The BBC lose coverage of The Open

[Sean_A]

Adrian

Thinking about it, you are right.  A ton of people have clubs, but barely or don't play at all.  Golf seems to be a game which a lot of folks will dip into, have a look, then leave.  I suspect that golf (and other sports) on tv does encourage people to try games, but the retention rate has likely always been a "problem" in golf.  Honestly, there have to be more opportunities for new golfers in the UK than practically any other time in the past.  Maybe you are right, the health/fresh air aspects of the game should be better marketed.  Mind you, there are many people who are qite happy to just go for a walk....without booking or paying for tee times.  It seems to me that golf has declined in tune with the decline in the social side of the game...less drinking and less time for hanging about at the club. 

Ciao     

[Mark Pearce]

The social side of all sport in the UK has suffered badly over the past 30 years.  I recently (last three years) started playing club cricket and (field) hockey again, having given both up something like 17 years ago.  With both it used to be the case that virtually everyone would stay for at least one drink after a game and nearly always drink and socialise with the opposition.  Certainly there were hockey matches I would make a point of getting public transport to because I knew well that after the game would be a long night of talking and drinking.  The same with cricket.  With both sports you really got to know the opposition well over the years. 

Playing 3rd XI cricket now (in what is used by most clubs as a development league) it is rare for the opposition to stay for a drink when we play at home.  Most clubs playing at home will only have a handful hang around for a drink and I have played away games where some of us have stayed for a drink but none of the home team.  Most hockey players stay for a drink but only one and it is rare to talk to the opposition. 

By comparison I think golf still does pretty well!  Participation numbers in most sports are down and a big factor in this must be how much less time people think they have.  The only sports doing well tend to be individual sports like cycling and swimming which you can do ata time that suits you.  Golf has a problem with how long it takes and here the R&A (and USGA) have let the game down badly.

[David Davis]

I didn't read this entire thread so I hope this point has not been debated.

I'd like to know how they sell this huge drop in viewership that will happen to sponsors and advertisers for one.

Imagine you pay a million pounds to sponsor the Open and that gives you incredible exposure on TV to golfers worldwide and then this gets cut in half. They won't drop the price of sponsorship most likely but this could have a huge impact on the value of the sponsorship.

[Adrian_Stiff]

The R & A don't have sponsorship as such. They tried advertising just the once in 1966 I think and decided not to go forward with it. They have partnership deals with Rolex and Canon (I think) maybe some others too but more discreet.

Their policy on a player and his lessened exposure for his sponsor would be tuff titty. Which eludes in the end to less money in the game for the elite players.

[David Davis]

The R & A don't have sponsorship as such. They tried advertising just the once in 1966 I think and decided not to go forward with it. They have partnership deals with Rolex and Canon (I think) maybe some others too but more discreet.

Their policy on a player and his lessened exposure for his sponsor would be tuff titty. Which eludes in the end to less money in the game for the elite players.

Adrian, I don't know the details but Partnership Deals is Greek code for Sponsorships or some form of advertising. Hard to imagine anything else although perhaps the deal with Rolex allows them to supply the light post clocks and personal watches for management in exchange for exposure and "partnership". (that's a joke by the way as I hope that's not the case)

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Tony

It may be Dawson's final act, but it is just the start of the beginning of the end for the R&A (and the BBC).

When I hear "grow the game" I think  "follow the money" and smell desperation.

When I hear "The BBC is a national treasure" I hear a death knell.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

The perfect response.....

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes - just as it is now only in the most expensive restaurants that you can have peace and quiet with your meal (instead of piped in music) and only at the hardest to get to and expensive golf resorts where you can have everyone walking (instead of riding), so too it may only be the very few touraments in the world that won't have a corporate title sponsor in front of their name.  I don't think we'll see the "MasterCard US Open" or the "Waste Management Masters" any time soon, but the "Rolex Open" doesn't seem too far away.

Peter

[Adam Lawrence]

Peter - I think you are completely wrong on this. I will wager you anything you like that there will be no title sponsor at the Open in the next ten years.

[Mark Pearce]

Peter - I think you are completely wrong on this. I will wager you anything you like that there will be no title sponsor at the Open in the next ten years.

+1

[Adrian_Stiff]

+2

[Rich Goodale]

Peter - I think you are completely wrong on this. I will wager you anything you like that there will be no title sponsor at the Open in the next ten years.

You are probably right about a "title sponsor," but Rolex has been such in all but name only for the last 10+years.  How much does the R&A get every year for those intrusive clocks behind every tee and every green?

[Mark Pearce]

Rich,

In the minds of both the organisers of events and of sponsors there is night and day between name sponsorship and the sort of "partnership" arrangement Rolex has with the R&A.

