examines the financial realities of the average LPGA Tour player

[Oh Hi Carl]

4 hours ago, 2bGood said:

The stats would back you up on this. You would think that ratio of Women to Men watching a sport would go up when it is a women sport, but it the opposite. 

 

 

 

My daughter is a D1 athlete in a major conference.  My previous post about women not supporting women's sports and this post are based on many hours that I have spent discussing gender equity in sports with my daughter.  We attended many women's college games in the sports she played in high school, and our family attends most of her games now that we can drive to (pre-Covid).  We also attended local college games in women's sports that she didn't play.  Her games are attended by about 100 people who are family of the players and maybe a local youth girls team with some parents.  Often there is a double header with the men's team immediately after her game.  The attendance goes from about 100 to about 500-1000.  The difference is that many men show up who aren't parents of players but who played the sport themselves in HS or college.  They still go out and support the sport.  But there were actually more women playing the sport in college in the last 20 years than men.  So where are the women who played the sport in college when the local women's teams are playing?  They're not there, and they don't don't catch the games on TV either (again, generally; yes, some do).  I'm sure those women are doing valuable things like working, spending time with their families, etc.  But the fact is they're not there and they're not watching on TV.  Likewise, they don't attend the games at the pro level either.  If they did, there would be more money from sponsors and the players would be paid more.  Same with golf.  If in 2022 (hopefully post-Covid), the attendance at LPGA events magically jumped to PGA levels and if the TV viewership magically jumped to PGA levels, what do you think would happen to sponsorships and purse sizes?  The sponsors would pay them more and the purses would be bigger.  The people who want more equality in pay for female golfers and other female athletes need to support them by attending college games/matches, watching them on TV, commenting on message boards like this one (which gets about one comment for every 100 comments about the PGA), following the athletes on social media (not just the sexy ones) and commenting on their posts.  That's the stuff that will move the needle.  Otherwise, nothing will change.        

Edited December 2, 2020 by Sonja Henie

[CAT GOLFER]

19 minutes ago, Sonja Henie said:

My daughter is a D1 athlete in a major conference.  My previous post about women not supporting women's sports and this post are based on many hours that I have spent discussing gender equity in sports with my daughter.  We attended many women's college games in the sports she played in high school, and our family attends most of her games now that we can drive to (pre-Covid).  We also attended local college games in women's sports that she didn't play.  Her games are attended by about 100 people who are family of the players and maybe a local youth girls team with some parents.  Often there is a double header with the men's team immediately after her game.  The attendance goes from about 100 to about 500-1000.  The difference is that many men show up who aren't parents of players but who played the sport themselves in HS or college.  They still go out and support the sport.  But there were actually more women playing the sport in college in the last 20 years than men.  So where are the women who played the sport in college when the local women's teams are playing?  They're not there, and they don't don't catch the games on TV either (again, generally; yes, some do).  I'm sure those women are doing valuable things like working, spending time with their families, etc.  But the fact is they're not there and they're not watching on TV.  Likewise, they don't attend the games at the pro level either.  If they did, there would be more money from sponsors and the players would be paid more.  Same with golf.  If in 2022 (hopefully post-Covid), the attendance at LPGA events magically jumped to PGA levels and if the TV viewership magically jumped to PGA levels, what do you think would happen to sponsorships and purse sizes?  The sponsors would pay them more and the purses would be bigger.  The people who want more equality in pay for female golfers and other female athletes need to support them by attending college games/matches, watching them on TV, commenting on message boards like this one (which gets about one comment for every 100 comments about the PGA), following the athletes on social media (not just the sexy ones) and commenting on their posts.  That's the stuff that will move the needle.  Otherwise, nothing will change.        

The answer can’t be the LPGA prize money should be the same as PGA prize money....just because. Money follows 👀‘s.

Edited December 2, 2020 by CAT GOLFER

[Hawkeye77]

Look at wrx.  We have a sub forum dedicated to the LPGA Tour, many passionate fans. But looking in this morning I find it more than a little ironic that a tournament thread is started for the U.S. Women's Open two weeks ahead of when tournament threads are normally started and the excuse to get that tournament thread posted first is basically that nobody is playing in the Volunteers of America so it won't need a thread. So let’s set the example this thread calls for in our own house. 

