1990 was only $541.1. These respondents will potentially increase their golf playing at GLVGC by an insignificant 0.7 percent next year. Table 4.18: Geographic Segment 9, Toledo, OH. ADI area. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Mean for Toledo, OH. ADI es d w t ed ove ni h at at at all eteex_xeriehle heme QLEQQ .ether Beeeeheehee N = 9‘ 10 54‘ 732 % of customer base 8 12.3% 13.7% 74.0% 100.0% Age 17.0 31.5 43.8 38.8 % of the married 100.0% 90.0% 66.7% 74.0% Education (years) 23.0 15.5 18.2 18.4 Income2 - 2.8 2.8 2.8 ($45,000 $45,000 $45,000) Family size 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 Golf experience (years) 50.0 31.1 14.7 21.3 GLVGC golf experience (years) 5.0 6.9 1.7 2.8 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 2.0 2.5 1.5 1.7 % first time visitor 0.0% 10.0% 50.0% 38.4% Rounds played in 1990 100.0 91.5 62.1 70.8 Total expenditures - 1265.3 380.2 541.1 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) % expecting to golf more 0.0% 5.0% 0.0% 0.7% next year at GLVGC ' The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. 2 Income ranges from 1 to S, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 78 Qfihélfi Rank Means GLVGC customers in every 10,000 households - Percent of respondents first time visited GLVGC 37.2% **** 20.3% Times the respondents visited GLVGC in past year 2.3 **** 5.0 Percent of respondents stayed overnight in GLVGC 6.9% ** 12.0% Respondents' annual incomes in 1990 $47,500 ** $52,500 The respondents' total spending at GLVGC in 1990 $997.1 ***** $792.1 Percentage expecting to golf more next year 4.7% ** 14.4% Projected percentage of total GLVGC customers 3.6% *** Reliability due to (sample size): low (14) The remaining GLVGC respondents were from other states (i.e. Florida, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania), and some areas outside the 10 ADIs covered in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. This segment ranks relatively high on percentage of first time customers and frequency of visitation, low on use of GLVGC's overnight accommodations, and in the middle with respect to percentage of GLVGC’s customer base. According to Table 4.1, no respondents from these areas stayed overnight at home; only 6.9% stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations; and 93.1% stayed overnight in other accommodations. The cost of promoting GLVGC in these markets would be prohibitively expensive; however, a marketing strategy directed at general visitors to the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek area could be effective in reaching more visitors outside GLVGC's prime market area. From Table 4.19, it can be seen that a relatively high 37.2% of respondents from these areas are first time visitors. Respondents have been playing golf longer than most other respondents (24.3 years) and have played for longer at GLVGC (8.5 years). They visited GLVGC 2.3 times 79 in 1990, ranking a little high on this statistic. Their total expenditures at GLVGC in 1990 was s 997.1, the highest among all geographic segments. However, the reliability of this estimate is questionable especially given the small sample of respondents upon which it is based. These respondents will likely increase their golf playing at GLVGC by 4.7 percent next year. Geographic segment 10, Others. Selected variable means by where respondents stayed overnight. Table 4.19: Mean for Other‘ v at at at all enmhtzeruafle Imme GEEK; snmere Emuemmune N a 0 6 81 87 % of customer base a 0% 6.9% 93.1% 100.0% Age - 35.3 44.0 43.4 % of the married - 83.3% 88.9% 88.5% Education (years) - 16.8 15.6 15.6 Income‘ - 3.7 2.9 2.9 ($67,500 $47,500 $47,500) Family size - 2.5 2.8 2.8 Golf experience (years) - 29.8 23.9 24.3 GLVGC golf experience (years) - 5.3 8.8 8.5 Times visited GLVGC in 1990 - 1.3 2.3 2.3_ % first time visitor - 33.3% 37.5% 37.2% Rounds played in 1990 - 43.0 57.7 56.7 Total expenditures - 926.0 1002.4 997.1 in 1990 at GLVGC (S's) Expected % golfing increased - 8.3% 4.4% 4.7% next year at GLVGC ' Other includes all respondents from outside the nine ADIs discussed 2 separately. The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed after being weighted. ‘ Income ranges from 1 to 5, 1 denotes income under $25,000, 2 525,000-549,999, 3 $50,000-$74,999, 4, $75,000-$104,999, 5 $105,000 or more. 80 Summary - The Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ADI (47.6%), the Detroit ADI (26.3%), and the Lansing-Ann Arbor (6.7%) ADI in Michigan and the Chicago-LaSalle ADI (6.6%) in Illinois and Indiana are in order the four largest generators of GLVGC customers. Marketing beyond these four areas is not likely to be cost-effective; however, on-site and local area marketing may stimulate some demand from markets outside these four ADIs. Finally, names and addresses of all customers should be obtained to permit direct marketing to them via, for example, the mail. GLVGC Golfers' Satisfaction Levels, Preferences and Utilization on Courses, Utilities, and Services C s s P a e R ' e Se en According to Table 4.20, there are significant differences in use of GLVGC's four golf courses across respondents segmented by where they spent the night. The overall percentages of the golfers who played each course are as follows: nearly 85% (84.2%) of all respondents played golf on the Stonehedge Course (rank 1), 49.0% on the East Course (rank 2), 46.6% on the West Course (rank 3) and 25.8% on the Bedford Valley Course (rank 4). Stonehedge is the most popular course, and Bedford Valley is the least popular course. However, a higher percentage of respondents overnighting at GLVGC played the East Course (95.5%, rank 1) than Stonehedge (93.7%, rank 2). Among respondents who 81 stayed overnight in other accommodations, a higher percentage played the West Course (54.2%, rank 2) than Stonehedge (53.0%, rank 3). However, considerable variation among courses played was found to exist across the three segments. Over 95% of respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations played the East Course (95.5%, ranked 1); 93.7% played the Stonehedge Course (ranked 2); 92.7% played the West Course (ranked 3); and only 47.9% (ranked 4) played the Bedford Valley Course. Compared to the other two segments, those staying in GLVGC accommodations played all of the four GLVGC courses more often. Table 4.20: Course played percentage and rank by trip type. SEGMENT COURSE BESEQEQENTS WHO STAYED OVEBEIQHT AT ALL TEST SIG.c PLAYED HOME R. GLVGC R' OTHER R‘ RESPONDENTS R' STT" LEVEL N = 13412 287 765‘2 2393‘ % of all = 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% STONEHEDGE 80.6% 1 93.7% 2 86.7% 1 84.2% 1 35.92 .002 EAST 36.4% 2 95.5% 1 53.0% 3 49.0% 2 335.08 .002 WEST 31.7% 3 92.7% 3 54.2% 2 46.6% 3 377.67 .00- BEDFORD 15.5% 4 47.9% 4 34.9% 4 25.8% 4 177.06 .00- VALLEY ‘ R 8 Rank by course most played. 2 Statistical test used is chi square (XH. ‘ The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type segments. ‘ The sample is weighted by nine. ' The samples are summed up after being weighted. "Th 'variabl 'tested is significantly'different across the three»different segments. 82 Most of the respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations played Stonehedge (86.7%, rank 1). The percentage of them who had played the West Course (54.2%, rank 2) is a little higher than those who had played the East Course (53.0%, rank 3). About 35% (34.9%, rank 4) of them played the Bedford Course. As for the respondents who stayed overnight at home, a relatively low percentage of them played the East Course (36.4%, rank 2), the West Course (31.7%, rank 3), or the Bedford Course (15.5%, rank 4). However, a high percentage g (80.6%, rank 1) of them played Stonehedge. Nonetheless, this is still lower than the rate of play by the other two segments. The primary reason for the above differences probably is that the respondents who stayed overnight at home had natural time restrictions because their GLVGC trip is one day or a portion of a day. So, they had less time to golf than the other two segments, and they used their limited time to play their favorite course, Stongehedge. The other two segments were on trips commonly of more than one day. With more time at their disposal, they introduced variety in their experience by playing multiple courses. The somewhat lower play across all courses by those staying in other overnight accommodations in comparison to those staying at GLVGC likely results from the other segment containing individuals whose primary purpose for travel to the area was 83 not to golf at GLVGC. The sums of the percentages indicates the mean number of rounds of golf played by segment by trip to GLVGC. For example, the sum for respondents who stayed overnight at home equals 164% (80.6% played Stonehedge + 36.4% played the East Course + 31.7% played the West Course + 15.5% played Bedford) which means that they played on average 1.6 courses during their GLVGC trip. For respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations, the average number of courses played/trip was 3.3 (93.7% + 95.5% + 92.7% + 47.9%). Finally, for the respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations, the average number of courses played per trip was 2.3 (86.7% + 53.0% + 54.2% + 34.9%). Overall visitors on average, played 2.7 (88.9% + 72.1% + 69.6% + 36.8%) courses during their GLVGC trip. ou e e e ' e According to Table 4.21, among the three different segments there are no significant differences on their most preferred course (Stonehedge) and their second most preferred course (East). But, there are significant differences on their third most preferred course (West) and their least preferred course (Bedford Valley). Unlike the other two segments, more respondents who stayed overnight at home ranked Bedford Valley (13.9%) as their third choice. However, overall respondents' preference rate for the West 84 Course and the Bedford Valley are very low. The reasons why Bedford Valley is less popular are: 1. more open, less rolling, 2. longer, more difficult for older population, 3. farther away from other golf courses, and 4. roads are not in good shape. Overall course preference rates for respondents are as follows: about 50% (47.5%) of all respondents ranked Stonehedge as their first choice; 30.8% prefer the East Course, 11.7% prefer the West Course; and 10.0% prefer Bedford Valley. Table 4.21: Course preference by trip type. SEGMENT COURSE BE§ZQh2Eh2§_th_§IAXEQ_Q!EBEI§hI_AI ALL TEST 816-“ HOME R' GLVGC R‘ OTHERS R' RESPONDENTS R‘ STT" LEVEL N = 1341d 287 765‘ 2393' s of all = 56.0% 12.0% 32.04 100.0% STONEHEDGE 47.6% 1 50.5% 1 50.5% 1 47.5% 1 4.58 .10 EAST 29.5% 2 35.8% 2 24.8% 2 30.8% 2 8.64 .13 WEST 9.0% 4 9.6% 3 18.4% 3 11.7% 3 45.92 .03‘ BEDFORD VALLEY 13.9% 3 4.1: 4 6.3% 4 10.0% 4 37.30 .00' TOTAL= 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ‘ R = Rank value of the course most preferred. 