2. JIM KOPPENHAVER President, Pellucid Corp. “Golfer Development Programs Evaluation” President, Pellucid Corp. “Golfer Development Programs Evaluation”

3. WE SOUGHT TO DETERMINE ANSWERS TO FOUR BASIC CONSUMER QUESTIONS What “types” of golfers (new, former, current) were the current attract/retain programs drawing?What “types” of golfers (new, former, current) were the current attract/retain programs drawing? Could we “profile” program respondents to help refine future geography, course selection and consumer acquisition decisions?Could we “profile” program respondents to help refine future geography, course selection and consumer acquisition decisions? What were the key barriers to play or more play for this consumer group?What were the key barriers to play or more play for this consumer group? What was the financial value of the retained players in year one for the individual courses?What was the financial value of the retained players in year one for the individual courses?

4. NIKE GOLF LEARNING CENTERS (NGLC) “TEE IT UP” PROGRAM RESULTS HIGHLIGHTS

5. WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS” THAT THE NGLC PROGRAM ATTRACTED? Largest draw in current program is current golfersLargest draw in current program is current golfers –Surprising given the program’s positioning and curriculum Again, points back to the retention strategy as key part of 20/20Again, points back to the retention strategy as key part of 20/20 –NGLC is attracting and potentially retaining golfers that are likely candidates to fall out of the bottom of the funnel Never Golfed 40% Current Golfers 47% Former Golfers 14%

6. PROFILING THE RESPONDENTS BY INCOME AND AGE VS. THEIR GEOGRAPHY PROVIDE INSIGHT Not surprisingly, respondents skew to higher income HHsNot surprisingly, respondents skew to higher income HHs –Saw particular strength in HH income $50,000+ Age of head of HH skewed to middle age HHsAge of head of HH skewed to middle age HHs –Here head of HH ages 35-64 Net, this profile is very consistent with current golfer profileNet, this profile is very consistent with current golfer profile –Reinforces the retention aspect of any potential program

7. WHAT DID PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS TELL US THE KEY BARRIERS TO PLAY/MORE PLAY WERE? Whatever program we develop, it will have to address recurring themes of time & money (flexibility & value?)Whatever program we develop, it will have to address recurring themes of time & money (flexibility & value?) Time/Work60% Fee Costs51% Time/Family39% Low Ability25% Access21% Total %

8. WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL WEIGHT OF AN AVERAGE CONSUMER? On average we succeeded in driving 5 rounds of follow-on play per golfer in the one year periodOn average we succeeded in driving 5 rounds of follow-on play per golfer in the one year period –Again, what defined revenue success was frequent play vs. higher transactions Annual Transactions Per Player Top 1/3 12 Revenue Players Middle 1/3 3 Revenue Players Bottom 1/3 1 Revenue Players All Players - Avg. 5

9. THIS PROGRAM ALSO SHOWED AN ABILITY TO GENERATE WEEKDAY ROUNDS FOR OPERATORS Almost 50% of follow-on play went to weekday roundsAlmost 50% of follow-on play went to weekday rounds –Would seem to be a “win/win”, learning players play on less crowded courses, operators fill some weekday capacity –But, the fact that the other 50% went to weekend reinforces “discretionary time” consumer constraints Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday 53% 47%

10. NATIONAL GOLF COURSE OWNER’S ASSOCIATION “CITY BLITZ” TOPLINE RESULTS

11. WHAT IS THE MIX OF GOLFERS BY “STATUS” THAT THE CITY BLITZ PROGRAM ATTRACTED? Largest draw in current program is Never GolfersLargest draw in current program is Never Golfers –Not too surprising since 90% of population doesn’t golf Relative to their % of the total universe (about 11% nationally), current golfers are “over-represented” in this programRelative to their % of the total universe (about 11% nationally), current golfers are “over-represented” in this program –Again, emphasizes the role of the current golfer, retention strategy Never Golfed 60% Current Golfers 26% Former Golfers 14%

12. PROFILES OF PARTICIPANTS BY GOLFER STATUS AND PROMOTION VEHICLE RESPONSE Toplines of 3 key variables collectedToplines of 3 key variables collected –Income distribution of respondents weights heavily to higher income ($100K+ indexes 400 vs. US population) –Newspaper by far the most effective response vehicle –Adult follow-on programs got most play –Not noted here, but program drew 300 unique HHs across 450 respondents, good multiple family member draw Golfer Income $100K+29% $51-99K43% $0-50K+28% Newspaper69% Promotion Vehicle Flyer5% Other11% Friend15% Follow-on Program Men (16+) 62% Youth (<16) 14% Women (16+) 24%

13. SUMMARIZING OUR ANSWERS TO THE FOUR BASIC QUESTIONS…… Golfer “types” – We found that these two programs were attracting a mix of all three desired golfer types, not just “never played”Golfer “types” – We found that these two programs were attracting a mix of all three desired golfer types, not just “never played” Consumer “profile” – This group does have a unique profile relative to the population that could be used in future selection, acquisition decisionsConsumer “profile” – This group does have a unique profile relative to the population that could be used in future selection, acquisition decisions Key barriers – Time and money constraints continue to be hurdles we’ll have to overcome in program development for successful golf participation growthKey barriers – Time and money constraints continue to be hurdles we’ll have to overcome in program development for successful golf participation growth Course economics – Results varied but median values suggest that the program should be financially viable for operators committed to growing golf participationCourse economics – Results varied but median values suggest that the program should be financially viable for operators committed to growing golf participation

14. OUR 20/20 OBJECTIVES Focus on “Making the Connection” to Impact both Attraction and RetentionFocus on “Making the Connection” to Impact both Attraction and Retention Explore Other Potential Approaches & ProgramsExplore Other Potential Approaches & Programs Discuss Implementation IssuesDiscuss Implementation Issues Reach a Consensus on 2001 StrategyReach a Consensus on 2001 Strategy

15. “LINK UP 2 GOLF” BREAKOUT SESSIONS 1. OTHER APPROACHES What other ideas that can be implemented on a nationwide basis are worth considering? 2.IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES What are the solutions to the difficult task of implementing a program at multiple facilities on a standardized basis? 3.NEXT STEPS, 2001 OBJECTIVES