[Jonathan Cummings]

Anybody ever take a ruler and measure the summed area of advertising over 200-some pages in a representative Golf Digest's issue?  Perform this exercise and you will never again question what drives GD and most publications (national and regional).  JC

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

Nobody doubts that ads are an important element with any mag.

Do the same with Vogue -- it has not prevented Wintour from making a major impact on women's fashion. Ditto what Buckley did with National Review.

Digest has its platform within the golf arena -- they can do far more to shape a range of elements within the game if the will is present. If they simply see themselves as a cash engine to grab ad dollars and continue forward with a vaniila approach to the editorial side of things then so be it. The core player is not enthralled as they used to be with what Digest provided.

Like I said, many people should check out back issues from years ago -- my files include every Digest issue since 1965. The tone and style of the mag was far different and far more ground breaking. No doubt the pic have improved -- ditto the overall graphics and presentation -- but Digest can certainly provide a clear voice and do so in the area of course ratings / architecture, etc, etc and that too can be widened to other areas as well.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...

Every Golf Digest since 1965?  How cool is that?  I would love to check out some of those old ones and see the progression (or regression...is that the word I am looking for?) of the magazine over time.  That is a real treasure that you've got there.

Also, your comments and insights are very appreciated on this thread (and elsewhere)...very cool.

Mac

[Ulrich Mayring]

The issue of magazines is fairly moot anyway these days

Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:

I think we agree about most of this but we are still somehow talking past each other 

My take is that DIGEST has made its own rankings into a sacred cow ... they see those rankings as much more important than actually letting someone who understands the subject a bit write constructively about golf course architecture.  I agree they are powerful enough to approach it however they want, but they've invested so many years and so much promotion into those rankings that they can't undermine them, even when they KNOW they are wrong.

[Rob Rigg]

Matt,

If the magazine really is not beholden to advertisers and forced to remain positive when it comes to course reviews for fear of repercussions then the current state of intellectual value within GD is all the more troubling.

If you are beholden to advertisers then there is some sort of "excuse" for not calling a spade a spade at times - and your readers probably understand that.

The rankings dynamic is an interesting - it is difficult to say that any are "right" but GDs are clearly the most "wrong" based on discussions that we have had on the site, good golf books that discuss many of these courses, etc.

Taking the shackles off Mr Whitten so he can educate the masses would be a great first step - even if it means he takes down a peg some of the "old guard" courses that just sit on those Top 100 lists for no apparent reason.

As most of GD is focused on instruction and equipment, it could be a great venue to reach out to the "average" golfer and get him/her interested in GCA - at least a little bit.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Of course they are, and none are more biased than about 99% of the comments and reviews posted here.

Being an internet golf course critic is about the same as being a Monday morning quarterback.  You can never be wrong, can you?

[Jonathan Cummings]

I can tell you a personal story about Ron talking to me for about 45 minutes on the phone regarding an article he was writing.  He was effectively interviewing me about a course I was familiar with - he wanted a quote for me.  I gave it to him but to suit the thrust of his article he completely, and I mean completely, ignored what I said and used his own version which was the exact opposite of what I told him (and simply untrue).  It's given me a good story to laugh about with the pals over beers after golf.  

Ron is a smart guy, an excellent gca analyst and I tip my hat to him (even though he got married at Shadow Creek!!   ).  He once stopped a spirited conversation with a bunch of gca-ers/raters bragging about how many top xxx courses they had played.  He simply said he had played 64 golf courses......with that course's architect!!  (Tom D - you were one).

Ron and everybody putting words to paper is bias.

I suggest that if anybody wants to read what I would call the most important bias in gca, than read everything that Geoff Shackelford writes.  He's got both hands on the intellectual tiller of where this game should be going.  And the median he uses has few regulations.

