Do Magazines Really Need Advertising Dollars from Courses?

[DMoriarty]

We often speculate that the major golf publications are beholden to course advertisers and therefor avoid giving courses bad reviews; and/or that the publications entice course advertisement by giving potential advertisers positive reviews.  I think some have even gone so far as to say that course advertisers are basically paying the publications for positive reviews.  

Many of you are a much better position than me to know (1) whether this actually goes on, and (2) whether this is an inescapable part of the major golf publication business.  But I have my doubts.  

I just flipped through the latest edition of Golfweek, and counted advertisements.  Even ignoring the classified-type adds at the end and the 3 page "special advertising section," also at the end, the magazine is made up of approximately 50% advertising (about 26 1/2 pages out of 53, including the back cover).  Of this 50%, only about 8% (2 pages) is advertising for courses and/or developments. Throw in the 3 page special ad section at the end and some of the classifieds, and the total increases but is still dwarfed by the non-course advertising.  

This relatively small amount of course related advertising just doesnt strike me as significant enough to cause the editors of Golfweek to sacrifice their journalistic integrity by pandering for a few ad dollars.  

Also, the basic premise just doesnt make that much sense, for a number of reasons, including:  

1) Most private courses dont advertise, and therefore should still be fair game even by pandering publications.

2) The vast majority of public access golf courses are primarily local or regional destinations and would not benefit much from national advertising.  So they too should be fair game.

3) The truly national destination resorts, the group travel ads ("golf Montana special advertising section") and the developments with a national target audience have great incentive to advertise in golf publications even if they occasionally get panned.  What other advertising avenue more closely focuses in on the group they are trying to reach than the golf magazines?  I would think that this group might need the magazines might need the advertisers more than the advertisers need them.

So I guess my conclusion is that whether or not the major publications think are beholden to the advertisers, they need not be.  Sure, certain magazines' business plans seem to revolve around getting resort and course money, but I dont consider these to be even close to real journalistic endeavors.  

Also, please note that I am not talking about local or regional publications, most of which seem to be mouthpieces for developers/courses, Matt Ward's publication notably accepted.  

So can someone please tell my what I am missing about the incestuous relationship between courses and the major publications?

On a related topic, can someone please explain why these magazines arent more successful at attracting non-golf advertisers which fit the golf demographic:  luxury cars, watches, electronics, etc?  

[Andy_Lipschultz]

David:

I don't know the golf mag. business, however, if the reviews are done by freelancers (not magazine staffers) who have assorted streams of revenue within the golf world, they do need to watch their P's & Q's (who the hell came up with that phrase, anyway?) because they still want to be welcome at courses, i.e., gratis. Again, I don't know how Golf and GD, et al, assign reviews and I'll grant someone more knowing that I'm absolutely wrong, however, consider this...

A couple years back, a Los Angeles Magazine article I wrote really took American Golf to task and also in passing referenced a few of the piss poor courses here in L.A. When I was preparing a follow-up article (which never happened) about the new upscale, daily fee courses, I was asked to submit my previous article for review by the course and a couple courses after reading the piece, had a lot of trepidation about comping me a round. In fact, they wouldn't.

I was freelancer and at the mag's request, I tried to keep expenses down. Hell, I didn't want to be fronting the money and have to wait 3 months to get reimbursed. The difference in my situation, was that I had no ties to the golf industry, and could care less who got p.o.'d at me. I make my living another way and did golf articles between gigs just to keep my hand in journalism (my major in college).

On the other hand, maybe we're looking too deep. Maybe it never occurred to editors/writers that golf course reviews could make for invigorating writing. Tom Wolfe, Hunter Thompson and Dan Jenkins all created a new way of writing that is accepted today but in the 1960s was bordering on revolutionary. Just need someone in publishing to take that first step.

[JakaB]

Hell, I didn't want to be fronting the money and have to wait 3 months to get reimbursed.

I don't think any single statement made on this site has pissed me off on so many different levels as the above.  Thank god I know there are people like Matt Ward, Mike Cirba and even Redanman who critique for the love of the game...because even though they are wrong they are wrong for all the right reasons....and now Andy proves to us through his honesty of what drives his dip into the golfing journalistic world that this is the only and best forum for biased and unbiased opinions that entertain and inform.   Like Andy said its all about the money baby...don't trust me if you pay me...and you won't see me if you don't.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Jaka:

I can't tell if you're disgusted with me or the process in general. In case it's about me, let me explain: I was just trying to give my thoughts on where I think freelancers are coming from. Like I said before, I don't do this for the money, so I was completely honest in my critiques, which of course annoyed a lot of people.

