The Match: Tiger vs. Phil Showdown for $9M

[turtleback]

Is it winner take all?

[chspeed]

On 7/9/2018 at 9:44 AM, iacas said:

They’re partnering together to own a business. Their match will just kick it off.

If this is going to be a business venture for promoting these types of events, I think there are a lot of things they could be doing better. Some ideas:

-Have an under-card match or two (watching a shot and then waiting 10 minutes before the next one is, well, boring).
-Have more live media appearances by Tiger & Phil
-Sell some VIP tickets to the event, at least a couple of hundred. Better yet, give them away in promotions.
-Create the brand now and start promoting it. TigerPhil productions, something, anything.
-Make the rules clearer

I'm sure they'll make money, and one can argue that they don't *need* to do all these things. But if this is a proof-of-concept for a joint venture, I would think they'd want to make it as successful as possible. IMO, this is half-baked from a business point of view.

I'll still watch tho...

[Vinsk]

2 minutes ago, chspeed said:

IMO, this is half-baked from a business point of view.

 I'll still watch tho...

🙄

Edited November 19, 2018 by Vinsk

[chspeed]

4 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

🙄

Why? I'm not saying that a lot of people won't watch. I'm saying that if they are building a business venture, they could have tried to reach a bigger audience.

Edited November 19, 2018 by chspeed

[Vinsk]

8 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Why? I'm not saying that a lot of people won't watch. I'm saying that if they are building a business venture, they could have tried to reach a bigger audience.

Well like @iacas said...it’s just a kick off. And it may be just a gauge to see what kind of response it brings. And as you said, they don’t need to do any of this. It’s a different situation than like ‘Shark Tank’ for example. These are ridiculously wealthy guys who are just romancing some ideas.

[klineka]

18 minutes ago, chspeed said:

-Make the rules clearer

 

What's not clear about the rules? It's match play golf. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, turtleback said:

Is it winner take all?

Yes. Earnings from the side bets go to charity.

52 minutes ago, chspeed said:

If this is going to be a business venture for promoting these types of events, I think there are a lot of things they could be doing better.

How do you know how successful this is going to be?

52 minutes ago, chspeed said:

-Have an under-card match or two (watching a shot and then waiting 10 minutes before the next one is, well, boring).

No thank you. I want to see them walking and talking trash and hear their conversations with their caddies, not be pulled away to some other match.

52 minutes ago, chspeed said:

-Have more live media appearances by Tiger & Phil

Why?

52 minutes ago, chspeed said:

-Sell some VIP tickets to the event, at least a couple of hundred. Better yet, give them away in promotions.

Meh. That would affect, what, about 200 people? Hardly something that's going to have a big effect. Plus, they want the focus on THEM, not on anyone in the crowd.

52 minutes ago, chspeed said:

-Create the brand now and start promoting it. TigerPhil productions, something, anything.

I think this is the kick-off event, and they'll see how this goes.

52 minutes ago, chspeed said:

-Make the rules clearer

18 holes of match play. Pretty clear.

I don't know of anything in your list with which I agree.

[Herkimer]

Just curious:  If you're not home, can this be recorded on your DVR for later viewing?  

[chspeed]

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

How do you know how successful this is going to be? 

I don't - neither do they, but from a promotions business point-of-view, they don't appear to be doing much.

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

No thank you. I want to see them walking and talking trash and hear their conversations with their caddies, not be pulled away to some other match. 

Me too, but I'd rather hear the highlights of those conversations, not everything they say. And unless Tiger shows some other self that he's been hiding, he's so guarded in front of cameras that I can't imagine it will be that exciting.

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

Why? 

Because these types of events can, if done well, build hype. Hype = more viewers and more engaged viewers.

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

Meh. That would affect, what, about 200 people? Hardly something that's going to have a big effect. Plus, they want the focus on THEM, not on anyone in the crowd. 

Doing a promotion for tickets would affect a lot more than 200 people. That's like saying playing the lottery is boring because it only affects the winner.

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

18 holes of match play. Pretty clear. 

What are the side bets? How will they work? Do they keep playing until there's a winner?

36 minutes ago, iacas said:

I don't know of anything in your list with which I agree.

Same. 🙂

Edited November 19, 2018 by chspeed

[iacas]

46 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

Just curious:  If you're not home, can this be recorded on your DVR for later viewing?  

Yeah, but it's PPV, so it might "expire" in 24 hours or so.

40 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I don't - neither do they, but from a promotions business point-of-view, they don't appear to be doing much.

I don't agree. Plus, this isn't a $150 boxing match of the decade or something like that.

40 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Me too, but I'd rather hear the highlights of those conversations, not everything they say.

I wouldn't, and that's not how it's been billed.

40 minutes ago, chspeed said:

And unless Tiger shows some other self that he's been hiding, he's so guarded in front of cameras that I can't imagine it will be that exciting.

Tiger's already shown a different side of himself these past few years, don't you agree?

Plus, this hinges on him continuing to do that, not to be steely-eyed and silent.

40 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Because these types of events can, if done well, build hype. Hype = more viewers and more engaged viewers.

But none of the things you said would guarantee more hype…?