JC

[Jerry Kluger]

I think a golf writer owes it to his reader to give honest opinion or just don't give an opinion at all.  Dont' tell someone that they shouldn't read what is written beause if that is the case then why bother writing it in the first place other than to satisfy the writer's ego.  You're not the NY Times where the reader knows what their biases are and can generally assume what they will write about a particular subject.  A golfer looks at a review to determine if it is worth his time to play the course and will it be money well spent.  GD readers don't care if Pebble Beach is #3 when ANGC and PV are 1 and 2 - they will never get any closer to playing them than seeing them on TV or perhaps going to the Crump Cup.  At least Matt has the integrity to rate courses in his area and not have any problem saying which are the best public venues in the area. 

[Matt_Ward]

Tom:

The Digest ratings are really slipshod for what they offer now. Most insiders and people who really follow the design situation don't really view them as being cutting edge type stuff. That's unfortunate -- because at one time Digest was doing that on a range of fronts -- and beyond architecture.

Tom, I see the issue with Digest as one both laziness and stubborness. No doubt the passing of time has caused them to believe in their own mind that the way they are doing things now is great stuff. Denial is a powerful weapon that often prevents people from really delving into what is missing. While Digest may still have the ear of Joe Sixpack -- they have lost credibility with the really core insider type.

Digest has the wherewithal to change matters -- the issue is seeing what they are missing. No doubt such a change in direction / scope has to be internally driven.

I agree with you the inclusion of a person or persons who is competent to comment would be a plus.

Tom, magazines develop and have voices -- Wintour and Buckley come to mind immediately with their respective pubs.

Digest is more of an afterthought and for any mag that's not a future course that has much promise.

Rob:

Yes, you got it now. Digest could be doing much better -- as Doak alluded -- on the analysis front for architecture. They have simply taken the e-z path with this glut of panelists who really don't shine in any measurable way. Magazines shoud aspire to a higher level and be seen as pushing the boundaries beyond the ordinary -- Digest has gone the route of simply feeding people info by asking Joe and Jane on the street what they see as quality architecture.

Rob, if you read back isssues of the pub you'd be amazed at the depth of its writing and stances. One of the more insightful articles was Wind's accounting of the great classic courses -- with Merion being one of them. A piece written by Cal Brown on Pine Valley is another that comes to mind. That stuff isn't happening now and it's unfortunate that Whitten is used in such a lesser function.

Rob, I don't expect Digest to do more on architecture because research shows instruction is still the #1 reason why most people pick up the mag. But, Digest can certainly raise the bar because it has the luxury and freedom to do so.

Rob, when the mag cannot see the qualities of The Kingsley Club -- then something is terribly wrong. There are other instances that can be mentioned as well. Digest used to have the cutting edge announcements on golf course related matters. For me -- and countless other -- I rely upon other sources now.

Jerry K:

Blogs today have become the main vehicle for sourcs of info worth pursuing. No doubt this has happened and whether Digest realized the errors of it way or not -- the information age has clearly changed. I agree with you that getting no-holds-barred comments is crucial. I salute those on this site who have provided as much ... even if such comments are geared more towards the regional level. The worst thing that can be said about a magazine is that it has no voice -- that it has become irrelevant and is more a follower than a leader.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am not sure GD has slipped in all areas, but I don't doubt it either.

I recall a piece in Time or Newsweek about 1994, when many magazines were suffering in a recession.  They singled out Golf Digest (and Model Railroader) as magazines that really "got" their customers because they were enthusiasts writing for enthusiasts, as opposed to some mags that came on the market when advertising revenues were going sky high, but who relied on "content providers" for a bland mix of articles.

Now that GD is corporate owned, it makes sense that they act more like a corporate mag than an enthusiast one.  On the other hand, maybe years of experience has just taught them that readers want just three things - Tiger Woods, how to fix their slice, and how to hit it further.

[Mac Plumart]

I am LOVING this thread.

Matt, per your comments and line of thinking on Golf Digest....they've got the highest readership and they've got the ear of Joe Sixpack.  Wouldn't they be cutting their own throat on the business front if they get deep into golf course architecture discussions and education, as I assume Joe Sixpack isn't too interested in the nuances of architecture.

With their target audience in mind, shouldn't they stick with non-controversial player friendly, beautiful golf courses to put on their list?  That way if Joe Sixpack plays them they will be awe-struck by their beauty and have fun playng those courses.

To the best of my knowledge, those are the courses that are on the GD lists.  And I think it is a wise business decision.

