Options
TV ratings show Tom Watson not a compelling story for many viewers
Michigan
Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
From USA Today:
The numbers that form TV ratings are cool, rational and precise. In other words, they don't have a heart.
How else can we explain that what almost became the sports story of the year, if not the century so far — 59-year-old Tom Watson's magical bid for the British Open title on Sunday — received a lower overnight television rating than the final day of the 2007 Open, which featured a playoff between Padraig Harrington and Sergio Garcia?
You read that right. Padraig-Sergio in 2007 outdrew Tom Watson in 2009 on American television sets. It's an apples-to-apples comparison, on the same network at the same time on the same day two years apart.
Who would blame Baby Boomers if they burst into tears after digesting this piece of information? Meanwhile, their kids and grandchildren must have been thinking: If only Tom Watson were a video game.
Here are the raw numbers: In 2007, ABC's Sunday telecast of the Open drew a 4.1 overnight rating. In 2009, the rating was 3.9. That's a 5% drop, not the end of the world, but considering the way the Watson story developed and was splashed all over the Sunday newspapers, it's a bit of a shock to see that the public viewed him not as a crossover cultural story at all, but as just another golf story, and not that big of one at that.
Or perhaps they got confused and thought Watson played soccer, kind of like David Beckham. Becks has been sending Americans running from their TV sets for the past two years.
Whatever the case, 96% of the nation didn't care enough about the man who could have become the oldest golf major winner in history to bother to watch.
"I am amazed at the ratings," said Richard Lapchick, chairman of the DeVos Sport Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida. "Everyone I talked to said they wanted to watch and see if he won. Obviously, in hindsight, I must have been speaking to most of the people who watched."
"I'm very disappointed," said David Carter, executive director of the Sports Business Institute at the University of Southern California. "I thought 59 was supposed to be the new 39. He didn't come out of nowhere, so there were multiple days to promote the story: 'Here comes something special.' That said, if I'm a younger fan who has grown up with new media, well, maybe Tom Watson and all the nostalgia doesn't end up to be that big of a deal."
The only thing missing from the Sunday telecast, other than millions of new viewers, was Tiger Woods. His was not an insignificant absence. He missed the 36-hole cut and was not allowed to play on the weekend, so he wasn't there on Sunday to save the ratings. He did play on the weekend in 2007, finishing tied for 12th, five strokes behind the leaders.
"Tiger not making the cut is a signal to a substantial number of TV viewers that the tournament is over," said sports television consultant Neal Pilson, former president of CBS Sports. "Tiger brings an audience to golf that normally wouldn't follow golf."
When he's there, he's a magnet who attracts people to the game even after he has walked off the 18th green. Hence the 2007 rating; let's not give Sergio or Padraig too much credit for that.
"Tiger is the only crossover star that golf has," said Orin Starn, professor of cultural anthropology at Duke University. "He's the only person who can pull in 'Should I watch or not?' viewers, even when there's a fabulous story like Tom Watson out there."
The U.S. sporting public was presented with a choice last weekend that it doesn't often face. It was given the most compelling sports story of the year, but one that didn't involve a household sports name for anyone under 35. To follow that story, fans had to watch a golf tournament without the sports world's leading personality. And, by and large, they chose not to do that.
Can there be any doubt that our sports culture is all about the cult of personality these days?
"There are a whole generation of sports fans who have no idea who Tom Watson was," Starn said. "Yet here's a story that involves emotion and aging and so many other things we care about in our country. I found it to be a much more interesting story than Tiger, a fantasy tournament for the older generation. But did anybody 30 or 40 really give a darn if Tom Watson won?"
According to those cold, cruel numbers, I'm guessing apparently not.
The numbers that form TV ratings are cool, rational and precise. In other words, they don't have a heart.
How else can we explain that what almost became the sports story of the year, if not the century so far — 59-year-old Tom Watson's magical bid for the British Open title on Sunday — received a lower overnight television rating than the final day of the 2007 Open, which featured a playoff between Padraig Harrington and Sergio Garcia?
