Tiger Nearly Tripled the Buick Open's Ratings
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 4, 2009 10:06 AM EDT
Email
PrintI know there is a lot of humbling and grumbling about how much we see Tiger Woods on PGA Tour telecasts.
"He's everywhere!" Or, "Show somebody else!" Or, "You know, there is a race for second, thank you!"
Well, here's the reason why Tiger is pasted all over golf on TV: the rating for the final round of the Buick Open on CBS was nearly triple what it was last year. It was a 167% increase. Basically, 2.67 times the audience as last year's tournament which crowned Kenny Perry champion.
Sports Media Watch has the details.
Final round coverage of the Buick Open, featuring Woods' fourth win of the season, drew a 4.0/9 overnight rating on CBS Sunday -- up a staggering 167% from a 1.5/3 last year, and up 135% from a 1.7/4 in '07.
It's not like this is a new phenomenon for Woods, though.
Woods' four victories in '09 have averaged a 4.3 overnight rating for final round coverage, up 87% from a 2.3 for the same four tournaments last year. In addition to the 167% increase for the Buick Open, Woods' win at The Memorial garnered a 100% increase in overnight ratings, and his win at the AT&T National saw a 207% jump.
In other ratings news, the final round of the Women's British Open posted a 0.8 rating - up from 0.6 last year. For those of you saying that Korean players are a drag on ratings, Jeong Jang's 2005 win still ranks as the highest rated since 2001. It had a 1.6 rating.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
LPGA and the NHL's Ratings Are About Equal
If you equate majors with the NHL playoffs, which is a fair comparison, then the numbers that the LPGA gets and the the NHL gets are roughly the same.
The difference is that NBC paid no upfront rights fee for the NHL, instead splits advertising revenue with the NHL after paying production and distribution costs. That, and the Peacock didn’t show all of the games of the Finals…which received good ratings in the ghetto-lands of Versus. Hockey is of course derided for having ratings below the “sport” of poker and cheerleading competitions.
But the LPGA is getting paid for its rights up-front, despite having ratings that are among the lowest the major broadcast networks get. Love or hate Carolyn Bivens, the ladies have her to thank for that.
To be clear, they’re not getting paid for it up front this season. That doesn’t kick in until next year. Also, deals for the US and British Women’s Open are negotiated separately between networks and the USGA or R&A.
Ultimately, the rights fee that the LPGA Tour gets from Golf Channel (guessed to be about $4M/year) won’t actually increase purses or necessarily increase their pension plan. The Tour will be able to have more of a rainy day fund like the PGA Tour has. The increased production costs will be pushed onto tournaments and title sponsors. Players won’t play for more money. It will make the Tour healthier down the line, but the players won’t really see that for some time to come.
The NHL is a good comparison point, though, in terms of ratings and attention. The collective bargaining agreement gets the players about 60% of revenue that comes into the league. The $4 million for the LPGA Tour is more symbolic right now. The PGA Tour gets a lot lot more than that each year, which does wind up going back to the players in the form of an AMAZING pension plan.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 4, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
I have no problem with TV showing every shot that Tiger hits – he does raise the ratings, and he is in the same league as Michael Jordan – you watch him because he might do something you’ve never seen before.
My problem with all the Tiger coverage is the romanticizing by the broadcast crew. Tiger hits great golf shots and wins tournaments – the universe doesn’t revolve around him and even if he wanted to, he couldn’t walk across Rae’s Creek during The Masters. One of the other players pulls off an impossible shot and it gets passed over – but if Tiger pulls off a similar shot, it was the greatest shot ever.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Haha, I love the image of Tiger walking across Rae’s Creek :) And agree with what you said.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 4, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions
Can't Argue With That
…it’s almost like there needs to be a Tiger Channel and a Rest of the Field Channel.
On the other hand, the networks are only reacting to the market, and they are in business to do exactly that. Kind of hard to argue with what they do when you look at it that way.
by Charles Boyer on Aug 4, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Since when is a 167% increase a “tripling” of anything ? 300% is tripling.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
@#@#$ Math....
…Great point you have, Court. However, to Ryan’s defense, the next sentence does say “basically, 2.67 times the audience as last year’s tournament which crowned Kenny Perry champion.”
by Charles Boyer on Aug 4, 2009 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions
my point exactly – both can’t be right. Unless you’re Johnny Miller, you don’t get to just throw a whole bunch of things out then pick whichever one fits your story.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Well a 100% increase is doubling. 4 is a 100% increase over 2 since you added 100 % of 2 to get 4. Hence 200% would be tripling. Sounds weird, but that’s how it works.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 4, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions
like a said....
#$%# math.
And you are correct. :-)
by Charles Boyer on Aug 4, 2009 1:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Haha – it really is just easier to say 2.67 times rather than confuse everyone!
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Aug 4, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions
The Future
Count me in with those that think the media fawn over Tiger too much (the big reason I ceased being a fan of his after 1997). I can’t blame them for putting him on TV based on the ratings, but I wonder how well this bodes for golf in the next few decades. When Tiger retires I’m afraid that the TOUR will find themselves in the same situation that the NBA found themselves in follow Jordan’s final retirement: trying to find a new person to take his place and having a bone dry barrel of charismatic/recognized golfers to choose from.
Been a Reds fan since 1996 and am desperate for a playoff run.
Is that a reason to stop being a fan of Woods ?
It isn’t his fault that the media has no self-control and no need to plan for the future. They will just move along to the next hot story. And it isn’t his fault that the rest of the Tour seems to roll over for him when he is in the field…well…ok…that partially IS his fault. :-)
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
They Said The Same About Nicklaus and Palmer
Golf will almost always have a dominant personality and a Big Star.
Who knows, maybe it’s Rory McIlroy. Or any number of juniors burning it up in the foundries of future golfers.
The sport will be just fine and golfers will always want to see the best in the game. Perhaps its popularity will ebb and flow to a degree, but it has done nicely here for almost a century, ever since Ouimet beat Vardon in the 1913 US Open.
by Charles Boyer on Aug 4, 2009 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
Related FanShots on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