40 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Doing a promotion for tickets would affect a lot more than 200 people. That's like saying playing the lottery is boring because it only affects the winner.

We're very different people, then, because playing the latter is pretty freaking boring. You get to dream a little, but the odds tamp down any real excitement pretty darn quickly.

40 minutes ago, chspeed said:

What are the side bets? How will they work? Do they keep playing until there's a winner?

You can find this information out. Go for it.

43 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Same. 🙂

I didn't make a list. I only pointed out that yours didn't make a lot of sense to me.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Tiger's already shown a different side of himself these past few years, don't you agree? 

Definitely. Although I still think that listening to him and Phil banter for 4 hours will only be interesting in smaller, highlighted clips.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

But none of the things you said would guarantee more hype…?

I never said guaranteed. As I'm sure you know, business ventures market and promote all the time without guarantees. The match promoters did do some stuff, my point is that they could have done a lot more and it may have lead to more viewers and more interest. I think the point I'm making is pretty uncontroversial.

1 hour ago, iacas said:

We're very different people, then, because playing the latter is pretty freaking boring. You get to dream a little, but the odds tamp down any real excitement pretty darn quickly. 

I actually never play the lottery. But it's not about you or me, it's about the fact that having a chance to win something for free (or close to free) creates buzz. That's why lotteries and ticket give-aways work.

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, chspeed said:

Definitely. Although I still think that listening to him and Phil banter for 4 hours will only be interesting in smaller, highlighted clips.

Different strokes for different folks. I don't want to see an "under-card" match.

2 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I never said guaranteed. As I'm sure you know, business ventures market and promote all the time without guarantees. The match promoters did do some stuff, my point is that they could have done a lot more and it may have lead to more viewers and more interest. I think the point I'm making is pretty uncontroversial.

And I tend to think that the people who make a living promoting things like this know what they're doing, and know a helluva lot more about this, than you or I. I'm not arguing because I disagree with you - I'm arguing because you disagree with the people who make a living doing this stuff, and because you have no insight whatsoever into what they want or how this is running, how many people have signed up, what their goals are, etc.

2 minutes ago, chspeed said:

I actually never play the lottery. But it's not about you or me, it's about the fact that having a chance to win something for free (or close to free) creates buzz. That's why lotteries and ticket give-aways work.

If they didn't want to have a freaking gallery of 200 people or whatever, then your suggestion is a complete non-starter. And since they have said "no gallery, etc." then it's not an unsafe assumption that… your suggestion is a complete non-starter.

Just like when fans whine about a coach not playing a certain player more, and make up reasons about how they must dislike the guy or something… I tend to assume that the coaches know a helluva lot more about what they're doing than the fans.

[chspeed]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

I'm not arguing because I disagree with you - I'm arguing because you disagree with the people who make a living doing this stuff, and because you have no insight whatsoever into what they want or how this is running, how many people have signed up, what their goals are, etc.

Really? You are basically saying that people's opinions are invalid unless they "do it for a living?" And vice versa. I have worked with a number big media marketing groups on online events and I can tell you from experience that they often make mistakes. Real, expensive, fundamental mistakes. Since we both have no insight into the promoter's thoughts, why do you assume that I "disagree with the people who make a living doing this stuff"? Maybe they also wish they could have done more but didn't have the budget? I'm not saying that my suggestions are correct, but to disagree with them simply because they weren't done is not the way I think.

25 minutes ago, iacas said:

Just like when fans whine about a coach not playing a certain player more, and make up reasons about how they must dislike the guy or something… I tend to assume that the coaches know a helluva lot more about what they're doing than the fans. 

Of course the coaches know more, but that doesn't mean that the coach wasn't wrong. It also doesn't mean that you can't question the coach, nor talk about. And if your response to any Monday morning quarterback talk is "you're not the coach", then remind me not to talk footballl with you.😁

[iacas]

I’m saying that the odds are they know what they’re doing are much greater than the odds that you know better.

That is all.

And they didn’t want spectators.

[chspeed]

2 minutes ago, iacas said:

I’m saying that the odds are they know what they’re doing are much greater than the odds that you know better.

That is all.

 

That's a straw man response. Of course they are, but that's not what my post, nor my response to your rebuttal, was about.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, chspeed said:

That's a straw man response.

It isn’t.

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, chspeed said:

You are basically saying that people's opinions are invalid unless they "do it for a living?"

I don’t think he’s saying that all. 

59 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

I’m saying that the odds are they know what they’re doing are much greater than the odds that you know better.

 

He’s saying this.

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

It isn’t.

Ha ha! OK, got me there. 😎

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

I don’t think he’s saying that all

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

 

Please explain. "I'm not arguing because I disagree with you - I'm arguing because you disagree with the people who make a living doing this stuff". Seems pretty clear to me.

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

He’s saying this. 

Yes, I know he's saying this. My point is that this is obvious, but is besides the point. Look, I understand the value of expertise, and the automatic rejection of others' points of view based on it. However, there's a difference between discussing a football coach's choices, marketing strategies, and let's say neurosurgery.  In discussing football, it's silly and dull to disclaim non-expert opinion. In neurosurgery, the opposite is true. Marketing, I would say, lies somewhere in between.

Edited November 20, 2018 by chspeed