TrowBiz – Commentary 1
It has been a unique experience writing a column for Pro Shop Magazine for over 13 years now. One of the challenges in writing for a magazine are the deadlines. Not that I was ever on time submitting my articles but one of the challenges was writing about something that was current at the time of distribution. (Deadlines are usually 6-8 wks before release)
Follow up:
I might as well share something else with you about my writing. My publisher/editor/owner put the handcuffs on me and restricted me to 1,250 to 1,350 words per article. So in my own inimitable way…I’d write over 2,000 words…knowing that he would slice and dice it down to size. I’ve been whining for years that he’s been weeding out all my best shtick!
Anyway, initially I tried prognosticating. That worked a couple of times in the late 90’s. But for the past decade my crystal ball has been all fuzzy and kind of murky lookin’. I went the chronological and historical route but that lasted only one issue. Actually I’m lying…I snuck the same theme by you a couple of more times over the years when you weren’t paying attention!
In recent years, I swore up and down that I was never going to write a blog. Besides, I could barely put together five issues a year for Pro Shop Mag! My apprehension was that I didn’t understand them. Actually I understood them but was too lazy to read them all. There are so many of them. Some are very well written, informative and I really enjoy reading them. Others…well let’s just say, “boring!”
So let’s get the rules straight. If I bore you…let me know.
BTW…this is not a blog! It is a column! It is a commentary! As usual, the topics will be all over the place. Some subject matter will be current…some not so current. If you’ve got a topic that you’d like to share with us…bring it on! If you prefer to communicate in confidence that’s ok too. But if you prefer to hide behind one of those crazy comment or response blog names…send it somewhere else!
Untie your kimono…let’s hear what you’ve got?
Welcome to TrowBiz!
For years, I’ve listened to business gurus, neo-con fogies and those who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, drone on about the “entitlement mentality” of Canadians.
They hold their nose and choke on the phrase.
They deplore our dependence on government.
Follow up:
Society is for freebooters – a survival of the fittest.
As one neo-con conman once said: Canadians suffer a bad case of “homogovernmentitis.”
The past few years have exposed the softness of that argument.
The freebooters in the U.S. financial institutions nearly ruined the free world economy. Bald cupidity was given free rein.
Do Canadians have an entitlement mentality? You’re damn right we do.
And it’s way past time we started exercising it.
First of all, government really isn’t government – it’s you and me, the collective us.
Even non-government agencies, NGOs, are part of an all-for-one attitude.
Governments build the roads and run the schools and operate the hospitals and keep the water clean and collect the taxes so we can live a decent life.
Sometimes they fail and we throw them out.
Hey, that’s what democracy is all about, right?
Horror in Haiti
In Haiti there is no homogovernmentitis. There is no functioning government. There is only corruption and freebooters and violence and inequality and dog eat dog. There’s exploitation and a lot of I, me, mine.
The people don’t care enough about themselves to demand good government.
It’s cultural. It’s conditional. It’s chaos.
It’s a voodoo world of Papa Docs. It’s a world that we can’t even imagine.
So the earth shakes, the buildings fall down, thousands die, and the whole corrupt mess is exposed, unearthed, and laid bare.
Sporting heroes?
Now I’m thinking about our sports heroes – not just the so-called heroes, but their worshippers: the fan clubs, the groupies, and the overweight chip-eating beer swillers who like to glory in the glamorous world of celebrity and get their jollies by sticking a piece of paper in front of a 22-year-old know-nothing athlete so they can ask or beg him or her for an autograph.
I’m thinking about Tiger Woods too, a byproduct of this system, a monstrous mutation – the golfing cyborg.
I can see him sitting on his aptly named 200-foot yacht ‘Privacy’ these days, shunning the world, perhaps blaming the media for his fall, and maybe even luxuriating in the fact that he’s still considered “The Chosen One” by millions.
After all, he’s the first sports “hero” to crack the billion-dollar mark in earnings.
He’s the first golfer who has a chance of beating Jack Nicklaus’ all-time record for major tournament wins.
