Why Sean McManus' Visions for Masters Grandeur Never Came True
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 5:04 PM EDT
in Golfiness
Email
Print
CBS Sports and News President Sean McManus - who once emailed me like three years ago to talk about a column I did ripping CBS coverage, quite the thrill for a punk kid writing on the Internet - made a pretty bold prediction about the ratings for the Masters provided Tiger Woods' return to the sport would be marked there. He said that the 2010 Masters would rival the inauguration of Barack Obama for the biggest media event of the last decade-plus.
Those ratings sort of materialized. ESPN and CBS both reported some great numbers for the weekend's golf action, though it was pretty short of the kinds of numbers that McManus had been predicting.
Sports Business Journal reporter and fellow Orioles fan Jon Ourand did a bit of a study to understand why. He did a focus group at the Wharton Business School at Penn to see what sports business students thought of watching the Masters on TV. (Why did I not get my degree in sports business instead of just regular business?) The impetus was his curiosity if Tiger's sex scandal could lower the median age of golf viewers. Nope. The median age was actually older this year than last year's Masters.
The problem with McManus' notion isn't that people are not interested in Tiger. They're not interested in golf. I'm practically a social pariah for being a twentysomething guy that plays golf. My friends don't watch golf. My fiance only does because I practically force her by hiding the remote on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Golf is tough to watch on TV. It's slow. There's not much to take in about the nature, surroundings, or intricacies of the course. Though 3D TV is coming to alleviate that for golf in the way that HDTV made Fox's Glow Puck technology completely irrelevant for all of eternity, there is still a throng of people who will not watch a slow sport.
What can TV do about that? How about show more golf? That was one of the major complaints levied in Ourand's study. American golf broadcasts have way too many ads for dick pills, TV shows aimed at people who use dick pills, and just plain dicks calling the action (every network has one). Inserting more golf into the equation makes the tournament appear at the pace at which things really happen in golf.
In a lot of ways, the broadcasting model for the NBA might work for golf. NBA games never matter until the final minute or two anyhow, so why try to make it seem like the first 47 minutes mean anything. Just have fun with it. Show the action - a whole lot of replays - and talk up the players. Golf broadcasters could interview guys at the turn, or use more embedded mics on caddies, or just stop talking so much. Less analysis of every painstaking movement and more analysis of the flurry of activity on the course. Not everything has to change, but the sport becomes inherently more interesting to a more casual audience when the game, the participants, and the technique of golf are explained more fully to the audience.
People were curious to see how Tiger would do, but a good number of people probably tuned in wondering if some kind of freak show would act out at Augusta National and do something crazy/awesome. Once they realized that it was just like any other golf tournament - the weirdos never really came out to the course - then that was it for the casual viewer looking for a train wreck. Golf doesn't have to be and shouldn't ever cater to that lowest common denominator, but the Masters offered the sport an opportunity to see how it perhaps could learn to make a few tweaks and keep the sport fresh to younger viewers. Like, younger than 50.
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
58 years old is a very scary
number. I am not near as optimistic about golf rebounding to anywhere near even 2000-2001 numbers. The sociological demographic of “X” & “Y” generation couples is not compatible to spending long hours and big bucks for entertainment. They spend way more time with their kids than we did and with two paychecks in most houses, these decisions must be mutual instead on male-sided like the 70’s-80’s.
The big name, big dollar clubs may survive, but I see some tough times ahead for mid-level private clubs and mid to high range daily fee courses….
I'll keep an eye out for you...at www.oneeyedgolfer.blogspot.com
by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Apr 19, 2010 5:28 PM EDT reply actions
If the numbers of 2000-2001 were the standard numbers from years before then, this would be a great discussion – but that was a spike year. It would be great if that year became the start of a long string of years with that kind of viewership, but it’s not realistic…and TV executives know that.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I would think golf could get back to like 2002-3 numbers. That’d be pretty good.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 6:28 PM EDT up reply actions
you DO realize that Tiger isn’t going to get younger and millions of people aren’t going to just start thinking he’s the new kid on the block, right ? Golf is a niche game – always has been…always will be. Even if Tiger wins The Masters, US and British Open, the ratings will only skyrocket for the PGA.