Edited December 3, 2020 by Hawkeye77

[Ironman_32]

Its like making blockbuster movie, you need to hit all four walls (men, women, children, old people). The PGA Tour hits all four, the LPGA tour barely hits one. The PGA can at least lean into when different people win; for example, everyone is a Tiger Fan, some people watch when Rory wins, but someone else might be more of a Brooks fan. It trends. 

 

What the LPGA tour hasn't done well is diversify its product. All has been said above, can you name anything close to the top 10 players in womens golf? Cards on the table, biggest problems are

 

1. LPGA missing personalities/story lines. Sometimes they have one or two women with it, but thats it. 

1a. Some of the more well known players aren't even on tour. Annika, Lorena, Wie. Angela Stanford won last week at 43 they talked about her like she was  dinosaur. 

2. Women tend to retire to start families, men don't. Hurts stars.

3. Nothing really historical on tour. Does anyone know who has the most majors?

 

[Raving Shanker]

2 hours ago, Ironman_32 said:

Its like making blockbuster movie, you need to hit all four walls (men, women, children, old people). The PGA Tour hits all four, the LPGA tour barely hits one. The PGA can at least lean into when different people win; for example, everyone is a Tiger Fan, some people watch when Rory wins, but someone else might be more of a Brooks fan. It trends. 

 

What the LPGA tour hasn't done well is diversify its product. All has been said above, can you name anything close to the top 10 players in womens golf? Cards on the table, biggest problems are

 

1. LPGA missing personalities/story lines. Sometimes they have one or two women with it, but thats it. 

1a. Some of the more well known players aren't even on tour. Annika, Lorena, Wie. Angela Stanford won last week at 43 they talked about her like she was  dinosaur. 

2. Women tend to retire to start families, men don't. Hurts stars.

3. Nothing really historical on tour. Does anyone know who has the most majors?

 

This is such a strange post to put into an LPGA discussion forum. Imagine a sport I know zero about, perhaps snooker or something. So i wander onto a snooker forum and start telling them what is wrong with their game. "I don't even know a single player" I boast, like it means something.

 

"...can you name anything close to the top 10 players in womens golf?" YES, and I am sure everyone else on this board can.

 

1. Missing personalities? Hell no - you just don't know them.

1a. Just like Jack, Arnie and Tiger (almost).

2. This is true, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Losing Ochoa at the peak of her powers hurt, for sure - but that was an exceptional one.

3. Again, YES! And more importantly, I know has won the last 30 or so majors.

 

What does "diversifying product" even mean?

[jobin]

Women have better things to do with their lives than watch TV, esp. Sport is all about winning, a very testosterone driven goal. 

I've found women are generally more social driven than competitive.  Winning means defeat for someone.

[nsxguy]

On 12/2/2020 at 4:27 PM, Sonja Henie said:

My daughter is a D1 athlete in a major conference.  My previous post about women not supporting women's sports and this post are based on many hours that I have spent discussing gender equity in sports with my daughter.  We attended many women's college games in the sports she played in high school, and our family attends most of her games now that we can drive to (pre-Covid).  We also attended local college games in women's sports that she didn't play.  Her games are attended by about 100 people who are family of the players and maybe a local youth girls team with some parents.  Often there is a double header with the men's team immediately after her game.  The attendance goes from about 100 to about 500-1000.  The difference is that many men show up who aren't parents of players but who played the sport themselves in HS or college.  They still go out and support the sport.  But there were actually more women playing the sport in college in the last 20 years than men.  So where are the women who played the sport in college when the local women's teams are playing?  They're not there, and they don't don't catch the games on TV either (again, generally; yes, some do).  I'm sure those women are doing valuable things like working, spending time with their families, etc.  But the fact is they're not there and they're not watching on TV.  Likewise, they don't attend the games at the pro level either.  If they did, there would be more money from sponsors and the players would be paid more.  Same with golf.  If in 2022 (hopefully post-Covid), the attendance at LPGA events magically jumped to PGA levels and if the TV viewership magically jumped to PGA levels, what do you think would happen to sponsorships and purse sizes?  The sponsors would pay them more and the purses would be bigger.  The people who want more equality in pay for female golfers and other female athletes need to support them by attending college games/matches, watching them on TV, commenting on message boards like this one (which gets about one comment for every 100 comments about the PGA), following the athletes on social media (not just the sexy ones) and commenting on their posts.  That's the stuff that will move the needle.  Otherwise, nothing will change.        

