07.29.08
With Tiger Out, Less People Watch Golf
The presence of Greg Norman on the leaderboard apparently couldn’t offset the absence of Tiger Woods.
ABC’s final-round coverage of the British Open on Sunday earned a 3.5 overnight rating, a 15 percent drop from last year (4.1). Padraig Harrington won both years, although last year’s numbers were bolstered by his four-hole playoff against Sergio Garcia. In a report issued last month, Magna’s Brian Hughes notes that the average household rating for four non-major events Woods participated in this year was double that of non-Woods PGA events, a 3.6 compared to a 1.8.
All told, viewership of the majors may hit its lowest since 1997, when Tiger first dominated the Masters. The networks have responded by extensively covering Tiger’s injury during majors, in an effort to generate more interest.
Will you tune in despite Tiger’s absence?
WaterTrap said,
August 1, 2008 at 8:31 pm
While Woods is arguably the best golfer of all time, there is a plethora of skill and talent in the tour.
Lookm how many first winds we have this year?
Overall I think it is the best thig for golf. Its making throwing a few bucks on a tourny far more difficult.
I find my interest is higher.
USAPatriot said,
August 2, 2008 at 2:14 am
I watch more when Tiger’s not playing. There’s more players playing to win rather than playing for second place. Life goes on even without Tiger…people just don’t know it yet. -Rod-
jayb01 said,
August 3, 2008 at 8:27 pm
USAPatriot, agreed. If you’re a fan of the game, you want to see golf shots. I actually enjoy Tiger-less fields because there’s no bias and you see a lot more action. NBC in my opinion was always the worst, as I’d see an 8 minute long clip of upwards of 20 some Tiger Woods shots and analysis before they’d even flash a leaderboard. Production value is important, but good God it irritates me when I try to watch golf and there’s always some story going on… I give the guy credit for being the premier player, but his presence changes the dynamics of any event. Take Tiger out, there is no backstory of chasing dynasty, destiny, etc., there is no constant coverage of him filling out a scorecard, and you see a lot more shots hit live prior to the leaders hitting 17.
USAPatriot said,
August 11, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Did anyone read golf.com’s article today? You can read it here:
http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1831670,00.html
The main complaint, when you read the bottom line anyway, is that the people (other than the players) who were getting paid big bucks were now getting far less without Tiger in the picture. According to the PGA, viewership is down by half, and viewers equals advertising dollars.
I ask myself, are all of those people no longer watching, are they fans of the game or fans of Tiger? What exactly is so good about the same guy winning week after week? He’s moody, broody, often violently lacking in sportsmanship skills and his interactions with the fans, what little there is, is geared more towards what they can do for him, not what he can do for them.
The PGA tourney was great, right up until Saturday’s rain delay put Tiger on the rerun track front and center. I walked away until Sunday. I do wish Sergio had won, but oh well…
Golf can survive without Tiger. If golf has experienced a boon due to Tiger, then maybe a game without him merely restores golf to it’s natural place. At the very least, his absence will allow more talent to come out where the rest of us can see it. -Rod-