Other mags (or blogs, or internet sites) could be formed to be the source of information that golf course architecture geeks check out.  And yes, I am one of those geeks...so that is not a slam.  I love Golfweek's ratings...I think they are the most correct and timley.  But they have a much smaller readership than GD.  

Anyway, my point is GD is what it is, which is a good business model.  True architecture geeks will have to dig a little deeper, but that should be ok as whatelse do geeks have to do?!?

[Jerry Kluger]

Mac: I have been trying to distinquish between ratings and reviews.  Ratings is a bunch of panelists that come up with a consensus which is different from a written review of one particular course.  If the review is written simply to generate advertising and the reader relies on it then the reader is being deceived and possibly wasting his time and money when he goes to play the course.  Ratings are a different story although sometimes it is usually obvious when the ratings are simply a means to generate revenue.

[Mac Plumart]

Jerry...

Point taken.

I guess I was assuming that the people writing the reviews would be the raters and, hence, they would all be aligned with the same thought processes.

Like Golf Mag's Joe Passov is the guru behind their ratings and he writes the reviews for the Travelin' Joe portion of their mag.  Am I off base on this?

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

Digest started to lose its stride not long after The NY Times Company bought the pub. The corporate style was just starting to get into the main frame of what it offered. Like I said, see the past issues from say 20-25 years ago and judge for yourself. I don't doubt that Joe Sixpack cares only about the topics you mentioned but Digest had for quite some time a solid array of writers and thoughts that kept it in the driver's seat with core players. That isn't happening now -- and it's been absent for longer than you might imagine.

Digest needs to rejuvenate the brand name -- getting new leadership at the top would be a good place to start. Wintour and Buckley are two clear examples of people who have been industry influencers of a mega sort in their respective fields. Digest has allowed its competitors -- a vastly improved Golf Magazine I might add since SI is now involved there.

Mac:

Digest is living off the laurels of its brand name -- the people reading the mag are your basic level golfer -- the elite and core groupie isn't relying upon Digest as it did years ago. Like I said -- read the past issues of say 15 or more years ago and you can see the difference in its overall tone, writing quality and overall approach to different subject matters.

When magazines cater to the lowest denominator you get what you are seeing now.

The ear of Joe Sixpack doesn't influence the real decision-makers throughout the golf industry. Digest used to be that forum -- it's not the place it was.

Mac, I'm not suggesting that Digest devote mega pages to design and architecture. They simply underuse someone like Ron Whitten. He's simply not able to do what he can offer. Ron used to highlight courses he personally visited in the golfdigest.com site. Very interestign stuff from a man who has a clear sense of what he likes and dislikes. I don't always agree but I know Whitten provides a voice that benefited Digest then.

The bulk of Digest would still be about instruction -- with lesser emphasis on other areas. But when I see the focus now on fashion and etiquette and other items -- the domain of architecture and design is simply a doormat venture with Digest. The silly mega panel of "experts" that Digest deploys is missing way too many courses and continuing to fawn over way too many classic courses that deserve to be placed in the "to go" file rather than be praised as 2009 must plays.

Mac, the great pubs have a voice. People read The NY Times because of its voice -- some like the paper for a range of things even if they disagree with the editorial page. I like WSJ for what Murdoch has done to rejuvenate that brand beyond the narrow focus it previously occupied. I don't agree with much of the editorial side of WSJ but it's well written and clearly is adding something to attract a range of readers who would not have thought for a second to read it previously.

People like Wintour and Buckley did likewise for Vogue and National Review respectively. They demanded more than the standard "yawn till you drop" prose and analysis that was the mainstay of their competition.

Mac, if Digest wants to be all fluff and no real meat -- so be it. There's been plenty of mags that have followed what you suggest -- look at Links to name one example. I can appreciate great golf photography of courses as much as the next guy but you do need someone or a select few people who can add a bit more than conventional wisdom / thoughts.