 

Sorry, couldn't get through the whole post.

 

You might try paragraph breaks going forward - even on a phone. 

[Ironman_32]

7 hours ago, Raving Shanker said:

This is such a strange post to put into an LPGA discussion forum. Imagine a sport I know zero about, perhaps snooker or something. So i wander onto a snooker forum and start telling them what is wrong with their game. "I don't even know a single player" I boast, like it means something.

 

"...can you name anything close to the top 10 players in womens golf?" YES, and I am sure everyone else on this board can.

 

1. Missing personalities? Hell no - you just don't know them.

1a. Just like Jack, Arnie and Tiger (almost).

2. This is true, but I don't see it as a huge problem. Losing Ochoa at the peak of her powers hurt, for sure - but that was an exceptional one.

3. Again, YES! And more importantly, I know has won the last 30 or so majors.

 

What does "diversifying product" even mean?

First, I wasn't trying to boast, I was making a point. 

This is golf forum, most of us here know and talk about golf. However, if you want a tour/sport to be successful, you have to appeal to the average fan. 

 

For example, if you went to an NFL tailgate with a list of the top five five male golfers (dustin, rahm, JT, rory, bryson) and gave people a list of just names, how many people do you think would correctly ID them as golfers. Now take the top five LPGA and do the same experiment (jin young ko, nelly norda, sung park, nasa Hataoka, danielle kang), how many people do you think could ID that list. There's a reason one of those groups play for checks with more zeroes than the other. 

 

To my points:

1. "you just don't know them"- thats the whole point. Its not that they don't have personalities, the LPGA does a horrible job of separating them. The PGA is the definition of " we got a guy for that" science guy- Brooks, the GOAT-Tiger, good ole' boy- Kisner, for example. 

1a. Im watching the US Womens Open 2014 replay right now, during commercial they have one with Cheyenne Woods, she's made the cut in 3 majors...3. No top 30s in those three. No LPGA tour wins. Two cuts made this year, three last year. Yes, Jack, Player, Tiger, still have commercials, but so does Rahm, DJ, JT, Rory, Bryson, Bubba.

2. We agree on this, but I think it is a huge problem. We all know you win a couple majors thats world class, so you can't win every major. But on the PGA tour, the guys are still around. For example, Rory hasn't won one since 2014, yet they talk about him every major. When there's not story lines people won't watch; players need to stick around. Where's Paula Creamer/Morgan Pressel/Wie/Ko/Lewis/Lincicome?

3. Again, a decent percentage of sports fans could probably tell you if asked "who won the last Masters" about a month after, just from watching sports center. Do you think thatll happen with the Women's US Open?

 

"Diversified products" means exacting what it says. The players are the product, different fans like different players. You're a Tiger or a Phil Guy; Jack or Arnie; a Peyton or a Brady; Magic or Bird; LeBron or Durant. But back to "we got a guy for that" the PGA has done pretty good job of separating who guys are.  

[miamistomp]

 The elephant in the room is the dominance of Asian players who are not familiar to an american audience

[Oh Hi Carl]

14 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry, couldn't get through the whole post.

 

You might try paragraph breaks going forward - even on a phone. 

Your comment says much more about you than it does me.  

Edited December 9, 2020 by Sonja Henie
update

[golfortennis]

14 minutes ago, Sonja Henie said:

Your comment says much more about you than it does me.  

 

In fairness, he does have a point.  It makes it a difficult read.  Would help quite a bit.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Sonja Henie said:

Your comment says much more about you than it does me.  

 

I agree.

 

You're not the first person who's gotten snarky over a good suggestion.

 

I should know by now,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and remember,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[2bGood]

On 12/8/2020 at 12:33 PM, Raving Shanker said:

This is such a strange post to put into an LPGA discussion forum. Imagine a sport I know zero about, perhaps snooker or something. So i wander onto a snooker forum and start telling them what is wrong with their game. "I don't even know a single player" I boast, like it means something.

I am not sure this is really a valid comparison. It is pretty safe to assume that everyone on this forum knows a fair amount about Golf. The LPGA is not a separate sport, but a subsection of golf. 

