Golf Digest cover with Paulina Gretzky

[Ernest Jones]

I cancelled my subscription to Golf Digest on Saturday. Sometimes it's just best to take a step back and say, "you know what, I/we made a bad decision on this one and we're going to make every effort to do a better job in the future."  It's the right thing to do and it probably would've been best for the magazine's sales in the long run.  There is no defense for not having a female golfer on the cover for nearly 6 years.  There just isn't. Instead, I heard TGC commentators- many of whom used to or want to work for the Digest (no conflict there) and almost all male, other than Sonders- defend the GD by saying their job is to sell magazines and bring in new fans to the game.  Are you trying to tell me Beatriz Recari isn't fit? She couldn't sell magazines?  And let's be honest, the "it's the FITNESS issue" defense is totally ridiculous.

I renewed my Penthouse subscription on Saturday. :-P

[jamo]

I cancelled my subscription to Golf Digest on Saturday.

I don't think I've ever actually paid for Golf Digest. I get replacement softspikes once a year and they throw in a free decade (or whatever) of the magazine.

[cfritchie]

Quote:

The adage that "any publicity is good publicity just isn't true".......just ask BP.  Talking about it, mostly in a negative light doesn't meet my criteria for "success", and I haven't seen anything that says that the issue has sold any more than previously.....or did I miss something?

Featuring her on the cover isn't any different than putting a pic of the hot, young girls that any of the other players are surely banging.  Heck, Tiger coulda kept 'em in cover material for the next few years all by himself!

I think comparing a magazine cover, that really isn't that sexy to a disaster that BP faced are completely two different things. To say they are both "publicity" is a bit of a stretch...I don't know why Golf Digest doesn't feature more of the LPGA...but to be honest, I pay attention to the LPGA about as much as I do minor league baseball. I'm not saying the gals are not talented and they probably deserve the attention. But I'd suspect that 99.5% of the regular golfers couldn't name 3 ladies on the LPGA...that isn't the fault of Golf Digest...I'm in the editorial world and if you want to be relevant and get coverage then do something relevant and something that stands out.

If you want to talk about exposure...this is just one example...

PGA Tour has 596,000 followers on Twitter

Paulina Gretzky has 296,000 followers on Twitter

Golf Digest has 159,000 followers on Twitter

LPGA has 57,400 followers on Twitter

[mdl]

This seems a non-issue not because I disagree with any of the criticisms, but because GD is so obviously behind the times in all ways.  They publish articles that take as true the incorrect ball flight laws and proffer mechanical tips that are either just wrong or will surely hurt the game of the vast majority of readers if they try to apply them.  They do this all the time.  And in their social outlook, the editorial vision generally seems to come out as a lightly updated version of the general public's golfer stereotype, elitist and adhering mostly to mid 20th century country club member social views.

So not super surprising they couldn't get it together to instead recruit one of the not short list of very pretty women with very nice bodies in the top 100 in the LPGA to do a sexy photo shoot to cover their "hot lady on the cover gets eyeballs for our fitness issue" editorial decision.

[ghalfaire]

It's not Golf Digest job to promote the LPGA, what they are trying to do is appeal to a larger audience. For example her on the cover will garnish attention from the hockey world, the younger crowd who don't follow golf, etc.

I wonder how many people paid attention to the cover of Golf Digest who never would have in the past. She is attractive, physically fit, and engaged to one of the games superstars...I'd say she is relevant is many ways.

While I agree it isn't Golf Digest's JOB to promote the LPGA one would think it is in their best interests to do so along with promoting the game of golf in general.  I doubt the Golf Digest's audience includes many people who are not interested in golf and putting Paulina's photo on the cover has little chance of increasing the audience other than this one month.  So I'll stick with my assertion that they would have been better served to have selected one of the many talented golfers in the LPGA that are fine looking and physically fit specimens of the female portion of the human population.  If they are about something other than golf maybe they ought to change their name to Golf and other things Digest.

[boogielicious]

[RFKFREAK]

Considering this cover, as someone who bought an issue every once in a while, I'll now likely not be buying any future issues.

[Spyder]

Considering this cover, as someone who bought an issue every once in a while, I'll now likely not be buying any future issues.

