“You’ll see some interesting creative in that regard in the next several weeks.”
The "IMG World Congress of Sports" included a Wednesday panel gathering that featured USGA CMO Barry Hyde, The Golf Channel's GOLF CHANNEL's Dave Manougian, Golf World's Geoff Russell and the PGA Tour's Ty Votaw. Oh, IMG's Mark Steinberg was also listed as a participant at The Pierre, but he's not included in this snippet of topics, intros and highlights (we've been mercifully spared the full transcript.) Instead a suit from FedEx named Bill Margaritas filled in (no, this is not an excerpt from Dan Jenkins' next novel).
Anyway, brace yourselves. Lots of product and growth references in "Growing The Business of Golf in the Years Ahead."
The issue: What is the state of golf?
The skinny: In an audience poll on the health of golf, only 14 percent said golf is healthier now than it ever has been; 28 percent said it was healthier than in 2000. Votaw: “All indices (prize money, sponsorship, TV partnerships) are up.”
Yes, he said indices. It's not coterminous, but it's pretty good!
Russell: “I half agree with what Ty said. The business of golf is pretty healthy, but it’s always a challenge to keep it going. That success is going to be hard to maintain.”
Most panelists agreed that fan interest in the game is up. Manougian: “We think the sport’s in great shape.” Russell: “It is for you, you’ve got the (cable) contract now.”
You know these writer types Dave, always ready with a pithy comeback to taint the brand.
Manougian later added, “We must take the necessary steps to becoming a true, fan-friendly sport.”
Margaritas expressed excitement about the changing demographics of fans and top players in regards to sex, nationalily and diversity.
Top players are changing sex? I mean, I know about Mianne Bagger, but who else?
Greatest hit: Votaw: “I’m not sure it’s healhier than ever, but I think it’s certainly healthier than it was in 2000.”
In 2000, did they have to scramble to find sponsors and fill spots on the schedule to replace tournaments that died? Help me, my memory is just not what it used to be.
The issue: Tiger Woods’ effect on the PGA Tour.
The skinny: Russell: “If you’re a sponsor of a PGA Tour event and you look down the road and you know you’re not going to get Tiger Woods you’ve got a real marketing problem. You’ve got to come up with another way to make your tournament interesting.”
Votaw grimaced during some of Russell’s comments, then said, “There are a lot of dymanics about whether sponsors sign with tournaments, and that’s beyond Tiger.”
Ah, the MBA's answer to squirming out of a tricky topic: dynamics. There are many dynamics involved and all you idiots just don't understand them!
The issue: Measuring the success of the new FedEx Cup playoff format.
The skinny: Margaritas: “I think its going to be good with or without Tiger. It’s going to cast the spotlight on some other players.”
Are we already conceding that Tiger is not going to be a full time participant in the playoffs?
Russell: “I’m waiting for Tiger Woods to say, ‘This is fantastic, I’ll be at all four events and I can’t wait to win the FedEx Cup.’ I don’t remember him saying that.”
Votaw: “You’ll see some interesting creative in that regard in the next several weeks.”
Some interesting creative. Oh goodie, more lame PSA's!
Russell: “I think when we do it once it will be interesting. But if Tiger doesn’t play then you’ve got a problem.”
Votaw: “If he does play every event are you going to write what an unqualified success it is?”Russell: “You’ll probably see more positive words about it than if he didn’t show up.”
An audience poll found 45 percent of believe some top players won’t play more events this season.
Manougian: “When we get into the playoffs I don’t think there’s any question there will be more excitement about (those events) than ever before. People will debate the degree of success.”
Greatest hit: Russell: “For this thing to work you have to have those top players play.”
Glad we settled that.
The issue: The Tour as a TV product.
The skinny: Votaw addressed the type of the demographics of viewers watching Tour telecasts, saying, “I think you can say old is unnattractive, but you can say rich is very attractive. …The afflueunce, educational and income levels and executive levels make golf very attractive. We wouldn’t be fully sponsored or have the number of broadcast hours.”
