We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf Magazine Covers - Ad Dollar Driven?

SuperStroke
tcalloway1 said:
i'm not going to dismiss that group, but it can be argued that it's a much smaller group than those who watched or tuned into the barclay's, no?
Click to expand...

And of course their fans must have shifted since the last Barclays, the one before that, and the one before that. Because all were winners of the Barclays, not the US Am.
 
Regardless of the amount paid, it's still an infintessimal group compared to the main audience who reads the golf mags.

NFender said:
How about this niche: Avid golf fans who are interested in the U.S. Amateur.

Before you dismiss that group as "a few die hard fans," remember that NBC and The Golf Channel think highly enough of that niche to pay $$$ for programming rights, and all the usual advertiser-suspects thought highly enough to buy ads during the broadcast. Of course, they may all just trying to get on Walter Uihlein's good side, too.
Click to expand...
 
JB said:
And of course their fans must have shifted since the last Barclays, the one before that, and the one before that. Because all were winners of the Barclays, not the US Am.
Click to expand...

yeah, i keep forgeting that this is a first for the cover....and i just don't think that it's coincidence.
 
tcalloway1 said:
i'm not going to dismiss that group, but it can be argued that it's a much smaller group than those who watched or tuned into the barclay's, no?
Click to expand...

There would be no point in arguing that ratings for the U.S. Amateur broadcast are greater than ratings for The Barclays, or that interest in the U.S. Amateur overall even comes comes close to interest in the PGA Tour. That is not my position, and it certainly isn't the basis of my argument. Saying there's enough interest to justify the cover of a weekly golf pub (my position) is NOT the same as saying it's the most appealing story for the broadest possible audience.

What I disagree with is your notion that interest in the U.S. Amateur is so low that "the only reason [Peter Uihlein] got the cover is b/c of who is daddy is" (your words). Again, while it certainly is possible that the mags had other motives, I think it was a big enough story to justify a legitimate editorial decision. Put another way, in my opinion, the fact that Peter Uihlein was on the cover, does not prove that anyone was out to curry favor with his father's company.

Consider this: Other than the British Open and Ryder Cup, the PGA has the biggest golf audience week in and week out. So, by your logic, is an editor ever justified in choosing for a cover story a European Tour player (one who did not win in the USA), Champions Tour player, or LPGA player over that week's PGA winner? If Edoardo Molinari is on next week's cover should we follow the money back to Taylormade. If Tom Watson shows up on a cover, can we assume Adams is throwing their weight around again?
 
NFender said:
There would be no point in arguing that ratings for the U.S. Amateur broadcast are greater than ratings for The Barclays, or that interest in the U.S. Amateur overall even comes comes close to interest in the PGA Tour. That is not my position, and it certainly isn't the basis of my argument. Saying there's enough interest to justify the cover of a weekly golf pub (my position) is NOT the same as saying it's the most appealing story for the broadest possible audience.

What I disagree with is your notion that interest in the U.S. Amateur is so low that "the only reason [Peter Uihlein] got the cover is b/c of who is daddy is" (your words). Again, while it certainly is possible that the mags had other motives, I think it was a big enough story to justify a legitimate editorial decision. Put another way, in my opinion, the fact that Peter Uihlein was on the cover, does not prove that anyone was out to curry favor with his father's company.

Consider this: Other than the British Open and Ryder Cup, the PGA has the biggest golf audience week in and week out. So, by your logic, is an editor ever justified in choosing for a cover story a European Tour player (one who did not win in the USA), Champions Tour player, or LPGA player over that week's PGA winner? If Edoardo Molinari is on next week's cover should we follow the money back to Taylormade. If Tom Watson shows up on a cover, can we assume Adams is throwing their weight around again?
Click to expand...

well, i have to completely disagree with your notion that " it was a big enough story to justify a legitimate editorial decision" (your words) and here's why:

historically, the winner of the US Am has never been big enough for the cover. i know this b/c no other winner has graced the cover, b/c you know what, the cover went to the winner of the barclay's.

danny lee has been the biggest thing in amateur golf since tiger woods, where was his cover? i find it amazing that you can't acknowledge the fact that this is a first for this publication. and what's more amazing is that you don't ask yourself why? clearly there's more to it than just the publication deciding that they want to target that small % of devout US Am fan.

"Put another way, in my opinion, the fact that Peter Uihlein was on the cover, does not prove that anyone was out to curry favor with his father's company" (again, something you said). based on history of the cover of this publication, i have to ask again, why did he deserve the cover and not past champions? wouldn't someone like danny lee be more deserving for the cover based on all the hype surrounding him as an amateur?

look, you can have your perspective and that's ok, but to not even wonder why this kid gets the cover and no one else in the past has, and to wonder what those motives were, and to take into consideration who his father is.....it's just very suspect to me.
 
