LIV Golf

[evemccc]

Why does everything have to appeal to kids?

Many people find golf later in life, and many kids and adults who like it, is because it’s an antidote to the neon-lights, popcorn and fireworks, loud music and ‘sexy’ razzamatazz that boring middle-aged marketing execs and sports administrators THINK people - and esp kids want….

Spoiler alert — many kids aren’t as brain-dead and inane as these people think (and those who go for that sort of thing, aren’t likely to stick around for long)

 

[Bdill93]

Why does everything have to appeal to kids?

Many people find golf later in life, and many kids and adults who like it, is because it’s an antidote to the neon-lights, popcorn and fireworks, loud music and ‘sexy’ razzamatazz that boring middle-aged marketing execs and sports administrators THINK people - and esp kids want

Because they're the future?

In 25 years time half the members at my club will be gone from this world. Their replacements are currently 10-15 years old.

 

[Swango1980]

Sums up the negative/ anti LIV view yeah.

Theres still something in it I think... It needs some work and some time - but a shorter format of Cricket worked wonders for the game. Why can't a shorter format of golf have a place?

Kids these days have attention spans so short that 72 hole golf just cant be the only way forward.

Surely that would also have been true for kids in the good old days? I know that when I was a kid in the 80's and 90's, I wouldn't have the attention span to sit through a 72 hole tournament on TV. If I wasn't at school or sleeping, I was constantly out with my mates, randomly doing anything we could think of. If anything, kids these days have MORE chance to sit and home and watch golf, as at least they are apparently in doors more often and glued to some sort of device that has youtube.

 

[evemccc]

Because they're the future?

In 25 years time half the members at my club will be gone from this world. Their replacements are currently 10-15 years old.

That’s a fallacy, IMO

You don’t think there won’t be a lot of current 20-35 year olds who’ll be taking memberships up as there kids get older / move out, and they have more free time as they get to 45+?

 

[Swango1980]

That’s a fallacy, IMO

You don’t think there won’t be a lot of current 20-35 year olds who’ll be taking memberships up as there kids get older / move out, and they have more free time as they get to 45+?

It is a good point. I often hear about golf clubs desperately trying to promote their club to kids, as they are the members of the future. It is true to a point. But, surely the biggest drive should be towards 35-45 year olds. At that age, many will have a settled family life, older kids. Also, you get a lot of people who are starting to give up other sports like football, and looking to their next competitive challenge. Finally, they are starting to get a bit more disposable income. I know loads of current older members who said they only got into the game in their 40's for example.

 

[BubbaP]

Putting aside the wider debate for a moment, the 54 hole thing has had a lot of mention, and today by Tiger

His argument seems a bit confused, on the one hand saying things have changed - we don't have the long play offs any more - but things mustn't change.

What actually is the argument, is it that professionals should graft for longer? If so why don't we have 90 hole, or 108 hole tournaments?

People regularly talk about the Ryder Cup final day being the pinnacle of entertainment - 18 holes (or fewer) played.

When pros start out I think they often play 18 & 36 hole comps.

"The PGA EuroPro Tour Qualifying School Final will be contested over 54 holes of stroke play with 18 holes being played each day "

Like most I am used to 72 holes, it is familiar - but should we be closed to change, because that is how it has been?

I would wish the majors to stay 72 holes though

 

[Bdill93]

It is a good point. I often hear about golf clubs desperately trying to promote their club to kids, as they are the members of the future. It is true to a point. But, surely the biggest drive should be towards 35-45 year olds. At that age, many will have a settled family life, older kids. Also, you get a lot of people who are starting to give up other sports like football, and looking to their next competitive challenge. Finally, they are starting to get a bit more disposable income. I know loads of current older members who said they only got into the game in their 40's for example.

But what if they want a younger audience than the current golf market? Why does it have to be limited to people in their later years? Its golf for entertainment - not physically playing the sport themselves.

Me and friends buy tickets to go see the Worcester Rapids play 20/20 - Id never ever go watch Worcestershire play a test match. Different formats attract different audiences!

That’s a fallacy, IMO

You don’t think there won’t be a lot of current 20-35 year olds who’ll be taking memberships up as there kids get older / move out, and they have more free time as they get to 45+?

Fallacy maybe but its inevitable that some do start to play golf one day.... I work in a school, I can see how things are trending on the ground every day with the next generation. (Side note - F1 has gained massive popularity thanks to Drive to Survive on Netflix - I know golf is soon to have a similar concept so even the PGA tour are aware they need to attract a younger audience and have identified this method as a viable option - cant wait for that.)

Well Im in this exact bracket - 28 to be exact - and Im not anti LIV - enjoyed watching it live and even took non golfer mates who enjoyed the experience of drinking, eating good food and watching some pros whack a ball around a nice course. Were not talking about playing golf, were talking about increasing the marketability of the golfing game in different formats, which in turn may increase participation in the long term too.