2 Statistical test used is chi square (x5. ‘ The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. 2 The sample is weighted by nine. ‘ The samples are summed up after being weighted. "Th 'variable tested is significantly’different across the threeedifferent segments. 85 t' . 'es . . .'o r' Utilities utilization is presented in Table 4.22. The three trip type segments exhibited significant differences in use of the toll free 800 number, the lounge, and banquet facilities. A relatively high percentage (66.3%) of all respondents reported that they would use a toll free 800 number if provided and had used GLVGC's lounge (56.9%). Only 3.5% of respondents reported using the banquet room. More respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (74.8%) and overnight in other accommodations (84.3%) would use a free 800 number than those who stayed overnight at home (54.4%). However, more respondents who stayed overnight at home (61.6%) used GLVGC’s lounge than respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (49.8%) and respondents who stayed overnight in other accommodations (51.2%). Finally, for the population sampled, the overall utilization of GLVGC’S meeting room and banquet room is very low. In fact, both the banquet and meeting rooms are frequently used for weddings, receptions, or business meetings at GLVGC which suggests that the population sampled is not the population most likely to use these facilities. 86 Table 4.22: Utilities utilization by trip type. smmmmT UTILITIES W ALL TEST 816-” VARIABLE HOME GLVGC OTHER RESPONDENTS STT' LEVEL N - 1341c 287 765c 2393‘ 4 of .11 - 56.0% 12.0: 32.0: 100.0: 4 WHO FOUND 800 call useful 54.4% 74.8% 84.3% 66.3% 203.66 .00‘ % WHO USE ’ LOUNGE 61.6% 49.8% 51.2: 56.9% 27.59 .00’ 4 WHO USE MEETING ROOM 2.2% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 1.89 .39 3 WHO USE BANQUET ROOM 2.9% 1.5: 5.2: 3.5% 10.42 .01' ' Statistical test used is chi square (x5. 5 The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. ‘ The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed up after being weighted. " The variable tested is significantly different across the three different segments. Erppgsgd Serviges 9; Facilities that Will Make GLVGC getter by Trip Type Overall GLVGC golfers' first choices for proposed new services or facilities that would make GLVGC better are presented in Table 4.23. A swimming pool was the first choice for 39.4% of all respondents. Other choices in order of relative popularity follow: lighting for nighttime golf (22.1%), a health club (17.2%), golf club repair services (12.3%), tennis courts (6.1%), picnic areas (2.9%). Statistically significant differences in preferences were found across the three trip type segments regarding a swimming pool, lighting for nighttime golf, and golf repair 2m... .r'. 87 service. More respondents who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (52.9%) and who stayed overnight in other accommodations (52.2%) think that a swimming pool would make GLVGC better than did respondents who stayed overnight at home (28.5%). This may be because most day users come to GLVGC only for golfing while the other two segments are on vacation and seek a range of activities to occupy their time. But, all three segments ranked a swimming pool as their most preferred addition to the GLVGC. Table 4.23: Percentage of number one ranking by respondents' trip type for selected new facility or service Offerings at GLVGC. SEGMENT REsgngENTS WHO STAYEQ OVERNIGHT AT .ALL TEST SIG.b VARIABLE HOME GLVGC OTHER RESPONDENTS STT‘ LEVEL N . 1341‘ 287 765c 2393‘ % of all - 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% POOL 28.5% 52.9% 52.2% 39.4% 168.93 .00‘ LIGHTING 21.8% 20.7% 23.9% 22.1% 3.43 .18 HEALTH CLUB 23.5% 11.0% 8.6% 17.2% 68.86 .00' GOLF REPAIR 16.3% 5.9% 7.9% 12.3% 34.28 .00' TENNIS COURT 6.5% 5.3% 5.9% 6.1% 0.58 .75 PICNIC AREA 3.4% 4.2% 1.5% 2.9% 5.55 .06 TOTAL- 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Statistical test used is chi square (x5. The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. The sample is weighted by nine. The samples are summed up after being weighted. the variable tested is significantly different across the three different segments. 0' I I l- 88 More respondents who stayed overnight at home (23.5%) than those who stayed overnight in GLVGC accommodations (11.0%) or who stayed overnight in other accommodations (8.6%) selected adding a health club as their first choice for a GLVGC addition. Lighting for nighttime golf was the second most frequently number one ranked addition by the other two segments. There was agreement across all three segments in the first place choice & rankings for the other three possible additions. Adding a swimming pool would clearly be a popular addition to GLVGC’s facilities. An indoor or indoor/outdoor type pool would add to the activity mix available at GLVGC possibly extending the operating season. a 'o T ' e Most respondents (93.4%) are satisfied with what GLVGC offers customers overall; 86.7% are satisfied with the services provided by GLVGC employees, and 88.4% are satisfied with the facilities provided at GLVGC (Table 4.24). Statistically significant differences in satisfaction levels exist across the three trip type segments. Probably the most managerially significant differences are those involving the other accommodations segment. It consistently reported lower levels of satisfaction with GLVGC than the other two segments although the differences were slight. 89 Data was not collected which could be used to assess sources of dissatisfaction associated with the approximately 20% who apparently aren't satisfied with GLVGC facilities or services. It would, however, be advisable to investigate this further because this group represents a prime potential market for GLVGC's accommodations if its needs can be more fully addressed. Table 4.24: Satisfaction levels by trip type. SEGMENT T WHO ST 0 RNIGHT AT ALL TEST $16.2 VARIABLE HOME GLVGC OTHER. RESPONDENTS STT‘ LEVEL N - 1341c 287 765‘ 2393‘ % of .11 = 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% % SATISFIED WITH SERVICES 87.8% 93.1% 82.4% 86.7% 24.49 .00‘ % SATISFIED WITH FACILITIES 89.9% 94.2% 83.5% 88.4% 30.14 .00' % SATISFIED WITH OVERALL GLVGC 94.6% 95.2% 90.6% 93.4% 14.64 .00' ' Statistical test used is chi square (EH. 2 The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. The sample is weighted by nine. The samples are summed up after being weighted. The variable tested is significantly different across the three different segments. ISO 90 Media that GLVGC Golfers Subscribed to, Received GLVGC Information from or Recalled Seeing GLVGC Advertising in W There are significant differences among the segments in subscribing to a local newspaper, cable television, Qpi; Digest, Michigan Living, Golf Ma a ine, Golfer Journal, and Mighiggp_§pifgr as can be seen in Table 4.25. A higher percentage of the respondents who stayed overnight at home (80.5%) subscribed to a local newspaper than those who stayed overnight in other accommodations (71.8%) or who stayed overnight at GLVGC (75.5%). Overall 77.1% of GLVGC respondents subscribed to a local newspaper. As for the other media, an average of 55.8% of respondents subscribed to cable television, 42.5% to Golf Qigesp, 32.8% to Michigan Living (AAA), 26.3% to Golf heeezihe. 6.5% to eelf_eeerhel. and 11.8% to hiehieee figifgp; 23.6% of all GLVGC golfers also subscribe to the other media. The high use of cable television supports use of the Arbitron ADI (Area of Dominant Influence) Market Atlas as a basis for the geographic segmentation selected for this study. 91 Table 4.25: Percentage of respondents who subscribed to selected media by trip type. SEGMENT SPONDENTS STAY D O RNIGHT AT .ALL TEST SIG.2 VARIABLE HOME GLVGC OTHERS RESPONDENTS STT‘ LEVEL N . 1341° 287 765° 2393‘ % of all - 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% A LOCAL NEWSPAPER 80.5% 75.5% 71.8% 77.1% 21.73 .00' CABLE TELEVISION 56.4% 64.1% 51.8% 55.8% 13.41 .00‘ GOLF DIGEST 37.6% 40.5% 51.8% 42.5% 40.62 .00‘ MICHIGAN LIVING (AAA) 35.6% 34.5% 27.4% 32.8% 15.10 .00‘ GOLF MAGAZINE 20.8% 31.0% 34.1% 26.3% 48.37 .00' GOLF JOURNAL 8.1% 3.8% 4.7% 6.5% 13.23 .00‘ MICHIGAN GOLFER 10.7% 7.6% 15.3% 11.8% 15.36 .00‘ OTHER MEDIA 24.8% 18.3% 23.5% 23.6% 5.69 .06 ' Statistical test used is chi square (XH. 2 The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significantly difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. 