He was manufacturered to be the best striker of the ball on the planet.
His father Earl, the ex-marine, once said Tiger would someday rival Mandela and Gandhi in influence.
He was a god, a doyen, and a cultural icon – the next coming.
Heck, his accomplishments are almost biblical.
And we bought it. We bought it all.
The press deified him.
Sponsored bellied up to the bar. Fans got goosebumps in his presence.
We all believe this focused fanatic could balance his duties as a father/husband/and endorsement machine and still be golf’s greatest player and ambassador.
If Bobby Jones was the Father of golf and Jack Nicklaus was the Son, then Woods was the Holy Ghost.
Some were troubled by his conduct, the way he dissed people, his child-like petulance on the course. It seems unseemly to me the way Woods or his posse shoo the flock away as if they were a swarm of flies.
But as I watched the horrible goings on in Haiti this month, I couldn’t help but think about Tiger.
How could I not think about Tiger?
He’d hogged the headlines before the Haitian earthquake. His serial philandering became the butt of jokes. His fall from grace was swift and the stuff of tragicomedy.
Now, I thought, both he and Haiti had suffered the same fate.
Tiger’s fake world had imploded overnight. His fake image had been flatted. The walls of his endorsement empire came tumbling down. The real Tiger had been exposed, unearthed, and laid bare.
When his long-suffering wife Elin supposedly buried a 3-iron in his famous face, his toothy grin was wiped away.
You might say, the damaged Escalade that he’d plowed into a tree on his posh Orlando property was symbolic of his damaged life, a miniaturized version of what had happened in Haiti.
Tiger was entitled to his riches because he – like the big investment bankers – was bigger than us, bigger than golf, bigger than his marriage, bigger than his family. He could luxuriate in his vices because he was the Chosen One, and ironically, chosen ones really don’t have to choose. They can have it all – multi-million dollar yachts, trophy wives, perfect kids, never-ending endorsement money, and cocktail waitresses by the handful.
The Real Heroes
Now I’m thinking about my father, my tough as nails father. He fought in WW2 and was hard at it for four years. He patrolled from Italy to Holland to Germany, scrambling from foxhole to foxhole. He wasted his best years chasing after an enemy that threatened to destroy our world.
He wasn’t pampered, fussed over, told things to stroke his ego, or credited with anything. He did his duty and came home broke and got a lousy low-paying job and raised four kids and put down a grubstake and bought a little house with three bedrooms and no basement or hot water and built it over the years by doing without – which is something the phenoms, the Tigers of the world, never had to do.
The war and its aftermath were the character-building years – in sharp relief to the narcissistic nothingness years of some of the overpaid jocks of today.
My dad never signed an endorsement deal, and nobody ever asked him for his autograph.
Now I’m thinking about the rescue workers in Haiti.
They believe in the collective us.
They believe the world is a very small place and that governments (we the people) can work wonders and save lives if we all just pull together.
They’re the real chosen ones because they’ve chosen to give back to the world, not drain it of all its riches.
They came from Canada and the U.S. because both are politically stable and we have always stepped to the plate – whether it’s a world war or a world disaster.
These volunteers don’t ask for multi-million dollar endorsement deals.
They don’t need their hologrammed images on the next collection of Upper Deck cards.
They help the victims because… well, just because – it’s all part of being real.
Broken heroes
Tiger Woods is a hero to many. But he’s a broken one – trapped in the rubble of his own making.
We all suffer earthquakes and after shocks in our lives, and most of us will rise from it because we can count on others to help – friends, family, and even government agencies and NGOs.
Tiger is very much alone these days – allowed his privacy on the ‘Privacy.’
He’s also the ‘Silent One,’ happy to let others talk for and about him.
The Chosen One has aptly chosen his plush yacht as the place to lick his wounds and recover from his personal earthquake.
The poor souls in Haiti don’t have that option, which brings both worlds into stark contrast.
Both recoveries will take a long time, but Tiger’s could be shortened by pouring some of his mega-wealth into the life-and-death relief effort now taking place in Haiti.
