cfritchie

Well the inference was they are both examples of bad publicity, which mentioning them in the same phrase could imply they are potentialy of equal negativity from the writer. There isn't any doubt the publicity from the oil spill was bad...and could never be considered good. It also was not a "planned communication." The GD cover was a planned communication and I suspect the editor knew exactly what could/would happen, but in this case some may feel it is bad publicity and some may not...we have these discussions on a regular basis at our publication. We weigh the risk and decide to move forward or go down a different path. Mostly due to how much time we want to deal with it from readers/advertisers. Personally to me there is a difference in publicity as a result of a tragedy/crime as opposed to publicity from a editorial/marketing decision. I personally think a better example would be the Rolling Stone cover that had the surviving Boston bomber on it...In that case more so then not most surely felt that was offensive and bad publicity for Rolling Stone.

My point is there are a million things out there that are more offensive to wives, daughters, and husbands then physically fit gal in workout clothes. If this is the one to take a stance against and companies and consumers are going to boycott then they are wearing rose colored glasses. Raise your daughter or view women as you see fit...that is the great thing about where we live...we can all have different opinions and they both may be right. On a side note...I can promise you...there are many many women who are not offended by this cover...or images that are much more sexual in nature.

"If" this is true...it does no good to take a stance in private? Who are these companies? To say the 10% of those who are fans of the LPGA are now never going to pickup GD is a big stretch. Because one or two folks who might be out of touch with today's media find this cover offensive isn't going to have any impact on the magazine. I make my living in this world...I can promise you there are more advertisers getting on board and loving all the attention then those leaving the publication. Let's wait and review this in 90 days, a year from now... I don't see GD going under anytime soon... For those who think this cover crossed a line of sexuality and they think it is a bad message for their "daughters" you need to wake up and open your eyes. There is hardly anything overtly sexual about the cover. Her cleavage is mostly covered and she is wearing pants. She is wearing more then your daughter or wife wear to go swimming. Today's high school senior portraiture is much more "mature" then this image. You also can't please 100% of the people....most die trying

Oh No, I get your point... But to compare the publicity of a cover you may disagree with to that of a major disaster is ludicrous. That's like saying a shooting that takes place in a McDonalds is a good thing for McDonalds because no publicity is bad publicity which is beyond that of any common sense. There is 0% chance this has a negative impact on subscriptions or more importantly advertisers...seems we've not heard a single advertiser step-up and say they are out. The cover is not overly sexual or the person is not a "demon" in the eyes of the media/public...for example the cover of Rolling Stone that had the Boston Bomber on it...that most of us agree was crossing a line. Pissing off the LPGA? I don't see the LPGA contributing much to the publication? Do they buy ads? Is the demographic that follows the LPGA a big player in GD..I don't think so... Like I said earlier...look at the followers on twitter....Paulina has more then triple that of the LPGA..

Then we'd have to discuss is he the greatest amateur of all time...with who he beat compared to who others beat...back in the day...

Again, That's a irrelevant comparison...BP didn't create the oil spill to get attention, GD did create the cover to get attention. They understood the risk and reward of picking what some might think is subjective or controversial. Golf Digest knows who their target market is... 78% Male with 63% of those males being 18-54. Of the males who are in that group I wonder how many can name 3 members of the LPGA or even care about the LPGA! At your course this weekend I'd be curious how many people know the name of the LPGA victor from the major this past weekend...or how many even knew there was a major. I do suspect there will be lots of discussions about various T&A; of which some might be of Paulina. As others said...Paulina is connected to golf...they are promoting the game.

Read Dave Stockton's book "Unconscious Putting" I read it two weeks ago... after 5-6 rounds not a single 3 putt and have averaged 3 birdies per round...with one round I had 5. My normal average birdies is 1.25 per round. You can read it in 3-4 days..it is an easy read.

Not one shot...but I had 4 birdies in a row..on a tough course... 3 were stiffies (SandWedge, 8 iron, 9 iron) and one was a 20'er downhill getting up and down on a par 5.

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

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.

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.

But you do define her intelligence in the first comment but back off in the next? I don't follow her, but don't see much of a difference in her and half the other gals her age who don't have to worry about a college education or finding a career. I don't mean this in a spiteful way...in a brief look at the images she has posted of herself she seems to be "living life large." I know a lot of us would if we could.

topped shot - shank or topped shot and a severe popup?

Not for Phil.... ;)

left off part of a sentence...can't see how to edit my post...

What I'm saying is I've ran or participated in hundreds of tournaments...I was an assistant and only needed my oral interview years ago for my Class A. The likely hood that a 18 will go low with a net score in a tournament is and always has been greater. There are many reasons of which sandbagging, ego, being on (low handicapper has a greater room for improvement.) In your argument if the handicap is right why do you think a high handicapper will shoot above their score and a low will always shoot their score? What I think is human nature is human nature. I've found at the clubs I worked the high handicappers would conveniently forget to turn in low scores and low handicapper would fail to record high scores. The low handicapper tends to have a bit more ego attached to the handicap card where a lot of high handicap players who play tournaments "like" a high handicap. Does this represent every golfer..no of course it doesn't. If you were to pole players with a handicap of 5 or less I would suspect you'd never see them playing in a tournament without flights. Again, go look at the net scoring from just about any tournament. The net score of the high handicap flight will always be lower then the net score from the championship flight. But of course...this is just my opinion and experience.

Early morning typo! Higher handicap would have a lower net score! My bad!

I'd challenge you to contact 3 random clubs and look at the scoresheets from the last net event they held. I can promise you the flight with 18+ handicap players had an average net score higher then the flight with 5 or less as a handicap.

I understand that...my comment was geared to the idea that the handicap system is better for the low handicapped player then the high handicap player....which just ins't the case.

You really think the handicap system favors the better player? Now that is crazy! Go to any club tournament this week and and see how often a 2 shoots a net 65...but see how often a 18 handicapper does it!

I'm still confused... Never hear of an "out of season" score?

Not sure I understand why the scores couldn't be posted?

Well....I've never killed anyone....yet

Thanks Jim! What is strange is on video my swings get's a little on the inside about half way back but tends to be over the backswing plane coming down but I feel I compensate by sliding forward so I keep in "inside" the target line with the "slide" now what was going to be an "over" swing really becomes to much inside and I let go early....

You should let them know a handicap does not know age...