2 The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed up after being weighted. "Th 'variable tested is significantly different across the three»different segments. Media that Provided Respondents Information on GLVGC by Trip Type Among the three different trip type segments, there are similarities and some significant differences in the media used to obtain information on GLVGC. Word of mouth/friends was used_by the highest percentage (82.0%) of all respondents; GLVGC’s brochure was second and serves 28-3% of all respondents; newspapers ranked third serving 13.5%; and Mighiggp_Liyng_1AAAl ranked fourth serving 11.2%. Word of 92 mouth/friend, as can be seen in Table 4.26, is the most important source of information for all three segments. Migpiggp_piyipg_1AAAl and GLVGC’s brochure are used more often by the two segments overnighting away from home, and a local newspaper is relatively more often used by those who spent the night at home. Less than 10% of GLVGC respondents obtained information about GLVGC from television, radio, Resident Golf Shop, Golf Show (Detroit), Golf Show (Fort Wayne), Golf Show (West Michigan), and Golf Show (Chicago). In interpreting these data, it is important to consider the Table 4.26: Percentage of respondents receiving information about GLVGC by trip type. SEGMENT S ND NT S O I HT T ALL TEST SIG.° VARIABLE' HOME GLVGC OTHERS RESPONDENTS STT" LEVEL N = 1341‘ 287 765‘ 2393' % of all 2 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% WORD OF MOUTH/FRIEND 83.6% 83.7% 78.6% 82.0% 8.78 .01' GLVGC BROCHURE 13.7% 34.8% 31.3% 28.3% 21.77 .00‘ NEWSPAPER 21.4% 3.8% 3.6% 13.5% 156.56 .00‘ MICHIGAN LIVING 9.6% 13.8% 13.1% 11.2% 8.16 .02‘ 2 The MEDIA VARIABLES: T.V. , RADIO, RESIDENT GOLF SHOP, GOLF SHOW (DETROIT; MAINE; west.MICEIGAN; CHICAGO) provide less than 10% of respondents with information about GLVGC. 2 Statistical test used is chi square (XH. 2 The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. 2 The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed up after being weighted. "Th ‘variable tested is significantly different across the three’different segments. 93 relative availability of information across these selected media. Those ranking low may not carry GLVGC advertising as frequently as those ranking high. WWW Advertising in py Tpip Type The three different trip type segments exhibit no significant differences in recalling a GLVGC advertisement in Migniggp_Liyipg_LAAAi as can be seen in Table 4.27. Over 20% of all respondents and respondents in each of the three segments recalled seeing advertisements on GLVGC in Miggiggp Liyipg. However, there are statistically significant differences in the percentage of respondents who recalled seeing or hearing advertisements about GLVGC in the remaining media. Most of these differences can be explained by the residence of the respondent. Local residents are exposed more to advertising in local media such as the two area newspapers, radio, and local cable TV. As noted in the previous section, the results here must be considered in conjunction with relative frequency of placement of GLVGC advertising by media in assessing relative effectiveness. Finally, the relative low frequency of recall for travel agents promotions may indicate an opportunity for expanding marketing to travel agents. To be effective, such an effort would have to be linked to a plan to pay commissions to cooperating travel agents. Table 4.27: 94 Percentage of respondents who recalled GLVGC advertising in selected media by trip type. SEGMENT G ALL TEST SIG.2 VARIABLE HOME GLVGC OTHER RESPONDENTS STT' LEVEL N s 1341° 287 765° 2393‘ % of all a 56.0% 12.0% 32.0% 100.0% MICHIGAN LIVING (AAA) 23.2% 25.4% 21.6% 23.0% 1.60 .45 GOLF SHOW BOOTHS 15.1% 11.5% 22.1% 16.9% 21.40 .00‘ KALAMAZOO GAZETTE 29.5% 1.2% 2.8% 17.8% 260.54 .00‘ BATTLE CREEK ENQUIRER 19.2% 0.4% 0.0% 11.0% 187.97 .00‘ RADIO 10.3% 3.9% 2.8% 7.1% 39.90 .00' TRAVEL AGENT PROMOTION 9.7% 4.7% 6.9% 8.2% 8.94 .01' T.v. (WESTMARR CABLE) 9.8% 0.4% 1.4% 5.9% 66.83 .00' ' Statistical test used is chi square (x5. 2 The significance level to reject the null hypothesis is 0.05. The Null hypothesis is that there is no significant difference among the three different trip type GLVGC visitors. 2 The sample is weighted by nine. 2 The samples are summed up after being weighted. "Th ‘variable tested is significantly different across the three different segments. Summary of GLVGC'S Six Largest Market Segments Up to this point, single variable based segmentation results have been presented using either geographic origin or trip type as the basis for segmentation. In this section, respondents are segmented simultaneously by their trip type and geographic origin. Analyses is provided for only six of the thirty possible dual variable segments since these six account for well over 75% of GLVGC’s total customer base. 95 In Table 4.28, it can be seen that GLVGC'S largest market segment is golfers who overnight at home and reside in the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ADI. They account for over 43% of GLVGC’S customer base. They are on average 49.3 years old, golfed at GLVGC for 7.1 years and visited GLVGC 8.4 times in 1990. They are generally older and have golfed longer at GLVGC. They use GLVGC often, perhaps because they live near. Respondents from Lansing-Ann Arbor ADI who stayed overnight at home constitute about 5% of GLVGC'S customer base. They reported the highest average household income, $72,500 in 1990, and the longest GLVGC golfing experience, 9.5 years. But, their total expending at GLVGC is only $256.2, much lower than for the other five market segments. This may be because GLVGC is too near for them to stay overnight but too far for them to golf often. They golfed only 2.3 time at GLVGC in 1990. Respondents from the Detroit ADI who stayed overnight at GLVGC or other accommodations constitute over 20% of GLVGC'S customer base. They played about 50 rounds of golf in 1990, and their average total expending at GLVGC was around $ 950, higher than the other segments. Most of them combined golfing and vacation which accounts for their tendency to overnight away from home. Most respondents across GLVGC’s six largest market segments suggested that a swimming pool, lighting for w Table 4.28: 96 market segments. Grand Rapids- Summary of GLVGC’s six largest dual variable Lansing- le Ann Arbor home 81.8% 901‘ 901‘ Respondents' Kalamazoo— Chica o- geographic origin. IBattle Creek Detroit La Sa Michigan Michigan Illinois Michigan Respondents stayed ovornisht at home W _o_ther_ n - 1035 1 5 197 2 7 117 % of Gusto-er base 43.3% 5.6% 8.2% 12.4% 4.9% Respondents' Golfing History First time vs. repeat time visitor* First time visitor 14.0% 21.4% 23.0% 28.1% 30.8% Repeat visitor 86.0% 78.6% 77.0% 71.9% 69.2% means (times)- 8.4 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.5 Golfing experience 0 - 10 years 27.4% 20.0% 16.8% 21.2% 38.5% 10 - 25 years 46.9% 33.3% 46.9% 51.5% 23.1% More than 25 25.7% 46.7% 36.2% 27.3% 38.5% means (years)= 19.8 24.0 23.9 21.2 20.9 Years visited GLVGC* 1st year 20.9% 26.7% 20.4% 27.3% 38.5% 2-5 years 30.9% 40.0% 38.8% 48.5% 46.2% 5+ years 48.2% 33.3% 40.8% 24.2% 15.4% means (yearsg- 7.1 4.5 5.6 3.8 3.2 Round played in 199 * 0 - 4 roun s 27.8% 28.6% 27.2% 24.2% 46.2% 25+ rounds 72.2% 71.4% 72.8% 75.8% 53.8% means (rounds)8 43.8 39.7 49.1 48.6 31.2 Respondents' Socioeconomic Status Age* 29 or younger 8.1% 21.4% 27.3% 6.1% 15.4% 30 - 3 7.2% 14.3% 25.3% 36.4% 23.1% 40 - 49 28.8% 28.6% 22.2% 21.2% 30.8% 50 - 59 36.0% 28.6% 18.0% 30.3% 15.4% 60 or older 19.8% 7.1% 7.2% 6.1% 15.4% means (years)- 49.3 42.3 39.3 44.2 43.6 Marital status* Married 71.7% 73.3% 87.8% 81.8% 92.3% Education Hi h school 17.0% 20.0% 18.8% 15.2% 7.7% Co lege 60.7% 53.3% 57.1% 54.5% 23.1% Graduate school 22.3% 26.7% 24.1% 30.3% 69.2% means (years)= 15.4 16.4 15.1 15.8 17.2 Income in 1990* 0 - 25,000 6.4% - 2.7% 3.2% 7.7% $ 25,000 - 50,000 34.9% 33.3% 24.7% 19.4% 15.4% $ 50,000 - 105,000 49.5% 40.0% 55.5% 51.6% 38.5% S 105,000 or more 9.2% 26.7% 17.0% 25.8% 38.5% means (dollars)= S 47500 47500 42500 50000 62500 Family size (#person) 2 or less 50.9% 40.0% 54.8% 42.4% 69.2% 3 or more 49.1% 60.0% 45.2% 57.6% 30.8% means (#person)= 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.5 Respondents' Consumption Patterns Total expenditure at GLVGC in 1990* s 0 - 250 48.5% 33.3% 14.1% 9.7% 22.2% $ 250 - 500 19.8% 13.3% 36.4% 25.8% 33.3% $ 500 - 1000 13.9% 33.3% 28.8% 38.7% 33.3% $ 1000 - more 17.8% 20.0% 20.7% 25.8% 11.1% means (dollars)= 5 752.1 613.9 938.5 979.7 523.0 256.2 * denotes that variable is managerially different and useful for GLVGC's marketing, product development, or management improvement purposes. Table 4.28: 97 Grand Rapids- (cont'd) Summary of GLVGC's six largest dual variable market segments. Respondents' Kalamazoo- . Chica o- Lansing- geographic origin. Battle Creek DetrOIt La Sa 19 Ann Arbor Michigan. Michigan IllinOIs Michigan Respongegts :tayed __th§__ VGC _h2m£_ overn a O 9 n s 1035 l 5 197 97 117 117 % of customer base 43.3% 5.6% 8.2% 12.4% 4.9% 4.9% Course Played Percentage Stonehedge 78.9% 100.0% 94.8% 97.0% 75.0% 61.5% East 28. 7% 53.3% 95.3% 54.5% 66.7% 76.9% West 26.9% 50.0% 92.2% 51.5% 58.3% 38.5% Bedford Valley 13.9% 28.6% 47.7% 45.5% 16.7% 15.4% Course favorite percentage Stonehedge 8. 68.8% 51.5% 61.7% 31.8% 21.3% East 32.3% 7.3% 35.7% 31.9% 34.8% 28.3% Bedford Valle 10.9% %%. % 4.%% - . . % Y 100.0% . % . % 100.0% 100.0% . % Utilities Utilisation Rate 800 call* 47.4% 66.7% 77.0% 90.9% 83.3% 84.6% Lounge 64.0% 53.3% 47.9% 59.4% 33.3% 61.5% Meeting room 1.9% - 1.6% - - 7.7% Banquet room 1.9% - 1.6% 6.7% - 15.4% % of Number One Rankings for Selected New Facilities or Services at GLVGC Swimming pool* 24.3% 43. 7% 51. 6% 57.0% 52.9% 34.3% Lighting 22.1% 19. 9% 20. 7% 24. 2% 16.8% 14.3% Health club* 24.3% 18.2% 9.5% 7.3% 22.0% 34.3% Golf repair service 18.1% 9.1% 6.8% - - 17.1% Tennis court 7.1% 9.1% 5.3% 11.5% 8.3% - Picnic area 4.1% - 6.%% - - - Respondents’ Satisfaction Levels with Services* 87. 7% 93. 3% 97.5% 81.8% 76.9% 83.3% Facilities 91.2% 86. 7% 95.4% 84.8% 84.6% 76.9% Overall GLVGC 93.9% 100.0% 97.0% 93.9% 84.6% 92.3% Percentage of Respondents Who Subscribed to Selected Media Local Newspaper 82. 5% 73. 3% 75. 6% 72. 7% 69. 2% 76.9% Cable Television* 55.3% 46. 7% 64. 5% 54. 5% 30. 8% 69.2% Golf Digest* 33. 