LIV Golf

[HeftyHacker]

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

I agree with much of what you say from a traditional viewing sense - i genuinely don't think it would be worth a broadcaster taking on golf with the aim of attracting a younger demographic as the viewing habits of that target generation have changed so much.

Everything is on demand - look at Shiels with nearly 3m subscribers on YouTube. All his videos in the last month have got over 200k views with his Tommy Fleetwood video getting over 800k views in 2 weeks - I imagine the vast majority of his viewership and subscribers are under 30 years old.

I do think that golf has become "cooler" with younger kids now and I think a lot of that comes down to the less stuffy nature of professional golf (hoodies and trackies being worn etc) and the massive volume of golf media available at your fingertips.

I think if I'd had the same level of media readily available to me when I was 14 or 15 I'd have been begging my parents to get me a membership at the local club and been quite happy spending my summer holidays there. Its probably one of my biggest regrets as a teenager that I didn't take more interest in it - and most people I speak to my age (32) that are now obsessed with the game (having picked it up in the last couple of years) say the same.

 

[Hobbit]

I agree with much of what you say from a traditional viewing sense - i genuinely don't think it would be worth a broadcaster taking on golf with the aim of attracting a younger demographic as the viewing habits of that target generation have changed so much.

Everything is on demand - look at Shiels with nearly 3m subscribers on YouTube. All his videos in the last month have got over 200k views with his Tommy Fleetwood video getting over 800k views in 2 weeks - I imagine the vast majority of his viewership and subscribers are under 30 years old.

I do think that golf has become "cooler" with younger kids now and I think a lot of that comes down to the less stuffy nature of professional golf (hoodies and trackies being worn etc) and the massive volume of golf media available at your fingertips.

I think if I'd had the same level of media readily available to me when I was 14 or 15 I'd have been begging my parents to get me a membership at the local club and been quite happy spending my summer holidays there. Its probably one of my biggest regrets as a teenager that I didn't take more interest in it - and most people I speak to my age (32) that are now obsessed with the game (having picked it up in the last couple of years) say the same.

Actually, you’ve raised a good point there about Rick Shiels. But do you think his stuff would translate to mainstream TV. Honestly, it wouldn’t get anywhere near TV, and certainly not commercial TV. Would a seller of Fairy Liquid want their ad in the middle of a Shiels podcast?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Actually, you’ve raised a good point there about Rick Shiels. But do you think his stuff would translate to mainstream TV. Honestly, it wouldn’t get anywhere near TV, and certainly not commercial TV. Would a seller of Fairy Liquid want their ad in the middle of a Shiels podcast?

No, but someone selling sports gear, energy drinks etc certainly would. The genius of the likes of Shiels, and other social media people, is that advertisers have a high hit ratio when they advertise with them. The target market is there, very little excess. It's why these people make money. It just needs a change of thinking on our behalf.

As it happens, I don't think his stuff would translate well but that doesn't matter. That is not where he is aiming.

 

[HeftyHacker]

Actually, you’ve raised a good point there about Rick Shiels. But do you think his stuff would translate to mainstream TV. Honestly, it wouldn’t get anywhere near TV, and certainly not commercial TV. Would a seller of Fairy Liquid want their ad in the middle of a Shiels podcast?

God no, nobody is sitting the family down at 7pm to watch another episode of Break 75 on a Friday night.

Shiels' stuff is arguably the most polished youtube golf production out there but its still miles behind a fully produced show.

To put it in perspective i struggle to watch it on my TV - it just feels/sounds wrong somehow. It feels like it's something that I should be watching on my phone or tablet.

Edit: LT has nailed it for me.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

God no, nobody is sitting the family down at 7pm to watch another episode of Break 75 on a Friday night.

Shiels' stuff is arguably the most polished youtube golf production out there but its still miles behind a fully produced show.

To put it in perspective i struggle to watch it on my TV - it just feels/sounds wrong somehow. It feels like it's something that I should be watching on my phone or tablet.

Edit: LT has nailed it for me.

Does anyone sit the family down to watch anything at a specific time anymore?

 

[PJ87]

Does anyone sit the family down to watch anything at a specific time anymore?

I know right. There is very few things watched live bar sports events

For example the wife and I love strictly we will watch it on iPlayer 30 mins after it starts as a better time for us. So another not using traditional channels

I ditched the BT box months ago

I can't remember the last time I watched TV through a channel and not an app

 

[wjemather]

It is a relatively expensive sport...

Second-hand clubs and a year's membership for juniors can cost less than £100. That compares very favourably with many other activities.

...and requires parents driving their kids to golf courses...

