The PGA of British Columbia lived up to its promise to deliver a set number of its members to that association’s trade show at the end of August at the River Rock Casino and Resort in Richmond.
That number, according to the association’s website, was roughly 245 members representing over 100 facilities. You can read the PGA of British Columbia’s take on the show here.
“I would really want to commend the B.C. board in terms of how they rallied together and did a really good job of getting their pros to rally together and come out and that’s a very significant step forward from where we’ve been in the past,” said Keith Keindel, executive director of the Canadian Golf Industry Association.
“In terms of getting people out, we got way more than what we thought we could get, which is very positive. I mean significantly more,” he added.
Attendance was the main concern for the CGIA in the past and threatened the existence of the show, but this year, the BCPGA elected to move the show from October to August and from its location in Penticton to Richmond. Additionally, the B.C. show focused on apparel and footwear and didn’t include hard goods.
Keindel says a meeting with CGIA members is scheduled for next month’s PGA of Alberta show in Edmonton, where his group will discuss the various challenges based on observations at this year’s B.C. show. Return on investment will be one topic of discussion.
“I think the expectation was that people would be coming out to write orders from the manufacturers’ perspective. I think from the pros’ perspective, it was taken as more of a viewing show, so there’s a little bit of a disconnect there,” said Keindel, adding that the venue will also come up as a topic.
“The venue has a few quirks in it that would have to be worked out. The location is excellent from the point of view of access, but it’s not the best location from a lighting/layout perspective,” he added.
The challenge to trade shows these days is the way the buying cycle has changed over the years, particularly in apparel. While an August show is early by traditional Canadian standards, many company reps have already visited golf shops seeking orders.
“There are a lot of brands where you’ve got to have your orders in in July. They didn’t used to get pushed back as far as they’re getting pushed back now,” admitted Keindel. “If you went back 10 years ago, I would say probably the orders are pushed back as much as three or four weeks from what they were then.
“The other thing that happened is I think the pros are still sitting with a fair amount of stock in their shops and so, it was not the best season out there from a pro shop sell-through perspective. That’s no news to anybody,” he said.
“Then, the issues becomes you come in (to a buying show) and how much do you commit to? There are a lot of different pressures and you’re trying to balance them all,” said Keindel.
It’s those pressures that will be considered and pros and cons weighed when the CGIA meets in Alberta.
Hi Ian,
I want to comment on the change of dates for the BC PGA show and the unsucessfully attempted change of dates for the Ontario PGA show. The dates were changed in order to try to accommodate the apparel suppliers, who say they need more lead times to get orders in as they make their buys ealier and need sales to justify their buys. The lead time for apparel manufacturers has not change over the past decade. They require from 90 to 120 days from the time they place orders with their factories to the time they receive the products in their warehouses. What they are doing, by asking for orders in June, July and August, is putting the risk more in the hands of the retailers/golf shops, who are being asked to make buys while they have not sold through the product in the golf shop. Instead of the supplier taking the risk of buying then selling, the retailer/golf shop is being asked to take that risk. The astute buyer has decided not to take that risk and take his/her chances their will be product available when they are ready to make their buys and good on them if they choose to do that. If the suppliers want to move the risk to the retailers, they should also be willing to accept less margin on their product.
Best regards,
Ray Bessette