LIV Golf

[wjemather]

Barb are the industry leading figures. You can argue as much as you like about the nitty gritty of the viewing figures but at the end of the day the result is the same.

LIV is available to watch for free and only a very small number of people watch it. The product is not attractive to the majority of golf fans.

I'm not arguing the numbers. It's the conclusions you have drawn from them that are completely wrong.

Like others, you are also projecting your wishes as facts regarding LIV, and ignore the fact that only a small number of people watch any regular golf tournaments.

 

[Hobbit]

Barb says 1.3 million (an extrapolated estimation based on their panel of upto about 16000 actual people) turned SSG on for at least 30 seconds during the entire month.

You use this to claim 1.3 million people are paying to watch and are watching SSG.

Do you see now why barb figures don't support your assertions?

If you burned it onto a piece of 2x4 and beat him over the head with it you won’t change his mind. He has his opinion, best save your time and energy and let him be.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Add yourself to the list of people not understanding what these figures show.

You said “1.3 mil” are absolutely not watching Tour golf

Those figures show that at some point through the month 1.3 mil had the Sky Golf channel on using their methods of finding viewing figures

Believe the Ryder Cup got just over 3.2mil viewers across the 3 days

It’s the same Barb figures that are used to judge viewing figures across all channels

Unless Barb have it wrong

But it doesn’t change the fact that LIV golf right now has a very small level of viewings despite being free to watch and people can draw a conclusion from that and I believe it will stay at those low levels unless they get a media deal - and I don’t think they will in this country

 

[wjemather]

You said “1.3 mil” are absolutely not watching Tour golf

Those figures show that at some point through the month 1.3 mil had the Sky Golf channel on using their methods of finding viewing figures

It’s the same Barb figures that are used to judge viewing figures across all channels

Unless Barb have it wrong

It's simply your understanding of barb figures (how they are produced and what they show) that is at fault. Audience reach, viewing figures and actual numbers of people watching are not the same thing. This was covered in earlier posts.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It's simply your understanding of barb figures (how they are produced and what they show) that is at fault. Audience reach, viewing figures and actual numbers of people watching are not the same thing. This was covered in earlier posts.

So what’s the difference in these figures when it comes to “reach” when even you said it’s someone having the channel on for a minimum of 30 seconds

“turned SSG on for at least 30 seconds during the entire month.”

Is that not “viewing” the channel then

Either way whatever the “true” figure is it will dwarf the level of viewers in the UK for LIV which was the point the poster was making as well as highlight the fact that despite it being free people still aren’t watching it

 

[wjemather]

So what’s the difference in these figures when it comes to “reach” when even you said it’s someone having the channel on for a minimum of 30 seconds

“turned SSG on for at least 30 seconds during the entire month.”

Is that not “viewing” the channel then

Viewing figures are usually quoted as average and/or peak audience numbers; reach is simply the number of discrete (min. 30 sec.) channel views over a given period, in this case an entire month.

 

[Hobbit]

So what’s the difference in these figures when it comes to “reach” when even you said it’s someone having the channel on for a minimum of 30 seconds

“turned SSG on for at least 30 seconds during the entire month.”

Is that not “viewing” the channel then

Either way whatever the “true” figure is it will dwarf the level of viewers in the UK for LIV which was the point the poster was making as well as highlight the fact that despite it being free people still aren’t watching it

The problem with the 30sec view is the conclusion that is being drawn. I often dip into Sky Sports golf to see what course they’re at and who’s leading. If they‘re at a course I don’t like or i don’t recognise the names on the leader board AND it takes over 30secs I’m classed as a viewer. Occasionally, when Mrs H goes to make a coffee, I flick across for a couple of mins just to see how the leaderboard is firming up but if I have my iPad to hand I look it up on there. In other words I’m not interested in viewing the golf itself.

What I’m trying to get across is “reach” isn’t the same as viewing, and I feel it’s disingenuous to portray it as really meaningful. It’s no more than a blunt guide.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The problem with the 30sec view is the conclusion that is being drawn. I often dip into Sky Sports golf to see what course they’re at and who’s leading. If they‘re at a course I don’t like or i don’t recognise the names on the leader board AND it takes over 30secs I’m classed as a viewer. Occasionally, when Mrs H goes to make a coffee, I flick across for a couple of mins just to see how the leaderboard is firming up but if I have my iPad to hand I look it up on there. In other words I’m not interested in viewing the golf itself.

What I’m trying to get across is “reach” isn’t the same as viewing, and I feel it’s disingenuous to portray it as really meaningful. It’s no more than a blunt guide.