There are few activities that don't require the same parental commitment.

 

[Orikoru]

Does anyone sit the family down to watch anything at a specific time anymore?

Indeed. I've no idea what's even on the telly at what time. For the very few TV programs we watch, you just put it on whenever you want using the apps.

 

[Swango1980]

Second-hand clubs and a year's membership for juniors can cost less than £100. That compares very favourably with many other activities.


There are few activities that don't require the same parental commitment.

Football requires one person in a group of 10-20 friends to have a ball, and then any sort of outside space.

Golf requires each individual to have a set of golf clubs. It needs a golf course of some kind.

There is no comparison between the two. I'm sure it is also a pretty good reason why teachers in school play sports like football, and there is probably a very limited uptake on golf. At lunch time and break time, I never saw any kids go into the playground with their clubs and start hitting balls, but there were hundreds who'd kick a football or tennis ball around the playground. Even as a choice of an official school sport, golf was only permitted by those over 16 who already had an official golf membership at the local club. I think one person out of 120 chose golf as their sport in my year.

 

[Swango1980]

I agree with much of what you say from a traditional viewing sense - i genuinely don't think it would be worth a broadcaster taking on golf with the aim of attracting a younger demographic as the viewing habits of that target generation have changed so much.

Everything is on demand - look at Shiels with nearly 3m subscribers on YouTube. All his videos in the last month have got over 200k views with his Tommy Fleetwood video getting over 800k views in 2 weeks - I imagine the vast majority of his viewership and subscribers are under 30 years old.

I do think that golf has become "cooler" with younger kids now and I think a lot of that comes down to the less stuffy nature of professional golf (hoodies and trackies being worn etc) and the massive volume of golf media available at your fingertips.

I think if I'd had the same level of media readily available to me when I was 14 or 15 I'd have been begging my parents to get me a membership at the local club and been quite happy spending my summer holidays there. Its probably one of my biggest regrets as a teenager that I didn't take more interest in it - and most people I speak to my age (32) that are now obsessed with the game (having picked it up in the last couple of years) say the same.

I bet Rick Shiels has a very large following of existing golfers, many over 40. I wonder how many kids follow him, who had previously no interest in golf?

Rick Shiels works very well because he produces relatively short clips on a specific topic, and something anybody can watch at any time. As he has become more popular, he has done more lengthy features (like playing golf with pros like Bryson). But, again, it is the sort of thing that works well on youTube. In many respects, his success is due to the growing success of golf over the years, and he has also taken advantage of the publicity the PGA versus LIV feud has generated. I bet viewing figures of many golf related youTube clips have increased.

As for your last paragraph, I think this is a nice thing to assume. But I suspect it wouldn't be the reality for most. If I had the same level of media as a child as they do now, I know that I wouldn't be watching golf clips. No matter how much you think golf is cool, there are many things that are much cooler. So golf isn't going to be the standout sport for kids who have previously no interest on it. Instead, if I had youTube as a kid, I'd have probably stopped going out to play football with my mates, or going out to just hang about socially. I'd almost certainly have no interest in going for my first game of golf when my nan suggested it. I'd probably have my head buried in mind numbing youTube clips. Clips of funny things happening, youTube clips of tips for my current video game, etc.

 

[wjemather]

Football requires one person in a group of 10-20 friends to have a ball, and then any sort of outside space.

Golf requires each individual to have a set of golf clubs. It needs a golf course of some kind.

There is no comparison between the two. I'm sure it is also a pretty good reason why teachers in school play sports like football, and there is probably a very limited uptake on golf. At lunch time and break time, I never saw any kids go into the playground with their clubs and start hitting balls, but there were hundreds who'd kick a football or tennis ball around the playground. Even as a choice of an official school sport, golf was only permitted by those over 16 who already had an official golf membership at the local club. I think one person out of 120 chose golf as their sport in my year.

All of which has little or nothing to do with cost and parental involvement.
It's disingenuous (or simply ignorantly perpetuating a myth) to suggest golf is a particularly expensive sport for juniors. It just isn't.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

All of which has little or nothing to do with cost and parental involvement.
It's disingenuous (or simply ignorantly perpetuating a myth) to suggest golf is a particularly expensive sport for juniors. It just isn't.

