What are the "positive changes" you think this rant could lead to? Why such high esteem for someone who criticizes others with no evidence whatsover?
Early access to Cabot properties if Ran is an investor should probably raise an eyebrow or two. However, even if the were zero impropriety, and I'm not saying there is, the method of ranking at GOLF is extremely
loosey-goosey:
Because we don’t prescribe a set method to assess courses as other ranks do, no one opinion carries the day — our rank is a democracy. Some panelists believe that enjoyment is the ultimate goal, and thus prioritize design attributes such as width and playing angles, while frowning upon the need to constantly hunt for balls in thick rough. Other panelists value challenge and the demands of hitting every club in the bag. Still others consider a course’s surroundings and overall environment of paramount importance, thereby emphasizing the setting and naturalness of the course. In the end, allowing raters to freely express their tastes is what produces the desired eclecticism in our Top 100 lists.
I'm even confused about how rating happens:
For the newly released 2023-24 World list, each panelist was provided a ballot that consisted of 504 courses globally. He or she was given seven months to complete it. Beside the list of courses were 11 “buckets,” or groupings. If our panelists considered a course to be among the top three in the world, they ticked that first column. If they believed the course to be among Nos. 4-10 in the world, they checked the next column, followed by 11-25, 26-50, and so on out to 250+ and even a column for remove.
504 course in about 210 days presents obvious issues. It seems entirely unclear if the courses need to
actually be played that year to be ranked, and if we are requiring the course to be played, who is keeping track of who is playing what? Supposing all the best intentions, if a course were, say, on a small island off the coast of Tasmania, perhaps only one rater might visit it once that year, which should dramatically increase the variance of it's position (especially if they got a rater that just doesn't like wind). That might just be the way the cookie crumbles, but for someone whose career and well-being is tied to these ratings, it sucks.
As much as they want a diversity of opinion, the folks chosen obviously will have aligned values (why would you choose someone for such a desirable role when you think they're an idiot), so it makes sense that Doak and Cabot properties might punch above their weight on this list. And again, that might just be the breaks for folks with different values, but still, it seems doubly awkward when the people within that handpicked rating circle are rating the properties of the people who picked them.
To put it another way, if would be weird if the W Hotel sponsored the NYT travel and leisure hotel rankings, and chose the expert raters. If the W hotels then were surprisingly highly ranked, and then early access was given to
the new W Tokyo, which then was positioned well, I don't think any of us would be out-of-line for rolling our eyes. Lord knows marketing in journalism has been happening for decades:
Marketers Say They Pay for Play in News Media - NYT 2006
Though product placement in movies and on television shows is a fairly standard practice, it is generally accepted that magazine and newspaper articles, and television and radio news programs, do not accept payment for naming products.
A recent survey, however, challenges that understanding. An annual poll conducted by PR Week magazine and Manning Selvage & Lee, a public relations firm, asked 266 marketing executives if they had ever paid for broadcast or editorial placement. Nearly half said yes. And nearly 46 percent of those who had not paid for placement replied that they would consider doing so in the future.
These lists are supposed to be all in good fun, but they sort of aren't. Rankings are written into contracts. Salaries are dependent on them. We are kidding ourselves if we don't admit that simple access to a place like PV or CP is an extremely valuable commodity that people would want to maintain... so everyone should take these rankings with a grain of salt. Even if absolutely nothing is untoward, I can understand why people with skin in the game might prefer the top ranking institutions have clear, transparent, and strict journalistic standards.
If Oliver is the wrong person to say that, so be it. I don't know him and I don't care. I just think it's a reasonable thing to be said, especially at some cost to his career.