I did the article as a favor to the editor who hired a golf writer who turned in a story the magazine would not accept because it was filled with the usual content that we expect from golf mags. Except in this case, the magazine in question was not a golf mag and the editor was not a golfer and he wanted an article with a little more bite and less sucking up.  

[Darren_Kilfara]

JakaB, you really only think in black and white, don't you? I'd have to think back a long time to think of any single paragraph I've read on this website that has irritated me more than your criticisms of Andy, criticisms which have very little basis in the real world. Are Messrs. Ward/Cirba/Redanman (or yourself, for that matter) trying to make a living out of their critiques? Of course not - they're posting on a website. The fact of the matter is that if you're freelancing, you have to pay your own expenses and hope that reimbursement catches you up before the next bill you're struggling to pay off. If you're willing to front all of the capital for a new golf magazine and hire people like Andy to write from completely untainted, independent viewpoints and give them money to pay for their expenses up front, then fine; until then, that situation doesn't exist, at least not from the impossible standards you're demanding.

Cheers,
Darren

[Andy_Lipschultz]

The key point I wanted to make, but buried beneath my babbling, is that having freelancers review courses on behalf of Golf mags is not the way to go.  You need to have someone reviewing who is protected by the magazine, knowing that if he/she hammers a course in a review, their job will still be there and still have access to courses (because of their affiliation with the magazine).

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

All I can say is that we took a hit re: our accommodations in the attached article:

http://www.golfdigest.com/newsandtour/index.ssf?/newsandtour/gw20030425charleston.html

Will we still advertise in Golf Digest?  With a circulation of about 1.4 million, you bet.  We're not jumping for joy about the depection of the "dank" villa he was assigned (...of course, he booked last minute on a busy weekend and wasn't on a golf package -- he got in the Inn through a cancellation), we'll continue to advertise in GD as it targets our clientele.  

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the insider input Mike.   I would think that other marketing people at other courses see it the same way.  

[tonyt]

Yes, of course. Golf magazines must assume that most readers are either golfers or have an interest in the game, so therefore advertisers who have a golf related product (golf courses kind of fit that mould really well) will be targeted by them as a key source of revenue.

Even if they don't do the flashy four page car ad foldout inside the front cover, golf facilities and golf travel make up an integral part of regular advertising.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

In regard to Mike's take....

Obviously the courses need the magazine (particularly a magazine with a high circulation) more than the magazine needs their advertising (which at best is one page toward the back).

So the question remains: Why do course reviews (when warranted), for the most part, do not call out the failings of the course? Maybe the magazines take is the old adage of, "if you got nothing nice to say..."

As I posted in another thread; when readers are deciding what to do with their money, the magazine is not acting in the readers' best interest when only reviewing courses that are liked.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

The connection between ad $$ and magazines (especially regional ones) is well known. The nature of the beast is simple -- the pubs stay in business by catering to those who advertise. It's that simple.

We at Jersey Golfer don't do this and we have taken it on the chin with a few people. I try to mention to these people that reviews can change over the course of time and we will come back and see how things are progressing. However, we are not their paid mouthpieces -- for that, they should hire a pr and mrktg firm.

Let me also say that national magazines are bit removed from getting the bulk of their ad $$ from golf related properties -- they can get their $$ from a wide range of products and services -- many of which are not in the golf industry. For regional / state publications that option is limited because the big boys who advertise do so in publications that have the greatest reach. I only wish the national magazines (Digest, Magazine, Links) would do more with the bully pulpit they have.

Nonetheless, the Publisher of Jersey Golfer (Lowell Schmidt) and I made a decision 13 years ago to be different than everyone else and try to create a "voice" that provides our readers with clear viewpoints. We may not be right all the time but we clearly try to say something that will make golfers think.

The flip side is that those ad $$ are a part of the business cycle and for publications that try to develop a "voice" the temptation to follow the trail of the junk you often see is very appealing and many ultimately follow that route.

Darren K:

Please understand that as a full member of the Golf Writer's Ass'n of America and the Met Golf Writer's Ass'n I do provide articles (for payment) to a wide assortment of publications through the USA. I also post on GCA as a means to provide info to avid golfers like myself and learn from them on the trip and courses they play.

[Brad Klein]

I find this a very strange thread, full of dark forebodings and vague innuendos. I've been writing for Golfweek for 15 years now, and I can think of a long list of courses I've praised and an equally long list of courses I've criticized, condemned and dismissed.

