Youtube Golf

[Deleted member 25172]

I guess in the interests of openness. I am of the opinion that anyone who reviews products should be open about any potential conflicts of interest, be it sponsors, investors or anything similar. Take, of example, when a youtube presenter tests loads of gear then announces what is going in the bag for the year. That is all well and good and it is not unreasonable to interpret this as what goes in the bag is, in their mind, the best gear. Now if that presenter is, unbeknownst to the audience, sponsored to use a brand of clubs or has a manufacturer as a major funder, that then brings into question the ability of that person to be impartial. I am not saying that they would be biased but the audience should know what potential slants there are on the opinions given and be able to make their mind up. There are also strict youtube rules about having to clearly mark videos as paid promotional if there is money etc changing hands and that also comes into it.

From my understanding, and what I've seen, Rick Shiels have said plenty of times that he is not sponsored by any club brand or being paid to do the reviews. He is open about being sponsored by Nike and Garmin though.

 

[Imurg]

I guess in the interests of openness. I am of the opinion that anyone who reviews products should be open about any potential conflicts of interest, be it sponsors, investors or anything similar. Take, of example, when a youtube presenter tests loads of gear then announces what is going in the bag for the year. That is all well and good and it is not unreasonable to interpret this as what goes in the bag is, in their mind, the best gear. Now if that presenter is, unbeknownst to the audience, sponsored to use a brand of clubs or has a manufacturer as a major funder, that then brings into question the ability of that person to be impartial. I am not saying that they would be biased but the audience should know what potential slants there are on the opinions given and be able to make their mind up. There are also strict youtube rules about having to clearly mark videos as paid promotional if there is money etc changing hands and that also comes into it.

I wonder who you could be referring to

 

[Imurg]

From my understanding, and what I've seen, Rick Shiels have said plenty of times that he is not sponsored by any club brand or being paid to do the reviews. He is open about being sponsored by Nike and Garmin though.

I think these guys have to be open about any potential conflict of interest if it could lead to doubt about impartiality
For example, if Rick repeatedly says he's not funded by brand X but a year down the line it becomes obvious that he is - he could lose a lot of respect, subscribers, views and eventually his whole business and I think they know that after the Crossfield/Titleist backlash.
Pete Finch was sponsored by TM for a year and didn't review a single club whilst under contract..
Free agent now and he's back doing all clubs - in my opinion, the right way to do it.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I think these guys have to be open about any potential conflict of interest if it could lead to doubt about impartiality
For example, if Rick repeatedly says he's not funded by brand X but a year down the line it becomes obvious that he is - he could lose a lot of respect, subscribers, views and eventually his whole business and I think they know that after the Crossfield/Titleist backlash.
Pete Finch was sponsored by TM for a year and didn't review a single club whilst under contract..
Free agent now and he's back doing all clubs - in my opinion, the right way to do it.

Of course, but I just don't understand what else he should be doing then than every once in a while confirm in his videos that he's not sponsored by any manufacturer? Having a quick look on his page, he's done Ping, TM, Callaway, Wilson Staff, Oddyssey, Cobra and Mizuno in the last two months, so I don't see what the difference between the two would be.

 

[Imurg]

Of course, but I just don't understand what else he should be doing then than every once in a while confirm in his videos that he's not sponsored by any manufacturer? Having a quick look on his page, he's done Ping, TM, Callaway, Wilson Staff, Oddyssey, Cobra and Mizuno in the last two months, so I don't see what the difference between the two would be.

I don't think he has to do any more than already is.
As long as any funding comes from areas that he doesn't review there's no issue.

 

[GB72]

Of course, but I just don't understand what else he should be doing then than every once in a while confirm in his videos that he's not sponsored by any manufacturer? Having a quick look on his page, he's done Ping, TM, Callaway, Wilson Staff, Oddyssey, Cobra and Mizuno in the last two months, so I don't see what the difference between the two would be.

I think they should be doing that other areas do, put a sponsor message at the beginning of very video or as a footer on each film. Should not rely on having seen a random previous video to know if the person is sponsored.

 

[Deleted member 25172]

I don't think he has to do any more than already is.
As long as any funding comes from areas that he doesn't review there's no issue.

James Wiltshere posted a video yesterday about how much he made on youtube in 2020. He had just over 4 million views, giving him around £14k.