I know that hence why I said that at some point over the last months 1.3mil turned over to Sky Golf - i also flick through channels and watch the odd ten mins and I do it on other channels

It may not be 1.3 mil sat there watching every single shot and I don’t think there is ever a way to judge but I also think the figure was grabbed and the overall point missed which was trying to be said - the fact that LIV isn’t on one of those channels to flick through the for people to watch , yes it’s on you tube but people don’t just flick to it and it’s one of the reasons why their viewing levels are so low , and until they go onto a mainstream channel they will never get the reach needed to make it viable

And I can’t see what channel will pick it up tbh

 

[Fore Right]

Would'nt it make sense for the BBC to show Liv Golf in the UK and possibly World Service ?

Let the BBC have it for free for a year or 2 (PIF dont need the money) and Liv get more eyeballs on their product.

BBC gets top level golf back on their channel with some of the worlds best golfers again.

 

[Mel Smooth]

I

Would'nt it make sense for the BBC to show Liv Golf in the UK and possibly World Service ?

Let the BBC have it for free for a year or 2 (PIF dont need the money) and Liv get more eyeballs on their product.

BBC gets top level golf back on their channel with some of the worlds best golfers again.

It would, but I just could not see it happening unless there’s a radical change in the thinking at BBC HQ.

 

[Swango1980]

Would'nt it make sense for the BBC to show Liv Golf in the UK and possibly World Service ?

Let the BBC have it for free for a year or 2 (PIF dont need the money) and Liv get more eyeballs on their product.

BBC gets top level golf back on their channel with some of the worlds best golfers again.

From what I understand, BBC have refused offers to show PGA Tour highlights for free, including the Players Championship. Golf may seem important to us (as we are golfers), but it obviously doesn't fit into what the BBC want to show. Mrs Browns Boys and any show hosted by Dion Dublin are the ones that must bring in the big viewing figures.

There are loads of free to air broadcasters these days though, other than the BBC. Would it not make sense for LIV to approach them, or is youTube the better option (or could they do both). Have any broadcasters shown any interest in wanting LIV, if it was for free?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

This discussion really depends on your target market. For younger people, Youtube is the most popular, go to channel out there. My kids, 21 and 24, never watch BBC or ITV but they watch Youtube regularly. This is standard for a particular age group. Is LIV going for that younger audience? Probably. If that is the case then Youtube is the perfect place.

If they want older viewers, the likes of people on this forum, then they need to hit the more traditional platforms. A mix would be ideal but I don't know their thinking.

Anyone decrying Youtube is simply not understanding modern viewing habits.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Would'nt it make sense for the BBC to show Liv Golf in the UK and possibly World Service ?

Let the BBC have it for free for a year or 2 (PIF dont need the money) and Liv get more eyeballs on their product.

BBC gets top level golf back on their channel with some of the worlds best golfers again.

Can’t see BBC going near it even if offered for free. But getting media deals isn’t just about getting eyes on it’s also about getting financial deals to get the tour sustainable, PIF may have a lot of money but there will need to some level income coming in to balance books.

BBC won’t one showing Live golf during their prime “family hours” as well - Fri- Sunday and can’t see it with any of the other commercial broadcasters

Hence why I don’t see anyone in the UK paying to show it.

 

[Fore Right]

This discussion really depends on your target market. For younger people, Youtube is the most popular, go to channel out there. My kids, 21 and 24, never watch BBC or ITV but they watch Youtube regularly. This is standard for a particular age group. Is LIV going for that younger audience? Probably. If that is the case then Youtube is the perfect place.

If they want older viewers, the likes of people on this forum, then they need to hit the more traditional platforms. A mix would be ideal but I don't know their thinking.

Anyone decrying Youtube is simply not understanding modern viewing habits.

Good points well made.

Thinking about it I watch You Tube way more than terrestrial TV.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

This discussion really depends on your target market. For younger people, Youtube is the most popular, go to channel out there. My kids, 21 and 24, never watch BBC or ITV but they watch Youtube regularly. This is standard for a particular age group. Is LIV going for that younger audience? Probably. If that is the case then Youtube is the perfect place.

If they want older viewers, the likes of people on this forum, then they need to hit the more traditional platforms. A mix would be ideal but I don't know their thinking.

Anyone decrying Youtube is simply not understanding modern viewing habits.

For most sports viewers in the UK we flick though channels - as Billy said earlier if he wanted to watch golf then 405 , cricket 404 etc

When football is on and there is a golf event at halftime people will flick through to see leaderboards etc - it’s very easy to do

For me to access you tube - downstairs you use the button on the remote and then it loads up , on the sky box it’s on the apps and loads up - it’s not a smooth process by any means , it’s fine if going to Netflix or Amazon etc to watch videos or telly programs where you aren’t going to be flicking through - it may seem a low level issue but ease of access for many is key

But even then when it’s free and people say it’s easy to get too people are still not watching to any level of other golf events

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Older sports viewers flick through channels. That's us, like it or not. Younger ones do not, Youtube is their default destination. If LIV want to attract the over 40's crowd then they need a more traditional platform. If not.................