Mac, I don't rely upon Digest to influenc me on my course list of must sees. When you get a pub that has no clue on just how good a place like The Kingsley Club is then something is really wrong. Whitten saw it when he was there. Ditto for Whitten's analysis on Black Mesa. The expert on the magazine staff is Ron Whitten but the mag editors are slavish in giving standing to its gallup poll guide of people who simply are hitting more foul balls than home runs.

I don't doubt that business of mags is to make $$. The issue is that the Digest of 2009 is not connecting to a deeper base of influencers within the industry. Few people that I know of say that Digest caused them to really examine a topic or course. Other sources -- GCA among them -- have that reach and credibility -- albeit on a far smaller scale.

Mac, Digest does use other media outlets -- through its connection to Golf World and their connected Websites. But the essence of what is being presented is just not registering with anyone who has a keen sense on what is happening.

When you say Digest is a "good business model" -- look at the mega improvements to Golf Magazine over the last 5-10 years. For s time Golf Mag had a slight lead in overall readership and the ad dollar buys aren't that far apart. If anything if I were at Digest I'd pay attention to the footsteps that are right behind me.

[Mac Plumart]

Matt...again, excellent!

I can't wait until I have the years of experience to draw upon like many of you have to relative to the game.

Great stuff!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,

I understand your point, but also wonder if any general purpose magazine devoted to exclusively one topic might lose its fizz after a while.  Specifically, your point about the core golfer - I figure GD (and golf) really mean to address new golfers as much as anything with their "how to fix a slice" article.  Long time readers have seen it all before, with about the same advice given by Arnie decades before it is currently being given by Tiger.  In other words, it may be equal parts of the magazine going downhill on the USA today syndrome and Matt Ward fizzing out on the same old stuff.

But, the magazine can't really "keep up" with its long time core readers who move on to deeper interests in the game, can it?  At least not when its mission is mostly to produce instruction articles to new and struggling golfers......

I think they could perhaps solve their "problem" with lavish quarterly special issues devoted to more targeted topics, including architecture.  They would have 4 more issues to sell, boosting the bottom line, and they could address areas not easily covered in their regular format, such as design, environment, walking, the business side of golf, turf maintenance, etc.

Just a free idea for GD (actually stolen from other magazines who are struggling with similar issues)

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff...

I think you nailed it.  As one progresses in knowledge of the game, many of these magazine articles add no value.  Therefore, the magazines loose interest to those long-time golfers.  They move on to other things.  But the magazine still sells to, perhaps, the newbie's who find all of their stuff new and interesting.  I am a perfect example of this type of thing.  I think it boils down to business decisions that need to be made by ownership/management of each magazine/company.  However I do like your specials idea that focuses on certain topics.

Nice!

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff:

The core player represents the main influencers that any top tier pub goes after. Let me point out -- the recent NGF stats have the core player (50+ rounds per year) at roughly 20% of the total players -- but throwing forward 75% of the dollars spent on the game (green fees, equipment, et al).

Digest and other top tier mags know -- or should know - that the influencers are the ones who drive the car and cause others below them to follow.

Jeff, when any mag resorts to the same "been there / done that" articles the core people begin to see it quickly.

I said this before -- look at the past issues -- go back 20 years and you can see a far different mag. Oh, they have the better graphics today but the meat of the pub -- the writing, the overall tone, the desire to push the boundaries are just not there.

I don't buy magazines to tell me what I already know -- I expect them to be ever so diligent in sharing items that WANT me to pay for their info.

Jeff, let's be clear shall we -- core golfers include in their ranks struggling golfers too.

I don't know what you know about the magazine business -- but the competition today is even keener -- info sources gofar beyond waiting for mags to come to your house once a month. Digest isn't creating the buzz -- others are. The ratings process they use is a lazy mechanical way to really highlight what is the best in the USA. They already have a talented guy on staff who can certainly wade through all the halfass crap that their "esteemed" panel has recognized as "must play" layouts.

Digest will always concentrate on instruction -- all research indicates this is the #1 topic for most players. The magazine could create "special" issues - but there's plenty of space in the existing mag to beef up the content side without incurring more and more costs. Unfortunately, the Digest brand name has become a tired one. They used to simply dominate because of being the major sole provider of key golf info. That has changed -- and the course selection process has more holes than quality swiss cheese.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mac,

Thanks!  I don't really know if special issues would work (although I do know that if they repackaged the same old carp they wouldn't)  but it would seem to play into prints strengths - the ability to go into more depth.