And why is it again that you are consumed with youth and pandering to the 18-34 year olds?
Hyde said, “When you’re talking to media buyers they’re saying they love golf because it’s the corporate office plus the high end consumer audience.”
Votaw said of the new cable TV deal with Golf Channel, “We’re not going to making short-term assessments or adjustments based on what’s a long-term deal. That’s why we made a 15-year deal.”
Oh that makes sense. A 15-year experiment to see how it works.
The issue: Michelle Wie’s future in golf.
The skinny: An audience poll found 67 percent believe Wie should no longer play in men’s events. Most panelists agreed that she needs to find success on the LGPA [sp.] before attempting to cross over.
Russell said, “Being in the business of covering her, I don’t think it’s in her or our best interests when she doesn’t play well. It’s tough not to start to get jaded as a journalist to watch her withdraw from tournaments. … We’re in the business of being critical of people when they play like that.” Votaw said, “If that happens and you continue to be critical of her, the marketplace will catch up to that at some point and it will no longer be a compelling situation to have her in the field. The market will ultimately determine whether or not she should or should not play on the PGA Tour.”
Ah those market forces. And here I thought it was a matter of her breaking par.
And believe it or not there was one good suggestion on the panel.
Panelists where asked what they would do as LPGA or PGA Tour commissioner for a day.
Hyde said, “Create more difference week to week. Some alternative formats and work hard at creating a personality for every tournament.”
You see Barry, alternative formats require thought and for players to adapt. Same with varied course setups. Very dangerous ground we'd be on here. You risk engaging platforms that are very complicated like the Stableford scoring or match play. That distinct variety impacts the indices and delivers too many dynamics that might engender consumer confusion.
Manougian said, “Making the brand relevant to Gen Y.”And on that note...
Greatest hit: Votaw said, “There’s no upside for me to answer that question, really.”
Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Reader Comments (17)
With the exception of Geoff Russell, it is obvious the other participants live in their own fantasy worlds.
BTW, a fine point -- Ty Votaw is not an MBA (although he talks like one).
He told me in an interview about 16 years ago (as general counsel for the LPGA Tour under Charlie Meachem) he earned a BS in journalism from Ohio University and his JD from UNC. He's a lawyer.
How many MBA'S does it take in Ponte Vedra to fully understand the demographics of the viewership, would it be 100, plus the new guy in New York?
A country full of golf nuts fails to recall a $180k winner's check, Aoki and Gamez holing out from the fairway to win, Mickelson and Leonard's PHX playoff, Pavin's 4 wood, Irwin's bomb, Rocca's miracle, Faldo parring the field to death, Seve from the car park, Trevino skipping an approach across a hazard, Beck playing for second, NBC tainting the Ryder Cup forever with the 'War by the Shore' tag, CBS giving us lip-out reaction shots of Norman's son and hanging one of the top announcers of all time out to dry in favor of a local rag's travel writer in the name of PC? Never mind that Joanne Carner and Nancy Lopez backed him up.
Did golf or the Tour exist before Tiger won his third US Am in a red Lochinvar polo? Apparently Tida wasn't aware of their membership policy.
Does the PVB Posse have any say in who Augusta extends memberships to? If Sandra Day O'Connor or Celine Dion joined would that grow the game?
Does golf need to grow? If so, how will it help the individual player? Will green fees at Pebble or Pinehurst go down? Will Fazio stop building fake Augustas in the suburbs of every major city with caddies in white jumpsuits and citrus-iced towels at various comfort stations? Will the Smithsonian stop asking you to display your two year old driver? Will you need to consult TV Guide to find the Golf Channel?
Will you fail to teach the game to your children due to 90% sponsorship retention, tucked pins, Nielsen ratings, 460cc clubheads, the 15 event minimum, furrowed bunkers, gradual rough, overseas appearance fees, Alan Frickin' Shipnuck, Bobby Clampett, Jack Vickers, COR, launch monitors, the Russian Tea Room, the IMG Academy and declaration of eminent domain on media parking spots?