I can't vouch for other publications, and there's always a danger in generalizing, though usually the local magazines, with a smaller, more regional advertising base, hear it from advertisers more loudly than do the national magazines. God for NJGolfer if it can resist that pressure. I can tell you at Golfweek we also include a factor that's missing from this GCA account - readers.

I've always thought that what you do with an review is educate your readers and develop credibility with them. I'm interested in their support and their loyalty, and they are not stupid to think that everything is rosy - and we don't write that way. Unless you have credibility with readers, advertisiers are not going to buy in. It's the job of the publisher to convince the advertisers of that, and at the same time it's the job of the editors and writers to make sure that articles, reviews, news and features resonate as true and as thoughtful and honest. Without that, you have a rag for a publication..

[DMoriarty]

Brad,  I am not sure what you mean by "dark forebodings" and "vague innuendos" but if you find these things in my original post I can assure you that they were unintended.  

I started this thread neither to attack nor to praise or compare the golf publications, but to address the conception that the major publications are beholden to the golf courses for advertising and adjust their reviews accordingly.  True or not, this view is often expressed here on this board (see my related thread on bias in reviews.)  

Essentially I am trying to poke a pin in this theory by demonstrating that it just doesn't make that much sense.  I assume we are in agreement here, at least in regards to your publication.  

I chose Golfweek to count ads because it was handy and is the only one of the magazines to which I am a paid subcriber (that might tell you something about how I rate the various publications), and came to the conclusion that Golfweek doesnt appear to have much reason to be beholden to the advertisers.  

As to your individual credibility, I don't doubt it at all. But I am not intending to call your or anyone else's credibility into question in this post.  

Matt, I tried to distinguish between the major and the regional publications, and agree with you regarding the regional publications.  I just wonder if "well-known" "connection between [course] ad $$ and [major] magazines" is more myth than reality.  

[Darren_Kilfara]

Matt - sorry, I wasn't aware of your Jersey Golfer connection. My point was to say that people who write stuff about golf courses on this website can (or should) feel free to write with no agendas weighing them down, which may not (to a greater or lesser extent) be the case when you're writing for a publication with advertising tie-ins of any sort to potential subject matter.

Brad - I like where you're coming from, but the real problem here is that "credibility with readers" is far too EASILY gained, simply because relatively few golfers are both willing and able to make the kinds of deep subjective judgments that people on this website often do. I believe that many golfers are conditioned to like a certain type of golf course by a certain type of review/reviewer that focuses upon course conditioning and facilities above interesting architecture. I also believe that many golfers intrinsically want to and will like all golf courses because a day on the golf course beats a day in the office. The point being, while I can appreciate the difference between a Brad Klein review for Golfweek and a Joe Schmoe review for Daily Newspaper X, that distinction will not necessarily be drawn by the majority of people who read both articles.

I'm trying not to be "elitist"; I think there's something quite laudable about that instinct in human nature which wants to look on the bright side of life, and of golf courses. And for every schmuck reviewer who writes fawning articles just to keep the conveyor belt of freebies rolling in his direction, there will be several who simply don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or will give the facility the benefit of the doubt on ticklish subjects or simply won't trust his own opinion enough to bash a course and possibly expose his own lack of expertise. I've seen all of the above in action, and I'm sure you have as well. However, I do despair at the paucity of "Confidential Guide"-type witty-yet-biting honesty when it comes to golf course reviews. A well-written and insightful golf course review in a high-profile publication can educate the public more about what makes good golf course architecture than virtually anything else...alas, there are so few of them nowadays as to make "education" virtually dead outwith this website (in my experience), and this website is not a mass-market phenomenon.

Cheers,
Darren

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Only if they are interested in making money.

[Tim_Weiman]

Cos:

Are you saying that golf courses provide significant revenues for magazines? If so, can you quantify it? Have you done what Dave Moriarty did and look at who is doing the advertising with the national publications? Are golf course a large percentage or are the dollars coming from other advertising customers?

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Looking at ad pages (full page or double truck) for the July issue of Golf

Nissan, Buick, Ford,Chevy,Jeep,GMC,Chrysler
Ralph Lauren
IBM
Callaway, Corba, Wilson, Adams,Ping, Odyssey
Vanguard, Wachovia
Circuit City, Best Buy, Phillips
Grey Goose,Amstel, Tanqueray
National Beef  board
Smith and Wollensky
Skoal

This is the first 100 pages of the magazine. No course adverts.

[Brad Klein]

Try the same exercise with Links Magazine and you'll find a very intteresting result, with a much higher percentage of golf course/real estate properties. I'm not drawing any conclusions from this, but each magazine does have a very different profile of advertisers.

