An Open Letter To The LPGA

To: Ladies Professional Golf Association
From: Monica Trucco
Re: Globalization Concerns Regarding Your English-Language Requirement

This week, I learned about your requirement for players who have been on the LPGA tour for two years to pass an oral English-language test or face suspension. This new requirement may most affect your South Korean contingent of players, since they make up 45 of the 121 international players from 26 countries on your tour. Also, of the last 30 majors, 24 have been won by international players.

I respect your decision to communicate your policy and your desire to “make [your] expectations very clear.” However, part of your message may have been lost in translation with some of your best players due to the manner that it was communicated. I would strongly encourage you to put it in writing and distribute as soon as possible to avoid future misunderstandings.

While I’ve read opinions about how your decision isn’t racist or culturally insensitive, it does strike some as bad business in a global marketplace which represents the predominant opportunity for growth:

By considering themselves an exclusively American market and adopting what will appear to foreigners as a pigheaded policy, [the LPGA] instantly
diminish[es] their stock in emerging markets like China and South Korea, where women’s golf really could grow and thrive thanks to few existing athletic opportunities for young women.

As a business, it has been written that you are “struggling to stay alive[;]” you need your “players to promote the game to the media and its sponsors[;]” and by implementing the testing requirement you possibly are creating “an environment for the tour to succeed” by attracting sponsors and intensifying national interest. Moreover, winning players understand that the tour is “losing sponsors” in a tough economy.

However, your new policy seems to be missing the globalization piece of the puzzle, one of 5 Forces that we’ve identified at TMG Strategies as a game-changer in the world as we know it. Some of the largest companies – and top revenue producers – have bent over backwards to take advantage of this Force. For example, while more than half of Proctor & Gamble’s revenue has come from countries other than the U.S., they went as far as reducing the size of their shampoo containers in China after research revealed to them that a smaller size was more in line with Chinese expectations – and, as a result, sales skyrocketed.

Or take McDonald’s – the prototypical American restaurant, right? Consider this: while they still have a big presence here, “Europe is now McDonald’s largest region by revenues, despite having roughly one-quarter the number of outlets as the U.S.” due in large part to changing its design to meet expectations. Both companies have shown that while respecting their business needs for growth, they can also respect global considerations by conforming and changing. Can you?