3% 53.3% 35.7% 48.5% 53.8% 53.8% Michigan Living (AAA) 35.1% 46.7% 44.7% 51.5% 8.3% 38.5% Golf Magazine 14. 9% 26.7% 31.0% 33.3% 30.8% 53.8% Golf Journal 6. 2% 26.7% 2.0% 12.1% - - Michigan Golfer 7.9% 26.7% 9.6% 24.2% 7.7% 15.4% Other Media 22.8% 33.3% 14.2% 21.2% 38.5% 30.8% Percenta e of Respondents Receivin Information about GLVGC Word 0 mouth/friend 85. 7% 7 .3% 84.3% 78.1% 61.5% 83.3% GLVGC brochure* 12. 5% 26.7% 34.7% 35.5% 38.5% - News aper* 26.8% 7.1% 3.6% - - - Michigan Living 8.0% 13.3% 18.3% 28.1% 7.7% 25.0% Percentage of Respondents Who Recalled GLVGC Advertising in Selected Media Michigan Living (AAA)* 23. 7% Golf Show Boot s*15.1% Kalamazoo Gazette* 37.0% Battle Creek Enquirer 24.5% Radio 10.8% Travel Agent Promotion 12.0% T.V. (Westmark Cable) 11.0% 21. 4% 31. 7% 44. 8% 33. 3% 10.1% 26. 7% 7e1% - '- 7e1‘ - - 13.3% 5.2% 3.7% 7.1% 4.0% 3.6% 7e1‘ 0.6% - 25.0% 9.1% 9.1% 25. 0% 98 nighttime golf, and a health club would make GLVGC a better resort. Golfers who are from the Detroit ADI and the Chicago- La Salle ADI especially preferred a swimming pool. Word of mouth/friends affords information about GLVGC to most GLVGC's golfers in its six largest market segments. It is already a good marketing tool for GLVGC and strategies for exploiting it could extend GLVGC's customer base. Local newspapers, cable television, lefi_nigg§t, and Mighiggp_Liyipg (AAA) are the four major media most often subscribed to by respondents across GLVGC'S six largest market segments. One of the best ways to extend GLVGC’s market is to advertise and promote GLVGC in these media. More than seventy percent of these respondents subscribed to local newspapers but only a relatively low percentage of them received information about GLVGC. This means that GLVGC can do more to promote its market by newspaper in these four ADIs. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study In this study, secondary data provided by the Travel, Tourism, and Recreation Resource Center at Michigan State University were used to create a profile of the customers using Gull Lake View Gulf Club. The data were further analyzed to create geographic origin and trip type segments. These segments were then studied to determine their similarities and differences with the objective of evaluating each segmentation’s potential to enhance GLVGC’s overall marketing and planning strategies. Chi-square analysis was the dominant statistical tool used in this study. A sample was selected from GLVGC's golf cart rental slips and villa registration cards. A mailed questionnaire was used to obtain information from respondents. It was necessary to weight responses to simulate GLVGC's overall customer base. Three objectives were established for this study. The first objective was to profile GLVGC visitors by geographic origin and trip type. Respondents were grouped into three trip type segments based 99 100 upon where they spent the previous night: 1. at home, 2. at GLVGC, or 3. at other accommodations. Ten geographic segments were developed employing the Arbitron ADI Market Atlas to establish boundaries between segments. The Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Michigan ADI and Detroit ADI were found to be GLVGC'S two largest geographic market segments. The Lansing-Ann Arbor ADI and the Chicago-LaSalle ADI, GLVGC's third and fourth biggest markets, merit significant marketing attention by Gull Lake View Golf Club’s management. The remaining six geographic segments together were found to account for only 12.8% of GLVGC’S customer base. The second objective was to develop possible useful segmentations for promotion and product development purposes. Both geographic origin and trip type segmentation may be useful for GLVGC’s promotion and product development purposes since segmentation did produce groups of GLVGC customers which vary dramatically in size. Most GLVGC golfers are from either the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek Michigan ADI and stayed overnight at home or from the Detroit ADI and stayed overnight in the Battle Creek/Kalamazoo area but not at GLVGC. These two segments alone account for more than 50% of GLVGC’s overall customer base.‘ Furthermore, segments were found to have differing preferences, used different information sources and media, and demonstrated different patterns of use. Given the 101 latter differences and the very different segment sizes, segmentation does appear to be a potentially useful tool for target marketing to specific segments and for aligning product offering with preference within each target segment. The third objective was to ascertain the usefulness of segmentation. The statistical tests applied revealed significant differences among segments across potentially marketing relevant variables such as: socioeconomic characteristics, golfing history, consumption patterns, satisfaction levels, course preference, and media use. In other words, GLVGC's market is heterogeneous and can be segmented into different geographic origin and trip type markets. For these segments to be useful, they must be exploitable for marketing and/or product development purposes. Information in Table 4.28 shows that there are managerially significant differences across the six dual variable segments (i.e. age, marital status, household income, years Visited GLVGC, total spending at GLVGC, and rounds played in 1990). Such information serves to demonstrate the usefulness of the segmentation developed in this study and also highlights what are probably the most managerially important results from this study. Conclusions The concept of market segmentation was first generated by Wendell Smith (1956). Today, market segmentation has 102 become an important marketing tool to define markets and develop marketing strategies that fit the specifications and needs of a target segment (Menezes and Chandra, 1989). Kotler and Armstrong (1987) declared that there is no single way to segment a market and grouped the most commonly used segmentation variables into four general categories including: geographic, demographic, psychographic, and behavioristic segmentation variables. A simple geographic variable, residence, and a simple behavioristic variable, where the previous night was spent, were the segmentation variables used in this study. Results suggested that these two variables singly or in combination produced groupings of respondents which vary dramatically in size and which exhibited differences which could be targeted and exploited for marketing purposes. The results of the cross-tabulations in this study coincide with the findings of Frank, Massy, and Wind (1972). Cross-tabulation analysis can ascertain the relationship between two variables, such as income and education of the household head. In this study, respondents' socioeconomic status, golfing history, consumption patterns, satisfaction levels, courses preference and played are related to their trip type and geographic origin. Cross-tabulation is simple in concept and has been made readily accessible to managers via inexpensive personal computers and user friendly software packages. 103 However, it is important to: I. collect data using several scientific principles, 2. process important data with care to minimize entry and coding errors, and 3. to interpret results recognizing the impact of limitations and bias in methods and data employed. The findings of this study are specific to Gull Lake View Golf Club, Kalamazoo, Michigan. However, the methods employed appear to be generalizable across most small to medium sized public or private golf facilities as well as many other types of recreation or tourism businesses. Implications for GLVGC Market Planning and Management In order to better serve more golfers and to maximize Gull Lake View Golf Club's profits, it is important for its managers to employ the best possible market planning tools available. Market segmentation has been demonstrated in this study to be a tool with considerable promise for enhancing the effectiveness of GLVGC's marketing and product development efforts. To promote GLVGC effectively, it is important to know its major geographic market segments. A total of 47.6% of all respondents are from Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ADI and 26.5% from Detroit ADI. Although Lansing-Ann Arbor ADI represents only 6.7% of GLVGC's customer base, it is also a very good potential market segment because of its high density of GLVGC customers (42.7 in every 10,000 104 households), second only to the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo- Battle Creek ADI area (111.4/10,000). In these three geographic market segments, local newspapers and cable television are important media for GLVGC to use in its advertising. Additionally, 82% of the respondents received information about GLVGC from word of mouth/friend. This is a powerful tool which can be employed to extend GLVGC's market. Strategies which might be explored to exploit this tool include: distributing discount coupons for small group golf outings, providing free bumper stickers and selling discount priced GLVGC merchandise such as clothing with the club logo attached. The basic goal, of course, is to enlist customers in selling GLVGC to their friends and relatives. Trip type segmentation revealed that: 44.0% of GLVGC golfers stayed overnight at GLVGC or at other accommodations and that most in these two segments are not from Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ADI and come to Kalamazoo or Battle Creek for vacation or visiting. The majority within these segments are likely on vacation or on week-end outings, so they are likely to have time on their lands. Promotions to them on site may be effective in stimulating one or more return visits during their trip to the area. Putting GLVGC bill boards along local highways and distributing brochures at highway visitor centers may be also helpful to attract more golfers to GLVGC who are passing through the area in route to other destinations. 