 

It would be more appropriate to say " Imagine a sport I know allot about, perhaps snooker or something. So i wander onto a snooker sub forum focused on Seniors Snooker and start telling them what is wrong with their game. "I don't even know a single player" I boast, like it means something.

 

If I am the LPGA Commissioner I am actually very interested in what Golf fans think is wrong with our league.

Edited December 9, 2020 by 2bGood

[GSDriver]

Top performers in most professions, especially sports, earn the most.

 

I'm sure the pre-PGA Tour members experience some difficult financial and related challenges too.  Even those struggling to make cuts on PGA tour need sponsors, independent wealth, or other sources of revenue.

 

Chase your dream, be happy.....or choose another career, no one forces someone to play golf, or any sport for a living....life is hard sometimes.

[Raving Shanker]

17 hours ago, Ironman_32 said:

First, I wasn't trying to boast, I was making a point. 

This is golf forum, most of us here know and talk about golf. However, if you want a tour/sport to be successful, you have to appeal to the average fan. 

 

For example, if you went to an NFL tailgate with a list of the top five five male golfers (dustin, rahm, JT, rory, bryson) and gave people a list of just names, how many people do you think would correctly ID them as golfers. Now take the top five LPGA and do the same experiment (jin young ko, nelly norda, sung park, nasa Hataoka, danielle kang), how many people do you think could ID that list. There's a reason one of those groups play for checks with more zeroes than the other. 

 

To my points:

1. "you just don't know them"- thats the whole point. Its not that they don't have personalities, the LPGA does a horrible job of separating them. The PGA is the definition of " we got a guy for that" science guy- Brooks, the GOAT-Tiger, good ole' boy- Kisner, for example. 

1a. Im watching the US Womens Open 2014 replay right now, during commercial they have one with Cheyenne Woods, she's made the cut in 3 majors...3. No top 30s in those three. No LPGA tour wins. Two cuts made this year, three last year. Yes, Jack, Player, Tiger, still have commercials, but so does Rahm, DJ, JT, Rory, Bryson, Bubba.

2. We agree on this, but I think it is a huge problem. We all know you win a couple majors thats world class, so you can't win every major. But on the PGA tour, the guys are still around. For example, Rory hasn't won one since 2014, yet they talk about him every major. When there's not story lines people won't watch; players need to stick around. Where's Paula Creamer/Morgan Pressel/Wie/Ko/Lewis/Lincicome?

3. Again, a decent percentage of sports fans could probably tell you if asked "who won the last Masters" about a month after, just from watching sports center. Do you think thatll happen with the Women's US Open?

 

"Diversified products" means exacting what it says. The players are the product, different fans like different players. You're a Tiger or a Phil Guy; Jack or Arnie; a Peyton or a Brady; Magic or Bird; LeBron or Durant. But back to "we got a guy for that" the PGA has done pretty good job of separating who guys are.  

Well, I actually agree with most of this. But your position changed subtly between posts from "the LPGA doesn't have good stories" to "the LPGA is not (successfully) selling good stories".  The 2nd point is obviously true, as that is what the whole thread is about! It is trying to do this though, just not finding a mass audience. The LPGA DOES have its "guys for that", but again, perhaps you don't know them. It doesn't have a "that science guy" exactly, as de Chambeau is utterly unique, but it has its range of types who go about it differently. Just take a look at the US Open thread to see us fans poring over the possibilities. It's an exciting product, just not widely known.

 

ps Ko, Lincicome and Lewis are all well in the mix for tomorrow's US Open, since you asked where they are.

[Holy Moses]

20 hours ago, miamistomp said:

 The elephant in the room is the dominance of Asian players who are not familiar to an american audience

I don't think having a bunch of American stars would help. The average person just doesn't really like to watch women's golf. 

[Golf Dino]

I was hoping to enjoy the USWO this week/weekend, but I thought I should jump in here and share some information regarding women's sports and viewership. 

 

The Nielsen research group, the company that became famous for its namesake television ratings, conducted some research within the last 2 - 2.5 years on women's sports, and audience preferences.  

 

Their research indicated that approximately 84% of respondents indicated a strong desire to watch women's sporting events (broadcast, streaming etc.), but the basic problem came down to the amount of programming available to fill that need.  What Nielsen found was that only about 4% of programming was dedicated for women's sports.  The rest was all for men's sports.   