Since the 27th November, the videos Rick have posted has had 7.6 million views, and I'm fairly certain he has a bigger American audience, which pays more in ad revenue. And don't forget that the 7.6 million views don't account for his old videos that keeps racking up views every day, so I'd hazard a guess that he's had around 15 million views in the last two months.

Guy is a money making machine.

 

[Orikoru]

I guess in the interests of openness. I am of the opinion that anyone who reviews products should be open about any potential conflicts of interest, be it sponsors, investors or anything similar. Take, of example, when a youtube presenter tests loads of gear then announces what is going in the bag for the year. That is all well and good and it is not unreasonable to interpret this as what goes in the bag is, in their mind, the best gear. Now if that presenter is, unbeknownst to the audience, sponsored to use a brand of clubs or has a manufacturer as a major funder, that then brings into question the ability of that person to be impartial. I am not saying that they would be biased but the audience should know what potential slants there are on the opinions given and be able to make their mind up. There are also strict youtube rules about having to clearly mark videos as paid promotional if there is money etc changing hands and that also comes into it.

Oh, yeah, if he was sponsored to use a club brand he should definitely say so, and probably would do. I didn't think that's what was being referred to though. As said above, he's clear about being sponsored by Nike and Garmin, and he does promotions with Golfbidder quite a bit, I think he's usually up front about them.

 

[GB72]

Oh, yeah, if he was sponsored to use a club brand he should definitely say so, and probably would do. I didn't think that's what was being referred to though. As said above, he's clear about being sponsored by Nike and Garmin, and he does promotions with Golfbidder quite a bit, I think he's usually up front about them.

I am not quite as convinced. I have watched a few of the golfbidder ones. If the only incentive is that the golfbidder provide the clubs and a couple of giveaway prizes, all well and good. If they are paying for the content then that needs to be clearly explained. Certainly the video where they pick clubs comes across more as an advert than an impartial video. The Nike and Garmin elements are not so much of an issue as I do not see reviews for clothes or GPS devices (may be wrong on the second point). The important one is whether any manufacturer is supplying clubs and balls (beyond sending one off review samples) as that is where the openness is really necessary.

 

[Orikoru]

I am not quite as convinced. I have watched a few of the golfbidder ones. If the only incentive is that the golfbidder provide the clubs and a couple of giveaway prizes, all well and good. If they are paying for the content then that needs to be clearly explained. Certainly the video where they pick clubs comes across more as an advert than an impartial video. The Nike and Garmin elements are not so much of an issue as I do not see reviews for clothes or GPS devices (may be wrong on the second point). The important one is whether any manufacturer is supplying clubs and balls (beyond sending one off review samples) as that is where the openness is really necessary.

I always imagined he approached Golfbidder and said "I need some old clubs for a challenge video - will you let me borrow some if I tell everyone they came from you?" He gets free clubs for the video, they get free advertising on one of the biggest golf channels, everyone's a winner. I think given his profile if he was being shady at all, someone would have looked into it and found him out.

 

[GB72]

I always imagined he approached Golfbidder and said "I need some old clubs for a challenge video - will you let me borrow some if I tell everyone they came from you?" He gets free clubs for the video, they get free advertising on one of the biggest golf channels, everyone's a winner. I think given his profile if he was being shady at all, someone would have looked into it and found him out.

Apologies, certainly not saying it is shady but clarity would be better. I imagined it the other way, Golfbidder want some PR and the idea of the video is created. Whether it is just the clubs etc that are handed over or whether there is any sponsorship payment to go with that (some youtube channels would charge big money for that sort of advertising) is another matter.

 

[Orikoru]

Apologies, certainly not saying it is shady but clarity would be better. I imagined it the other way, Golfbidder want some PR and the idea of the video is created. Whether it is just the clubs etc that are handed over or whether there is any sponsorship payment to go with that (some youtube channels would charge big money for that sort of advertising) is another matter.

Personally doesn't bother me. Whether they gave him clubs for free advertising, or paid him to make a video with their clubs, it makes absolutely no difference to me. He's still making it clear it's 'in partnership with Golfbidder' and the end result is one YouTube video. ??‍

I think it would only mattered if he was getting paid to use Cobra drivers, and then made a review saying their drivers are excellent and didn't tell us he was getting paid by them. But I really don't think he's doing that. Even though he's been using their drivers, I remember initially he said the Speedzone was barely an upgrade on the F9 originally - and he wouldn't be saying that if they were paying him. I think he's quite open and honest with his club reviews.