Ideally, magazines strive for the broadest possible distribution, both in terms of number of advertisers and range of products and services, so you don't get too beholden - or concerned - about any one sector. If you have a broad range you are insulated against pressure from any one of them - which also helps editorial independence and perceptions of independence.

[Andy_Lipschultz]

Brad: I actually think a conclusion could be drawn. Those with the higher circulation figures have a far broader range of advertisers and are less beholden to any one group of advertisers. These magazines have the bully pulpit to publish what they wish with little fear.

So, GD and Golf, fire away. I'm sure there's the Pauline Kael of golf writing waiting to dissect some courses.

[David Kelly]

So, GD and Golf, fire away. I'm sure there's the Pauline Kael of golf writing waiting to dissect some courses.

Andy,
I'd appreciate an Andrew Sarris of golf writing more than a Kael because I think his auteur theory translates better to golf course criticism than Kael's visceral approach.  

After all the auteur theory holds that the director is the person responsible for the creation of a motion picture and imparts it with his or her distinctive, recognizable style.

Just as Hitchcock, Hawks, Ford and  Chaplin have distinctive styles and recognizable aspects in their films, Raynor, Ross, Thomas and Dye have distinctive styles and features in their courses.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Looking at ad pages (full page or double truck) for the July issue of Golf

Nissan, Buick, Ford,Chevy,Jeep,GMC,Chrysler
Ralph Lauren
IBM
Callaway, Corba, Wilson, Adams,Ping, Odyssey
Vanguard, Wachovia
Circuit City, Best Buy, Phillips
Grey Goose,Amstel, Tanqueray
National Beef  board
Smith and Wollensky
Skoal

This is the first 100 pages of the magazine. No course adverts.

Doesn't this miss the whole point, though? All of the course adverts are tucked away in the back of the magazine, aren't they? Go all the way through the current issue of Golf and see what you find...that's certainly the way it always was with Golf Digest, anyway.

Cheers,
Darren

[David Kelly]

Doesn't this miss the whole point, though? All of the course adverts are tucked away in the back of the magazine, aren't they? Go all the way through the current issue of Golf and see what you find...

In the back of every Golf Magazine issue there is a listing of all of the golf courses that have advertised in that issue and a postcard where you can check off the courses about whom you would like more information sent to you.  In the June Golf there are at least 75 different golf resorts or courses listed and that is not counting various state and country Tourism Boards that advertised many different courses at once.

[Brad Klein]

David Kelly (any relation to the TV producer of that name?),

For those of us who actually try to do a certain kind of serious criticism golf courses, the "auteur" theory is dead. "Auteur" theory overlooked script, setting, cast and cinemaphotographer.

Give the architect all they credit they want - that's what happened in writing about design in the 1970s through mid-1990s. Forget the shaper, builder, the permitting process, the superintendent. 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.

I happen to think architects get way too much credit. Or maybe the way to put it is that you need to know under what conditions the architect worked and who/how he did on that particular job. of course that puts on another thread.

By the way, one great limitation to god [I meant "good"]writing on architecture is not the advertiser angle. It's space. You know how hard it is to get 1,000 words in these days? You have to get it over with quicker, shorter, punchier.

 

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

According to the first issue in which Pete Finch, Golf Digest/Golf World's new Travel Editor, posted a story (which happened to be the issue featuring Charleston/Kiawah to which I provided a link earlier in this thread), his task is to provide a no-holds-bared look at golf destinations.  I think his treatment shows that he's not affraid to rough up a destination as well as point up the highlights.

It should be interesting to see the results of the new Editor in Chief of Golf Magazine.  Kevin Cook was an editor at T&L Golf so they'll probably feature a few more travel/destination stories and less instruction (or we in the travel industry hope!)

[Darren_Kilfara]

By the way, one great limitation to god writing on architecture is not the advertiser angle. It's space. You know how hard it is to get 1,000 words in these days? You have to get it over with quicker, shorter, punchier.

I'll assume you meant "good" writing and weren't going all blasphemous on us there - but this is entirely the point behind my suggestion of creating an architecture-based review publication. I'm thinking the look of "Links" or maybe "Executive Golfer", except not beholden to golf course advertising and full of sharp writing. The reason that all architecture writing nowadays has to be so quick/short/punchy is that no mainstream magazines seem willing to give it the space it needs to develop. Hopefully Mike is right and things may soon change (at Golf and GD)...but if it doesn't, we're back to square one.

Cheers,
Darren