I Couldn't Have Put It Better Myself.

[Dave3498]

Reading this month's GM and Mike's excellent editorial, I must say that the obsession with football which Mike talks about, together with the complete lack of interest in golf events by the BBC, are two of the things which, in my opinion, are responsible for the general lack of interest in golf. I think back to the days when the Ryder Cup was on BBC, and how it triggered the need for many more golf courses to be built in the UK. Some pundits reckoned that we needed another 700. Whether these were built or not, we are now suffering from overcapacity and Clubs thinking of new ways to attract members.

Until we get more free-to-air coverage for golf, I'm afraid that the decline will continue. Sky's coverage may be excellent, but it's also expensive and only a minority of people of the right age group are subscribers. The BBC's coverage of top golfers is only related to any gossip or misdeeds which might occur and, Tiger excepted, there is not much of this sort of titillation available.

 

[muttleee]

I'm sure it's all down to the TV ratings. With the best will in the world, golf can't compete with football when it comes to ratings and the BBC can only devote so much of their budget to what is considered a 'minority' sport by many.

 

[Dave3498]

I'm sure it's all down to the TV ratings. With the best will in the world, golf can't compete with football when it comes to ratings and the BBC can only devote so much of their budget to what is considered a 'minority' sport by many.

Why does the BBC have to concern itself with ratings? They have all their money delivered by the license payers so that they can make all the vacuous programmes that Mike H mentions in his editorial.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The BBC have se their stall out with regards live sport and even the likes of the Grand National have now gone. Apart from the Open they have shown they aren't that keen to invest. For me, I prefer Sky in as much as they do provide comprehensive coverage both on the European and PGA tours. They don't show as much European ladies tour or US Ladies events but they do show some and that has to be better all round. It isn't as though it costs extra on top of the sky package to view the golf and as a lot of the best TV is already on their platform anyway it makes sense to me. That and I love my football and golf!

 

[Ian_S]

Sky's coverage may be excellent, but it's also expensive

+1 on this. I can either play golf or watch golf. I don't have enough money to do both. I just wish Sky would let me purchase sport-by-sport. I could quite happily live with just the golf and both rugby codes - no football, cricket, dart etc. Presumably they'd make less money overall offering that so it's fair enough that they don't. Irritating as hell though.

 

[Dave3498]

+1 on this. I can either play golf or watch golf. I don't have enough money to do both. I just wish Sky would let me purchase sport-by-sport. I could quite happily live with just the golf and both rugby codes - no football, cricket, dart etc. Presumably they'd make less money overall offering that so it's fair enough that they don't. Irritating as hell though.

I'd go for just golf and rugby, so they would make a bit more money - yours and mine for a start.

 

[RGDave]

I think back to the days when the Ryder Cup was on BBC, and how it triggered the need for many more golf courses to be built in the UK. Some pundits reckoned that we needed another 700. Whether these were built or not, we are now suffering from overcapacity and Clubs thinking of new ways to attract members.

Until we get more free-to-air coverage for golf, I'm afraid that the decline will continue.

Post of the Month!

Well said, I think this ties in with my rant a few weeks ago.

Good to see you Dave.

 

[OldMate]

I'd go for just golf and rugby, so they would make a bit more money - yours and mine for a start.

+1. I'm sure there would be some way they could package it to still make a decent margin, e.g. if you had to sign up to a package of 3 sports minimum of your choosing (e.g. golf, rugby, cricket).

 

[duncan mackie]

+1. I'm sure there would be some way they could package it to still make a decent margin, e.g. if you had to sign up to a package of 3 sports minimum of your choosing (e.g. golf, rugby, cricket).

add another

I have sky, but not sports. I have absolutely no interest in live football, tennis etc

However, given the financials as I understand it, I am sure that Sky could make a lot of money doing either golf alone, or 'everything but football' at a nominal - say £7pm ; which I would pay.

 

[Dave3498]

add another

I have sky, but not sports. I have absolutely no interest in live football, tennis etc

However, given the financials as I understand it, I am sure that Sky could make a lot of money doing either golf alone, or 'everything but football' at a nominal - say £7pm ; which I would pay.

Me too.

 

[Monty_Brown]

However, given the financials as I understand it, I am sure that Sky could make a lot of money doing either golf alone, or 'everything but football' at a nominal - say £7pm ; which I would pay.

But surely Sky have commercial teams whose sole job is to analyse pricing and subscription models and work out how to maximise the money they can make? I'd love to see the model you suggest, but if they aren't doing it, it's because these guys says it doesn't add up, not because they haven't thought of it.

At the moment they obviously belive that forcing everyone to take the full sports package is a better earner than having more subscribers who pay less per month just to pick and choose which sports they see.

Shame, but there it is.

 

[Region3]

I don't have Sky at home, but have their app on my phone.

You can subscribe to all the sports channels on that for (or it was when I last used it) £6.

I know it's not the same, but better than nowt.

 

[mcbroon]

But surely Sky have commercial teams whose sole job is to analyse pricing and subscription models and work out how to maximise the money they can make? I'd love to see the model you suggest, but if they aren't doing it, it's because these guys says it doesn't add up, not because they haven't thought of it.

At the moment they obviously belive that forcing everyone to take the full sports package is a better earner than having more subscribers who pay less per month just to pick and choose which sports they see.

Shame, but there it is.

You're right, of course, but isn't there always a slim chance they haven't thought of it...?

Why not call them up and ask for exactly what's outlined in the post (i.e. the 'everything but football' package)? It may never have occurred to them. You won't know until you ask.