Golf Digest cover with Paulina Gretzky

[Hammer 4]

Nothing personal against Ms. Gretzky, but I think it was poor judgment of Jerry Tarde to put her on the cover - especially in a cheesecake pose.

Not that I'm surprised. This is the same Golf Digest that told us we need to trade in any of our golf clubs which are more than two years old.

Paulina's GD cover could become a major headache for Dustin Johnson if the happy couple ends up on the hit-list of National Enquirer-style "journalists."

IMHO, it's all about generating $$$$$$$$$$ and dats da bottom line...

[scopek]

IMHO, it's all about generating $$$$$$$$$$ and dats da bottom line...

True dat

[caniac6]

I think that since the magazine is called Golf Digest, they should have put a golfer on the cover in order to promote golf fitness.

[David in FL]

Put me in the disapproval camp. I have no problem with a hot girl on the cover, but her association with golf should go beyond sleeping with a player.

[Foursum Golf]

The amount of conversation and controversy about this cover proves that Golf Digest hit the nail on the head with Paulina. I'm sure they're loving the amount discussion she's generated.

[Foursum Golf]

[boogielicious]

@Foursum Golf ,

We can't unsee that!

[Ernest Jones]

@Foursum Golf ,

We can't unsee that!

It's a pretty compelling argument for Paulina though...

[cfritchie]

I don't have a problem with Golf Digest & Paulina as an example of someone who is physically fit.  I do believe the magazine would have been better served to have selected an LPGA pro for the cover as there are several that  are just as fit and probably look just as good in their workout attire.

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.

[phan52]

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.

[GangGreen]

I personally have no issue with the cover, but could definetly see why the LPGA folks would. Honestly, I don't see how having her on the cover is going to suddenly boost GD sales either (outside of maybe a short-term blip resulting from all the talk). I think if they really wanted to increase readership they'd be better served focusing on the content inside (it's horrible anymore IMO) vs. the eye-candy on the outside.

[krupa]

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.

It's true that GD is not there to promote LPGA but wouldn't it garner more interest in the sport to show a good-looking, fit LPGA player and say " This is a golfer!"  instead of just showing a beautiful woman and saying "She's hot and holding a golf club!"

I could be wrong -- I don't work in magazines -- but it seems like the days of "hot women on cover = sales" would be going away given the copious amounts of free pictures on the Internet.  As an example, google Paulina's name and go to Images then answer the question "why buy the magazine just because she's on the cover?"

[Golfingdad]

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.

I personally have no issue with the cover, but could definetly see why the LPGA folks would.

Honestly, I don't see how having her on the cover is going to suddenly boost GD sales either (outside of maybe a short-term blip resulting from all the talk). I think if they really wanted to increase readership they'd be better served focusing on the content inside (it's horrible anymore IMO) vs. the eye-candy on the outside.

It's true that GD is not there to promote LPGA but wouldn't it garner more interest in the sport to show a good-looking, fit LPGA player and say "This is a golfer!"  instead of just showing a beautiful woman and saying "She's hot and holding a golf club!"

I could be wrong -- I don't work in magazines -- but it seems like the days of "hot women on cover = sales" would be going away given the copious amounts of free pictures on the Internet.  As an example, google Paulina's name and go to Images then answer the question "why buy the magazine just because she's on the cover?"

Totally agree with all of these points.  Especially nowadays with all of the good looking LPGA players out there, it would not have been hard for them to appeal to guys in the same way, as well as, you know, going with someone who's actually from golf.

[cfritchie]

It's true that GD is not there to promote LPGA but wouldn't it garner more interest in the sport to show a good-looking, fit LPGA player and say "This is a golfer!"  instead of just showing a beautiful woman and saying "She's hot and holding a golf club!"

I could be wrong -- I don't work in magazines -- but it seems like the days of "hot women on cover = sales" would be going away given the copious amounts of free pictures on the Internet.  As an example, google Paulina's name and go to Images then answer the question "why buy the magazine just because she's on the cover?"

Krupa,

I'm no expert but am a professional photographer and have been shooting editorial for 8 years. If models were chosen because they had no internet presence there would be no models. The SI Swim suit edition is loaded with models whose pictures are all over the internet. Yet it is a VERY popular issue. To most they see a "hot girl holding an club", I suspect what they are selling is "fitness" though. I"m sure Paulina didn't get that body by laying around eating bon bon's and watching General Hospital.

Golf digest isn't necessarily trying to promote the game as their #1 objective. The #1 objective is to grow it's audience, get people talking about them, and yes make sure the image on the cover represents the editorial content. I would suspect we wouldn't be talking about this if Michelle Wie was on the cover or some other attractive LPGA tour player. I suspect given the "sexuality" of the model the LPGA would be offended if they were portrayed in any light other then "professional golfer." I wasn't paying much attention to the ESPN Body issue or when Gary Player posed nude so I'm not sure how that was received in the golf world. I like it when the envelope is pushed....there is a line not to cross...but I don't think anything has been done so here..or with the ESPN Body magazine issue.

You and I are talking about this along with many many others...I'd call the cover a success...even though I think they could have been more creative with the image.

[Motley01]

Whats the saying in Hollywood? Oh ya "any publicity is a good thing. Weather its bad or good". I'd say they did a nice job getting everybody to buy the issue and talk about it.

[David in FL]

Whats the saying in Hollywood? Oh ya "any publicity is a good thing. Weather its bad or good". I'd say they did a nice job getting everybody to buy the issue and talk about it.

Quote:

You and I are talking about this along with many many others...I'd call the cover a success...even though I think they could have been more creative with the image.

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!

[jamo]

I could be wrong -- I don't work in magazines -- but it seems like the days of "hot women on cover = sales" would be going away given the copious amounts of free pictures on the Internet.  As an example, google Paulina's name and go to Images then answer the question "why buy the magazine just because she's on the cover?"

I think it's a level above that. It's not just about having Paulina on the cover. GD knew that it would be somewhat controversial, and was banking on the fact that the controversy would increase sales. Just think about a few months ago when Rolling Stone put one of the Tsarnaev brothers on their cover. That issue sold double their usual rate, and that's despite some retailers refusing to sell it. But it was controversial, so the magazine was in the public eye more than usual and more people bought it.

[ClayHbg]

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.