[Peter Pallotta]

Adam, Adian, Mark, Rich - you all would know better than I do, so I'll defer to your opinion. (My bias, though: when an opinion is so universally held as to be the conventional/consensus view, it is usually wrong ).  Our CBC seems to have much in common with your BBC - both (ours more than yours) seem to be neither fish nor fowl: not ready, willing and/or able to behave as true for-profit broadcasters but yet no longer proud and reliable defenders and promoters of national identity/interests either. When the BBC can't compete financially with the bid for the Open rights, it tells me that Open organizers, sponsors and broadcasters all are looking at/expecting/demanding huge barrel fulls of money...and that kind of money can make night turn into day pretty darn quick!

Peter

[Niall C]

Peter

Where you seem to be confused is thinking that the BBC gets advertising revenue or revenue direct from customers, they don't. Anyone who has a television in the UK must have a television licence that they buy from the government. Can't recall the up to date cost as I now pay by DD but in the region of £120 a year. The BBC funding comes largely from this but also from any sales of its programmes to other countries eg. Top Gear which I believe is its biggest money earner.

Even if you take a Sky subscription you still have to pay the licence fee.

Niall

[Niall C]

Now that I'm outed as a Radio 4 listener let me also confess I was listening to it on the way home in the car last night. Their was a programme regarding media matters and they were talking about the BBC losing the Open. One of the media experts suggested that the industry gossip was that the R&A had been angling for the BBC and Sky to share the same way they do with the Masters but the BBC weren't interested. Apparently the BBC ended up bidding less than they did last time as they are hell bent in getting the English football coverage.

Niall

[Niall C]

Here's a thought, what do you think the impact will be on the clubs hosting the Open ? I mean one of the benefits is that following the Open, and indeed just before there is usually a great upsurge in visitor numbers with the corresponding windfall. For most clubs, staging the Open must be a bit of a pain for the members in terms of restricted access etc before the event etc, and the windfall may be one of the reasons although not the only reason for staging it. If the lack of coverage results in less visitors will some clubs take a different view in agreeing to stage it ?

Niall

[Brian_Ewen]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/golf/r-a-chief-bbc-only-wanted-open-highlights.118207382
 
R&A chief: BBC only wanted Open highlights
Nick Rodger
Golf Correspondent
Tuesday 10 February 2015
By all accounts, Peter Dawson and his cronies at the Royal & Ancient have taken more flak than a Lancaster bomber of late.
 
The decision to award the Open Championship television rights to Sky and bring to an end some 60 years of live, uninterrupted coverage of golf's most cherished, celebrated major on the BBC has provoked a fairly robust public backlash. "Oh, we've had plenty of hate mail......clearly from individuals who haven't read the etiquette section of the rule book judging by some of the intemperate language," said Dawson with a wry smile, as he took off his chainmail, bascinet helmet and chivalrous codpiece and sat down for a tranquil chat with a small gathering of unarmed golf writers in his St Andrews redoubt.
 
This was an opportunity for Dawson to set the record straight and the message was clear: the BBC essentially threw in the towel when the negotiations got to the nitty gritty. For the fist-shaking masses who immediately jumped on the bandwagon and lambasted the R&A for selling their souls to the satellite devil, Dawson's claims will raise a few eyebrows.
 
As of 2017, the Open will be broadcast live on Sky with the Beeb showing a nightly package of highlights between 8pm and 10pm. Having put the rights out to tender, it became clear that there were only two genuine contenders but, according to Dawson, that rapidly developed into a one horse race as the bidding process intensified. In the end, the guardians of game had no option but to go with the Sky proposal. While he refused to divulge details of the actual sums of money involved in the new contract, Dawson was more forthcoming when it came to the intricacies of the negotiations.
 
"Having got the first bids back, we, as the result of what they said, had a lot of questions to ask and we asked a lot of questions of both companies," explained Dawson. "At the end of that question and answer session, we went out for a second round of bids because there were so many points in the questions that could have affected it. At that stage, I think all I can say is that it was very, very clear that the BBC, at that point, were interested in pursuing the highlights option.
 
Construe that as you will. And the decision to go with the live rights with Sky was one I would suggest that if you were in possession of the information we had, there's not a person in this room, believe me, that would have made a different decision, given the state of play at that time. It is a natural reaction for people to be upset, but when you analyse the two bids we received, they shouldn't be. BBC did bid for the live rights initially, and so it's not true to say they didn't want them. Later on in the process, they switched emphasis. I'm not 100 per cent sure why. But the BBC made it clear that the highlight feed was the way they wanted to go. It was financially driven, I'm guessing, but you'd have to ask them."
 
