The course near my area has begun implementing a fee structure similar to the one that’s recently attracted criticism by Ticketmaster. It appears that the venue does not host many players each week, which makes me wonder if this pricing strategy is truly appropriate for its scale.
Hey Ethan85, this is a pretty interesting twist, isn’t it? I’ve been noticing that sometimes pricing models start off as a way to offset operational costs, but then they can quickly evolve into something more contentious if not adjusted for audience size. It makes you wonder if the venue is planning long-term changes or testing the waters. What do you think are some of the potential benefits for smaller groups using such a model? I’m curious if it might actually lead to personalized services or if it’s just another case of applying a one-size-fits-all approach. Would love to hear more thoughts on this 
The issue seems to center on sustainability rather than customer service. From my experience, venues with sporadic attendance can justify a model that at first glance may seem steep. However, if the fees are genuinely reinvested in enhancing the course quality, it might be a strategy to stabilize operations. It is essential to assess whether patrons can discern the added value or if it simply transperts incremental overhead costs. This approach deserves a closer look at device efficiency, especially on how transparent and responsive the pricing policy remains over time.