I'm not sure that I understand how, or why, this cover is causing such negative feedback. She's attractive, she's "The Legend's Daughter", she's taking golfing lessons and getting pretty good at golf, she's the wife of a relevant and popular golfer, she's got great assets, she's a well-known and popular figure among men, she garners lots of attention and has a lot of "followers"... and did I mention she's good looking? So with that being said, she is relevant to the game because she's a golfer, she's married to a golfer, she's attractive and she's popular. That is what qualified her to be on the cover and I'm not sure why people are going nuts about it. It's not like they handed Kate Upton a golf club, who is irrelevant to this game, and said "Now push your behind out, your sweater kittens forward, grasp that driver and give a naughty smile to the camera!". That would be a stupid idea and a blatant push for "sexy".

Something like this could never upset me or have me saying "I'll never buy that magazine again, let alone read it!". They wanted attention and they got it. Positive or negative, it's working and they're benefiting from it. I would also say with some confidence that this cover is not a problem to the majority of their readers.

[colin007]

I have gotten GD for years now and will continue to do so.

For the LPGA gals, you make a living playing golf.  The rest of us live in the real world.  Quit your bitchin'.  It's just a magazine.

[newtogolf]

I can understand the LPGA players' issue with it, considering the last LPGA player on the cover was Lorena Ochoa in 2008, and the only other two women in the cover since then were Kate Upton and Holly Sonders. Now this. They have a good reason to be pissed.

No one in the LPGA would generate this much attention and controversy.  Just like Brandel and others make stupid statements about Tiger to gain clicks and readers, Golf Digest is doing the same with Paulina.

The LPGA needs to be relevant if they want GD covers, most casual golfers probably couldn't name five members of the LPGA at this time.

[David in FL]

No one in the LPGA would generate this much attention and controversy.  Just like Brandel and others make stupid statements about Tiger to gain clicks and readers, Golf Digest is doing the same with Paulina. The LPGA needs to be relevant if they want GD covers, most casual golfers probably couldn't name five members of the LPGA at this time.

The reason it's garnering this attention is because so many people consider it inappropriate. A major golf publication that places the girlfriend of a PGA player on the cover rather than an actual LPGA player doesn't help the LPGA become relevant....

[3putter]

The reason it's garnering this attention is because so many people consider it inappropriate.

A major golf publication that places the girlfriend of a PGA player on the cover rather than an actual LPGA player doesn't help the LPGA become relevant....

This!

[newtogolf]

The reason it's garnering this attention is because so many people consider it inappropriate.

A major golf publication that places the girlfriend of a PGA player on the cover rather than an actual LPGA player doesn't help the LPGA become relevant....

Golf Digest only cares that people talk about them, why they are being talked about is secondary.

As for the LPGA, it's not GD's responsibility to promote them, it's the LPGA's.  The fact that GD felt a cover with Paulina would sell more magazines than someone from the LPGA demonstrates the LPGA's failure in marketing their players here in the US.

[iacas]

As for the LPGA, it's not GD's responsibility to promote them, it's the LPGA's.  The fact that GD felt a cover with Paulina would sell more magazines than someone from the LPGA demonstrates the LPGA's failure in marketing their players here in the US.

Golf Digest benefits from promoting golf so promoting the LPGA is at least partially relevant.

I don't agree that it's a big focus, but it's a part of what they should be doing. Absolutely.

[Deryck Griffith]

I'm not sure that I understand how, or why, this cover is causing such negative feedback. She's attractive, she's "The Legend's Daughter", she's taking golfing lessons and getting pretty good at golf, she's the wife of a relevant and popular golfer, she's got great assets, she's a well-known and popular figure among men, she garners lots of attention and has a lot of "followers"... and did I mention she's good looking? So with that being said, she is relevant to the game because she's a golfer, she's married to a golfer, she's attractive and she's popular. That is what qualified her to be on the cover and I'm not sure why people are going nuts about it. It's not like they handed Kate Upton a golf club, who is irrelevant to this game, and said "Now push your behind out, your sweater kittens forward, grasp that driver and give a naughty smile to the camera!". That would be a stupid idea and a blatant push for "sexy".