 

[r0wly86]

Because they're the future?

In 25 years time half the members at my club will be gone from this world. Their replacements are currently 10-15 years old.

I don't think YouTube or LIV is really the best way to get kids involved in golf. If they are inspired by watching LIV, doubtful, it's what the clubs do with them that will make them stay, not just the LIV Tour

 

[Bdill93]

I don't think YouTube or LIV is really the best way to get kids involved in golf. If they are inspired by watching LIV, doubtful, it's what the clubs do with them that will make them stay, not just the LIV Tour

Youtube I disagree, loads of content on there that makes golf fun!

LIV - maybe - but a shorter format is by no means a bad idea in my opinion - as per post 3740

 

[r0wly86]

Youtube I disagree, loads of content on there that makes golf fun!

LIV - maybe - but a shorter format is by no means a bad idea in my opinion - as per post 3740

I have been over this before. YouTube only works if people are looking for the specific thing or something related. A young person with no interest in golf, is not going to stumble on YouTube golfers and be convinced to start playing. If they are already golfers then there is useful stuff on YouTube.

Plus if we are talking lack of attention plan, 54 holes hardly helps, it is still hours and hours of footage to watch. It is not like T20 and Test Match Cricket, this is a 4 day test vs a 5 day test

 

[Bdill93]

I have been over this before. YouTube only works if people are looking for the specific thing or something related. A young person with no interest in golf, is not going to stumble on YouTube golfers and be convinced to start playing. If they are already golfers then there is useful stuff on YouTube.

Plus if we are talking lack of attention plan, 54 holes hardly helps, it is still hours and hours of footage to watch. It is not like T20 and Test Match Cricket, this is a 4 day test vs a 5 day test[/QUOTE]

But its not quite. Shotgun starts mean the whole event is over max 6 hours after it officially starts.

And I beg to differ - you can easily deviate from dude perfect to good good to rick shiels in no time at all. The bigger the channels get, the more the videos are shown on the homepage... Its all algorithm

 

[r0wly86]

but doesn't mean they will watch Rick Sheils does it? And even less likely that as a result they will take up the sport and get their parents to pay for membership and clubs

 

[Bdill93]

but doesn't mean they will watch Rick Sheils does it? And even less likely that as a result they will take up the sport and get their parents to pay for membership and clubs

Quite negative!

Yeah maybe not all of them - but some! I played golf when I was 14 for a year, dad didnt play then - I just talked my parents into it because thats what I wanted to do.

It only takes one popular kid to show their friends how cool one video is or something and BANG youve got 5 kids practising flop shots over each others heads

 

[Swango1980]

But what if they want a younger audience than the current golf market? Why does it have to be limited to people in their later years? Its golf for entertainment - not physically playing the sport themselves.

Me and friends buy tickets to go see the Worcester Rapids play 20/20 - Id never ever go watch Worcestershire play a test match. Different formats attract different audiences!

To be fair, I was only making a specific point about trying to appeal to a limited target audience, and likening that to clubs focusing primarily on youngsters, when I always thought they'd do better appealing to the 35-45 age range.

However, in that case and specifically to do with LIV, obviously you want to reach out to as many people as possible, young and old. It is great for LIV if they can pick up new fans. However, it is worth noting that the most enthusiastic and biggest market for them will be those that already like golf (unless LIV thinks it can more than double the current fans of golf compared to what we have now). So, it is all very well trying new things to win over new fans. However, for every new fan they win, it is neutralised if they turn off an existing fan. So, change is always inevitable and can be for the best, it doesn't mean that all change is always for the best. Sometimes change can have negative unintended consequences.

 

[Backsticks]

Because they're the future?

In 25 years time half the members at my club will be gone from this world. Their replacements are currently 10-15 years old.

But in 25 years they will be middle aged. So golf needs to appeal to the 40 somethings. Oh wait.... it already does!

 

[Mel Smooth]

So let me get this straight, golf is fine because it appeals to people that are old?

 

[Foxholer]

... golf is fine.... It appeals to people that are old?

FTFY.
It also appeals to the young too - or are you torturing the lad you video so often?

 

[Mel Smooth]

FTFY.
It also appeals to the young too - or are you torturing the lad you video so often?

I'm honoured that you take such an interest in me mate.

Hope you don't mind if it's not reciprocated.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So let me get this straight, golf is fine because it appeals to people that are old?

Looking at the amount of young people that have joined our club over the last 18 months and how many turn up for junior lessons it seems it appeals to all ages - as it always has

 

[Mel Smooth]

Looking at the amount of young people that have joined our club over the last 18 months and how many turn up for junior lessons it seems it appeals to all ages - as it always has

Good to hear, are they getting out on the course as well?