 

The upshot of it all is that until networks, etc. start waking up to this programming gap, the audience numbers for women's sports, of which women's golf and tennis were two of the biggest benefactors, will remain at the very low end of the percentage of viewers.  

 

It is a classical "catch-22" situation.  Women's Golf will struggle to grow its "television" or video audience until there is more programming hours available on a regular basis.  In many respects, women's golf is similar to the founding of the Golf Channel.  As Arnold and Mark McCormack were fond of saying, is that their business models for the Golf Channel were not supportive of a standalone network dedicated solely to golf.  It took vision and initiative and someone with strong skills in persuasion to fund it and to beat the paths to various sponsors doors to buy advertising, etc.   

 

Women's golf is very much in a similar spot.  It is one of the few sports that has a built-in worldwide audience and set of players to capitalize.  Anyway, I share this information with you in the hopes that it will lead to more productive discussion and dialogue. 

 

 

[nsxguy]

28 minutes ago, Golf Dino said:

I was hoping to enjoy the USWO this week/weekend, but I thought I should jump in here and share some information regarding women's sports and viewership. 

 

The Nielsen research group, the company that became famous for its namesake television ratings, conducted some research within the last 2 - 2.5 years on women's sports, and audience preferences.  

 

Their research indicated that approximately 84% of respondents indicated a strong desire to watch women's sporting events (broadcast, streaming etc.), but the basic problem came down to the amount of programming available to fill that need.  What Nielsen found was that only about 4% of programming was dedicated for women's sports.  The rest was all for men's sports.   

 

The upshot of it all is that until networks, etc. start waking up to this programming gap, the audience numbers for women's sports, of which women's golf and tennis were two of the biggest benefactors, will remain at the very low end of the percentage of viewers.  

 

It is a classical "catch-22" situation.  Women's Golf will struggle to grow its "television" or video audience until there is more programming hours available on a regular basis.  In many respects, women's golf is similar to the founding of the Golf Channel.  As Arnold and Mark McCormack were fond of saying, is that their business models for the Golf Channel were not supportive of a standalone network dedicated solely to golf.  It took vision and initiative and someone with strong skills in persuasion to fund it and to beat the paths to various sponsors doors to buy advertising, etc.   

 

Women's golf is very much in a similar spot.  It is one of the few sports that has a built-in worldwide audience and set of players to capitalize.  Anyway, I share this information with you in the hopes that it will lead to more productive discussion and dialogue. 

 

 

 

Not a catch 22. You're talking cause and effect.

 

There's something really strange about this. Nielsen does all the ratings for TV, Nielsen runs this poll(?) and doesn't give any conclusion about why the 2 outcomes don't correlate.

 

You're saying there isn't enough women's golf on TV and that's why people aren't watching.

 

That's backwards. Poor ratings when it IS on is the reason there isn't more OF it on. Not the other way 'round. If the demand is there it'll be on

 

Where are these 84% of responders when women's sports ARE televised ? I think people are likely to give a politically correct response when they've got no (real) skin in the game and/or there's no downside to answering in such a way.

 

Then again, I suppose it could also be the way the poll(?) questions were asked. Not likely though IMO.

[Hawkeye77]

On 12/8/2020 at 6:13 PM, jobin said:

Women have better things to do with their lives than watch TV, esp. Sport is all about winning, a very testosterone driven goal. 

I've found women are generally more social driven than competitive.  Winning means defeat for someone.

 

Um . . . . you need to get out more.

[Holy Moses]

1 hour ago, Golf Dino said:

I was hoping to enjoy the USWO this week/weekend, but I thought I should jump in here and share some information regarding women's sports and viewership. 

 

The Nielsen research group, the company that became famous for its namesake television ratings, conducted some research within the last 2 - 2.5 years on women's sports, and audience preferences.  

 

Their research indicated that approximately 84% of respondents indicated a strong desire to watch women's sporting events (broadcast, streaming etc.), but the basic problem came down to the amount of programming available to fill that need.  What Nielsen found was that only about 4% of programming was dedicated for women's sports.  The rest was all for men's sports.   

 

The upshot of it all is that until networks, etc. start waking up to this programming gap, the audience numbers for women's sports, of which women's golf and tennis were two of the biggest benefactors, will remain at the very low end of the percentage of viewers.  