I hope for his sake he does – and reports are that he has pumped a fraction of his money into the cleanup.
Maybe, for the very first time, this selfish product of a selfish age, will begin to act like the rest of “us.”
So you think you have it tough, what with the economy, the markets, the environment, and so on. Imagine what weighs on a PGA tour player’s mind?
What if he makes the Ryder Cup team and can’t use his brand of ball in the alternate shot? What if he makes only $800,000 this year and loses his card? What if he can’t handle one more swing thought or swing change? Is it time to hire an entourage to straighten things out?
No wonder one player called it a hard way to make an easy living.
Follow up:
So, I have to ask, why make life harder for these guys? As if they don’t have enough on their minds, now they’ve got this groove issue to contemplate.
As of January 1, 2010, an August 2008 United States Golf Association (USGA) decision will limit groove volume to 0.0030 square inches per inch and groove-edge sharpness to a minimum radius of .010 inches. Less volume and more rounded edges – I know, it’s starting to sound like a hairdo – will mean that shots from the rough with the current U-shaped grooves, or square grooves as they’re better known, won’t spin as much. That will put a greater premium on what has become a disappearing art – hitting fairways.
The new regulations in a nutshell:
Affects all clubs with lofts of 25 degrees or more – a 5-iron and above – but would mostly affect wedges since most companies are already iron-compliant
The rules apply to clubs manufactured after January 1, 2010. Companies can continue to manufacture and distribute previously conforming club components through the end of 2010
Key effective dates: All major tours and USGA Opens – January 1, 2010; all other USGA events – January 1, 2014; recreational golfers – January 1, 2024.
This change is welcome news for traditionalists and for shotmakers already using V-grooves. But for U-groove advocates it’s like losing their best on-course friend. The two became especially close when manufacturers brought in the lethal combination of big-headed drivers and explosive balls. A 520-yard par 4? No problem. Rip a 380-yard drive 70 yards offline into six-inch rough. Fly a gap wedge 15-feet over the pin and spin it back to three feet.
And so was born the bomb-and-gouge approach. Many great courses were rendered helpless, traditionalists were appalled, and the general public seemed to bore of gargantuan wayward drives that ended up in birdies.
Well, say goodbye to bomb-and-gouge and hello to potentially earth-shattering decisions, at least from the perspective of the U-groove specialists who live a comfy tour existence.
Will it mean, heaven forbid, that they have to rely on skills of yore – ball control, trajectory control and distance control? Worse, could re-tooling their set mean having to re-tool their swing as well?
Yes, said Titleist in a July 2009 press release (www.titleist.com/News/Press</a> Releases). Tests they did with tour players suggested less spin might ultimately mean a swing change. Akin, it would seem, to Fender shortening the necks on their guitars by a few millimeters and forcing the likes of Eric Clapton to re-learn the instrument.
Titleist had players make full and partial swings (50-yard pitch) from the rough with 56º and 60º Vokey Design Spin Milled wedges vs. prototype wedges with the proposed new grooves. The results showed a 30 to 50 per cent decrease in spin rate; a 7 to 20 per cent increase in launch angle; and 9 to 15 feet more roll out after the ball hit the green.
Now replace the wedge with a 7-iron and redo the math. It adds up to the dreaded flyer, the death knell of many a round. Flyers will now be so frequent, some say, that maybe they should go the FedEx Cup route and award points for them.
Interestingly, and perhaps ironically so, Titleist believes that players shouldn’t expect the ball to be the remedy for any ills the new grooves will bring. A ball that increases spin 10 per cent reduces distance off the tee by 5 to 10 yards; a 30 per cent increase reduces drives by 15 to 20 yards. Shots into the green, says Titleist, will be similarly affected. Higher spinning balls will be more susceptible to wind, making it more difficult to control ball flight.
A loss of distance plus loss of control could add up to a loss in earnings. Any wonder some affected tour players are concerned.