I don't use Youtube, unless there is a fault in the house and I want to find a tutorial at which point it is genius. I do recognise that a different generation seen it very differently though.

 

[Swango1980]

This discussion really depends on your target market. For younger people, Youtube is the most popular, go to channel out there. My kids, 21 and 24, never watch BBC or ITV but they watch Youtube regularly. This is standard for a particular age group. Is LIV going for that younger audience? Probably. If that is the case then Youtube is the perfect place.

If they want older viewers, the likes of people on this forum, then they need to hit the more traditional platforms. A mix would be ideal but I don't know their thinking.

Anyone decrying Youtube is simply not understanding modern viewing habits.

I watch youTube a lot. But it is mainly to watch 5-20 minute videos on a certain subject, that can be watched anytime (usually something interesting discussed on TalkSport, a golf lesson, etc). Or maybe a longer 1hour video (e.g. The Overlap, Interview with someone), but again a video I can watch in shorter chunks to fill time.

I've personally no interest in watching anything live on youTube, I certainly don't think youTube has overtaken the standard broadcasters in that respect. Don't get me wrong, If Man Utd were playing on youTube or the Masters was shown on youTube, I'd watch it. But I'd have to be looking for it, I wouldn't just stumble upon it. Whereas on dedicating or mainstream broadcasting services, I'm more likely to watch something live that I wasn't necessarily looking for (flick on the golf channel 405 and watch whatever golf is on, or put on Sky Sports and watch a footy match as a neutral).

The other potential downside of having live golf is on youtube, potentially, is that there are too many other distractions maybe. These young kids they are trying to attract, will they stay tuned to watch 5 hours of golf, or quickly change to other videos on youtube? At least if it is on a main broadcasting station, there seems a bit more committment for someone to tune into it. Furthermore, they can have that on and surf through youTube videos at the same time.

IF LIV were broadcast live on BBC, ITV, Channel 4, etc. I suspect the viewing figures would dramatically increase compared to just having it on youTube

 

[SatchFan]

YouTube is my go to viewing channel and I'm the wrong side of 60. I've got Sky Sports through Virgin for which I watch mostly golf and a bit of football. YouTube is just a click away and within 10 seconds I can be watching LIV golf and I'm thoroughly enjoying it.

 

[Swango1980]

Older sports viewers flick through channels. That's us, like it or not. Younger ones do not, Youtube is their default destination. If LIV want to attract the over 40's crowd then they need a more traditional platform. If not.................

I don't use Youtube, unless there is a fault in the house and I want to find a tutorial at which point it is genius. I do recognise that a different generation seen it very differently though.

Isn't it almost a fact of life, though, that golf will always attract an older demographic? Almost regardless of what you try and do broadcasting, there isn't a lot you can do about it?

After all, many younger kids / adults simply don't play golf. It is a relatively expensive sport, and requires parents driving their kids to golf courses, so you are on the back foot already. And, kids and young adults are physically fit and active, so those into their sport will naturally play sports like football, rugby, etc. Trying to spend a lot of investment in attracting the youth into golf is like spending a lot of investment into promoting the BBC World Service to Childrens TV

Once these sporty young adults reach their mid 30's / 40's, and have to hang up their boots, then that is when golf can start to become a major interest, a sport to play and allow you to satisfy those competitive urges, allow you a break from family life for a few hours, etc.

My own point of view anyway, is that if I was to start a new golfing venture, my key market would be the over 40's. I'd obviously like to throw things in there that are appealing to younger fans, as you hope to get them into the game now or in the future. But I'd say the over 40's could well be over 90% of the market. And, if you really get us old codgers into your golfing event, it is us old codgers that pass off our enthusiasm to our kids and grandkids. I never got into golf because of what was on the television. I got into it because my grandparents played, and they are the ones that got me into the game

 

[Hobbit]

Can’t see BBC going near it even if offered for free. But getting media deals isn’t just about getting eyes on it’s also about getting financial deals to get the tour sustainable, PIF may have a lot of money but there will need to some level income coming in to balance books.

BBC won’t one showing Live golf during their prime “family hours” as well - Fri- Sunday and can’t see it with any of the other commercial broadcasters

Hence why I don’t see anyone in the UK paying to show it.

Another reason the Beeb won’t go anywhere near it is the potential political fallout - daren’t say anymore than that.

As for YouTube, it’s great to hear I'm down wid der kids in der hud. I watch YouTube for a couple of hours a day at least. Mrs H controls the TV, and I watch stuff on the iPad with headphones on.