Golf In 3-D

Sports fans are staying home more than ever. According to Nielsen, ratings for major sporting events have been strong this year, including the record set for the most-watched Super Bowl ever. Events such as The NBA Finals, The Stanley Cup, and World Cup have all drawn record TV audiences this year as both the slumping economy and HDTVs have given fans reason to stay at home. Even if the economy improves, however, expect this trend to continue. Why battle the prices and the crowds when you can sit peacefully and conveniently on your couch, cocktail in hand, alongside friends and family? According to a Nielsen study done in April, an estimated 52 percent of American homes had HDTVs and were actively using them. That compares with 33 percent a year earlier and 17 percent in 2008. And as John Rowady pointed out in a recent MediaPost article, hardcore sports fans are already hungry for the next level – 3D.

"3D is all about improving the consumer experience at home. And like all things in sports, advancements in technology are welcome only if they look and feel authentic. While there's a lot of room to grow, there's no doubt that 3D makes the experience of watching an event more realistic."

And of all sports, golf and its hardcore fans have arguably the most to gain from 3-D technology. Given the “touring” nature of the sport, most golf fans catch the action at home. And so the sport relies heavily on its network broadcasts to bring the tour to its fans. Alongside HD, networks have recently invested in new technologies like swingvision and shot-tracking technology to keep fans engaged. And it’s been great. But 3-D is positioned to revolutionize how we experience golf. The importance of understanding a distance or a slope can’t be emphasized enough, and the extra depth afforded by 3-D imagery takes this understanding right to your la-z-boy. A course’s natural, rolling landscapes - filled with trees, sand traps and lakes positioned at various depths - are visually conducive to a 3-D broadcast. In addition to medicinal marijuana patients, this experience should be highly appreciated by golf fans and wildly entertaining to non/prospective fans.

We’re obviously not there yet, but it’s only a matter of time until the technology is perfected and the cost to advertise in 3-D becomes worth it. A recent WallStreet Journal article suggested that the cost to advertize in 3-D is 30-40% more than a traditional tv ad. But if the growth of HDTVs is any indicator, it shouldn’t take long for manufacturers and consumers to catch up. If they aren't already, executives at CBS, NBC, the Golf Channel and the Back 9 Network should be all over this.

Personal Branding and Tiger's Online Brand Buzz

Corporations are constantly paying large sums on money to be associated with elite athletes. Is it really worth forking over that much money? It must be. Why else would they do it? In the past ten years, we've seen more and more athletes establishing a personal brand. Personal branding leans on the tenant that success - either social or economic - comes from self-packaging. From Michael Jordan to Tiger Woods, we've seen the power of personal branding in sports as billion dollar companies shape their marketing campaigns around just a few individual personalities. These campaigns have lasting impressions and continue to engage multiple generations of consumers. Michael Jordan hasn't played basketball in eight years, but if you type in the word "air" into Google's search bar, the first suggestion/drop down is "Air Jordan." For us consumers, it's sometimes less about the product than it is about the person pushing the product.

In his heyday (before last November), Tiger Woods was perhaps the most lucrative personal brand ever and we understood why. He was the best. His crisp, clean, diverse image brought youthful dominance to a wrinkled sport. He was a no-brainer for marketers and ad agencies alike. But what about now? How is he being perceived after all of....THAT. Can he still demand that “billion-dollar athlete” respect from advertisers? Internet Marketing guru Jeff Bullas addressed this very question, specifically in terms of social media and the online community's perception of Tiger.

In comparing Tiger’s "Brand Buzz" to the buzz of the number one global brand, Coca Cola, he found that Tiger generated 437% more buzz on social media and online than the #1 brand in the world in a 24 hour period. Incredible. In short, Bullas suggested little has changed and that sponsors would be wise to keep Tiger in their foursome as even the world’s #1 brand couldn’t keep up. The analysis demonstrates that Tiger is still is one of the world’s largest athletes and most widely discussed icons. He generates a ton of buzz and can swing demand for product. But wait a second. There's two problems with Bullas analysis: First, he snagged his data just two days after Tiger announced his return to competitive golf at Augusta, when Tiger’s trending online had peaked. Second, his data doesn’t take into account the “sentiment” of said buzz. Sponsors aren't going to stick around simply because there's a lot of buzz. They need positive buzz. Just ask Accenture, Gatorade or BP.

So now it’s the middle of June, and most of Tiger's transgressional dust in the blogosphere has settled. Deciding to take Tiger's buzz-temperature myself, I included a “sentiment” metric as well as a comparison of Tiger’s buzz to that of other elite athletes (just for kicks). The analysis comes directly from socialmention.com. While it doesn't contain complex algorithms and may not be as credible as Nielsen. However, this convenient analytical tool does a fine job of capturing the volume and mood of a brands' online buzz.
Not surprisingly, the buzz about Tiger has retreated to more natural levels, but now carrying a more negative sentiment than most of his fellow athletes. *(See below for an explanation of the metrics.) Tiger still has huge reach (more than any golfer ever) and when an athlete is discussed as much as the #1 global brand, it's no wonder why sponsorship dollars are so huge. He appears to be on par with elite athletes in terms of buzz volume (reach, strength and passion) as well as mention frequency. On the other hand, the 3:1 Sentiment ratio suggests the sponsors that dropped him are justified in doing so. This sentiment could explain why we haven't seen Tiger sign on with a new sponsor. Companies could be waiting both his swing and his sentiment to return to form. Then again, with the divorce still being settled, Team Tiger probably halted all business negotiations.

