About
The established members weren't leaving. The churn was coming from somewhere else: from members who had joined but never quite become part of the club. The question was where in that journey the losses were concentrating, and whether anything could be done about it.
When I first started looking at membership data, I assumed the answer lay in tracking the numbers more carefully: how many members we had, how many joined and left, whether the total was growing.
Yet the more data I collected, the more often I found myself looking at results I couldn't properly explain.
The club was recruiting strongly. Membership was growing. Churn was falling. And yet the number of established, long-standing members wasn't changing very much. By the time membership had grown from 435 to 605, the proportion of established members had fallen from 67% to 51%.
The headline said growth. The underlying membership was becoming less established, less sustainable and ultimately less valuable.
Gradually, I became less interested in annual results and more interested in what happened to members after they joined. That shift turned out to be surprisingly important.
The more I followed individual groups of members over time, the clearer it became that membership was not behaving as a single entity. Some members integrated quickly, developing playing habits, obtaining handicaps, entering competitions. Others remained at the edge of the club experience.
By the time a member appeared in the leaver statistics, the conditions that led to that decision had often been developing for months or years. The resignation was simply the final visible outcome of a much longer process.
The Golf Membership Lifecycle emerged from that work. Not because I set out to build a model, but because I was trying to explain something that traditional membership reporting could not.
Members moved through a journey. Their likelihood of staying changed as they progressed. Certain behaviours, such as obtaining a handicap and integrating into the social and playing fabric of the club, were closely associated with becoming established. Other patterns consistently appeared before members left.
Visualising that journey, plotting how members move through each stage and where they tend to leave, produced what I now call the Membership Lifecycle. Every club has one. The shape of that curve tells you more about a club's future health than any headline membership figure.
The membership total tells you how many members a club has today. The Membership Lifecycle tells you how successfully those members are becoming the long-term established core on which the club's future depends.
The Membership Lifecycle was the beginning. But the further I went, the clearer it became that no single measure, however well constructed, could give a complete picture on its own.
Understanding a membership properly means looking at how it is structured: the balance between new members and the established core, where attrition is concentrating, how demographic profiles are shifting over time, and whether the patterns you're seeing are genuinely strong or simply average when set against comparable clubs. Each of those lenses reveals something the others cannot.
That's what BirdieIQ brings together: lifecycle analysis, structural assessment and demographic health, coordinated into a single coherent view of membership strength. Not isolated statistics, but a complete picture of where a club is today, the risks developing beneath the surface, and where the greatest opportunities exist to build long-term membership value.
The data to do this exists in almost every club's membership system. The challenge is knowing how to structure it, and knowing what good looks like once you do. That's why I built BirdieIQ.
Andrew Waterfall
Founder, BirdieIQ
The question
Is your membership base becoming more sustainable over time, or is structural risk increasing beneath the surface?
Because a club's future depends not on how many members join, but on how many become established.
Request a Full Assessment