105 The segment which stayed overnight at GLVGC most often purchase a multiple night package including unlimited golf at GLVGC. Only 4.7% of them recalled travel agent sponsored GLVGC advertising. This may indicate an opportunity for marketing through travel agents which could prove to be a cost-effective strategy for tapping more distant markets. Volume discounts or off-peak pricing could prove useful in attracting a greater volume of business from the local area. Price sensitive retirees with flexible schedules would likely be most responsive to such a pricing strategy. Dual variable segmentation indicated that most respondents (43.3%) are from the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo- Battle Creek ADI and stayed overnight at home. Compared with the other five largest dual variable market segments, members of this segment are older and more likely to be repeat customers. They have golfed at GLVGC for an average of 7.1 years. Word of mouth/friend is the most powerful marketing tool to this local market segment. Possibly GLVGC might sponsor youth tournaments or golf lessons for youngsters to attract more new and younger golfers from the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo-Battle Creek ADI. About 12.4% of GLVGC golfers are from the Detroit ADI and stayed overnight at other accommodations; most of them are high spending and frequent customers. About half of them subscribed and recalled GLVGC advertising in Migniggp_Liyipg. GLVGC might promote more often in this AAA magazine if it wishes to 106 expand its share of this market segment. Constructing a new swimming pool may also stimulate their interest in GLVGC. To improve GLVGC's management and services, a swimming pool, lighting for nighttime golf, a health club, golf club repair services, tennis courts, and picnic areas were in order of importance new facilities that respondents in the largest segments suggested that would make GLVGC more attractive. GLVGC’s meeting and banquet rooms are rarely used and might be remodelled into a health club or other recreation facilities to better satisfy or attract more GLVGC golfers. However, golfers may not be the target for these facilities, and their lack of interest in them may not be indicative of these facilities' potential market. The Bedford Valley Course clearly is in low demand. About 25.0% of respondents played Bedford Valley, and only 10.0% of them ranked it as their favorite course. The data collected does not indicate reasons for low demand for this course but its existence does suggest that management may want to assess how it might be improved to better serve its customers. Limitations of this Study & Needed Future Research The objective of this study was to effectively segment GLVGC's market into different homogeneous market segments to enhance marketing effectiveness and product development. However, despite care in designing and implementing the study, the following proved to be noteworthy limitations. 107 1. Prejudice in sample selection. The sample frame for selecting half of the respondents was golf cart rental slips. Unfortunately, only 15% of slips were found to contain an address or were legible. While no bias was obvious in this situation, the potential for a serious bias problem is inherent when 85% of potential respondents are excluded from the sampling frame. If slips are to be used as the sampling frame in future studies, management should encourage that they be completed by all customers. This would provide management with a more accurate listing of GLVGC’s customers which it might effectively use in direct mail advertising. 2. Potential error introduced by weighting the data. Because respondents using GLVGC's villa were sampled more heavily, it was necessary to weight responses to obtain a more accurate picture of GLVGC'S total customer base. The weighting factor was derived from the sample of cart rental slips which, as noted above, has the potential to have produced a biased sample. Given more time to develop the sampling frame than was available in this case, other superior sampling frames might be available. 3. Insufficient sample size across segments. Although about 800 respondents were selected in this case, the number of respondents captured in some segments was far to small for meaningful analysis. This was not a major limitation for this study since the objective was to identify dominant 108 current GLVGC market segments. However, should GLVGC wish to target selected smaller segments, an alternative sampling procedure and/or a much larger random sample would be necessary. 4. Limited information collected. Collecting marketing relevant data was a secondary objective for the data drawn upon in this study. Thus, it would be possible to design a questionnaire which is both shorter and richer in marketing relevant information. For example, more information concerning respondents' likes and dislikes would help to assess what management might do to improve the Bedford Valley Course. Despite these limitations, the objectives of this study were generally achieved. The simple segmentations employed were surprisingly effective in identifying large groupings of respondents which possess differences which are exploitable in market strategies and for selecting product offerings. The overall conclusion from this study is that market segmentation is a tool which is accessible for even small recreation and tourism organizations, and its application can materially assist management to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of its marketing efforts and investments. BIBLOGRAPHY BIBLOGRAPHY \v-I Anderson, 8., and Langmeyer, L.(1982). The Under-50 and Over-50 Travelers: A Profile of Similarities and Differences. The Journal OT Tpavel Research, 20 (4): 20 - 24. ”Backman, S.J., R.B. Ditton, R. Kaiser, and J. Fletcher (1986). An Investigation of Benefits Sought at Texas Beaches. In Joseph, W.B., Moutinho L., and Vernon. I.R. Toppisp figpyigeg Mgrhepipg; Agvahces ih Theopy and Erggtige, 1986. 2:53 - 62. Bowker. K.K- (1992). hreaeeaeLine_e_uerket_zleees_1222 - The Industry Source for Radio, Television & Cable Formerly Broadcasting Yearbook. A Reed Reference Publishing Company. N.J. “Blazey, M.A. (1987). The Differences Between Participants and Non-participants in a Senior Travel Program. Jourhgl pf Travel Research, 26 (1): 7 - 12. ‘VBlazey, M.A. (1988). The Washington Resident Travel Study: Differences Between In-State and Out—of-State Vacationers. ourna v e arc , 26 (4): 21 - 28. \Galantone, R.J. and J.S. Johar (1984). Seasonal Segmentation of the Tourism Market Using a Benefit Segmentation Framework, Journal OT Tpavel Aesearc . 23 (2): 14 - 24. Cromptom, J.L. (1979). Motivation for Pleasure Vacation. Aphpgis pf Tourism Research, 6 (4): 408 - 424. Dabbie, E. (1986). he ra 'ce o Soc' Research. 4th edition. Wadsworth Inc., Belmont, CA. Darden, W.R., and W.D. Perreault. (1975). Multivariate Analysis of Media Exposure and Vacation Behavior with Lifestyle Covariates. Qgppnhl g: Qghsumer Regggpch, 25: 93 - 103. \fiavis, B.D. and Sternquist B. (1987). Appealing to the Elusive Tourist: An Attribute Cluster Strategy. Journai 0: Travel Reseapch, 25 (4): 25 - 31. Dillman, D. D. (1978). Maii and Telephone Surveys: The Tothi Qggighhugphgg. Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY. 109 110 Frank, R.E., W.F. Massy, and Y. Wind (1972). Mgrhet Segmeppggign, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, NJ. ~Gitelson, R.J., and D.L. Kerster. (1990). The Relationship Between Sociodemographic Variables, Benefits Sought and Subsequent Vacation Behavior: A Case Study. Journal of I£§!§1_B§§§Q£2D: 23 (3)3 24 ’ 29- \,Gitelson, J.R. and Crompton J.L. (1984, March). Insights into the Repeat Vacation Phenomenon. Annals pf Toupish Research. 20 (4): 10 - 14. “Gladwell, N.J. (1990). A Psychographic and Sociodemographic Analysis of State Park Inn Users. Journai of Travel Research, 28 (4): 15 - 20. \Goodrich, J.N. (1977). Benefit Bundle Analysis: An Emperical Study of International Travelers. Toupnal of Tpavel Beseapgh, 16 (2): 6 - 9. \JGraham, J.E.I. and Wall, G. (1978). American Visitors to Canada: A Study in Market Segmentation. gpppp§1_gfi Trave; Resegpc . 16 (3): 21 - 24. Haati, A. and Yavas, U. (1983). Tourists Perceptions of Finland and Selected European Countries as Travel Destinations. European loupnai of Mapketing, 2: 34 - 42. Jacobs, W.L., G.B. Glenesk, and A.G. Woodside (1986). Segmenting International Travel Markets by Seasons: Implications for Tourism Marketing Strategy. In W.B. Joseph, L. Moutinho, and I.R. Vernon, eds., Tppzism Services Marketing: Advances in Theory and Practice, 1986, 119 - 128. Jarvis, P.L. and Mayo, E.J. (1986). Repeat Guests: A Loyal Base or Transient Customers? In W.B. Joseph, L. Moutinho, and I.R. Vernon, Toppism Serviggs Mapketihg: Agyhpges in Theory and Bpggtice, 2: 119 - 128. Kale, S. and Weir, K.M. (1986). Marketing Third World Countries to Western Travelers: In Case of India. W. 25(2): 2 - 7. Kaynak et a1. (1986, March). Tourism Marketing in a Developing Economy: Frequent and Infrequent Visitors contrasted. MW. 42 - 60. Kaynak, E. and U. Yavas. (1981, June). Segmenting the Tourism Market by Purpose of Trip. Ihteppggional gourhgl of Tourism Mahggemeht, 105 - 112. 111 Kotler, P. (1986). Principle of Marketing. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, N.J. Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (1987). Mapheting: Ah Ippppgpepieh. Prince-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliff, N.J. Mark, E. (1989). The Empirical Development of a Taxonomy for Classifying Recreational Participants Based on Their Attitudes Toward Public and Commercial Sectors, Leiehpe Sciengee, 11: 229 - 243. x,McQueen, J. and Miller, K.E. (1985). Target Market Selection of Tourists: A Comparison of Approaches. Journal of Travel Research, 24 (1), 2 - 6. \Mills, A.S., J. Couturier, and D.J. Snepenger. (1986). Segmenting Texas Snow Skiers. Journal of Tpavel Research, 25 (2): 19“- 23. National Golf Foundation. (19890. ggi; Eappicipatign in The Uniteg Spetes: 1989 Edition. Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foundation. National Golf Foundation. (19892). GOT: Erojections 2000, Veiumh 11; Gel: Sppmip '§§ Beseezeh gpesehtepions Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foundation. National Golf Foundation. (19893. Gel: Eaciiipies in the Uniged_§pe;ee: 1989 Edition. Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foundation. National Golf Foundation. (1990). Ggifi Eacilitiee in the Uhipeg Spetes: 1990 Edition. Jupiter, FL: National Golf Foundation. Ronkainen, I.A., and A.G. Woodside. (1980). First-timer versus Repeat Visitor: Analyzing Multiple Travel Segments. 1p Reseepgh ehg phe Qhengihg Woplg pf Tpevel in the i980' . Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah, 97 - 101. LVSChewe, D.C. and Calantone, R.J. (1978). Psychographic Segmentation of Tourists. Tepphel e: Travei Beeeapch, 16 (3): 14 - 20. ‘\JSchu1, P. and Crompton, J.L. (1983). Search Behavior of International Vacationers: Travel-specific Lifestyle and Sociodemographic Cariables. J u a O ve Beseapeh, 22 (3): 25 - 30. 112 Scott et a1. (1978). A Multi-Brand/Multi-attribute Model of Tourist State Choice. Jghrnel er Travel Reseereh, 17 (1): 23 - 29. 'Vghoemaker, S. (1989). Segmentation of the Senior Pleasure Travel Market. Jgurhal of Travel Reseerch, 27 (3): 14 - 21. \Shih, David (1986). VALS as a tool of Tourism Market Research: The Pennsylvania Experience. Journal of Trexel_3eeeereh. 24 (2): 2 - 11. 2« Snepenger, D.J. (1987). Segmenting the Vacation Market by Novelty-Seeking Role. geurhel of Trevel Research, 26 (2): 8 - 14. \Teye, V.B. (1989). Marketing an Emerging International Tourist Destination: The Case of Arizona. Journal of Irexel_Reeeereh. 27 (4): 23 - 28- ‘\Thanopoulos, J., and A.H. Walle. (1988). Ethnicity and Its Relevance to Marketing: The Case of Tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 26 (3): 11 - 14. Uzzell, D. (1984). An Alternative Structure list Approach to the Psychology of Tourism Marketing. Annals pf Tourism Researeh, 11 (1): 79 - 99. Usal, M., and C.D. McDonald. (1989). Visitor Segmentation by ‘ Trip Index. Johrnel or Treyel Research, 27 (3): 38 - 42. Wendell, S. (1956, July). Production Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies. Journal of Markerihg, 21: 3 - 8. Woodside, A.G. V.J. Cook, and W.A. Mindock. (1987). Profiling the Heavy Traveler segment. Journal of Travel Researeh, 25 (4): 9 - 14. Woodside, A.G., and L.W. Jacobs. (1985). Step Two in Benefit Segmentation: Learning the Benefits Realized by Major Travel Markets. Jourhel er Travel Research. 24 (1): 7 - 13. Woodside, A.G. and R.E. Pitts. (1976). Effects of Consumer Lifestyles, Demographics and Travel Activities on Foreign and Domestic Travel Behavior. Qohrhel pf Treyel Reeeereh. 15 (3): 13 - 15- Woodside et al. (1980). Vacation Travel Behavior and Perceived Benefits of Home State Residents. Bhsinese ahd Ecgnomic geview, 26 (5): 28 - 35. APPENDIX A MAPS OF GLVGC’S LOCATION AND ITS FOUR COURSES N i GULL LAKE acuuuo we 1. GULL LAKE VIEW EAST, WEST, FAIRWAY VILLA 2. STONEHEDGE 3. BEDFORD VALLEY Figure A.1: Location of Gull Lake View Golf Club. Number 1 denote the West Course and the East Course, 2 the Stonehedge course, 3 the Bedford Course. 113 EAST COURSE Back tees Middle tees Front tees Course ratings 69.4 67.3 68.5 Slope ratings 124 120 118 HOLE# _ 123456789 our 1011121314151617181u 101 MANPAR 434443445 35 5344434443570 LADIESPAR 434443445 35 5344434443570 Figure A.3: Map of GLVGC’s East Course 115 SOTNEHEDGE COURSE Black tees Green tees White tees Orange tees 70.3 120 Course ratings 72.4 70.8 68.4 . Slope ratings 133 130 124 HOLE# 123456789 wt 1011121314151617181u MANPAR 443543544 36 54434435436 LADIESPAR 443543544 36 54434435436 Figure A.4: Map of GLVGC's Stonehedge Course. 116 TOT 72 72 BEDFORD VALLEY Black tees Green tees White tees Orange tees Course ratings 73.8 72.4 70.1 70.0 Slope ratings 135 132 127 119 HOLEuf 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 am 101112131415161718111 101 MANPAR 4445355143436/355.344435443672171 LADIESPAR 444534534 36 5344435443672 Figure A.5: Map of GLVGC’S Bedford Valley Course. 117 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 118 Gull Lake View _ Golf Club Visitor Survey Travel, Tourism, and Recreation 1 Resource Center 2 f" Michigan State University 119 Please answer each of the following questions in the space provided. Pleas: indicate today's date l. lnwhatcityandsutcisyourpcmmmidctu? Qty Statc____ 2. lntlupastycarmowmanytimcshavcyouvisimdtlmcunukcVichoIICluNOLVGQ? 3. How may years have you been visiting GLVGC? Currently, a solid wastc'landl'lll is being planned for Kalanmaoo County. The number of potential sites has been reduced to live. with one located adjacent to GLVGC‘s “Stonehedge” goltcoursc. This site is ranked very high among the live remaining sites under consideration. According to the development plan, this landfill would he convlctdy visible from the 4th toe. Substantial additional traffic and traflic noiac would be upcctcd from vehicles using the landfill. Equipment noise. odors. and dust will he apparcnt to golfers using the “Stonehedge" com-ac. although wind direction and other wathcr conditions will influence the degree to which these factors an discernible. For phoning purpoas. it is very important to know whether you use ofGLVGC facilitia would change ifthls landfill is developed. 4. Hamindicatchowyoufoolmgolfplayat'Stmdmdgc'woddmostlikclybeafl’oaodifthishndlillisbuilt. [] lwouldplaydx25wncl1odgc'oourscmhoqoe1tlymldonow. [] I would stop using “Stonehedge” but us: mothchLVGC course about as ohcn a l have hocn playing ”Stonehedge.” [l lwouldsopusingallGLVGCoourscs. [)lwouldtoduocplayu28towlodgc'°by pctocm Camuflicatcinpctouuagcshowyourplaywmldhcaflocmd. (Hanbcmyourrcspawtotal 1M) lwoulddocnacplayby Stoulroundspcrycar. lwouldimrcaseplayby SalomerGLVGCoourscs. lwouldirrmscplayby_fiatodmraanlcCttclealamazoomooutscs. (Sccmaponhackoovcr) lwouldulctcascplayoy_%atcouncswuidcmc8anlchk/Kalamamom 100% r 120 S. HownianytotmdsofgoUdidyouplaylastyear.hodtatGLVGCandatothcrgolfladlities?____tounds 6. HowunydtheaemdrmuusmmnleMmdMuanymlflnktumds? 9holerounds____ lthoktounds 7. BowmanydtluemallomdsweteplayedatGLVC-C! 9blerounds__ llholelounds 8. Howtnmyoltheaemualtotmdsweteplayedu GLVGCs'Stonehedge'golleotuse? 9bletounds___ lllnletottttds Pleasearuwerquestlona’through ldwlth regardtoYOURVISITTO GULLLMEEVIEW GOLF CLUB (GLVGC)“. ....... . ...... ............. 9. WasthisywrfimvisilloGLVGC? ”YES ”NO 10. Didyoulpallmeumonniflttsamyfmmhomeonthisuip? [1Y3 [lNO—SKIPTOQUESTIONH. 1 1m Didyouspcmany aim intheGLVGCvilla? [1m [mo —smroouasnomog L 10:. ummwmmmmmmmmavocvmn 1m Eyeshowmynighisdidyouspendawayftotnhome? 10d. Howmnymealsdidyouuepateinyourtoomdunngyourstay? No. breakfasts No. lunches No. dimers 10:. DidyouptuchaseaGLVGCpackage? [)YES [INO— SKIPTOQUES‘HONlOg. I 10!. llyes.whidione? ”Matthieu “May-3&3”! GO TO QUESTION 10g. 10g. memymmumrmpmmmmmmmmmRMe meadow? (seemponhackcover) ”YES [lNO—SKIP‘IOQUESUONH '— ton. llyes.howntnyniglusdidyouspendatmchplaoes? GOTO QUESTION ll. It. Was GLVGCyourpr-itnarydestinaoononthisuip? “YES ”NO 121 15. HowmymofgolldidyouplaydudngmisvisitnOLVOCat maummvccm? ' West_ East— Bedford Valley_ W89— la DidyooudliaedieptoleanonalgollinsnocdonuGLVGCondtisoip? [1m (mo— * léallno.haveyoueverutilizedthe proleasionalgolrtnsnuctionatGLVGC? [)YES [1N0 l7. Howoltendoyouootnhine golfingandvaeationingflcircleonemnher) VERYINFREQUEN'EYI 2 3 4 5 6 7 VERYOFTEN ll. l-lothelphildoyouthinkan!!!)munherforolnhtingteeenadomumdlorinfomationonGLVGCwouldhe? (circleooly member) NOTEEJ’FULATML1234567VERYHELPFUL l9. Doyounicipateplayingmoreorlessgolfnenyearoonpatodtothisyear? [lLESSthan [ISAMEas [lMOREthan lastyear lanyear lastyeu l coroouasnonzo l l9allless.whatpeioemge l9c.llotore.whatpetcentage leasdoyouplantoplay? notedoyouplantoplay? _P¢m percent 19h Why? (clackallthatQply) l9d. Why? (checkalltlmapply) [lLesstine' [)Moletitne [)Leastnatey [)Motemoney [lLesitmest ”Moteintetest Um (me-1th llOIher___. ”Other— GOTOQUESTIONZO GOTO QUFSflONZO 20. Pleaserutdae lollov'mgGLVGC golloounesintcrnisofyourpllyinx pretence. (135m doiee.4-lastchoice) Weat_ Eat— Bdford Valley Smile“:— 122 l2. WewouldalsollketotnotvhowmudtyouspentonthisuipindteGLVOleAmKalamamoandCalhom Coimn'ea.($eemaponoackoover). , lnthlssnidy.a‘spendingunlt”lsanindivldualwhopurchases mingslorltimaellorhetulnoragroopthatpumlmes thhgsasagroup. Anindivldual whipayslusorherownexpumisonespauingunitwtzucrleorsheismvdmg MuMMMmmmmgWrmmmmfiBHmmmWy. althoughdleymaysplltaotneexputses. Followlngisallstolthingspeoplepayforwhentheygoontrtw. Heaseeadmuehovmudtflfmythinuyour mmmnrmmmwmvmmummmWmethump. HasdomtkavemyspaoaMwfichmdiatemexpendimhclude oolyexpendinu'eamadeintheGLVGCarea.(seemaponhackwver) ltem Groceries 3 Liquor 8 Mealsatrutaurmand lastloodestahlislunents 3 Wngees S thicle-lelated (ganoilaepairs) s Gollcattrental S Gollequipmemremal S Golprpliatbuls. tea.dothing.etc.) S Recreationactivities (howling.dancing.eu:.) 3 Other 8 l3. Mmmmumolmanmauyoumidedhmmthemm? ll [1 ll ll ll 1 l l Completely " in the Only Ame Ballpark" Guess: u. anmawcdwanmmmmymnonMIoflowmgladfides? mg: [was []NO MeetingtoomaHYES [1N0 BmucuoomsllYES [1N0 123 21. ‘l’owta'chotthelollowing mediadoyounihecrlhefll’leasccheckalltlm apply) [imam ”WW HW‘MM) Hm [1W ”None ”W [lLoalnewspaPfl’ “Other 22. PleasecitcletheONEinlotmationsoutuintheahovellstthatyoumostoltmuslorinformationwlmselectinga gdluuseawhichmplay. 23. matheMgwided‘youwimmfomaMNGLVGCdumwpuyeaflmmmthatapply). ”T.V. [lGdlShowmeuoiO [lWordolmoutM'tiends [1W llGWSllowlFmWnyncl [IW(MA) [1m [lGollShow (west Michigan) [IGLVGChtochtue ”moot!” [lGollShow(Oticago)\ 24. mmmmgmmmmmvccmmotummwmmmm YES NO W ......... ll U W ........ [I ll Travelucntptomotion. ...... [l [1 Radio. .................... [1 ll W(MA) ...... (1 [l T.V.(Westmadteahle) ...... [l l] GollShovbooths. .......... l] l] 25. Wldcholthefollowingsexvioeeorfadlidesdoyoudtinkwotddmakemvccwettermott? (memioesin purity. l-highen. 6-lovleat) aswimmingpool _cnnisooum __picnicams ahealthcluh _gollchtotepairservioes _liuuing form'ghttimegol! 26. flowsnisliedu'eyouwiththemptovidedbyGLVGCemployeesflcircleonlyonemunher) VERYDlSSATlSl-‘lED 12 3 4 S 6 7 VERYSATISFIED 27. HowsaklledueyouwithdienfifimprovidedaGLVGCchdeulymemhcr) VEIYDISSATISFIED 12 3 4 S 6 7 VBYSATISFIED 28. Who'suisfiedareyouwitltGchaldmleonlyonemher) VERYDlSSATlSfiED l 2 3 4 S 6 7 VERYSA'HSFIED O 124 Now please answer a {cw questions for classlllcatlon purposes. 29. Whatisyourgcndcfl ”Male [chtnale 3a-Whuycarweteyouhom? 31. Howmanyyeatshaveyouheenagollef! 32. llowmanypcopleateinyourhouaeholdoncludingyoursell)?_ 33. llowmanypeopleinyourhouseholdaregollets(inehtdingyoursell)? 34. Pleasedmlethelifltcstyearollotmalschoolhtgyouhaveccmplcted. 12345678 1234 1234 1234567+ GmdeSchool mwSchool Undergraduate Graduate education ethnticn 35. What is your present employment situation? llWorkinxhtlltime ”Homemaker [lWottingpantime ”Retired llTempontilytmesnployed [)Studal 36. Whatisyourmaritalsntus? ”Never married ”Married [lDivorccd/sepammd [ ] Widowed 37. Whatwuyotul990totalhouseholdincomeheforetaaes? l] “6815.1!!! [1 83MS49399 [l snzomsmmo [) sum-319.999 [] SOLID-574.999 [1 81351106149999 [1 320.000.94.999 [1 flSMSlOvlS” [l “SOLID-8299.999 l] mono-$34999 [l ”(BM-8119.999 l] Mormon: That you my much for your assistana. Please return completed questionnaire in the sell-addressed teply envelope provided. llyoumisplacedfisenvelopemleasesaidmempletcdquesuomaitem: Dr. Donald F. Holwek. Dimctor ‘l'tavel. Tourism. and Recreation Resource Center 172 Naturu Resources Building Michigan State University East Lansing. Ml 48824-1222 125 Gull Lake View Golf Club Battle Creek and Kalamazoo area nap APPENDIX C CODE BOOK FOR GLVGC VISITOR SURVEY 126 =-L, __ n _ Variable Name Question Length Instruction CODE# 3 continuous TODAY 4 CITY 1a 2 continuous fl STATE 1b 2 string VISIT 2 2 continuous YEARS 3 2 u LANDFILL 4 1 1- play at Stonehedge as PERCENT 4 3 frequency as now. DECREASE 4a1 3 28 stop using 5 but use other OTHERg 4a2 3 GLVGC course. OTHERa 4a3 3 3= stop using all GLVGC course. OUTSIDE 434 3 4- reduce play at s. ROUNDS S 3 continuous AN9 6a 3 Lr AN18 6b 3 GL9 7a 3 GL18 7b 3 STONE9 8a 3 STONE18 8b 3 a DATE 6 numeral FIRST 9 1 1=yes " NIGHT 10 l 2=no NIGHTi 10a 3 continuous NITRgl 10b 1 lsyes; 2=no NITEfgl 1°C 2 continuous BREAK 10d1 2 continuous LUNCH 10d2 2 DINNER 10d3 2 PACKAGE 10s 1 lsyes; 2=no WHICH 10f 1 1=3 days, 2 nights 2-4 days, 3 nights * Missing = Elank (.) * 02 the value for the rest of questions if the response is checked on the answer which requires to skip the remaining questions in a series of chain questions. value- 1 to 7 Variable Name guest ion Length Instruction LODGING qufi 1 1=yes; 2=no LODGING# 10h 2 continuous PRIMARY 11 1 lsyes; 2=no GROCERY 12a 3 continuous LIQUOR 12b MEALS 12c VILLA 12d VEHICLE 123 CART 12f EQUIP 129 SUPPLY 12h J REC 12i H mm 12: " ACCURACY 13 1 1- completely accurate 3- in the ballpark 5- only guesses value8 1 to 5 LOUNGE 14a 1 layes; 2=no MEETING 14b BANQUET 14c WEST 15a 2 continuous BEFORD 15b EAST 15c STONEHED 15d USE l6 1 1=yes; 2=no EVERUSE 16a OFTEN 17 1 1= very infrequently 7: very often value= 1 to 7 HELPFUL 18 1 18 not helpful at all 7- very helpful 128 Variable Name Question length Instruct ion I LESS 19a 3 continuous LWHY 19b 3 18 less time; 2= less money 3: less interest; 4= health 5- other * it can be multiple choices MORE 19c 3 continuous l MWHY 19d 3 18 less time; 28 less money 3: less interest; 4: health 58 other * it can be multiple choices W 20a 1 1= first choice; 4= last choice B 20b * If it is partially answered, I E 20c then put "0" on blank answer, 5 20d otherwise leave the whole question blank. JOURNAL 21a 1 18 response; O=no response DIGEST 21b * If check none of these I MAGAZINE 21c answers, then leave the whole CABLE 21d question blank. MICHIGAN 218 PAPER 21f AAA 2lg NONE 21h OTHER 211 “ INFO 22 2 string TV 23a 1 O=no response; 1: response NEWS 23b * If none of these items is RADIO 23c checked, then leave the whole SHOP 23d question blank. DETROIT 239 WAYNE 23f WHI . 239 129 Variable Name’ Question Length Instruction CHICAGO 23b 1 WORD 23i LIVING 23j BROCHURE 23k KG 24a 1 lsyes; 2=no BCE 24b missingsblank TRAVEL 24c R 24d HLAAA 24e WCABLE 24f BOOTHS 24g POOL 25a 1 rank: 1 to 6 fl CLUB 25b * If 1 digit is assigned to more " COURTS 25c than one item, just do it like SERVICE 25d the responser did. ll PICNIC 25s LIGHTING 25f SATISFY 26 l 1= very dissatisfied FACILITY 27 78 very satisfied OVERALL 28 value= 1 to 7 SEX 29 1 Hzmale; F=fema1e AGE 30 2 continuous EXPERIEN 31 2 continuous HOUSE 32 2 continuous GOLFER 33 2 continuous ED 34 2 First digit: group: lsgrade school 2=high school 3=undergraduate education 4-graduate education Second digit: the number is been checked within the group Variable Name 130 Question Length Instruction EMPLOY 35 1 1. working full time 2- working part time 3= temporarily unemployed 4= homemaker 5: retired 6: student MARITAL 36 1 1-never married 2-divoriced/separated 3-married 4-widowed INCOME 37 2 l= under $15,000 2= $15,000- $19,999 3= $20,000- $24,999 4: $25,000- $34,999 5: $35,000- $49,999 6- $50,000— $74,999 7. $75,000- $104,999 8- $105,000- $119,999 9: $120,000- $134,999 10= $135,000- $149,999 11= $150,000- $299,999 12: $300,000 or more ID! 3 numeral ll RDATE 3 numeral 131 City Codes of GLVGC’s Respondents 1. GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, GRAND RAPID-KALAMAZOO- BATTLE CREEK, Cadet 39 02 03 93 11 13 17 22 14 50 08 21 94 01 97 C'! ALLEGAN BATTLE CREEK GRAND RAPIDS HUDSONVILLE KALAMAZOO LAWTON MARSHALL PORTAGE RICHLAND RICHMOND SHELBYVILLE SHELBY SPRINGFILED STURGIS ZEELAND O4 65 48 69 49 26 47 107 131 140 141 143 159 169 (MUSKEGON) MICHIGAN ADI godei 88 City ADA EAST GRAND RAPIDS HOLAND JENISON KENTWOOD LAWTON PLAINWELL BEDFORD DELTON CLIMAX GRAND HAVEN AUGUSTA HART LACOTA OTSEGO 2. GLVGC golfers' geographic origin, FLINT-SAGINAW-BAY CITY MICHIGAN ADI Coder 64 66 39 91 _Qitx_ CASS CITY DAVISON BROWN CITY FENTON nget 158 117 154 City BROWNSTOWN BAY CITY ELWELL 3. GLVGC golfers' geographic origin, DETROIT ADI Codet 23 52 20 09 38 24 06 30 10 27 16 58 46 18 36 City ALMONT BELLVILLE BLOOMFIELD HILLS CARLETON DEARBORN HEIGHTS DEXTER FARMINGTON HILLS GROOSE POINTE FARMS LIVONIA MOUNT CLEMENS NOVI ROCHESTER HILLS ROYAL OAK SOUTHFIELD STERLING HEIGHT Cadet 33 35 37 28 44 96 05 76 4O 15 29 92 82 61 25 City ANN ARBOR BLOOMFIELD HILLS BRIGHTON GROOSE POINTE WOODS DETROIT EAST DETROIT GROOSE POINTE WOODS LINCOLN PARK MILFORD NORTHVILLE PLOYMOUTH ROMEO ROYAL OAK ST. CLAIR SHORES TROY 132 (con't) GLVGC golfers' geographic origin, DETROIT ADI nget 72 31 99 45 142 145 146 148 157 161 163 165 166 167 152 153 City W. BLOOMFIELD WARREN WESTLAND YPSILANTI HUNTINGTON WOODS NEW BALTIMORE MARYSVILLE ROSEVILLE TRENTON BERKELEY LAKE ORION METAMORA GROOSE POINTE SHORES ALLEN PARK UNION LAKE WASHINGTON GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, CHICAGO-LA SALLE ADI (IL) (IN) (IL) (IN) (IL) (IL) (IL) (IN) (IL) (IN) (IL) 92421 104 109 111 115 118 121 122 130 134 160 GLVGC golfers' geographic origin, 3. Seder _Qi&Y_ UTICA 12 WARREN 57 WATERFORD 98 WHITMORE LAKE 139 LAPEER 100 BIRMINGHAM 101 SALINE 102 BINGHAM FARMS 103 FRASER 106 GROOSE POINTE 108 ORCHARD LAKE 110 ALGONAC 119 CLARKSTON 128 SOUTH LYON 137 RIVERVIEW 138 GARDEN CITY 144 ERIE 4. Coder __iLx_ CHICAGO 79 LA PORTE 59 CLARENOON HILL 85 GRIFFITH 83 JOLIET 87 LAKE FOREST 80 McHewny 67 MICHIGAN CITY 71 NAPERVILLE 86 VALPARAISO 41 WHEATON 5. MICHIGAN ADI 92_et __iLx_ EAST LANSING 34 HOLT 95 ST. JOHNS 51 JACKSON 42 CHARLOTTE nge£ 19 54 81 113 127 City LANSING (IL) OAK PARK (IL) SCHAUMBURG (IL) PARK RIRIDGE (IL) MUNSTER (IN) DEERFIELD (IL) LOCKPORT (IL) LIBERTYVILLE (IL) CRYSTAL LAKE (IL) TINLEY PARK (IL) LANSING-ANN ARBOR City LANSING OKEMOS WILLIAMSTON MASON GRAND LEDGE 133 6. GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, SOUTH BEND-ELKHART INDIANA ADI mt JILL 9.95191 _Ql_y_' t 75 EDWARDSBURG (MI) 114 ELKHART (IN) 07 NILES (MI) 120 WARSAW (IN) 74 GOSHEN (IN) 124 OSCEOLA (IN) 73 PIERCETON (IN) 7. GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, INDIANAPOLIS-MARION INDIANA ADI 91$! Coget City 70 INDIANAPOLIS 53 (W.) LAFFAYTTE 9O NOBLESVILLE 125 PERU 8. GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, FORT WAYNE-ANGOLA INDIANA ADI Codet Cigy Cogei City 43 FORT WAYNE 105 KENDALLVILLE 77 ANGOLA 164 GENEVA 9. GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, TOLEDO OHIO ADI Cadet City Code City 55 TOLEDO 123 PERRYSBURG 135 SWANTON 156 ELMORE 162 MEDINA 10. GLVGC golfers’ geographic origin, OTHERS £9991 __i£1_ §_%§£ _Qi_1_ ALPENA (MI) DUBLIN (OH) 112 PALM HARBOR (FL) 115 CORFLAND (NY) 126 HOLLISTON (MA) 129 VERMILION (OH) 132 DELATURE (FL) 133 LEXINGTON (KY) 136 BROOKSVILLE (FL) 147 FRANKLIN (VA) 149 ORLAND PARK (IL) 150 BANDOLA (TX) 151 TUNKHANNOCK (PA) 155 LAKE WOOD (OH) 168 LUDINGTON (MI) * GLVGC golfers’ geographic origins unknown 99992 _QitY_ Codet _§itY_ 62 FLOSSMOOR (IL) 34 WOODRIDGE (IL) 32 WHITE LAKE (MI) APPENDIX D ADI COUNTIES & HOUSEHOLDS OF GLVGC’S GEOGRAPHIC SEGMENTS 134 ADI COUNTY AND HOUSEHOLDS OF GLVGC'S GEOGRAPHIC MARKETS 1. Counties in GRAND RAPID-KALAMAZOO-BATTLE CREEK, (MUSKEGON) MICHIGAN ADI ADI TV Households: 612,700 ADI Counties: Van Buren, Barry, Branch, Calhoun, Ionia, Kalamazoo, Kent, Montcalm, Newaygo, St Joseph, Oceana, Muskegon, Allegan, 2. Counties in FLINT-SAGINAW-BAY CITY MICHIGAN ADI ADI TV Households: 451,500 ADI Counties: Shiawassee, Sanilac, Bay, Clare, Genesee, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Iosco, Isabella, Midland, Saginaw, Arenac, Ogemaw, Tuscola, 3. Counties in DETROIT ADI ADI TV Households: 1,719,100 ADI