Obviously they’re more concerned about the impact on performance than the rest of the golf world seems to be. Even other manufacturers, despite the challenges they face in getting their players ready for January 1, 2010, have mixed feelings as to the magnitude of the groove changes.
In the September 2009 issue of Golf Digest, Benoit Vincent, chief technical officer at TaylorMade, is quoted as saying that, “when it’s all said and done, nine months from now, I think (the concerns) will disappear.” Vincent adds that, “you can always alter players’ performance with the course conditions way beyond what the equipment is doing.” And in the same article, Jeff Colton, Callaway Golf’s senior vice president of research and development says: “We’re not convinced, nor do we believe, that the rule change will actually enact the desired outcome, because of player skill and their ability to adapt and to use trajectory instead of spin to compensate.”
As for how this will affect the average player, those I spoke to either didn’t understand the new groove regulations or didn’t see them as having any kind of game-altering effect. Ditto for Green Grass shops and retailers. From their standpoint, the biggest impact will probably be having to stock both currently compliant irons and wedges and ones with the new grooves once they’re ready for sale.
Actually, it seems quite silly that a microscopic groove change could cause anything more than a ho-hum reaction. Just as companies have come up with performance-enhancing ways to help players deal with longer courses, they’ll find ways to help them find their groove again. The better players will adjust, too, and in no time this whole groove thing will probably be a non-issue. And hey, if all else fails, at least at the tour level, all they have to do is scale back the yardage and trim the rough. Issue resolved.
While many questions remain to be answered – how will testing be done, can a player call another if they suspect a non-compliant club, etc. – one thing is certain for the average player. If you like your square-grooved irons/wedges, now is the time to buy back-ups. You can continue to enjoy the wonderful world of spin until 2024. By then, many of us will have so many hybrids we won’t have to worry.
Before I throw in the towel and yell “No Mas”, on the decision to bring golf to the Olympics, let me take one last shot at those bandwagon jumpers who love the idea and are ecstatic that Tiger was leading the pack as the ambassador for this cause.
Follow up:
As Scott Russell with CBC Sports says about golf in the Olympics, “that old Sesame Street tune sung by the Cookie Monster comes to mind. “One of these things is not like the other things. One of these things just doesn’t belong.” Cookie Monster might as well have been singing about golf vis-a-vis the Olympic Games. Although it’s a great game and a modern day obsession of those who can afford the time and money to play it, golf is not – repeat not – Olympic.
What in the world does Tiger Woods need a gold medal for anyway? Will Tiger Woods play? Will he be retired by then? If he does play, more people will watch; if he doesn’t, it’s not must-see TV. Would you rather have an Olympic gold medal, green jacket or Claret Jug? I’m going to go way out on a limb and suggest more players would say the majors.” However, who wouldn’t want to watch Tiger fist-pumping while he proudly carries the American flag at the Opening Ceremony?
More strongly unified than ever before, golf’s leading bodies campaigned to have the sport included in the 2016 program. The PGA Tour, European Tour, USGA, R&A, LPGA Tour, PGA of America and the boys that run the “tunamint” at Augusta National (all joined at the hip) convinced the IOC committee with the rally word growth. Growth is what golf needs to do and it needs to do it now. But does it really?
Since when is it the goal of the Olympics to help a sport grow? In fact, the summer games are clogged with sports that likely haven’t, and won’t be growing appreciably anytime soon, such as handball, the modern pentathalon and archery. But, the real question is why does the PGA Tour think it’s OK to use the Olympics to advance its goals, and what are its actual goals for this gambit?
If the sight of Angel Cabrera, Padraig Harrington and Vijay Singh winning majors hasn’t spread the gospel of golf to all corners of the world, the IOC shouldn’t pick up the proselytizing slack. In the women’s game, Se Ri Pak didn’t need an Olympic medal to revolutionize the game. After she won two majors in 1998, South Korea flooded the LPGA Tour with talent and, eventually, with TV rights money.