Something like this could never upset me or have me saying "I'll never buy that magazine again, let alone read it!". They wanted attention and they got it. Positive or negative, it's working and they're benefiting from it. I would also say with some confidence that this cover is not a problem to the majority of their readers.

All of your points are valid if and only if, over the last several years GD had found it worth their while to place a LPGA player on their cover.  I'm all for cross promoting to the general masses with celebrities (male or female) who enjoy golf and are involved with the game in some fashion (like Paulina is) but it's inexcusable to completely exclude relevant female golfers from the cover for this amount of time.  The LPGA should be pissed.  The leading Golf Print magazine hasn't thrown them a bone.

Life as we all know is about balance.  No one is saying to place a LPGA player on the cover ALL THE TIME.  What the LPGA players are saying is "why not us to sometimes ?"

[jamo]

I'm not sure that I understand how, or why, this cover is causing such negative feedback. She's attractive, she's "The Legend's Daughter", she's taking golfing lessons and getting pretty good at golf, she's the wife of a relevant and popular golfer, she's got great assets, she's a well-known and popular figure among men, she garners lots of attention and has a lot of "followers"... and did I mention she's good looking? So with that being said, she is relevant to the game because she's a golfer, she's married to a golfer, she's attractive and she's popular. That is what qualified her to be on the cover and I'm not sure why people are going nuts about it. It's not like they handed Kate Upton a golf club, who is irrelevant to this game, and said "Now push your behind out, your sweater kittens forward, grasp that driver and give a naughty smile to the camera!". That would be a stupid idea and a blatant push for "sexy". Something like this could never upset me or have me saying "I'll never buy that magazine again, let alone read it!". They wanted attention and they got it. Positive or negative, it's working and they're benefiting from it. I would also say with some confidence that this cover is not a problem to the majority of their readers.

Not her sexiest magazine cover, but to be fair:

[David in FL]

Golf Digest only cares that people talk about them, why they are being talked about is secondary.

As for the LPGA, it's not GD's responsibility to promote them, it's the LPGA's.  The fact that GD felt a cover with Paulina would sell more magazines than someone from the LPGA demonstrates the LPGA's failure in marketing their players here in the US.

Again.......ask BP if any publicity is good publicity.  GD wants to sell magazines.  If the talk is more negative than positive, that talk may reduce magazine sales in the longer term.

Golf Digest benefits from promoting golf so promoting the LPGA is at least partially relevant.

I don't agree that it's a big focus, but it's a part of what they should be doing. Absolutely.

Absolutely.  If they don't promote golf, they're biting the hand that feeds them.  Declining golf = declining sales.  Likewise, if they think the key to Golf Digest's success lies in drawing readership from the myriad fitness/skin/celebrity mags that are out there at the risk of losing some of their golf fans, they're either desperate or shortsighted.

This is a rather interesting argument for me too, because as I think everyone knows, I don't particularly enjoy watching the LPGA.  I do, however believe that they are good for the game, and ultimately, that's what we all want.

[newtogolf]

Again.......ask BP if any publicity is good publicity.  GD wants to sell magazines.  If the talk is more negative than positive, that talk may reduce magazine sales in the longer term.

Absolutely.  If they don't promote golf, they're biting the hand that feeds them.  Declining golf = declining sales.  Likewise, if they think the key to Golf Digest's success lies in drawing readership from the myriad fitness/skin/celebrity mags that are out there at the risk of losing some of their golf fans, they're either desperate or shortsighted.

This is a rather interesting argument for me too, because as I think everyone knows, I don't particularly enjoy watching the LPGA.  I do, however believe that they are good for the game, and ultimately, that's what we all want.

I can't imagine why anyone would cancel their subscription to GD because they chose to do a sexy cover with Paulina rather than most of the unattractive LPGA players.  Covers aren't really designed with the subscribers in mind, it's for newsstands so they can catch peoples eye.

Are we sure they didn't ask a few LPGA members to wear something sexy for the cover and they refused?   I agree, they could have thrown the LGPA a bone and put one on the cover, but obviously their demographics indicated Paulina would get more looks than anyone female golfers except for maybe Sonders who got a cover last year.