LIV Golf

[r0wly86]

I am guessing that this is not paid for in any way to watch on youtube. If so, seems odd to me that we have golf on a free to air medium that most people can access and that is seen as a negative point. I remember the outrage when free to air golf left terrestrial TV and how that was going to be a disaster for the uptake of the game, especially amongst the younger generation. Now we have free to air golf on a medium more likely to be used by the younger generation and that is a bad thing.

I will watch it simply because I do not watch enough golf to justify a Sky subscription for it so this is perfect. May even motivate me to get back out on the course again.

Losing Free to Air sport is disaster, there is quite a difference between having something aired on BBC1 for instance and something on YouTube. It is quite easy to stick on the TV and the golf come on, or there's not much good on and golf is the best option just have on in the background. YouTube may be free, but the person will have to deliberately go to the golf page in order to watch.

Are that many young people desperate to watch golf who cannot afford Sky that will watch it? I don't think so, the argument for losing free to air golf is that you lose the casual viewer who could potentially then become a fan

 

[Swango1980]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534141999498027008

Team names ?

Is this genuine. I see nothing on the LIV website, and I saw the exact same screenshot on twitter, but by an unknown person tagging LIV

 

[Springveldt]

YouTube is huge I mean how much money does a (let's be honest) average club pro in shiels make from being on YouTube? He has cleaned up. I'm not talking millionaire but he makes a good wage and employs others

Now imagine an event like this? Adverts .. sponsors etc

So much money to be made

Like you say.. free to air.. brilliant

Think he made £1.3M from YouTube last year alone. He's making more than most on the DP World Tour.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Is this genuine. I see nothing on the LIV website, and I saw the exact same screenshot on twitter, but by an unknown person tagging LIV

I don't know, but Mel Smooth appears to be on the payroll, and he thinks the names are crap.
Also, Dan Rapaport is a known and respected golf journo'. So don't imagine he's made it up.

 

[PJ87]

Losing Free to Air sport is disaster, there is quite a difference between having something aired on BBC1 for instance and something on YouTube. It is quite easy to stick on the TV and the golf come on, or there's not much good on and golf is the best option just have on in the background. YouTube may be free, but the person will have to deliberately go to the golf page in order to watch.

Are that many young people desperate to watch golf who cannot afford Sky that will watch it? I don't think so, the argument for losing free to air golf is that you lose the casual viewer who could potentially then become a fan

Just look at the 2 million Rick shiels followers who watch every single one of his videos

How many of them watch the golf? Aged under 30s a lot of them

 

[PJ87]

Think he made £1.3M from YouTube last year alone. He's making more than most on the DP World Tour.

Wow. Didn't realise it was that much.. fair play tho he spotted a gap in the market, was laughed at by a lot (a lot on here aswell) and makes a good living for himself

 

[LincolnShep]

Is this genuine. I see nothing on the LIV website, and I saw the exact same screenshot on twitter, but by an unknown person tagging LIV

No idea if they're real or not but I can't see the team aspect of this taking off at all. The team members will be different every time so no opportunity to build rivalries. It's an odd part of the programme and I'm not sure what they're trying to achieve with it.

 

[Depreston]

Just look at the 2 million Rick shiels followers who watch every single one of his videos

How many of them watch the golf? Aged under 30s a lot of them

He's right though

i'm sure there'll be thousands of viewers on youtube but it will be substantially less than if it was on terrestrial tele

 

[Springveldt]

Losing Free to Air sport is disaster, there is quite a difference between having something aired on BBC1 for instance and something on YouTube. It is quite easy to stick on the TV and the golf come on, or there's not much good on and golf is the best option just have on in the background. YouTube may be free, but the person will have to deliberately go to the golf page in order to watch.

Are that many young people desperate to watch golf who cannot afford Sky that will watch it? I don't think so, the argument for losing free to air golf is that you lose the casual viewer who could potentially then become a fan

Most people have smart TV's nowadays or a Firestick stuck in it. I've got 1 TV in the house (out of 5) that can actually tune into terrestrial TV and it's never used since that TV also has a Firestick in it. I'm betting there are loads of households just like mine. The Firestick is the defacto TV now, it has all the streaming apps on the homepage. YouTube is probably the most used app in the house.

 

[Mel Smooth]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534141387368812548

 

[Bdill93]

Wow. Didn't realise it was that much.. fair play tho he spotted a gap in the market, was laughed at by a lot (a lot on here aswell) and makes a good living for himself

Dont forget the podcast channel which now brings in additional viewers every week.

