Do Magazines Really Need Advertising Dollars from Courses?

[Matt_Ward]

The reality for regional and state golf publications is a much different one than the big boys on the block. The golf facilities EXPECT that each time a reviewer comes to their facility they WILL get a glowing review.

Some of these people have been sniffing too much glue because Jersey Golfer does not do that. Let me also point out that it's important to do one's homework because situations can and do change over the course of time. A facility that may have received less than glowing comments may have decided to "improve" and a return visit will be necessary to confirm such things. When that happens it's important to "update" the reader and let the record reflect that. The reverse can also happen.

The problem is that once a course develops a reputation many publications automatically bestow some long term belief that it will ALWAYS be such. That is rubbish because any number of circumstances / events can happen to change that and it behooves any publication to keep up on what's happening.

The "feel good" journalism is nothing more than to maintain the ad $$ that comes forward. That is the agenda for nearly all regional and state publications. I travel the country quite extensively and read a ton of these pubs when visiting. Yes, some have wonderful graphics and pictures but the real gist of insightful analysis is often filled with the usual BS about "such and such" great hole and how #16 is the signature hole -- blah, blah, blah.

The major publications have done extensive research and the bulk of what they find is quite straightforward -- the central focus is always on instruction. Yes, you do get some insightful stuff from time to time from Digest and GolfWeek but it's more the exception than the rule.

My only suggestion is for people to write to the editors of the publications in question and ask them when they will begin to do the kind of critical assessments that readers want. Given the desire of many golfers to travel it's important to receive credible and detailed commentary that alerts the reader on what's worthwhile and what is simply junk. Publications that do otherwise are nothing more than self-serving operations that care less about the reader and more about the ad $$.

[David Kelly]

"Auteur" theory overlooked script, setting, cast and cinemaphotographer.

It didn't at all. In fact David Selznick, Arthur Freed, The Marx Bros., Fred Astaire, etc.. were all considered the auteurs of their films and not the nominal directors.  And while Ford and Hawks had different writers and cinematographers on their films the overall look and the themes were the same.  Auteurists are greatly interested in the contributions of the director's collaborators.  But thats for another website.

Whitten can tell which of Fazio's associates was on the job just by looking at the course. Wadsworth Construiction does a different style of work than Landscapes Unlimited. Pete's work with Jason McCoy had a better flow than the stuff he did with P.B.Dye on the job.

Thats great but I wish Whitten would tell his readers that.  That is what I think is missing from golf criticism and that is what most of the people who frequent this board would be interested in reading.

There may or may not be a place for this type of golf criticism in the marketplace but I know I won't be finding it in Golf or Golf Digest anytime soon.  





 

[Andy_Lipschultz]

The reality for regional and state golf publications is a much different one than the big boys on the block.

Right on the mark Matt, so let's have GD and Golf (who can afford to do it), set the bar a little higher. One of the mags does an in-depth Q&A each issue which I find to be the only interesting feature in these two magazines; they can easily up the critiques to this level.

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

I only wish the "big boys" did this on a consistent basis. It is done but you tend to see less and less. I do enjoy Brad Klein's critiques in GolfWeek and clearly Ron Whitten does offer his comments on courses on GolfDigest.com.

The reality is that the major publications focus to the largest degree on instruction. The architecture side is very lite and it's often lumped with the lame travel articles you often find.

I know many people in the golf industry who would like to see more analysis and discussion on the merits of golf courses but clearly the "go along to get along" mentality is a very strong one. I also realize that publications must show some sense of profitability and you can't divorce the business realities from the equation altogether. But, if a publication doesn't present a "voice" to its readers then you have nothing more than a picture book which sadly many golf magazines are today IMHO.

[DMoriarty]

One thing I ntoiced in my Ross book is that courses dne primarily by Waler Hatch looked different than those done by J.B. McGovern on his staff. Much of the difference in his work depended on the construction team as well. Whitten can tell which of Fazio's associates was on the job just by looking at the course. Wadsworth Construiction does a different style of work than Landscapes Unlimited. Pete's work with Jason McCoy had a better flow than the stuff he did with P.B.Dye on the job.

It sounds to me like you guys are still applying an "auteur theory," at least behind the scenes.  You and Mr. Whitten can look at a course, and pick out the individual who seems to be integral to certain features on that course.   So maybe auteur  is a beneficial theory, but we have to expand the concept of auteur to encompass the people who are really responsible?  

[Added later . . . Tom Doak mentioned this on the other thread which I didnt read until after this one. (and David Kelly did indirectly above.)]  

What a great topic for an article, or a series of articles.  "Ghostwriters of Golf." Give some credit/blame where credit/blame is due, and perhaps in the process explain to some readers who is really designing the Signature Courses.  

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I am sorry I didn't have a chance to check back in yesterday.  My tongue in cheek answer was to the question as to whether magazines require golf course advertising.  To which I said "well yah!"  

All to often the business plan gets in the way of editorial policy.  I cancelled my Links subscription several years ago because of the obvious conflict of interest that was occuring.  The pictures were very nice but there was no hint of objectivity.  I am told that they have improved of late.  

In the same vein would be Executive Golfer and any number of local publications that I am familiar with in the Pacific Northwest.  

Then come the likes of Golf Mag and GD which do some objective reviewing and follow it up with the pap travel section in the back of the magazine.  

On the objective side of the continuum are the like of Brad Klein and Tom Doak.  

All I would ask is that a balance be struck between the bean counters and the writers.  It would appear that management in an effort to be politically correct has forced the hand of the editorial people to say the right things.  The reason for this is that subscription payments are a small portion of the revenues derived in this form of communication.  Advertisers are the bread and butter.  

If it came down to having a job and writing a "soft" review or telling it like it is and folding, what would you choose?

[Matt_Ward]

Cos:

To answer you question -- consider the line spoken by Michael Douglas in "Wall Street" to Charlie Sheen --

"Kid -- it's all about the money -- the rest is just conversation."

For nearly all publications that is the driving force -- you can simply forget about seeing detailed analysis that goes beyond all the fawning adjectives you now see today. There are exceptions -- but they are very small and many don't last that long. If you'd like a copy of Jersey Golfer send me you home / business address offline and I'll forward one to you.