Almost every park district racquet/fitness club, aquatic facility, ice rink, and a few golf courses offer some type of membership or season pass. However, very few districts offer a combined membership — that is, one membership to two or more facilities. This article will touch upon the aspects of why one might offer such a membership and several considerations for pricing it.

Why Offer?

The most important reason to offer a multi-facility membership (or any program, for that matter) is to meet the needs and desires of the people served — typically, the residents within the park district's boundaries.

"When facilities can "compliment" each other, both of them become more attractive (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.)"

However, does this need or desire exist? Perhaps the better question is, "Would this need or desire exist?" Let's face it. If a district hasn't considered offering such a membership, then the people it serves probably haven't considered asking for one.

People probably did not ask for liquid laundry soap, but many were glad when it was introduced, and many people continue to buy it. So take the initiative . . . Ask! Survey the members in each of the facilities or take one afternoon and knock on a hundred doors in the community. If the need is there, it should at least be looked into. After all, the name of the game is service.

A second reason to offer a multi-facility membership is to attract more people to each of the facilities, and hence, more revenue. Perhaps a district's health club does not have a lap pool. One membership to the health club and pool may attract patrons who want both fitness activities, but would not be attracted to either facility on its own. It would also give your current fitness equipment users a way to "round out" their training; an alternative to "boring" stationary bikes for an aerobic work-out. When facilities can "compliment" each other, both of them become more attractive (the whole is greater than the sum of its parts).

Thirdly, there is something to be said about offering an item just because it's new. Fad or trend promotions accelerate interest in a product at its highest point. New items attract attention and give one a "reason to advertise." To illustrate this point, laundry soap manufacturers continually shout "New and Improved," drawing attention to their product over all the others. Should park districts be so different in their promotions?

A fourth point on offering a joint membership to facilities is to provide more unified marketing of the facilities. It enables advertising and promoting two or more facilities within one ad or promotion, rather than each separately. This approach saves money, boosts readership of the ad and increases awareness of each facility. Someone who would read an ad about the water park, but not the ice rink, will be reading an ad about both, thus learning more about the ice rink.

"... Offering joint membership(s) provides more unified marketing of (all) facilities. It enables advertising and promoting two or more facilities within one ad or promotion, rather than each separately."

You may be thinking facilities located across town from each other may keep patrons from being interested in joint memberships. However, the times are few that someone will use more than one facility consecutively, within their allotted time for recreation, on any given day. One membership to all facilities helps to "bring the facilities together" in the minds of members.

Finally, membership packages force the staffs of the involved facilities to work together and learn more about the other facilities in order to be able to sell the memberships. This builds teamwork and a better vision of the "big picture."

Pricing

Several methods of pricing a joint-facility membership exist. Obviously one could base pricing on the cost of membership or cost per visit to each

(Continued on page 29)

Multi-Facility Memberships (Continued) ————————————————

facility (total operational costs divided by the projected number of, for example, fitness club members or ice-rink visits). If a district adheres to a breakeven philosophy, then before dividing by the projected number of members or visits, they should subtract the costs associated with items that generate "in-house" revenue (pro-shop sales, equipment rentals, court time, vending and concession sales, etc). These operations should cover themselves and thus, are not a cost of membership.

Because regular membership rates for the facilities are, or probably should be, based on these principles anyway, an easier way of accomplishing this is to simply add together normal rates of each of the facilities to be included within the multi-facility membership. So, one method is simply combining the rates.

When someone goes to a restaurant, they see the price of the salad bar is, say, $2.99. But, the price of the salad bar when purchased with a meal is $1.99. Obviously, the presumption is that one won't eat as much salad if they are also eating a steak and fries; it makes good sense to charge less. The difference between the salad-bar-only price and the with-a-meal price should reflect how much less salad the average person will eat, now that they also have a meal, as opposed to having the salad bar alone. This is the crux of setting the price for a multi-facility membership. Call it the "Salad Bar Crux."

The question to ask is this: How much less will someone use one facility if they now also have a membership to another facility (or two or three more facilities)? If a health club member, who purchased a pool membership, decreased his usage of the club by 10% and a pool member, after purchasing a health club membership, saw his pool usage go down by 15%, then a presumably fair price would be to deduct 10% from the normal health club rate, 15% from the pool rate and add the two sums together.

The obvious problem at this point is how to determine these percentages. Without doubt, this is a very subjective process. One can reduce the subjectiveness by interviewing those who currently have memberships to more than one facility, and by monitoring specific people who purchase the new membership during the first years of implementation. In other words, conservatively "guesstimate" for the first year, use the first year's information to modify the next year, and so on.

"Let's face it. If a district hasn't considered offering a (multi-family) membership, then the people it serves probably haven't considered asking for one."

If a district's facilities are not covering their expenses, setting rates based on costs and revenue may result in having fees too high to be attractive to the public. Therefore, demand-based or market value pricing may be the ticket. Simply put, this means given the various aspects of the facility (amenities, location, perceived quality, etc.), how much are people willing to pay for membrship? However, if your normal rates are based on this notion, combining these rates for the multi-facility membership may not work. There is no guarantee that the sum will be the same amount that people would be willing to pay for the multi-facility membership.

One needs to find a new demand-based price for the combined membership. While asking members or residents about their interest in a multi-facility pass, also inquire as to what they would be willing to pay for it.

Presenting patrons with several prices and asking them to pick the one they would be willing to pay is fruitless — they will always pick the lowest price. Instead, give them the normal rates for the individual facilities, ask them what they feel would be a fair price and wait for their answer. Better yet, give them the normal rates and ask, "Would you pay $X for a membership to both/all of the facilities?" (Establish "X" as the amount you hope to charge in the first place.) If patrons answer "yes", then there is no problem; if it is "no", then either the staff needs to take another look at the pricing, or the joint membership is a losing proposition and should not be offered.

Some indications of similar market values can be observed from competitors. Again, using the example of a pool and a health club without a pool, competition exists from YMCAs and from larger, typically private, full-service health clubs. However, one should consider that private clubs are typically overpriced in order to cover the initiation fee, massive advertising budgets, and to establish themselves as "status clubs." On the other hand, YMCAs are often underpriced due to the support they receive from the United Way. Be cautious and discerning when using competitors' prices as a basis for your own.

Laundry soap and salad bars. Follow one, figure out the other and a multi-facility membership will hopefully work for your district.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: David Bryden is the Superintendent of Revenue Facilities for the Bolingbrook Park District. With a degree in mathematics and an M.B.A. degree concentrating in marketing, Dave's experience includes being a public speaker, college instructor, and consultant for a country club. He has been very involved with the Facility Management Section of the IPRA and hopes to become even more professionally involved in various aspects, despite only being in the field for one year. Dave's free time is filled with hobbies of camping, golf, juggling, bicycling, singing, and adventurous activities.