TV needs/demands a constant stream of “new” for the ADHD afflicted who have attention spans of 6 seconds.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I agree on some points
I’ve been preaching that the networks that broadcast GOLF should show more players , more often and in multiples often. The very idea of showing every shot of Tiger Woods while he is 7 shots back and not showing others ahead of him on the leaderboard is craziness. My lovely girlfriend has only been watching golf on TV for the past 3 years and has seen this happen over and over again. During tigers absence, she FINALY was able to learn about and SEE more of a wide variety of players with loads of talent and wondered why O why does this not happen more often during televised events. I told her “Honey, Thats the same question I’ve been asking for years now”. Perhaps if THE GOLF CHANNEL would get off of their Marketing Horse and start promoting more players more often, then and only then could a more sustainable True Fan Base be built. The TW “fringe fans” that only watch our beloved game on weekends when he is in the field are not going to cut it for the future of broadcast ratings.
"pain is only weakness leaving the body"
Yeah, I do agree that there is a bit too much focus on Tiger when he is out of contention. The networks would say that Woods drives ratings, which is true, but no one likes watching a loser.
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 19, 2010 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Golf isn’t football or basketball where all the action takes place in a single location. The telecast does not need to be shown in real time. What if there was fifteen minute tape delay. The time could be used to string together how an individual player attacked a specific hole. Show different players on the same hole, both good and bad. Replace ridiculous pre-shot routines with conversations between players and caddies. That won’t make the game any more popular, but it might relieve the tedium for those who watch regularly.
Placebos, of course, are things you have to swallow even though they contain nothing that actually helps you. It's like American health insurance in a pill. -BiPM
That’s a pretty good idea. xxx Golf Channel tried a really hoaky version of that with Michelle Wie and Annika Sorenstam in a few tournaments. They didn’t do a very good job with the production, mostly because they did it as part of the “Michelle Wie: Queen of the Universe” series – but it was a cool idea.
Watching Furyk down the stretch the other day was maddening with all of his pre-shot rain delays. At least there would be something else to show.
The only drawback I can see is the distraction from the tension down the stretch like we had last weekend.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I thought about that
When the last few groups get to the back nine on Sunday they’d have to switch format a little.
Placebos, of course, are things you have to swallow even though they contain nothing that actually helps you. It's like American health insurance in a pill. -BiPM
Diane, I agree and the time delay
is a great idea. It seems to me they only show ‘fringe’ players when they hole a long putt on 18 or chip it in.
Boy, Jim Furyk has added a chapter to the ‘pre-shot routine’ book, hasn’t he? Fluff’s probably ready to stick a gun in his mouth.
As Tiger’s fame starts to wane, we have all been looking for the next Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods. If Rickie Fowler can keep dubs and trips off of his card, I think he is the closest to being that guy. If he is marketed properly, he would have to help declining golf numbers…
I'll keep an eye out for you...at www.oneeyedgolfer.blogspot.com
by One-Eyed Golfer Guy on Apr 20, 2010 6:04 AM EDT reply actions
You know, Diane, that’s a helluva idea. It’s not so time sensitive that it has to be shown linearly. And they do a lot of tape delay as it is, so why not string it together a little more fluidly?
Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroom, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.
by Ryan Ballengee on Apr 20, 2010 11:03 AM EDT reply actions
Hey D
I’m not sure if it would bring in more viewers, but your suggestions would certainly enhance my enjoyment of the TV coverage. I do use the on-line scoreboard to see how my favourite players are doing, who is top/bottom, & to cover my boredom with pre-shot routines, etc. Shot Tracker was a welcome addition for the same reason, although I had trouble with it this w/e. Wonder if Shot Tracker could be used to show different players/same hole?
Wendy, golf is not football (yours or ours) so no amount of tweaking is going to attract new viewers, but it may retain old viewers.
Golf is cyclical, like just about everything in life. There was a peak in the 60s due to Arnie’s popularity. Then there was a peak in the late 90s due to Tiger. It’s reasonable to expect another 20 to 30 years before another golfer captures the imagination of the general public. Those doing the most whining about the decrease in participation are those whose income is derived from golfers. From my perspective, I like the decrease because I can call on Thursday to get a reasonable Saturday tee time. Ten years ago they would have laughed and said, “Take up bowling.”
Placebos, of course, are things you have to swallow even though they contain nothing that actually helps you. It's like American health insurance in a pill. -BiPM
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!
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.
