Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Good Sports Podcasts golf or otherwise

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    finglashoop wrote: »
    why is it silly?
    because you think paid for media is somehow better?

    very few "independent journalists" anymore.

    i dont use any click bait sites.

    i dont mind an ad on a podcast that i can forward through.

    i can afford it but choose not to pay for ANY podcast. Ability to afford something doesnt automatically mean you should pay it.

    I pay for a golf club membership even though i cant play due to restrictions over the last year as it is still of value to me.

    second captains is an example of a pod i also listened to but wouldnt pay for. havent listened to rogan since his move to a singular provider.


    There is no disinformation or poor research once you magically pay for a pod via patreon?

    No I didn’t say paid for media is magically better but it is generally better if you bother to research it.

    I think automatically dismissing a media that you have to pay for which is what you’re doing now is very silly. I completely stand by that.

    If the source is good enough to listen to for free then why not listen to it when it’s not free?
    If you’re only listening to it because it’s free then that’s a bad reason to consume it at all.

    Researching your media and in many cases paying for the media is an automatic curator which is what I said.

    Some media that I pay for, I don’t technically have to pay for but I choose to do it because it means that the source is more likely to remain in the format that I enjoy.

    I never said that you can’t afford anything or that just because you can afford you should pay for it, that’s a personal choice so let’s not pretend I said something that I didn’t.

    Obviously you’re right that disinformation doesn’t automatically disappear if media is paid for but fair to assume that paid for media is of a higher quality than free media.

    The NewYorker is better than Vox/The Guardian, TheEconomist is better than NYT, you generally do pay for quality but it’s not guaranteed.

    Curate and if desired/required, pay for it if you choose, don’t just consume because it’s free and dismiss it when’s it’s not.


  • Options
    #63
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    gypsy79 wrote: »
    Yup in fact paying for limited podcasts/media outfits like you suggests that you love that echo chamber you live in (oops not finglashoop, the person he was replying to)e

    That’s complete drivel.

    Paying for media doesn’t mean an auto echo chamber. Sources I choose to pay for fall on both sides of the political/social spectrum by design so in fact I have curated it in such a way not to be an echo chamber.


  • Options
    #64
    Raisins
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭Raisins


    gypsy79 wrote: »
    Yup in fact paying for limited podcasts/media outfits like you suggests that you love that echo chamber you live in (oops not finglashoop, the person he was replying to)

    That insufferable c**t Ger Gilroy is perfect example of this

    Another point is they would want improve the production qualities. Yesterdays pod jumped back 30 seconds and repeated itself at least twice. Although that is good for a Newstalk production to only have that happen twice

    I actually really like listening to Ger Gilroy, think he’s one of the best presenters on OTB.

    Even if you don’t agree these repeatedly visceral insults are weird. Maybe deep down you love him...


  • Options
    #65
    finglashoop
    Registered Users Posts: 2,109 ✭✭✭finglashoop


    Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »
    No I didn’t say paid for media is magically better but it is generally better if you bother to research it.

    I think automatically dismissing a media that you have to pay for which is what you’re doing now is very silly. I completely stand by that.

    If the source is good enough to listen to for free then why not listen to it when it’s not free?
    If you’re only listening to it because it’s free then that’s a bad reason to consume it at all.

    Researching your media and in many cases paying for the media is an automatic curator which is what I said.

    Some media that I pay for, I don’t technically have to pay for but I choose to do it because it means that the source is more likely to remain in the format that I enjoy.

    I never said that you can’t afford anything or that just because you can afford you should pay for it, that’s a personal choice so let’s not pretend I said something that I didn’t.

    Obviously you’re right that disinformation doesn’t automatically disappear if media is paid for but fair to assume that paid for media is of a higher quality than free media.

    The NewYorker is better than Vox/The Guardian, TheEconomist is better than NYT, you generally do pay for quality but it’s not guaranteed.

