"Because some of the comments that were made, they were isolated on a very narrow part of the value equation."
Looks like National Golf Day was a success since there seems to be a pretty consistent use in reporting (here and here) of the economic and charity numbers tied to golf, which are staggering. Even if you cut them in half.
Tim Finchem sat down with good buddy Greg Norman and Fred Couples for a President's Cup press conference. But there was this question about the lobbying effort.
The morning was a breakfast about the First Tee primarily, but it kicked off us going out and talking to members and the basic message is reminding members that golf is an industry of $75 billion, $76 billion. You put it in these terms: It's the equivalent of the motion picture and publishing industry combined, and that goes for revenue, jobs and overall economic impact. That's part one.
And part two is the professional side of the game, the significance, which includes sponsor tournaments has a $3.6 billion impact and raised $124 million for charity. We are integrated into communities to raise money for charity.
Warning, new v-word usage coming:
Most of the reaction I get from members of Congress is they recognize the value of corporate sponsorship in sports marketing generally, and particularly, with the PGA TOUR which is 100 percent organized for charitable purposes, and we have always got a good response from members on that subject and we certainly are getting a good response now.
But what happened a couple of months ago taught us a lesson that this is something that needs to be reaffirmed on a regular basis with members so they have that as a backdrop before public commentary is made. Because some of the comments that were made, they were isolated on a very narrow part of the value equation. Whether you're going have a dinner and have some musical entertainment, I think it's a very subjective thing. Whether you or I might go to a dinner that has Sheryl Crow playing, you might think it's lavish; I probably wouldn't, but then that's my opinion.
Poor Sheryl. But Commish, she opened for the Stones. Your band!
Thursday, May 14, 2009 at 06:54 AM
Reader Comments (2)
a=b+c+d+m, where a is narrower that b+c+d+m.
But, hang on, Isn't the whole point that the two sides of an equation equal each other?
Can an equation have a narrow part? Let's see:
a=b+c+d+m, where the presence of Sheryl Crow makes a look wider than b+c+d+m.
Now I get it.