Or will you let show them the '86 Masters, give them a starter set, teach them etiquette and let them figure out the feeling of making a par from the junk or a birdie on 18 playing by themselves in the twilight?
I am interested to know if people think there are other significant issues threatening the health of golf, and how they would rank the various threats.
I personally believe that the biggest threat to golf is the time and expense of playing. As either Nicklaus or Palmer observed, and most fathers today can attest to, parents spend alot more time supervising children and accompanying them on activities than they did 20-40 years ago. So, taking the majority of a weekend day to play golf is something that a Dad has a tough time "selling" to his wife and kids. Add in the high cost of joining a golf club or playing on courses that are not overcrowded, and you have a recipe for declining interest and rounds. I think this is by far the biggest threat to the game, far bigger than the equipment issue. If the pool of avid recreational golfers shrinks, everything down the vine will wither eventually.
I think creative solutions--maybe courses with multiple loops of 3-6 holes, for example--might improve participation in our game. I am also amazed at how expensive the game is. I have earned a 6 figure income for many years and have never been able to comfortably afford club membership. Public courses that are not overcrowede are usually very expensive as well. I have friends in England and Australia who tell me that there are multiple options for golf clubs for working class people in those countries, and no avid golfer has to struggle getting tee times at munies or obtain a second mortgage to join a private club.
Any opinions out there??
I wonder out loud how many marriages (besides PGA Tour players) the game of golf has destroyed, with prices and time headed UPWARDS how many more families will the game of golf bankrupt?
Who's building sustainable, low-maintenance courses with wide, rough-free playing areas (to lessen the time spent searching for lost balls) that can bear and make money at low green fees while moving golfers around quickly? Who's offering incentives for golfers to play the 6200-yard course that surveys show they prefer, instead of the 6600-yard white tee markers set up by people who fear titanium and ProV1s are ruining the game? Who's buying a beer for the foursomes who make it around in 3:30? Who's holding shotgun 12-hole events to get people used to the idea of spending part of a morning, instead of a whole day, playing golf?
These are the issues that will affect the future health of the game. Not the ball the pros play. Not anybody's spin-rate out of 2-inch rough. Not whether Tiger shows up at non-major non-Amex non-Buick events.
Maybe if there are some course architects or developers lurking on the blog, they can enlighten us. Is it possible to build a low maintenance course with decent facilities that would allow a working class guy to be able to afford club membership?
Most munies in the US are overcrowded, and many clubs are hurting. It seems like there should be a way someone could make money off of a low cost golf course enterprise.
Another "real estate" impact is the devouring of reasonably priced munis by housing developers. Most of the oldest, most player friendly munis here in St. Louis have been "re-purposed" into $750K and up homes.
Golf is a tremendous game - IT HAS TO BE, in order to survive all the obstacles we've placed in front of the average joe.
Sorry for the all caps...but I'm delighted to see that I'm not the only one who wishes we had someone getting hot and bothered for the average golfer.
Fox Meadow's 6201 from the whites, has been dramatically altered from the course that opened in 2000 (specifically to add width and to help with lost balls), is totally walkable, and you can bump and run at the green on pretty much every hole. Peak season Saturday rounds tend to run about 4:15. The pro and the GM are focused on customer service above everything else. It's pretty damn affordable, too, based on the current situation for green fees...and junior memberships are a *really* good deal.
Needless to say, the waiting list for "membership" is a mile long, and since we're daily-fee, a lot of members from other courses (along with tourists and nomad golfers) spend a lot of time there.
But Chris and Harry (and Simon, the owner) get it. They love the game and they're doing what they can to make it a viable option to the average guy. Don't know if you'll ever find yourself on Prince Edward Island, but do yourself a favor and c'mon up.
There SHOULD BE more energy expended on that topic and less on the tiresome square/U/XYZPDQ grooves issue that means nothing to the average golfer.
And that goes triple for this site.
BTW, Jneu, you beat me to the Rustic Canyon reference. It is what public golf should be about.