UK parents face costs of nearly £380 per child to get their kids into golf

Golf finishes third as the most expensive sport for kids in 2024.

www.golfmagic.com

Cost is one barrier for someone to take up golf

A lot of clubs will look at ways to encourage kids - we have group sessions where clubs are borrowed and it’s about £1 a hour etc

But to get into a club membership will be anywhere between £50 and £100 depending on area

Then add in equipment. Clubs , shoes , clothing etc

It all starts to add up

When we pop to the park for our Saturday walk the field is full of kids playing football - it’s easy to sort that out. Golf just has more hurdles than other sports that don’t make it as attractive for a youngster to pick up

We now have a full list of under 16’s - hit 90 - and most have come through the kids academy that created - but again it’s not cheap for them

 

[Swango1980]

All of which has little or nothing to do with cost and parental involvement.
It's disingenuous (or simply ignorantly perpetuating a myth) to suggest golf is a particularly expensive sport for juniors. It just isn't.

I said it was relatively more expensive.

And, you might be in a privileged position enough to think of golf as "inexpensive". However, I am absolutely certain that there are many parents that do not see it that way at all. Many of my friends and family are in pretty sound financial positions, and yet I see them struggle to pay for many things related to their kids I'd take for granted, and realise that many of them would go nowhere near golf as an activity for their kids to play. Yet there are many in society that I'm pretty ignorant off, that really really struggle. The few times it comes to my attention is when you hear about the likes of Rashford campaigning simply to feed poor kids at school.

It is far easier to send your kids out the front door, possibly with no expense at all if one of their mates has a football. And if they get into it, maybe over time you buy them a football, some boots / goalie gloves, etc. It is much less likely you are going to go and buy them a set of golf clubs and attire fit for a golf course, and then drive them to the nearest golf club every time.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

There is a big of a difference between kicking a ball around the park with your mates and playing football.
The golfing equivalent is getting an old club and some commandos from your grandparents garage and whacking them round a field. Or having a whack in the nets with a cheap cricket bat and tennis ball.

My son does both sports, and unfortunately cricket. They all require a similar amount of effort to get him there. The cost aren’t too dissimilar until you want brand new clubs, second hand clubs are good value and can be sold on for little loss unlike football boots.
Cricket equipment is as expensive as golf when buying new quality gear.
Football boots are expensive as are decent goalkeeper gloves, which are required if you play at a decent level.

Don’t let your kids get into competitive ice sports or gymnastics if you don’t like spending lots of time travelling at ungodly hours or hemorrhaging money.

 

[wjemather]

UK parents face costs of nearly £380 per child to get their kids into golf

Golf finishes third as the most expensive sport for kids in 2024.

www.golfmagic.com

Cost is one barrier for someone to take up golf

A lot of clubs will look at ways to encourage kids - we have group sessions where clubs are borrowed and it’s about £1 a hour etc

But to get into a club membership will be anywhere between £50 and £100 depending on area

Then add in equipment. Clubs , shoes , clothing etc

It all starts to add up

When we pop to the park for our Saturday walk the field is full of kids playing football - it’s easy to sort that out. Golf just has more hurdles than other sports that don’t make it as attractive for a youngster to pick up

We now have a full list of under 16’s - hit 90 - and most have come through the kids academy that created - but again it’s not cheap for them

I don't know how they arrived at £374 but getting into golf doesn't have to be anywhere near that expensive. Junior membership at many clubs starts at well under £100 (I've seen as low as £30 for introductory membership just surveying half a dozen local clubs), and all necessary equipment to get started can be bought for less than £50.

 

[D-S]

Juniors are free at my club if their parents, grandparents or guardians are full members. We now have a much larger, thriving Junior section.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I don't know how they arrived at £374 but getting into golf doesn't have to be anywhere near that expensive. Junior membership at many clubs starts at well under £100 (I've seen as low as £30 for introductory membership just surveying half a dozen local clubs), and all necessary equipment to get started can be bought for less than £50.

They have clearly done their research

And you can see why it could end up costing that over the year

Looking at the clubs here - JOG is £180 ,ours starts at £80 and then goes to £190 at 16 ,£125 start at Aspley Guise

Add in clubs which junior sets can be over £100

Then golf shoes , clothes , balls , lessons , comps fees - it’s all going to add up


There will always be ways for some cheap stuff but we all know what kids are like

 

[Hobbit]

Wow! This thread has really wandered off track.

 

[Swango1980]

Wow! This thread has really wandered off track.

I'm not sure. It is completely relevant if there is a theory that LIV is trying to attract the youngsters as a market, and not worried about vast majority of the golfing market (the over 40's).

It might be why the perception to most is that LIV has never really taken off. Although, given that I'm sure most of us are over 40, then we would say that wouldn't we, as LIV isn't really for us.

 

[PJ87]

Wow! This thread has really wandered off track.

That's the problem with whataboutary, it ends up so far off topic