    Curate and if desired/required, pay for it if you choose, don’t just consume because it’s free and dismiss it when’s it’s not.

    the new yorker is a long way from three golf fans talking about golf one of whom thinks hes more of an expert than the actual ex pro they have on the showand i wouldnt pay for fionn davenports opinion on golf.

    media is everywhere both free and behind a paywall so i dont need to pay for it and use the cost as some tool to curate my interests.

    Another example is the athletic, some will pay some wont but is it actually value considering the discounts to join up? i assume they need paid up "subscribers" to generate income somewhere else with the numbers? maybe im wrong and my 1 euro a month for 6 months will pay for all the journalists they have.


  • Options
    #66
    gypsy79
    Registered Users Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Raisins wrote: »
    I actually really like listening to Ger Gilroy, think he’s one of the best presenters on OTB.

    Even if you don’t agree these repeatedly visceral insults are weird. Maybe deep down you love him...

    Ah I just tired of him interwining SJW into every possible sports story. Never missing an op to rail against Trump

    His talking in a mock Eamon Dunphy accent is what grinds my gears the most


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    finglashoop wrote: »
    the new yorker is a long way from three golf fans talking about golf one of whom thinks hes more of an expert than the actual ex pro they have on the showand i wouldnt pay for fionn davenports opinion on golf.

    media is everywhere both free and behind a paywall so i dont need to pay for it and use the cost as some tool to curate my interests.

    Another example is the athletic, some will pay some wont but is it actually value considering the discounts to join up? i assume they need paid up "subscribers" to generate income somewhere else with the numbers? maybe im wrong and my 1 euro a month for 6 months will pay for all the journalists they have.

    I was just giving those as examples of media sources within the same domain.

    I just find it odd that if you care so little about his opinion then why listen? That
    Anyway, more to the point, the attitude generally of “I’ll never pay for a podcast” is fundamentally the wrong attitude.

    You’re obviously not alone and I’m not getting on to you or anything, I just think people should be more willing to pay for the content that they like no matter the medium.

    A source going behind a paywall shouldn’t be an automatic reason to dismiss it, if it’s no longer value that’s one thing but unfortunately many people take the line of no matter what I’ll never pay.


  • Options
    #68
    srfc d16
    Registered Users Posts: 328 ✭✭srfc d16


    Around 50% of their content is Rory McIlroy, 20% Tiger and 10% Spieth so they would really want to improve their output if they want to get a decent number of subscribers.
    They are fans and talk like fans which I have no issue with. As far as I can tell they are mainly fans of the 3 mentioned and are happy to ignore almost everyone and everything else which I do have an issue with


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    srfc d16 wrote: »
    Around 50% of their content is Rory McIlroy, 20% Tiger and 10% Spieth so they would really want to improve their output if they want to get a decent number of subscribers.
    They are fans and talk like fans which I have no issue with. As far as I can tell they are mainly fans of the 3 mentioned and are happy to ignore almost everyone and everything else which I do have an issue with

    A couple of them are only playing Golf a wet week as well so no real knowledge of the history of the game or equipment or technology etc. They really only want to discuss what is in the news that week or what happened with the previous weeks tournament.


  • Options
    #70
    finglashoop
    Registered Users Posts: 2,109 ✭✭✭finglashoop


    Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »
    I was just giving those as examples of media sources within the same domain.

    I just find it odd that if you care so little about his opinion then why listen? That
    Anyway, more to the point, the attitude generally of “I’ll never pay for a podcast” is fundamentally the wrong attitude.

    You’re obviously not alone and I’m not getting on to you or anything, I just think people should be more willing to pay for the content that they like no matter the medium.

    A source going behind a paywall shouldn’t be an automatic reason to dismiss it, if it’s no longer value that’s one thing but unfortunately many people take the line of no matter what I’ll never pay.

    i suppose i subscribed when it came out and kept it but now with the choice of payment or stop listening - ill stop listening.

    why is it the wrong attitude to not pay for a podcast?