All I am going to say is that people read this forum and the opinions here on "certain perceptions" have shed some light to the "right" people.
 
Last edited:
New Cover

100906_cover_290.jpg
 
hahahaha, good to see Kuch got recognized
 
We did it Adrian! Cut me Mick
 
JB said:
New Cover

100906_cover_290.jpg
Click to expand...

That's awesome. As I noted earlier in the thread, I think both are very "cover-worthy"! And I think that Uihlein has a look that is very marketable... and Kuchar has a personality and smile that is marketable.
 
interlooper said:
That's awesome. As I noted earlier in the thread, I think both are very "cover-worthy"! And I think that Uihlein has a look that is very marketable... and Kuchar has a personality and smile that is marketable.
Click to expand...

The best part is knowing what we knew before, having this thread up for people to share their voice, and seeing the final product.
 
JB said:
The best part is knowing what we knew before, having this thread up for people to share their voice, and seeing the final product.
Click to expand...

Leverage. THP gives the "little people" a voice.
 
absolutely perfect cover for the mag! i can't believe that "we" get listened to like that.
 
The end result turned out pretty nicely!
 
Awesome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well done!
 
Power to the People!

THP...it's not just a website....it's a voice
 
wow that was a great 10 page thread to read thru and see the end result! THP strikes again!
 
Awesome!! I just saw this, don't know how I missed it earlier, guess my head was still hurting from draft day haha. It's good to know that the "lurkers" take note in what we say.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is Jeff Babineau, editor at Golfweek, and this thread was pointed out to me by a friend. Before we roll too far down the road on this debate, let me clarify a few things with some facts (because sadly, they are lacking here). Some background on Golfweek: We cover the entire world of golf, which includes, but does not begin and end with, the PGA Tour (feel free to visit us at Golfweek.com). The U.S. Amateur, to us, is every bit as big, if not bigger, than the opening playoff event of the PGA Tour. We had three writers at The Barclays last week; we sent SIX staffers across the country to cover the U.S. Amateur, covering the event with stories, photos and video from start to finish. Peter Uihlein, who is a terrific player (a 2009 Walker Cupper) is on the cover because he won the U.S. Amateur Championship, just as Byeong-Hun An was on our cover last year (sharing it with Arnold Palmer) and Danny Lee was on our cover the year before. The list goes on. It includes Tiger Woods, Ryan Moore, Edoardo Molinari and hey, even Barclays winner Matt Kuchar, who was on the cover of Golfweek as U.S. Amateur champion when he won at Cog Hill in 1997. We have featured U.S. Women's Amateur champions and U.S. Junior champions on our covers as well. To make the insinuation that this is an advertising move (1) is insulting to Peter Uihlein and (2) is false, as David Chung would have graced our cover had he won at Chambers Bay. That's how much we care about the amateur game. Thanks.

Respectfully,
Jeff Babineau, Editor
Golfweek
([email protected])
 
Last edited:
Jeff,
First of all, welcome to THP. We appreciate you taking the time to come on here and explain your thoughts behind the process of choosing the cover. However I respectfully disagree with your thoughts on this thread. Consumers are what makes the golf media, not the other way around, and that I am sure you will completely agree with. With that being said, if consumers share similar opinions or feel a certain way, its unfortunate, but that is public perception. Every person has a right to their opinion, and if you go back through this thread, most did not knock a publication for their choices, but merely pointed out their thoughts on why choices are being made. No different than what you are doing here and defending your right to make said choices. If you read through the original post, the question was posed and the readers spoke their mind on the subject. Whether their opinions are right or wrong about final decisions, as well as the other weekly publication, it is their opinions on the subject and certainly most would be able to see why some people have such opinions.

It is the circle of business that nepotism plays a role in every walk of life. From emotional to family issues to business and working. Following that lead makes me PONDER why certain things take place, and in my opinion, not only is there nothing wrong with that, it should be the ONLY way people do business. Having direct reader and consumer feedback on what PERCEPTION is, is what makes every piece of media better. And in the end, the only thing that matters is public perception regardless of journalistic integrity, size of publication, or anything else.

Again, thank you for posting your thoughts on the matter.
 
JeffB, thanks for taking time out of your day to post and to inform us of the facts. but i do have one question: if you agree that it is sad with what is happening to the world of golf media and to print journalism in general, wouldn't it make sense for us to assume that the decision on the cover would be ad driven?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top