Podcast avaliable via other methods too - all money to add to the larger pot!

Shiels will be doing very well for himself!

 

[Swango1980]

Losing Free to Air sport is disaster, there is quite a difference between having something aired on BBC1 for instance and something on YouTube. It is quite easy to stick on the TV and the golf come on, or there's not much good on and golf is the best option just have on in the background. YouTube may be free, but the person will have to deliberately go to the golf page in order to watch.

Are that many young people desperate to watch golf who cannot afford Sky that will watch it? I don't think so, the argument for losing free to air golf is that you lose the casual viewer who could potentially then become a fan

I'd imagine there are less and less people who use TV that way now? When I was younger, sure, I would flick channels if there was nothing better on. I only had, at most, 5 channels to hop through. Now, however, I no longer do that. There are so many channels now, I don't even bother channel hoping. Either I know what is on and make a point of watching it (or recording it), or I miss it. Or, I just go on youtube and just start watching random videos. I'm sure many will also turn the Playstation or Xbox on, There are so many options out there to people, that just having some free to air sporting event on the BBC is unlikely to attract the same volume of people that it might have done 20-30 years ago.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

He's right though

i'm sure there'll be thousands of viewers on youtube but it will be substantially less than if it was on terrestrial tele

Maybe that would be the real revolutionary thing to do. Give the hosting rights to national broadcasters. That would really screw the status quo if the Beeb etc were gifted the right to show live golf, and thr likes of Sky would have to reconsider their model.

 

[LincolnShep]

Losing Free to Air sport is disaster, there is quite a difference between having something aired on BBC1 for instance and something on YouTube. It is quite easy to stick on the TV and the golf come on, or there's not much good on and golf is the best option just have on in the background. YouTube may be free, but the person will have to deliberately go to the golf page in order to watch.

Are that many young people desperate to watch golf who cannot afford Sky that will watch it? I don't think so, the argument for losing free to air golf is that you lose the casual viewer who could potentially then become a fan

Turning on YouTube on my telly is as easy as turning on BBC1, and I'm far from a tech junkie!

 

[Depreston]

Most people have smart TV's nowadays or a Firestick stuck in it. I've got 1 TV in the house (out of 5) that can actually tune into terrestrial TV and it's never used since that TV also has a Firestick in it. I'm betting there are loads of households just like mine. The Firestick is the defacto TV now, it has all the streaming apps on the homepage. YouTube is probably the most used app in the house.

they do but most people will still find it easier to tune in via traditional means

i'm sure if its successful they'll get a tv deal would be great if it was still free to air

 

[PJ87]

He's right though

i'm sure there'll be thousands of viewers on youtube but it will be substantially less than if it was on terrestrial tele

The Google-owned video service is on the cusp of overtaking the BBC as the dominant media source for 16- to 34-year-olds in the UK, with the average adult internet user watching 46 minutes of YouTube per day.

 

[PJ87]

Dont forget the podcast channel which now brings in additional viewers every week.

Podcast avaliable via other methods too - all money to add to the larger pot!

Shiels will be doing very well for himself!

Hats off to him. I like his work

 

[Deleted member 1147]

The Google-owned video service is on the cusp of overtaking the BBC as the dominant media source for 16- to 34-year-olds in the UK, with the average adult internet user watching 46 minutes of YouTube per day.

I have youtube on all day, as I listen to music through it at my desk

 

[GB72]

Losing Free to Air sport is disaster, there is quite a difference between having something aired on BBC1 for instance and something on YouTube. It is quite easy to stick on the TV and the golf come on, or there's not much good on and golf is the best option just have on in the background. YouTube may be free, but the person will have to deliberately go to the golf page in order to watch.

Are that many young people desperate to watch golf who cannot afford Sky that will watch it? I don't think so, the argument for losing free to air golf is that you lose the casual viewer who could potentially then become a fan

I thnk that is a slightly outdated view on how media is consumed. As an example, most people I know do not just switch on the TV and put something on. They watch something pre-recorded and saved on a planner. Cannot remember the last time I watched live TV, I even lag sporting events to forward through ad breaks. Also, Youtube does not need you to go and find something. If the person has even shown a slightest interest in golf, it will probably show up on the front page of recommendations. I also suspect that it will be promoted and be a top of the page selection. Yes, there was an impact when BBC was one of 3 channels and so people would put it on to pass the time but I suspect that rarely happens now.

 

[PJ87]

I have youtube on all day, as I listen to music through it at my desk

How many years ago would people have said YouTube / steaming services would replace radio and buying CDs / iPods