You read that right. Padraig-Sergio in 2007 outdrew Tom Watson in 2009 on American television sets. It's an apples-to-apples comparison, on the same network at the same time on the same day two years apart.
Who would blame Baby Boomers if they burst into tears after digesting this piece of information? Meanwhile, their kids and grandchildren must have been thinking: If only Tom Watson were a video game.
Here are the raw numbers: In 2007, ABC's Sunday telecast of the Open drew a 4.1 overnight rating. In 2009, the rating was 3.9. That's a 5% drop, not the end of the world, but considering the way the Watson story developed and was splashed all over the Sunday newspapers, it's a bit of a shock to see that the public viewed him not as a crossover cultural story at all, but as just another golf story, and not that big of one at that.
Or perhaps they got confused and thought Watson played soccer, kind of like David Beckham. Becks has been sending Americans running from their TV sets for the past two years.
Whatever the case, 96% of the nation didn't care enough about the man who could have become the oldest golf major winner in history to bother to watch.
"I am amazed at the ratings," said Richard Lapchick, chairman of the DeVos Sport Business Management Program at the University of Central Florida. "Everyone I talked to said they wanted to watch and see if he won. Obviously, in hindsight, I must have been speaking to most of the people who watched."
"I'm very disappointed," said David Carter, executive director of the Sports Business Institute at the University of Southern California. "I thought 59 was supposed to be the new 39. He didn't come out of nowhere, so there were multiple days to promote the story: 'Here comes something special.' That said, if I'm a younger fan who has grown up with new media, well, maybe Tom Watson and all the nostalgia doesn't end up to be that big of a deal."
The only thing missing from the Sunday telecast, other than millions of new viewers, was Tiger Woods. His was not an insignificant absence. He missed the 36-hole cut and was not allowed to play on the weekend, so he wasn't there on Sunday to save the ratings. He did play on the weekend in 2007, finishing tied for 12th, five strokes behind the leaders.
"Tiger not making the cut is a signal to a substantial number of TV viewers that the tournament is over," said sports television consultant Neal Pilson, former president of CBS Sports. "Tiger brings an audience to golf that normally wouldn't follow golf."
When he's there, he's a magnet who attracts people to the game even after he has walked off the 18th green. Hence the 2007 rating; let's not give Sergio or Padraig too much credit for that.
"Tiger is the only crossover star that golf has," said Orin Starn, professor of cultural anthropology at Duke University. "He's the only person who can pull in 'Should I watch or not?' viewers, even when there's a fabulous story like Tom Watson out there."
The U.S. sporting public was presented with a choice last weekend that it doesn't often face. It was given the most compelling sports story of the year, but one that didn't involve a household sports name for anyone under 35. To follow that story, fans had to watch a golf tournament without the sports world's leading personality. And, by and large, they chose not to do that.
Can there be any doubt that our sports culture is all about the cult of personality these days?
"There are a whole generation of sports fans who have no idea who Tom Watson was," Starn said. "Yet here's a story that involves emotion and aging and so many other things we care about in our country. I found it to be a much more interesting story than Tiger, a fantasy tournament for the older generation. But did anybody 30 or 40 really give a darn if Tom Watson won?"
According to those cold, cruel numbers, I'm guessing apparently not.
0
Comments
Buying Vintage, all sports.
Buying Woody Hayes, Les Horvath, Vic Janowicz, and Jesse Owens autographed items
on the relative popularity of what is going on.
who these guys are.
Lets face golf is just not exciting anymore. Tiger wins anything that doesn't invlove hitting it down the middle. What Watson did will never be done again. For most
people when Tiger is gone, they have no intrest because no other player on the course means anything. Does anyone really care about Stuart Cink? no
There is Tiger and there is Phil and a few hot golf chicks but other than that who really cares, major or not.
KEvin