The most disingenuous part of Finchem’s plea is the time honored idea of the glory of competing for one’s country. Gee, isn’t that what happens in the Ryder, Presidents, Solheim, Walker and Curtis Cups along with a bunch of other cups I’ve never heard of? Are tour players really grousing among themselves about never having the chance to go mano a mano with the national team from the Republic of Forgetaboutustan.
Golf is still a great game and it has endured. Endurance is a far more significant goal than growth, especially in an individual sport. People will continue to take up and give up on golf because it is so divinely humiliating and unrelentingly difficult, but that’s OK. That’s the way our game works best.
When it comes to organizations like the PGA Tour all you have to remember is follow the money trail and now the trail leads to the Olympics. As Gwen Knapp (San Francisco Chronicle) writes, “if seven years from now, we see Kenyans and Iraqis inching toward the pro tours, and Saudi Arabian women turning up at the Olympics with even a hint of Annika Sorenstam in them, then the venture will be somewhat worthwhile.”
“We all knew this was coming” writes blogger Ryan Ballengee. “All of us who had been paying attention to the drive led by Ty Votaw to get golf into the 2016 Olympics. If golf was recommended for the Games – and then got in – it would bring out the game’s harshest critics in droves. And, now, it’s starting.”
Here is a collection of some other great bloggers’ comments as to why golf shouldn’t be part of the Olympics.
“Just what the world needed: Another professional golf tournament, with arrogant rich guys slinking out of their exclusive country clubs to go make some courageous putts in the valiant pursuit of a medal in their country’s name.”
“Are they serious? We tried to ignore this story for weeks, hoping that it would go away, common sense would prevail, and IOC members would realize that the last thing the Olympics need is another anal-retentive obsession on grand international display.” (What, to balance out the atmospheric suction created by already having some of the world’s tennis stars in one wing of the Olympic Village?) Brilliant!
A lot of thought was put into this one…”Golf does not belong in the Olympics.”
“This is only one more example of the IOC’s elitism and disregard for the spirit and integrity of the Games. Golf got tossed in 1904 and somehow thrived anyway. The game does not, as its backers claim, need to use the Olympics to enhance its international street cred.”
“Golf certainly has enough prestigious events, which is exactly why it doesn’t belong in the Games. Tiger Woods got on board the lobbying train but he had gone on the record before with a statement of the obvious: Every man on the PGA Tour would prefer a Claret Jug or green jacket to Olympic gold.”
“The Olympics already have tennis and basketball stars showing up to prove they care for their country, not because the Games are their ultimate dream. Kobe Bryant’s passion for the Beijing Olympics seemed thoroughly genuine, even inspiring, but he could have gone to Athens and Sydney and chose to stay home. He seemed very proud of his gold medal, but not half as exuberant as he did about winning the NBA Finals this summer.”
“Does the world really need to see the Tiger Woodses of the world marching in an opening ceremony? For people who never do anything besides chase a small ball across property otherwise perfectly suited for low-income housing, aren’t their egos sufficiently inflated already?”
“And can anyone on the IOC really say, with a straight face, that adding pro golfers to the Olympic mix is more in keeping with the spirit of the Olympic charter than truly amateur athletes who sweat, train and toil in women’s softball, which now has been relegated to the heap of tried-and-rejected Olympic sports?”
“Get real.” Another good one.
Perhaps, though, we should look at the bright side. Maybe the golfers of the world can make an example of themselves and compete in the manner in which they are accustomed — as individuals, without the bonds of nationality.
They can march into the stadium for opening ceremonies in stupid straw hats, ill-fitting polo shirts and Sans-a-Belt slacks in screaming loud plaid.
Gary Van Sickle, senior writer, Sports Illustrated writes, “Tiger Woods is the most famous man on the planet, the most admired sportsman and, in the eyes of the International Olympic Committee, he would be money in the bank. This Olympic golf movement isn’t about advancing the game or bringing it to the world. Golf already is global.
No, this Olympic movement is all about trying to cash in on Tiger’s legend and charisma. Olympic golf with Tiger teeing it up would probably be a ratings (and money) bonanza. In my opinion, it’s just another cash grab.”