  • Options
    #71
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,510 ✭✭✭blue note


    Exactly wrote: »
    A couple of them are only playing Golf a wet week as well so no real knowledge of the history of the game or equipment or technology etc. They really only want to discuss what is in the news that week or what happened with the previous weeks tournament.

    That's actually a good thing in some ways because you get that perspective. What I like about the show is that they're real amateurs. And they talk about the amateur game. I do enjoy hearing about the professional stuff, but talking about golf I'd tend to be more interested in club stuff that pga tour.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Raisins
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭Raisins


    The sound and production quality will have to improve no end if they want to charge for it.

    Peter Lawrie calling in from outside the school gates or down the back of a ditch on the driving range and the rest of the lads sounding like they’re on Mars will have to change. The sound quality of podcasts is generally poor. Way way behind paid content like second captains.

    That’s only ok when it’s free. We’ll see if they’ll be bothered to produce something that sounds better than newstalk podcasts.


  • Options
    #73
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    finglashoop wrote: »
    i suppose i subscribed when it came out and kept it but now with the choice of payment or stop listening - ill stop listening.

    why is it the wrong attitude to not pay for a podcast?

    Good media requires research & investment, if it doesn't have a backer and consumers are unwilling to finance it then in order to be produced it will automatically gravitate towards producing content which generates the most revenue(clicks).

    As poster above just mentioned, Tiger & Rory appear to make up the bulk of this one because they likely lead to the highest user engagement which in turn generates revenue.

    If the need to generate revenue is largely removed, the topics don't need to focus on clicks, they can focus on delivering better quality golf content.

    It's not an attitude about podcasts, it's an attitude towards paid media. We all love free stuff, it's just in recent decades, media largely focused on sensationalism, pessimism(not so much golf) and quick delivery over quality.

    Look at the headlines Tiger, Rory, Trump; they're all click grabbers.
    I just believe that if you think something is good quality and worth listening to, it really is worth considering pay for, that's all.


  • Options
    #74
    finglashoop
    Registered Users Posts: 2,109 ✭✭✭finglashoop


    Skye Rhythmic Infantryman wrote: »
    Good media requires research & investment, if it doesn't have a backer and consumers are unwilling to finance it then in order to be produced it will automatically gravitate towards producing content which generates the most revenue(clicks).

    As poster above just mentioned, Tiger & Rory appear to make up the bulk of this one because they likely lead to the highest user engagement which in turn generates revenue.

    If the need to generate revenue is largely removed, the topics don't need to focus on clicks, they can focus on delivering better quality golf content.

    It's not an attitude about podcasts, it's an attitude towards paid media. We all love free stuff, it's just in recent decades, media largely focused on sensationalism, pessimism(not so much golf) and quick delivery over quality.

    Look at the headlines Tiger, Rory, Trump; they're all click grabbers.
    I just believe that if you think something is good quality and worth listening to, it really is worth considering pay for, that's all.

    if it was worth it Newstalk would invest in it properly no?

    posters above have pointed out quality issues with sound etc.


  • Options
    #75
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    finglashoop wrote: »
    if it was worth it Newstalk would invest in it properly no?

    posters above have pointed out quality issues with sound etc.

    Perhaps but that was never my point, I’m just speaking to an unwillingness to pay for any podcast.

    I believe people should be willing to pay for it if they think it’s good, if it’s not-as I said earlier- then that’s a separate thing.

    I wouldn’t pay for it but if I thought it was good enough then I would.


  • Options
    #76
    gypsy79
    Registered Users Posts: 1,784 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Joe Rogan was one of my favourite podcasts. My listening has nearly gone to zero because it is on a different app

    So I wont pay for one not in my top 10.

    Newstalk are going further and further downhill. Large part of it is...you pay crap then you get....