Counties: Livingston, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, Washtenaw, St. Clair, Lapeer, Wayne, 4. Counties in CHICAGO-LA SALLE ADI ADI TV Households: 612,700 ADI Counties: A. Illinois Kankakee, Kendall, Dupage, Lake, Will, La Salle, McHenry, Dekalb, Grundy, Cook, Kane, 8. Indiana La Porte, Newton, Jasper, Porter, Lake, 5. Counties in LANSING-ANN ARBOR MICHIGAN ADI ADI TV Households: 226,300 ADI Counties: Clinton, Eaton, Hillsdale, Ingham, Jackson, 6. Counties in SOUTH BEND-ELKHART INDIANA ADI ADI TV Households: 295,000 ADI Counties: Kosciusko, Elkhart, Lagrange, Fulton, Starke, St. Joseph, Pulaski, Marshall, Berrien, Cass, 135 7. Counties in INDIANAPOLIS-MARION INDIANA ADI ADI TV Households: 853,200 ADI Counties: Bartholomew, Randolph, Benton, Boone, Brown, Blackford, Delaware, Morgan, Warren, Cass, Hendricks, Hamilton, Monroe, Grant, Rush, Montgomery, Fountain, Tipton, Henry, Miami, Johnson, Madison, Howard, Marion, White, Corroil, Clinton, Putnam, Shelby, Owen, Decatur, Hancock, 8. Counties in FORT WAYNE—ANGOLA INDIANA ADI ADI TV Households: 231,500 ADI Counties: Huntington, De Kalb, Adams, Allen, Jay, Van Wert, Steuben, Noble, Wabash, Wells, Paulding, Whitley, 9. Counties in TOLEDO OHIO ADI ADI TV Households: 401,300 ADI Counties: A. Michigan Lenawee, 8. Ohio Defiance, Wyandot, Fulton, Ottawa, Lucas, Sandusky, Hancock, Seneca, Henry, Wood, Williams, Putnam, APPENDIX E RECODE FORMULA FOR CROSSTAB 136 RECODE FORMULA FOR CROSSTAB GET /FILE ’TC\GOLF538.SYS’. RECODE CITY (89,88,2,4,3,65,93,48,11,69,13,49,17,26,22,47,14,50,8, 21, 94, 1,97,107,131,140,141,143,159,169=1)(64,66,91,39,158,117,154=2) (23,33,52,35,20,37,9,28,38,44,24,96,6,5,30,76,10,40,27,15,16, 29,58,92,46,82,18,61,36,25,63,72,12,31,57,99,98,45,100,101, 102,103,106,108,110,119,128,137,138,139,142,144,l45,146,148, 157,161,163,165,166,167,152,153=3)(78,79,59,85,83,87,80,67,7 1,86,41,104,109,111,116,118,121,122,130,134,160=4)(68,19,34, 54,95,81,51,42,113,127=5)(75,7,74,73,114,120,124=6)(70,53, 90,125=7)(43,77,105,164=8)(55,123,135,156,162=9) (56,60,112, 115,126,129,132,133,136,147,149,150,151,155,168=10) (ELSE= SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS CITY 1 ’GRAND RAPIDS-KALAMAZOO-BATTLE CREEK’ 2 ’FLINT-SAGINAW-BAY CITY’ 3 ’DETROIT’ 4 ’CHICAGO (LA SALLE)’ 5 ’LANSING (ANN ARBOR), MICH’ 6 ’SOUTH BEND-ELKHART, IND’ 7 ’INDIANAPOLIS (MARION)’ 8 ’FORT WAYNE (ANGOLA), IND’ 9 ’TOLEDO, OHIO’ 1o ’OTHERS’ RECODE VISITS (O,1=1) (2 THRU HIGHEST = 2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS VISITS 1 ’0 OR 1 TIME VISITOR’ 2 ’USUAL VISITOR' . RECODE EXPERIEN (LOWEST THRU 10=1) (10 THRU 25=2) (25 THRU HIGHEST=3) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS EXPERIEN 1 ’O -- 10 YEARS’ 2 ’10 -- 25 YEARS’ 3 ’MORE THAN 25. RECODE YEARS (1=1) (2 THRU 5=2) (6 THRU HIGHEST=3) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS YEARS 1 ’IST YEAR VISITOR’ 2 '2 -- 5 YEAR GOLFER’ 3 '5 OR LONGER GOLFER’. COMPUTE HOLE = (AN9*9 + AN18*18) / (AN9 + AN18). RECODE HOLES (9 THRU 12 = 1) (12 THRU 15 = 2) (15 THRU 18 = 3) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS HOLES 1 ’MORE AN9 THAN AN18’ 2 ’AN9 IS ABOUT AN18’ 3 ’MORE AN18 THAN AN9’. RECODE FIRST (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS FIRST 1 ’lsT TIME IN GLVGC' 2 ’HAD BEEN IN GLVGC’. 137 RECODE NITE (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS NITE 1 ’TRAVEL OVERNITE’ 2 ’TRAVEL DAYTIME’. RECODE NITEGL (O=O) (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS NITEGL 0 ’DAYTIME GOLFER’ 1 ’OVERNITE IN GLVGC’ 2 ’OVERNITE OUT GLVGC’. RECODE ROUNDS (LOWEST THRU 30 = 1) (30 THRU HIGHEST = 2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS ROUNDS 1 ’LESS THAN 30' 2 ’MORE THAN 30'. RECODE AGE (LOWEST THRU 30 = 1) (3o THRU 45 = 2) (45 THRU 60 = 3) (6O THRU HIGHEST = 4) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS AGE 1 ’YOUNGER THAN 30' 2 '30 -- 45’ 3 '45 -— 60’ 4 ’OLDER THAN 60’. RECODE EMPLOY (1=1) (5=2) (2,3,4,6=3) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS EMPLOY 1 ’WORK FULL TIME’ 2 ’RETIRED’ 3 ’OTHER’. RECODE MARITAL (3=1) (1,2,4=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS MARITAL 1 ’MARRIED’ 2 ’OTHER’. RECODE INCOME (1,2,3=1) (4,5=2) (6,7=3) (8,9,10,11,12=4) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS INCOME 1 's o -- 25,000' 2 '$ 25,000 -- 50,000' 3 '$ 50,000 -- 105,000' 4 Is 105,000 OR MORE’. RECODE ED (21 THRU 29 = 1) (31 THRU 39 - 2) (41 THRU 49 = 3) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS ED 1 ’HIGH SCHOOL’ 2 ’COLLEGE’ 3 ’GRADUATE SCHOOL’. RECODE HOUSE (O,1,2=O) (2 THRU HIGHEST = 1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS HOUSE 0 '2 OR LESS PERSONS’ 1 '3 OR MORE PERSONS’. COMPUTE SEXN = 0. DE. (DATA ENTRY --> MALE = O; FEMALE = 1). VALUE LABELS SEXN 0 ’MALE’ 1 ’FEMALE’. RECODE BREAK LUNCH DINNER (O=O) (1 THRU HIGHEST = 1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS BREAK ’NO BREAKFAST IN GLVGC’ ’HAD BREAKFAST IN GLVGC. ’NO LUNCH IN GLVGC’ ’HAD LUNCH IN GLVGC’. ’NO DINNER IN GLVGC’ ’HAD DINNER IN GLVGC’. VALUE LABELS LUNCH VALUE LABELS DINNER HOI-‘Oi-‘O RECODE OFTEN (1,2,3,4=O) (5,6,7=1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS OFTEN o ’FEW GOLF + VACATION’ 1 ’MORE GOLF + VACATION’. -1. ." 138 COMPUTE TOTAL = (GROCERY + LIQUOR + MEALS + VILLA + VEHICLE + CART + EQUIP + SUPPLY + REC + OTHER) * VISITS. RECODE TOTAL (LOWEST THRU 250 = 1) (250 THRU 500 = 2) (500 THRU 1000 = 3) (1000 THRU HIGHEST = 4) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LEVELS TOTAL 1 ’$ 0 -- 250’ 2 ’$ 250 -- 500’ 3 ’$ 500 -- 1000’ 4 ’$ 1000 OR MORE’. RECODE PACKAGE (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS PACKAGE 1 ’BUY PACKAGE’ 2 ’NO PACKAGE’. RECODE WHICH (O=O) (1=1) (2,3=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS WHICH 0 ’NO PACKAGE’ 1 ’3DAYS 2NIGHTS’ 2 ’4DAYS 3NIGHTS’. RECODE USE EVERUSE (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS USE 1 ’PROF INSTRUCTION’ 2 ’NO PROF INSTRUCTION’ . VALUE LABELS EVERUSE 1 ’EVER USE P INSTRUCTION’ 2 ’NEVER USE P INSTRUCTION’. RECODE NEXTYEAR (1=1) (2=2) (3=3) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS NEXTYEAR 1 ’PLAY LESS’ 2 'PLAY SAME’ 3 ’PLAY MORE’. RECODE STONEHED EAST WEST BEDFORD (O=O) (1 THRU HIGHEST = 1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS STONEHED o ’NO PLAY IN STONEHED’ 1 ’PLAY IN STONEHED’. VALUE LABELS EAST o ’NO PLAY IN EAST’ I ’PLAY IN EAST’ VALUE LABELS WEST o ’NO PLAY IN WEST' I ’PLAY IN WEST’ VALUE LABELS BEDFORD o ’NO PLAY IN BEDFORD’ I ’PLAY IN BEDFORD’. RECODE W B E s (1=1) (2,3,4=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS W B E S 1 ’RANK 1' 2 ’RANK 2 OR WORSE’. RECODE HELPFUL (1,2,3,4=1) (5,6,7=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS HELPFUL 1 ’800 CALL HELPLESS’ 2 ’800 CALL HELPFUL’. RECODE LOUNGE MEETING BANQUET (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS LOUNGE 1 ’USE LOUNGE’ 2 ’NO USE LOUNGE’. VALUE LABELS MEETING 1 ’USE MEETING ROOM’ 2 ’NO USE MEETING ROOM’. VALUE LABELS BANQUET 1 ’USE BANQUET ROOM’ 2 ’NO USE BANQUET ROOM’. RECODE POOL CLUB COURT SERVICE PICNIC LIGHTING (1=1) (2,3,4,5,6=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABLES POOL CLUB COURT SERVICE PICNIC LIGHTING 1 ’RANK 1' 2 ’RANK 2 OR WORSE’. 139 RECODE SATISFY FACILITY OVERALL (1,2,3,4=O) (5,6,7=1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS SATISFY 0 ’NOT SATISFIED BY SERVICE’ 1 ’SATISFIED BY SERVICE’. VALUE LABELS FACILITY 0 ’NOT SATISFIED BY FACILITY' 1 ’SATISFIED BY FACILITY’. VALUE LABELS OVERALL 0 ’NOT SATISFY ALL’ 1 ’SATISFY ALL’ RECODE MAGAZINE PAPER CABLE DIGEST AAA JOURNAL MICHIGAN OTHERMED BROCHURE WORD LIVING TV NEWS RADIO SHOP DETROIT WAYNE WMI CHICAGO (O=O) (1=1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS MAGAZINE PAPER CABLE DIGEST AAA JOURNAL MICHIGAN 1 OTHERMED O ’NO SUBSCRIBE’ 1 ’SUBSCRIBE’. VALUE LABELS BROCHURE WORD LIVING TV NEWS RADIO SHOP DETROIT WAYNE WMI CHICAGO o ’No INFORMATION’ 1 ’GIVE INFORMATION’ . RECODE MLAAA BOOTHS KG BCE TRAVEL R WCABLE (1=1) (2=2) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS MLAAA BOOTHS KG BCE TRAVEL R WCABLE 1 ’RECALLED' 2 ’NOT RECALLED’. APPENDIX F RECODE FORMULA FOR MEAN VALUE 140 DATA RECODE FOR MEAN VALUE A. NITEGL groups GET /FILE ’TC\GOLF538.SYS’. COMPUTE HOLES = (AN9*9 + AN18*18) / (AN9+AN18). RECODE FIRST NITE PACKAGE USE EVERUSE (1=1) (O,2=O) (ELSE=SYSMIS). RECODE EMPLOY (1=1) (2,3,4,5,6=0) (ELSE=SYSMIS). RECODE MARITAL (3=1) (1,2,4=0) (ELSE=SYSMIS). RECODE ED (1=1)(2=2)(3=3)(4=4)(5=5)(6=6)(7=7)(8=8)(21=9)(22=10)(23=11) (24:12)(31=13(32=14)(33=15)(34=16)(41=17)(42=18)(43=19) (44=2O)(45=21)(46=22)(47=23)(ELSE=SYSMIS). COMPURE SEXN = o. ’ DE. (DATA ENTRY —-> MALE = 0; FEMALE = 1) RECODE BREAK LUNCH DINNER (O=O) (1 THRU HIGHEST = 1) (ELSE=SYSMIS). COMPUTE TOTAL = (GROCERY + LIQUOR.+ MEALS + VILLA + VEHICLE + CART + EQUIP + SUPPLY + REC + OTHER) * VISITS. COMPUTE INCREASE = (MORE - LESS). SAVE OUTPUT ’PRR899’ . 8. CITY groups GET FILE ’PRR899’. RECODE CITY (89,88,2,4,3,65,93,48,11,69,13,49,17,26,22,47,14,50,8,21,94, 1,97,107,131,140,141,143,159,169=1) (64,66,91,39,158,1l7,154 =2) (23,33,52,35,20,37,9,28,38,44,24,96,6,5,30,76,10,40,27, 15,16,29,58,92,46,82,18,61,36,25,63,72,12,31,57,99,98,45,100, 101,102,103,106,108,110,119,128,137,138,139,l42,144,145,146, 148,157,161,163,165,166,167,152,153=3)(78,79,59,85,83,87,80, 67,71,86,41,104,109,111,116,118,121,122,130,134,160=4) (68, 19,34,54,95,31,51,42,113,127=5) (75,7,74,73,114,120,124=6) (7O,53,9O,125=7) (43,77,105,164=8) (55,123,135,156,162=9) (56,60,112,115,126,129,132,133,136,147,149,150,151,155,168=10) (ELSE=SYSMIS). VALUE LABELS CITY 1 ’GRAND RAPIDS-KALAMAzoo-BATTLE CREEK’ 2 ’FLINT-SAGINAW-BAY CITY, MICH’ 3 ’DETROIT’ 4 ’CHICAGO (LA SALLE)’ 5 ’LANSING (ANN ARBOR), MICH’ 6 ’SOUTH BEND-ELKHART, IND’ 7 ’INDIANAPOLIS (MARION)’ 8 ’FORT WAYNE (ANGOLA), IND’ 9 ’TOLEDO, OHIO’ 10 ’OTHERS’. RECODE NITEGL (1=1) (O,2=O) (ELSE=SYSMIS). MICHIGAN ST [III III iii) UNIV. LIBRARIES WIN”WWWWI 0515520 3129301