In many quarters, the R&A's decision was seen as an act of high treason, on a par with Guy Fawkes menacingly boogling about with gunpowder. Peter Alliss, the BBC's voice of golf who has been offering his musings on the game since the days of the mashie niblick, was particularly vocal in the aftermath and hissed that the R&A were "dipping their hands into the money."
 
On the other side of the remote control, however, many viewed the decision to decamp to Sky as inevitable given the way the BBC has been gradually turning its back on golf in recent years. Like the end of any long-standing relationship, it was never going to be easy. "Don't get me wrong, we love the BBC to bits," added Dawson with dewy-eyed affection. "They are a great operation. I don't feel let down by the BBC, no. I think the BBC does a tremendous job in quite difficult circumstances now. I don't think it's possible for the BBC to do everything that the Great British public wants at the current licence fee level. I just don't think they've got a chance. That has to be addressed. Perhaps this is not a popular view, but I think it's true. I read in the papers that it's the R&A's greed that's doing this, we've taken the money, and to hell with the viewers. Not true. We've read a lot about the crown jewels (of BBC televised sport) but the BBC actually recommended that the Open Championship be B listed, and that's in the public domain. You can read that online. Which means that highlights as a minimum should be shown on free to air, not necessarily the live broadcast. So that was the BBC's position on that."

[Brian_Ewen]

Here's a thought, what do you think the impact will be on the clubs hosting the Open ? I mean one of the benefits is that following the Open, and indeed just before there is usually a great upsurge in visitor numbers with the corresponding windfall. For most clubs, staging the Open must be a bit of a pain for the members in terms of restricted access etc before the event etc, and the windfall may be one of the reasons although not the only reason for staging it. If the lack of coverage results in less visitors will some clubs take a different view in agreeing to stage it ?

Considering there is always complaints of low attendance at Turnberry Opens, I would guess its slot on the rota must be in doubt.

[Doug Siebert]

If that article is true and the BBC is de-emphasizing golf, is there any chance Peter Alliss might leave the Beeb for Sky, at least for the Open broadcasts?

[Duncan Cheslett]

I doubt it.

Peter Alliss will be 86 years old by the time the 2017 Open comes round, and I can't see Sky wanting to centre their coverage around a man with that little future in the job. Besides, the BBC will still be broadcasting 2 hours of highlights every evening and Alliss remains the perfect man to commentate on this.

After giving this whole matter some thought over the last week or so I have come to the conclusion that the right decision has been made. The BBC is still finding its role in the new TV world, and covering live sporting events cannot be part of that role - particularly when that event is going to be covered perfectly well by another channel. Concentrating on showing highlights for the benefit of those without Sky or who choose not to devote vast chunks of their day to watching live coverage seems sensible.

The BBC will no doubt find its role in what it has always done best; producing quality TV that no-one else produces. BBC 1 should probably be the televisual equivalent of Radio 4, with EastEnders filling the Archers slot for those who need their fix of regular drama. Live sport and reality shows are done perfectly well by others and so don't need the BBC's involvement.

[Brian_Ewen]

The BBC will no doubt find its role in what it has always done best; producing quality TV that no-one else produces. BBC 1 should probably be the televisual equivalent of Radio 4, with EastEnders filling the Archers slot for those who need their fix of regular drama. Live sport and reality shows are done perfectly well by others and so don't need the BBC's involvement.

While every owner of a TV pays for it, whether they want to or not ?

[Duncan Cheslett]

It always amuses me when people who pay a grand a year for Sky object to paying the TV licence, which is a fraction of the price and gives access not only to the BBC but all the Free view channels too.

I don't think there us any political will to abolish the TV licence.

[Brian_Ewen]

It always amuses me when people who pay a grand a year for Sky object to paying the TV licence, which is a fraction of the price and gives access not only to the BBC but all the Free view channels too.

I don't think there us any political will to abolish the TV licence.

I don't pay for Sky and object to paying a TV license fee.

[Jon Wiggett]

So Mr. Dawson manages to show his contempt for the general public in the first paragraph. He then goes on to say the BBC were not interested and that money was not important in the decision. This is the same man who last week was saying just the opposite. Do we really want such dishonest people running the game? The sooner he goes the better.

 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Slighty O/T but still on the sport/financial side.

BT and SKY have together bid for the next 5 years of the premier league matches:

Each Premier League Football Match is average at £10,000,000.

So each Premier League Match equals the cost of the OPEN GOLF CHAMPIONSHIP.

"Money it will ruin sport" O.B. KELLYER 1930