  • Options
    #77
    Pdoghue
    Registered Users Posts: 761 ✭✭✭Pdoghue


    Raisins wrote: »
    The sound and production quality will have to improve no end if they want to charge for it.

    Peter Lawrie calling in from outside the school gates or down the back of a ditch on the driving range and the rest of the lads sounding like they’re on Mars will have to change. The sound quality of podcasts is generally poor. Way way behind paid content like second captains.

    That’s only ok when it’s free. We’ll see if they’ll be bothered to produce something that sounds better than newstalk podcasts.

    I agree that the sound/production quality on the Newstalk golf podcast has been shocking. That's why I gave up on it. Nothing to do with being free or paid.

    On the other hand, the Newstalk podcast documentaries are excellently produced and have super sound quality - all free.


  • Options
    #78
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,510 ✭✭✭blue note


    The market for them is very small. Basically they're aiming at irish golfers in their 30s/40s. That's not a big group.


  • Options
    #79
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    Miley Byrne wrote: »
    I listen to it the odd time now only. Used to listen to it a lot more in the past. It's just not a great pod any more unfortunately. Fionn has no place there really. He just adds nothing that any random golfer off the street couldn't add. While Lawrie knows what he's talking about obviously, he comes across as a bitter ex pro on so many occasions.

    I'm not so sure what to say about Joe to be honest. When he started out on OTB he was likeable and easy to listen to but I think he has gotten stale or something. Maybe it's just me, I dunno.

    Also to be comparing Golf Weekly to NLU or Second Captains is just madness. Both are streets ahead of it in so many ways

    It's definitely not just you with regards Joe. I was a big fan at that start but somewhere along the way, something changed. I'm not quite sure what that was but an authentic and natural style seemed to turn into something very contrived. I think he started to take himself too seriously, as if he started to take bits from other presenters and tried to copy what he thought was good. I haven't listened in years. He's even worse on TV imo.

    Never listened to it with Lawrie but I do remember his interview about his coke addiction... coca cola. It was a weird and interesting one, but I wouldn't have put him down as a personality for radio.

    Needless to say, I won't be subscribing. I hope they sorted out the sound quality, that was a major issue at the time.


  • Options
    #80
    fullstop
    Registered Users Posts: 11,324 ✭✭✭✭fullstop


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    11th March they said will be first one that has to be paid for.

    Not sure I'll sign up for it to be honest. 3 of them are really just fan boys of golf really. Yes they might work in broadcasting but they don't offer any insight to the sport only their own opinion. I do enjoy listening to Peter Lawrie though and his thoughts and experiences.

    I prefer some of the other podcasts where they have different guests on each episode and you get a different perspective on things.

    Agree with this. Outside of Lawrie (who I find painful) the other lads don’t really have any good insight to give, it’s more of a chat and a bit of craic. Definitely not worth paying for and I can see it dying off after this decision.

    The comparison with NLU is pretty moot, as someone said those lads are full time at it and they can also call on tour pros for hour-long interviews. Production quality with them is very good, and when listening to Golf Weekly I find myself constantly turning the radio up or down depending on who is speaking.

    People saying you have to pay for good content is true, to an extent. I pay for The Athletic, but I’m paying for people who can give in-depth analysis and knowledge on their field...with no ads. GW already run ads, so why not just add a couple more in and monetize it that way?


  • Options
    #81
    Bill Ponderosa
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 542 ✭✭✭Bill Ponderosa


    No other golf podcast that I know of is behind a pay wall so I'm surprised with this move.

    Obviously the lads want to cash in but the timing is all wrong imo, in the middle of a pandemic, Golf courses closed, and the start of a major recession.

    I'm not sure the interest is there to be honest, wasn't it only last year they had to cancel their big trip to Abu Dhabi and only limited numbers were needed there.