I’m not sure Tiger would even consent to play. He doesn’t appreciate others cashing in on his likeness and he’s not looking for more tournaments he’s obliged to play in. The Olympics doesn’t need golf. Golf doesn’t need the Olympics. I don’t know why we’re even still talking about it.
When I wrote about this topic in the 2008 Fall issue of Pro Shop Magazine I mentioned that the IOC hadn’t filled up all the working hours once devoted to taking bribes…but this decision is perfect! Totally transparent and a boat load of cash…right in their lap!
By most accounts, Andrew Carnegie was a nasty piece of work.
Cold and driven, the little Scots émigré was the epitome of bald cupidity. During the gilded age of unfettered capitalism (1890s), he was the richest of the rich.
Carnegie Steel (later U.S. Steel) piggybacked on a new process designed by Henry Bessemer which helped hyperextend its profits and vaporize its competitors.
Follow up:
Carnegie became a poster boy for the American Dream.
That all ended in 1892 during a strike at his steel plant in Pennsylvania. Nine strikers were killed. The press vilified Carnegie, and Carnegie vilified himself. He quickly renounced his former life by saying: “The [steel] works are not worth one drop of human blood.”
Like Dickens’ Scrooge, he became a friend to humanity – the world’s greatest philanthropist.
Carnegie would spend the rest of his days unpacking his fortune. He set up foundations, endowment funds, and built thousands of libraries, educational facilities and medical labs. Carnegie Hall in New York is still home to some of the greatest artists of our time.
In today’s shrinking corporate world with money at a premium, you might think the golf industry has a built-in excuse for having short pockets.
But the recently released NAGA (National Alliance of Golf Associations) Economic Impact Study reported some startling figures: 25,000 charitable events were hosted by golf courses last year, and its stakeholders raised about $439 million – a conservative estimate.
Yes, golf has been Carnegie-like in its commitment to giving.
Consider:
more than 2,000 charities benefit from PGA Tour events each year, and since 1938, when $10,000 was doled out at the Palm Beach Invitational, the tour(s) have contributed about $1.2 billion – more than most of the major sports combined;
despite a lousy week of weather, and a lower turnout of spectators, the 2009 RBC Canadian Open raised a record $1.1 million for two children’s charities; the CN Miracle Match program has risen close to $2 million for local children’s hospitals over the past three years leading up to and during the weeks of the CN Canadian Open; the Canadian Tour, the poor brother of the other tours, raised six figures for charity this year, and its player-run birdie for bucks program contributes even more money to the kitty; and manufacturers (Callaway Golf Canada) and retailers teamed up for Golf Town’s annual Invitational charity event in Toronto that benefits the McEwen Centre for Regenerative Medicine.
I’m obviously leaving out hundreds of other golf givers, but you get my drift – our sport is an extreme do-gooder. Carnegie, however, was no fool, and neither is golf.
Both believe in ‘smart philanthropy,’ based on solid business principles.
It’s all about creating a self-perpetuating model – a guarantee that what’s created from the money will continue to do good deeds long after those who founded the programs are gone.
Two examples immediately spring to mind: the Pat Fletcher Scholarship Fund, based in Montreal, and the Scholarship Program at Beacon Hall Golf Club, located just north of Toronto.
Phil Hardy, head professional at Beacon Hall, an exclusive privately owned facility, started the scholarship program three years ago. Each summer, 12 teenagers are plucked from the communities surrounding the club and invited in to caddy and do odd jobs around the pro shop. They accept responsibilities in a grown-up environment and the pay-off is unlimited access to the course to hone their playing skills.
The program is embraced by the membership and is already paying off hugely by producing superb players, good corporate citizens, and excellent recruits for post-secondary institutions.
Remember: these kids are not chosen from the privileged sons and daughters of members. They live outside the front gates, and come from a different social stratum. They qualify because of need.
“There are a lot of great golf courses in Canada,” says Hardy, who then asks: “But are they great clubs?”
Beacon Hall is a great club.
