[BCowan]

One of the big reasons why i bumped the Pizza thread was the correlation between that thread and this one.  The Pizza man I recall played a course over and over and wanted to dig deeper and find out more about it.  Through internet searches he found this great site.  He read more in-depth about Ross in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding.  He wanted to go deeper then a number in a magazine or just looking at photographs.  Many of the magazines to me are like top 40 music.  IMO one has to go outside that to find great music.  Through word of mouth, seeing live music, and possibly the internet with downloading music outside main FM channels, one gets another world view.  More options existed for great music and reaching farther outside the mainstream was the more viable solution.  GCA.com and CG are in essence are more of a word of mouth publication/DG and both provide deeper detailed information for one who is curious to learn more, ex why do I like something.  Each publication and or website is serving their intended audience, which is fine.  I think that the magazine ranking benefit more of the upscale public courses and destination private clubs.   JMO

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

I was under the impression that everything in a magazine (except for ads) is meant to be about enticing people to buy the magazine.  What other purpose would a rankings article serve other than to entice people to buy the magazine?

Ciao

Sean:


The very ranking you just participated in, in the UK, was used by the magazine as a means to sell advertising to the courses listed.  That's the first thing, and it often brings in more money than selling extra copies of the magazine.


But the other thing, which I was referring to above, would fall under the modern euphemism of "building a brand."  The more the magazine's name is out there, the more valuable it is perceived as being ... for selling the company, or for hyping marketing events or what have you.  Every time someone refers to the GOLF DIGEST top 100 ranking, that's free advertising for GOLF DIGEST.  If you look at the masthead of GOLF DIGEST, there is a long list of people employed under "integrated marketing" and related departments.  It's big business.  Just ask Mr. Trump!


P.S.  I got an email this morning from GOLF INC. magazine wondering if I wanted to advertise in their "Most Influential Architects" issue.  It explains that "When you purchase a 1/2 page ad or larger, you receive a formatted 1/4 page advertorial in the Most Influential Architects section."  [I guess that is one definition of "influential".]  Think I should buy in?  They didn't send a price, I would have to call them to find out how much it is.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I was under the impression that everything in a magazine (except for ads) is meant to be about enticing people to buy the magazine.  What other purpose would a rankings article serve other than to entice people to buy the magazine?

Ciao

Sean:


The very ranking you just participated in, in the UK, was used by the magazine as a means to sell advertising to the courses listed.  That's the first thing, and it often brings in more money than selling extra copies of the magazine.


But the other thing, which I was referring to above, would fall under the modern euphemism of "building a brand."  The more the magazine's name is out there, the more valuable it is perceived as being ... for selling the company, or for hyping marketing events or what have you.  Every time someone refers to the GOLF DIGEST top 100 ranking, that's free advertising for GOLF DIGEST.  If you look at the masthead of GOLF DIGEST, there is a long list of people employed under "integrated marketing" and related departments.  It's big business.  Just ask Mr. Trump!


P.S.  I got an email this morning from GOLF INC. magazine wondering if I wanted to advertise in their "Most Influential Architects" issue.  It explains that "When you purchase a 1/2 page ad or larger, you receive a formatted 1/4 page advertorial in the Most Influential Architects section."  [I guess that is one definition of "influential".]  Think I should buy in?  They didn't send a price, I would have to call them to find out how much it is.

Yes, but, doesn't selling mags sell ads?  Its all wrapped up into the same thing. I still can't understand your argument that mag contents is not designed to sell mags...seems very counter-intuitive an all levels.

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

I think what Tom D is saying is:

There is no measurable uptick in magazine sales when it has the rating list(s) included. Hence the ratings don't technically drive extra sales.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I think what Tom D is saying is:

There is no measurable uptick in magazine sales when it has the rating list(s) included. Hence the ratings don't technically drive extra sales.

I gotcha...I wasn't thinking extra sales...just sales.

Ciao 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Totally with Sean on this. They're not charities. Just because they see no uptick in rack purchases doesn't mean the rankings have no value to the magazines. Besides course ad revenue, consider the subscription market is different from the rack / walk up. Splash a top-100 cover, someone walks into locker room, sees it, starts thumbing through, reads an ad or two on his journey to the list.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,

That could very well be, but its hard to quantify that.

As an analogy, its kind of like saying people get an annual subscription to Sports Illustrated solely based on the Swimsuit issue!! 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Let me step back. The *point* is to sell magazines. How effective that effort is a different question.

[Carl Nichols]

They're also trying to drive internet traffic--I don't know how they monetize visits to the site, but I suspect they're selling advertising there too.  I almost never buy GD in print, but I do look at the rankings online.

[Ronald Montesano]

When I put a photo carousel on my site, it's a simple gallery on one site page. Many large sites have upped their impressions/clicks number by placing each photo on a separate page, so that you have to click through ten-twenty pages to get to the end and #1. It reminds me of this poor guy: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/whats-your-marketing-doing/mean-streets-holding-cell/


That would be how they quantify numbers, I suspect.

[Joe_Tucholski]

How does one get their hands on one of these raters note books?

http://golfweek.com/categories/news/travel/raters-notebook/

Also can be found in a magazine by subscribing to Golf Week.

[Rick Emerson]

How does one get their hands on one of these raters note books?

http://golfweek.com/categories/news/travel/raters-notebook/

Also can be found in a magazine by subscribing to Golf Week.

Thanks Joe, Brad Klein can kindly disregard the pm I sent him.

[Zack Molnar]

.

[William_G]

the GD panelists have always prided themselves as the "avid" golfer...the lower handicapper

course raters for GW are serious about their golf and having fun despite their GHINs

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()