 

It is a classical "catch-22" situation.  Women's Golf will struggle to grow its "television" or video audience until there is more programming hours available on a regular basis.  In many respects, women's golf is similar to the founding of the Golf Channel.  As Arnold and Mark McCormack were fond of saying, is that their business models for the Golf Channel were not supportive of a standalone network dedicated solely to golf.  It took vision and initiative and someone with strong skills in persuasion to fund it and to beat the paths to various sponsors doors to buy advertising, etc.   

 

Women's golf is very much in a similar spot.  It is one of the few sports that has a built-in worldwide audience and set of players to capitalize.  Anyway, I share this information with you in the hopes that it will lead to more productive discussion and dialogue. 

 

 

Why does the 4% that is available have incredibly small ratings? The LPGA Tour has plenty of TV coverage. They just don’t have ratings.

[2bGood]

1 hour ago, Holy Moses said:

I don't think having a bunch of American stars would help. The average person just doesn't really like to watch women's golf. 

I think more Americans stars would help. You do see viewership spikes geographically based on a players area of origin. It is the "home team" principle. 

[2bGood]

32 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not a catch 22. You're talking cause and effect.

 

There's something really strange about this. Nielsen does all the ratings for TV, Nielsen runs this poll(?) and doesn't give any conclusion about why the 2 outcomes don't correlate.

 

You're saying there isn't enough women's golf on TV and that's why people aren't watching.

 

That's backwards. Poor ratings when it IS on is the reason there isn't more OF it on. Not the other way 'round. If the demand is there it'll be on

 

Where are these 84% of responders when women's sports ARE televised ? I think people are likely to give a politically correct response when they've got no (real) skin in the game and/or there's no downside to answering in such a way.

 

Then again, I suppose it could also be the way the poll(?) questions were asked. Not likely though IMO.

With the 10,000 channel universe now, everyone is looking for content. If the LPGA was able to draw viewers, they would have a home on some version of TV. 

 

Scary thought - a docudrama series about Junior College football players draws significantly more viewers than the LPGA. 

 

It would be interesting to see a last chance u style series not the LPGA. I would watch it. 

 

 

[Ironman_32]

End of the day you need "stars" to carry any type of league. That's what works, that's what the NBA and NFL have figured out, and to an extent, the PGA tour. 

 

Look at the NBA, they bulit up Jordan, after he retired, they struggled for a bit until Kobe came along, then LeBron. Tiger, just like those three guys, is someone most people know. Even if you dont watch golf, you know who Tiger Woods is. The PGA would prob be in the same situation if not for Tiger, they struggled after Jack retired. People want to see greatness, someone chasing history. I don't think the LPGA has that. To bring it all back, look how purses jumped from the Tiger effect. The LPGA needs a Tiger type player to come in and get people watching, boosting revenue and money for all. 

[MagicClassic407]

11 hours ago, Holy Moses said:

Why does the 4% that is available have incredibly small ratings? The LPGA Tour has plenty of TV coverage. They just don’t have ratings.

LPGA has plenty of TV coverage? Where? Golf Channel is NOT accessible to everyone. As we travel, at least half the hotels we utilize don't carry TGC. Sometimes we DQ them because of it. The major networks throw a few hours at the LPGA during majors and that's about it. How is it that women's golf transcends the men's tour in Korea? Someone needs to look at their recipe. 

[Argonne69]

There are several reasons why women's golf in Korea is so successful. For starters, Se Ri Pak became a superstar when she won the US Women's Open. A generation of young Korean girls dreamed of playing on the LPGA. So start with a large chunk of the population that's interested in playing golf. 

 

Second, the KLPGA and its two feeder series provides a fantastic learning ground for young professionals. The purses are large enough that a decent player can actually earn a living. By comparison the Symetra players starve. There are numerous tournaments, with the majority being three rounds. Since the country is relatively small, roughly the size of Indiana, travel expenses are smaller than in the US. A player doesn't have to be on the road for weeks at a time. Most are home every week. It's no surprise that 8 of the last 10 LPGA rookies of the year came from the KLPGA. 

 

With a steady stream of quality players gaining experience through regular tournament play, and a population in love with golf, you have the ingredients for success. 