Ted Fletcher is trustee of the Pat Fletcher Foundation, established to honour his father, the last homebrew to win the Canadian Open (1954).
Son Ted is a huge player in the Canadian golf industry as president of Puma Canada and Mint Green Group.
The foundation began in 1988 and has given away $275,000 in scholarships since then. Last year, $30,000 was granted to 24 student athletes.
Again, no sons or daughters of bank presidents need apply.
“We are making the best investment we can in the future – helping to develop the leaders of tomorrow,” says Ted Fletcher.
The Fund is redoubling its efforts to market itself across Canada in 2010 and hopes to soon build out its principal to $1 million. Like all smart foundations, it gives from the principal’s investments – a conservative portfolio handled by TD Waterhouse (Montreal).
In both the Beacon Hall and Fletcher Foundation models, there are tight criteria for applicants.
It’s a hand up, not a handout.
Moving beyond simple chequebook philanthropy is the Carnegie way. No doubt, these programs are templates, and need to be celebrated – and copied.
Hardy says if every private club in Canada had its own scholarship program for a dozen teenagers, the world – especially the golf world – would be in better shape.
There are other examples of golf’s good side, but here’s one that really sticks out.
It’s been a decade now for the National Junior Golf Academy founded by Kingsley Rowe. This learn-to-golf program was introduced to kids living in the notorious crime-ridden Jane-Finch corridor of Toronto. It caters to kids who would otherwise not have the opportunity to take part in the sport.
Many of the major club and ball manufacturers lend their support, and Capital One offers a $4000 scholarship each year to high school seniors in the Greater Toronto Area.
While other corporate stakeholders blow off their societal responsibilities, leaning on a shaky economy as a reason to cut back on giving, golf continues to grip it and rip it.
Carnegie had an epiphany in mid-life and changed his selfish ways. Golf never had to – it had it right from the beginning.
The Fletcher Fund, the Beacon Hall program, and the National Junior Golf Academy, are only three examples of golf’s good side, its soft underbelly.
Once viewed as a game of manicured privilege, the NAGA numbers prove that the game is more everyman than first suspected, and its charitable component is simply an indelible part of its DNA.
Carnegie said it is more difficult to give money away intelligently than it is to earn it in the first place.
Golf in Canada continues to prove his point.
As a business owner, you’ve probably heard that media exposure can greatly help your company, especially during tough economic times when marketing budgets are low and competition is high. The truth is, learning to leverage the power of the media can help you stand out from the competition without expending your resources. If you are new or inexperienced in dealing with editors or reporters, you might feel intimidated. But there’s absolutely no reason to believe you must have superpowers or be famous in order to approach the media.
Follow up:
People interview people they like. If you can develop a good rapport up front, that’s half the battle. Media professionals, like everyone else, gravitate toward someone they enjoy talking with. You can adopt strategies that will cause interviewers to come back to you time after time. First and most important, be respectful of the reporter or editor’s time. Deadlines are 24/7 these days, and you are one of many people approaching the media with articles, ideas and pitches. Media professionals are among the most overtaxed and pressured people you will ever meet. If you have initiated the contact, your first question should be: “Are you on deadline?” If they say, “Yes,” never sabotage the relationship by forging ahead anyway. If they are on deadline, ask: “When would be a better time to call you?” No need to risk alienating or annoying them. You can always call back. You don’t want to be someone reporters interview once and never want to again. Here are a few ideas to help you relax and make sure editors and reporters accept your articles, book you as a guest on shows or interview you for pieces they are writing or videotaping.
Pam Lontos is president of PR/PR, a public relations firm based in Orlando, Fla. She is author of “I See Your Name Everywhere” and is a former vice president of sales for Disney’s Shamrock Broadcasting. PR/PR has placed clients in publications such as USA Today, Entrepreneur, Time, Reader’s Digest and Cosmopolitan. PR/PR works with established businesses, as well as entrepreneurs who are just launching their companies. For a free publicity consultation, e-mail Pam@prpr.net or call 407-299-6128. To receive free publicity tips, go to www.PRPR.net and register for the monthly e-newsletter, PR/PR Pulse!