 

[GB72]

Oh, yeah, if he was sponsored to use a club brand he should definitely say so, and probably would do. I didn't think that's what was being referred to though. As said above, he's clear about being sponsored by Nike and Garmin, and he does promotions with Golfbidder quite a bit, I think he's usually up front about them.

I suppose that you look at the definition of sponsorship as well. Are reviewers sent clubs using the standard shaft options and are those the clubs that go in the bag. Are they provided with clubs with hundreds of pounds or aftermarket shafts etc, is that an incentive? Maybe me being idealised but I would like an introduction to a review to say that the clubs were sent free for the purposes of review, whether the clubs are sent in a standard option or whether they have taken details in advance, made any adjustments and fitted any upgraded parts to the review club sent. Maybe also an idea of what those upgrades cost if the price of clubs are discussed as there is no point in saying that a £500 driver is being reviewed if the one being reviewed is actually a £1000 driver with the upgraded shaft etc.

 

[GB72]

Personally doesn't bother me. Whether they gave him clubs for free advertising, or paid him to make a video with their clubs, it makes absolutely no difference to me. He's still making it clear it's 'in partnership with Golfbidder' and the end result is one YouTube video. ??‍

I think it would only mattered if he was getting paid to use Cobra drivers, and then made a review saying their drivers are excellent and didn't tell us he was getting paid by them. But I really don't think he's doing that. Even though he's been using their drivers, I remember initially he said the Speedzone was barely an upgrade on the F9 originally - and he wouldn't be saying that if they were paying him. I think he's quite open and honest with his club reviews.

It does make a difference on youtube though because if there are financial incentives then the video needs to be marked as paid for content. The videos spend enough time extolling the virtues of golfbidder to make it salient to know if there are payments being made to say that.

 

[Orikoru]

I suppose that you look at the definition of sponsorship as well. Are reviewers sent clubs using the standard shaft options and are those the clubs that go in the bag. Are they provided with clubs with hundreds of pounds or aftermarket shafts etc, is that an incentive? Maybe me being idealised but I would like an introduction to a review to say that the clubs were sent free for the purposes of review, whether the clubs are sent in a standard option or whether they have taken details in advance, made any adjustments and fitted any upgraded parts to the review club sent. Maybe also an idea of what those upgrades cost if the price of clubs are discussed as there is no point in saying that a £500 driver is being reviewed if the one being reviewed is actually a £1000 driver with the upgraded shaft etc.

I don't watch every review, but I think he always states what shaft he is using.

 

[Orikoru]

It does make a difference on youtube though because if there are financial incentives then the video needs to be marked as paid for content. The videos spend enough time extolling the virtues of golfbidder to make it salient to know if there are payments being made to say that.

Ok.. I just personally don't care. My vague recollection is that he just said "I'm borrowing these clubs from my friends at Golfbidder" or something.

 

[harpo_72]

James Wiltshere posted a video yesterday about how much he made on youtube in 2020. He had just over 4 million views, giving him around £14k.

Since the 27th November, the videos Rick have posted has had 7.6 million views, and I'm fairly certain he has a bigger American audience, which pays more in ad revenue. And don't forget that the 7.6 million views don't account for his old videos that keeps racking up views every day, so I'd hazard a guess that he's had around 15 million views in the last two months.

Guy is a money making machine.

If I was remotely interesting I would do it as well ... but I am boring and can only bore my work colleagues as my wife switches off or doesn’t let me get a word in edge ways and my son tells me everything about mine craft ... and then poisons me with puffer fish or sets loads of zombies on me
Makes me feel like that wet plonk on motherland ... please open the golf course

 

[Bdill93]

I don't watch every review, but I think he always states what shaft he is using.

Every time... I think its very clear the top few guys are not sponsored by club brands. They review because thats what we want to see, and therefore our views translates to ad money for them - not because theyre paid to by brands.

 

[pendodave]

Interesting (well maybe not) about the "paid content" .
I dip into a cycling channel every now and then and the message is displayed clearly and often. I don't recall ever noticing one on any of the golf vids from the various tubers.
I'm a little surprised, as I can't believe they're going unrewarded.

 

[harpo_72]

I like txg but I am not comparable to either of them, what is interesting is the tactics to help strike position on the head and delaying or increasing face shutting etc ...