 

Edited December 11, 2020 by Argonne69

[Bigarch]

I don't watch women's golf regularly but I enjoy it when I do.  I think I would watch more if I had more of a personal connection to a few of the players.  So here's a couple observational recommendations:

1.  When you put the graphic on the screen with the players name, hole, shot, etc., tell me the player's first and last name so that I can figure them out better.  I don't know if I am watching Hanna Kang, Jimin Kang, Danielle Kang, Haeji Kang, or Megan Khang.  This would help us casual viewers figure out who we are watching.

2.  Too many ballcaps pulled down over their faces.  Encourage the players to wear something different for a head covering.  I realize there are health issues involved, but visors show their faces better and also let us see their hair.  The hair itself is not important but it is a distinctive feature that would let us identify the players better and build a connection to them.  Side observation:  Most of the time on my tv screen when I can see their face, they are standing next to their caddie.  Put the players name on the front of the caddie bib along with the back so that casual viewers can identify the players better.

3.  Show more players with personality and flair regardless of their leaderboard position.  Let us build a connection to those players so that we always have someone to root for.  The PGA has no problem showing Tiger Woods no matter what position he is in. 

 

When I look at all 3 of these, I think Christina Kim.  Great golfer...full of personality...I can see her face AND her emotions.  I find myself sharing her emotions and pulling for her to do well.  She also has a unique hair style and clothing attire.  I always can recognize her and because of being able to "see" her...I root for her when she is on my tv screen.  Just my 2 cents FWIW.

 

[Fairway14]

Korn Ferry Tour, Champions Senior Tour, LPGA Tour have never had materially significant gallery numbers or television ratings. At best only one Tour (PGA) can sell some tickets and get t.v. viewers, but even the PGA Tour suffers if Tiger is not playing or contending.

 

[Fairway14]

1 hour ago, Argonne69 said:

There are several reasons why women's golf in Korea is so successful.

 

Mostly it is due to a willingness to learn sound fundamental technique and practice same.

[Ironman_32]

1 hour ago, Bigarch said:

I don't watch women's golf regularly but I enjoy it when I do.  I think I would watch more if I had more of a personal connection to a few of the players.  So here's a couple observational recommendations:

1.  When you put the graphic on the screen with the players name, hole, shot, etc., tell me the player's first and last name so that I can figure them out better.  I don't know if I am watching Hanna Kang, Jimin Kang, Danielle Kang, Haeji Kang, or Megan Khang.  This would help us casual viewers figure out who we are watching.

2.  Too many ballcaps pulled down over their faces.  Encourage the players to wear something different for a head covering.  I realize there are health issues involved, but visors show their faces better and also let us see their hair.  The hair itself is not important but it is a distinctive feature that would let us identify the players better and build a connection to them.  Side observation:  Most of the time on my tv screen when I can see their face, they are standing next to their caddie.  Put the players name on the front of the caddie bib along with the back so that casual viewers can identify the players better.

3.  Show more players with personality and flair regardless of their leaderboard position.  Let us build a connection to those players so that we always have someone to root for.  The PGA has no problem showing Tiger Woods no matter what position he is in. 

 

When I look at all 3 of these, I think Christina Kim.  Great golfer...full of personality...I can see her face AND her emotions.  I find myself sharing her emotions and pulling for her to do well.  She also has a unique hair style and clothing attire.  I always can recognize her and because of being able to "see" her...I root for her when she is on my tv screen.  Just my 2 cents FWIW.

 

 I think the problem lies in there is a disconnect between who is most popular and who is actually the best player. 

 

To me, it would be like taking the NFL, where the most popular players were someone such as Tebow or Johnny Manziel, but your players were actually O-linemen. I think that would be a tough sell to a network or sponsors, which is why there isn't a lot/as much money on the LPGA compared to the PGA. 

 

As stated, for what its worth, basically every tour struggles outside of the PGA. 

[Argonne69]

11 hours ago, Fairway14 said:

Mostly it is due to a willingness to learn sound fundamental technique and practice same.

 

Gotta disagree. There are tons of American and European players who have good fundamentals, and put in the hours. However, they have limited opportunities to play at the highest level. A Korean player has dozens of professional tournaments available each year. OTOH, college players in the U.S. will only play a handful of (amateur) events. The majority are match play. 

 

It's been a while since a player came out of the college ranks and had significant success in her first two seasons. The players coming from the KLPGA are basically seasoned vets by the time they hit the LPGA.