Again, thoughtfulness is the key. Sometimes the reporter will call you as a source, but you just aren’t right for that particular subject matter. You can still be helpful by suggesting another person to call. Or, if the reporter needs a second or third source to interview, suggest names of other people. If the story is not something you can help with, but you can steer the reporter toward a more productive source of information, the reporter will remember this and be grateful. Effective media relations is all about relationships. If you develop, nurture and maintain good relationships with reporters and editors, you will become the expert source they seek out time after time, which will help you stand out from the competition and boost your sales. give good quotes. Strive for simple, declarative sentences. Use concrete images. Answer the question. Don’t go off on tangents that interest you. Remember, the reporter is working hard to gain the knowledge he or she needs to write a good story. Or the radio host is looking for that pithy quote the listeners can relate to. Help the reporter do a good job, and once again your effort will be appreciated.
Be enthusiastic on the phone. Even if you’re not doing an interview for broadcast, the reporter will appreciate your passion for the subject. Stand up and smile – your energy and cheerfulness will come across. Laugh or get the interviewer laughing..
If you’ve written a book on the subject you are being interviewed about, offer to send it. This will help them learn more about the topic they are researching. You can also offer, say, five books as giveaways if your interview is with a radio reporter. Radio stations love promotional ideas.
At the end of an interview, ask about other stories the reporter is currently covering. Explain how you may be able to contribute and offer a unique angle that may interest his or her audiences. Always remind the journalist that he or she can call you back with questions. And make it clear that you’re eager to be an accessible source of information in the future. Send birthday or holiday cards to keep the relationship going. If you stumble across an event or idea related to an area of the reporter or editor’s interest, call and leave them a quick voicemail about it. They will get the message that you are thinking about them as people, not just using them for your own narrow purposes.
The goal is relationship building. If the reporter or editor you would like to get to know is local, you can drop by the office (with appropriate notice) suggest coffee or even invite him or her to lunch. And when you do this, be sincere about it. Treat the reporter as you would any other friend or acquaintance you truly value. If it’s all about you and if you’re in the game just to advance yourself, this will become all too readily apparent, and you will alienate the very people you are trying to impress.
Reporters and editors often spend most of their time in the world of ideas. They like to think and talk about challenging ideas. When you are engaged in conversation, remember to bring up the topic they like to talk about. In a similar vein, if you see a subject come up in the news you know will interest a reporter with whom you are developing a relationship, copy and send it to him. Be observant during conversations and pick up personal details. If the reporter is heading out the door to pick up children from soccer, make a note of it. Remember to ask about the children’s progress next time you call. Also, be on the lookout for items of interest to a soccer parent. You can e-mail or mail the reporter a parenting article about involvement in children’s sporting activities, for example. This costs nothing, and therefore there will be no breach of ethics on the reporter’s part to accept it. At the same time, he or she will appreciate your thoughtfulness.
Become familiar with the journalists you would like to cultivate relationships with. Follow their work, and let them know when you enjoy something they have written. Comment on something specific. Watch the TV broadcast or the talk show. Read the magazine, newspaper or blog. Listen to the radio show or podcast. Familiarize yourself with the content. Look at the ads to see what audience the advertisers are targeting.
Once you become familiar with the audience, you will understand what the audience wants. This will allow you to tailor your content, making it more valuable to the reporter or editor. Providing great content is the best way to motivate reporters to contact you in the future! Another good way to target your material correctly is to ask the reporter or interviewer if there is anything else you need to know to better understand his or her audiences. That way you can fashion the content of your remarks as you prepare for an interview or, if you are writing an article, you can strike the appropriate tone.
Reporters, editors and talk-show hosts will respect you for the extra effort you make to ensure your ideas are valuable to their readers, listeners or audiences.
Links Marketing Group Inc.
1371 Marshall Crescent
Milton, ON Canada L9T 6N4
Tel: 905 636 1400 Fax: 289 878 3925