Companies that don’t value buzz sentiment as much as they value pure buzz volume will be lining up to carry Tiger's clubs in no time. We'll see who he chooses to align himself with. Sooner or later, he'll start winning golf tournaments, but winning those lucrative sponsorships? I don't think he can return to that 'billion dollar athlete' until he's mentioned in a more positive light. At least that's what social media and the online community are saying.

-Via theflopshot.net

*Strength - Likelihood the brand is being discussed
Passion - Measure of the likelihood that individuals talking about your brand will do so repeatedly
Sentiment - Ratio of mentions that are generally positive to those that are generally negative
Reach - Measure of Influence; # of unique authors divided by total mentions

Have You Heard The Newsy?

I recently read about a startup called Newsy. Located in Columbia, MO - right across the street from Mizzou's School of Journalism - Newsy is the brainchild of Jim Spencer, a Mizzou alum and a former exec at AOL, NBC and AskJeeves. Most would call it a news aggregator in video form, but Newsy would prefer to be dubbed a news "analyzer." It attemps to address our frustrations with the possible biases of a single news source by painting the whole story with a number of different brushes. The folks at Newsy splice and dice video clips from multiple sources across the political spectrum and put it all together. Instead of flipping back and forth between FOX News and MSNBC, why not watch a condensed version of both? As a friend of mine might say, "Not too shabbs!" Take a look.....



While this is supposed to be a golf blog, I have to post something that was tangentially related to golf....Cougar was the best I could do.

Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com

Posting from Geoff Shackelford.com

This post is a follow up to a thread from Geoff Shakelford's blog discussing Steve Elling's Up and Down piece. You can see the full thread here.

I think both Steve E and BenSeattle touched on some the silver-lining surrounding this TW fiasco that many in the golfworld overlook: the groupthink tendencies of the game's hierarchy are prohibiting the game's organic growth that it so desperately needs. With all the eyes on the golf world, it's a huge opportunity to grow the game and capture a new audience. Filtering the media might ensure some degree of decency and integrity (which is fine), but the extent to which and how they have controlled the media and one's access to the game will undoubtedly keep potential golf consumers outside the ropes. It leaves a bad taste in people's mouths when the 'prince' doesn't have to answer the tough questions....Maybe I'm reading into it far too much, but I think it reminds people of all the reasons why they haven't picked up a golf club or watched on Sundays: it's a country-club sport where the game, the venues and its players are protected from the outside world. Does the game lose integrity when Tiger answers these questions? I'd argue it promotes integrity, if anything.
They might be protecting a product that's responsible for the game's growth the past ten years, but they're making a long-term mistake by turning fans away and clinging to their self-prescribed etiquettes and integrities. How do they plan to capture a progressive generation? These are their future consumers. Adapt a little. I wonder how - and to what extent - they would filter the media if we were in Phoenix this week. Some of this needs to change or we'll have all these new courses with no one to play them. Hey, at least it won't be backed up!

Greetings, gophers!

Greetings, gophers!

This is the first of many entries where we will aggregate "premium" content that both the casual golfer and golfing fanatic care to learn when it comes to this gloriously frustrating game. We love to watch it, we love to play it and we love to talk about it. Thus, we've decided share it all as a public service to you.

We will present all things golf in a way that will distract you from work, help you look forward to your weekend tee time and keep you informed on the game we all love and hate. Whether its setting your fantasy lineup, checking in on Natalie's gulbis (left), or figuring out how to get on at Bethpage, we will be scouring the depths of the Internet to consolidate all that is awesome in the game of golf.

Our contributors are scattered across the country from New York to Chicago to Minnesota to Los Angeles, attending tournaments whenever we can to trail Tiger in his conquests - on and off the course - and to talk during Sabbatini's backswing. While we maintain extraordinary respect for the game and follow every move on tour, we appreciate a dangerous case of "the shanks," rigging your golf cart to go faster, and hitting golf balls into the ocean. Beginning this week at Bay Hill, we will provide our fantasy analysis/picks that we'd put up against anyone of the 'experts' at Yahoo! or CBSsportsline.

Golf fans may say that few things are better in life than Tiger's Chip on 16 at The Masters (2005). We would argue that either flatulence during your buddy's backswing or Bill Murray's improv scenes in Caddyshack are close seconds. We hope to bring you a royal and ancient dosage of all of the above here at TheFlopShot.Net.

Tiger, we're gonna miss you at Bay Hill this year.

-TheFlopShot.Net
P.S. Given that we have day jobs, we appreciate your patience while we get this clunky site up to par.