Matt,

Tnank you once again for your condescending attitude. My day wouldn't be complete without it!  But to answer your questions, I know the magazine business is tough right now.  GD and others continue to lay off more and more personell when intuitively, adding great content would make better editorial sense.

IMHO, some of your contentions are unsupported, although I will grant the same is true of mine.  I also believe that:

 - Many of us fall prey to the "good old day" syndrome, and basically think you have some of that going on.

- As someone who was dropped as a GD rater, you may have biased opinions


All of that said, there is still much of what you say that I agree with.  I take issue with your constant depreciation of the GD ranking system.  Being familiar with it and GolfWeek, I don't see GW as being much more than a "tweaked" version of the GD system.  As for your (and Golf Magazine's) contention that a smaller, more "elite" panel of raters would do a much better job, in essence I just disagree.  Since we all have our biases, a smaller panel could easily come up with more skewed rankings.  Granted, a larger panel with guidelines often pulls stuff to the middle, but all ranking systems have their inherent flaws.  I know you will never be satisfied with a system that doesn't make you the chieftan, but that is the ultimate bias of all, at least IMHO!

[Jud_T]

This may be a dumb question, but is it really true that instructional pieces are what the average golf mag buyer wants? I keep flipping pages waiting for a Brad Klein architecture review or a Tom Doak piece etc...there are so few of them other than the pseudo advertising articles about refurbished resorts etc...I find Links magazine & Golfweek somewhat interesting, and the rest mostly uninteresting, but I guess I'm not the target demographic....In the last 15 years I have read exactly 1 piece of instructional advice that I found helpful in my game...People need to take lessons from a good teaching pro and put in the hours on the range and the course to improve their game, not buy a glossy mag that will tell them how to magically break 90...I just find it uninteresting reading....

[Steve Salmen]

Jud,

I read an article or interview with George Peper and he said somewhere around 2% of readers are interested in architecture and 20-30% want more instruction.

Steve

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jud,

Its twue, Its twue.

[Norbert P]

Jud,

I read an article or interview with George Peper and he said somewhere around 2% of readers are interested in architecture and 20-30% want more instruction.

Steve

  The other 68-78% aren't even readers.   

[Matt_Ward]

Jud:

Current research supports the push to instruction -- but magazines can layout more time and attention to other matters. Check out Digest from years past and see what they are doing now. The writing was far more comprehensive and less of the quick bullet approach you see now.

Jeff:

Please stop with the silly whine about being condescending.

It's so utterly transparent -- I simply wrote back to you to highlight what many people who aren't involved with the magazine side might not be seeing. It's a tired retort to throw back the idea that those in disagreement are condescending when legitimate discussion is the sole motivation.

Simple as that.

Jeff, hold the phone amigo -- check out the courses that are missed by Digest now. I have no issue in disclosing that I was a former panelist but truthfully the can of such people is more than you might imagine and many of those formers have a good bit more on the ball than plenty of the existing one.

I'm sorry you don't think the Digest results are now weaker when viewed with others -- GW and Golf Mag have done quite well in highlighting the newcomers worth noting. Digest has a great resource in Ron Whitten -- using him more -- rather than less -- would be a great start.

The smaller panel Jeff has a better reference to the key courses and likely has played more of the prime candidates than the herd mentality you get from Digest. Like I said, Kingsley is missing ... ditto Black Mesa ... both are layout Whitten lavished big time praise. There are a number of others as well. Digest's panel goes for elements tied to the pleasure of the eye -- rarely, going below the surface. Course coverage and awareness are central items - the belief that a larger panel will do that doesn't wash. Ditto the idea that too many panelists are too often regional in their overall functionality.

Jeff, appreciate your putdown with the final jab at being chieftain -- fire away -- but I know my thoughts on revamping the system for Digest are shared by a great many people. The brand name of the magazine has followed a course that simply has it as a follower not leader in overall course analysis / awareness.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()