“When the No. 1, most-recognized athlete isn’t playing, there’s a falloff, but it doesn’t mean the falloff translates into a proportional drop in the value we deliver to our partners.”

The Mirage set the first "value" reference over/under at 31 words for Ty Votaw's response to Richard Sandomir's look at sagging golf ratings. Took the over and you won easily.

“When Tiger plays or is in contention, he spikes ratings off a very healthy base,” said Ty Votaw, the PGA Tour’s executive vice president of communications. “When the No. 1, most-recognized athlete isn’t playing, there’s a falloff, but it doesn’t mean the falloff translates into a proportional drop in the value we deliver to our partners.”

Is there a VP of Value Delivery? If there isn't one, there should be. Maybe we can pay his salary with the money saved from those recent layoffs? Oh wait, that would take like 9 layoffs to get up to one EVP's income. Sorry...

But this is interesting was since I didn't know that golf equipment manufacturers account for so much of the the advertising. Here I thought it was the SPCA and The Villages.

He said that the PGA Tour and the networks would continue to benefit from a core of wealthy, well-educated “somewhat older” men who faithfully watch the tournaments and buy golf equipment. “A part of the ratings decline is the casual audience that came to watch Tiger and didn’t buy golf equipment anyway,” he said.
No sport likes to see its viewers leave even if their departure is temporary.

According to Nielsen, final-round viewership this season through Aug. 1 is down 16 percent.

Comments

[Media driven]

Money will be flat at best. Best bet may be to hold off on talks until later in year hoping for a Tiger return/spike. this is the last contract they will negotiate with Tiger in his so-called "prime.'' As the head of CBS (McManus) was quoted recently, "The rights have been inflated because of Woods.'' that may no longer be the case.

Hard to see CBS backing away from golf and hard to see much changing really unless ESPN decides to get back in (unlikely for tour events). ABC doesn't carry much of anything sports-wise so the tour has lost some leverage.

It's also probably Finchem's last go-around.

[COB]

I don't remember the TOUR saying anything about Tiger's added viewership numbers being made up of non product-buying "casual" fans when they were negotiating the last contract.

[digsouth]

The sad state of cliche ridden announcing, archaic graphics, lack of updates on the field, too much putting ,and an endless repeat of the same comercial for hours on end has as much to do with the drop in viewership as TW's MIA.

When Nascar provides more information about the 30th place car, than the PGA does about the 10th place player, and the 'mythical list of 8---top page of the leaderboard' well, yawn.

Has it not occured to the bland producers that when the 'leaderboard' was 8 players, a 21 inch TV was the norm..... they can surely show a few more positions now.

Additionally, these announcers are so mired in their cliches that a "Spinal Tap" type of movie could be made about them, and it would be difficult to determine who the real announcers are vs the parody.

"Quietly moving up the leaderboard" ....IE: we haven't shown him, as we were busy showing a Slo Mo of a mishit driver on the comical minutia pizz bub schwing camera.


Give me a break.

All that tech equipment, and the coverage is 1060's style, but in color, and with hockey puck tracer replays.

Malcolm in the Middle replays are better when the yackers get too cliche.

All play well.

digsouth

[JG]

In the present economy, I fail to see how the PGA adds value that would justify the expense.

[Buffett]

Surely the golf equipment buying public have figured out that new equipment brought out every six months or so that is claimed to be the result of yet another new development in reseach is just one big con job aimed at the gullible.

[Charles Boyer]

I have to agree with Buffet to some extent. The overall changes in equipment quality, from drivers, to irons and balls over the past 25 years is phenomenal. Even the difference taken over a five year period is quite substantial.

Year to year, perhaps there isn't as much difference as we might need to trigger an $800 or more purchase for a set of irons or a $400 purchase for a new driver, but at the same time, if a player were to replace their driver every 3-4 years, it's fair to say they would notice a good bit of improvement in the new club. With irons, perhaps less improvement, but still, there are some incremental improvements that are noticeable in the span of five years or so.

Balls, same thing. There are suddenly a number of viable alternatives to the vaunted Pro-V1, which itself was a major leap in its time. In fact, those alternatives to the Titleist ball may actually be better than the original, at least in the hands of a slower-swinging amateur.

I do agree, however, that each new club is marketed as a Nobel-worthy breakthrough, when in fact, the improvements are often far more subtle than what is claimed. No club is going to take an 18 indexer to scratch, no matter what. But...improvement in equipment may well keep a player interested in playing.

I will use my wife as an example: she went from her starter set of small-ish cavity-back irons with a 250cc (or so) driver to a Burner 420CC driver and hybridized irons. Suddenly, she can get off the tee and down the fairway where her 4-iron on up all mean business. No, it didn't drop her Index down into the low teens, but it made the game fun enough for her to play that she actually wants to play as opposed to considering nine holes as a brief taste of the Bataan Death March.

For me, those new clubs were worth every penny and then some, because as any married man can tell you -- if your wife enjoys golf, she's going to be more likely to understand why you play 18 holes both weekend days and sometimes during the week to boot.