    Will be interesting to see how they get on, as most have said there are alot better golf podcasts out there so I won't be subscribing. I'd imagine they'll still have to cover golf as part of OTB show around the big tournaments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    tyivpc5qjx0f2b
    Closed Accounts Posts: 289 ✭✭tyivpc5qjx0f2b


    fullstop wrote: »
    People saying you have to pay for good content is true, to an extent. I pay for The Athletic, but I’m paying for people who can give in-depth analysis and knowledge on their field...with no ads. GW already run ads, so why not just add a couple more in and monetize it that way?

    I pay for ESPN+, I have done so for years, basketball is my primary sport so plenty of value there for me but anecdotally the volume of content gone behind that paywall in recent years has grown exponentially.
    More of the free analysts now gone behind so it’s nearly a relative must have for the site.

    I see more & more are going behind Paywalls, a couple of podcasts I have listened to in recent years for example like Farnam street, David McWilliams or Sam Harris.
    It starts in relatively innocuous way, perhaps an AMA behind a paywall or exclusive questions, slowly full podcasts begin to go behind.

    So many podcasts out there now and as mentioned earlier, this has a small target audience, I’d say their ad revenue is pretty small.


  • Options
    #83
    Benny Cake
    Registered Users Posts: 3,143 ✭✭✭Benny Cake


    Signed up today and glad to do so, I've had ten years of free, enjoyable content and have no issue spend 4 odd euro a month.


  • Options
    #84
    Running Balance
    Registered Users Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Running Balance


    I recall them slightly sneering at second captains when they went on patreon.

    I cant see this working really. I just wouldnt have thought the content is there.

    The golf season is only 5 / 6 months long so maybe people might join for that period of the year.

    I'm out!!
    (Wont miss the constant referral to Lawrie and solicitors - flogging a "joke")


  • Options
    #85
    tropics001
    Registered Users Posts: 85 ✭✭tropics001


    i am a big podcast listener in general. i have a few that i already throw a few quid a month to on patreon so adding golf weekly isn't a big deal. it does sound like the podcasts will only be available on the patreon app though, so that sounds like a bit of a pain. some of my other podcasts do an ad-free version on patreon.

    it's interesting. i'm OK with the decision, although i was not OK a few months ago when NLU put their message board behind a $90 a year paywall, i didn't pay for that. not exactly sure what the difference is. i suppose i felt the NLU move was a naked cash grab whereas i am OK to support golf weekly after years of free content.


  • Options
    #86
    redzerdrog
    Registered Users Posts: 7,750 ✭✭✭redzerdrog


    On patreon Golf Weekly states that the benefit is early access to podcast. I wonder does this mean they will still be aired on newstalk at the weekend


  • Options
    #87
    blue note
    Registered Users Posts: 4,510 ✭✭✭blue note


    I'd assume newstalk will still cover golf, but you'll probably get the main stuff, but not the whole podcast. So if the ryder cup is on you'll get the interview with Paul mcginley, but not the 40 minutes either side of it.


  • Options
    #88
    Raisins
    Registered Users Posts: 522 ✭✭✭Raisins


    blue note wrote: »
    I'd assume newstalk will still cover golf, but you'll probably get the main stuff, but not the whole podcast. So if the ryder cup is on you'll get the interview with Paul mcginley, but not the 40 minutes either side of it.

    That’s like setting up a paid rugby podcast where Brian O’ Driscoll’s opinion is free but you’ve to pay to hear what Ger Gilroy and Eoin Sheehan think.


  • Options
    #89
    wardides
    Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭wardides


    Find it mad that they've done this. I think I would understand if there was a Newstalk Patreon & it went behind that, but it's a spin off hour of a commercial radio station. The 4e is fairly trivial, but not if you have someone who's paying for a few already. Thought Fionn's comparison to the pro v ball was a bit silly as well, i'd probably not play with that ball if all the other golf balls where free to be honest..

    I think another poster has hit the nail on the head, quick to slag off the guys at Second Captains when they went via Patreon. Charging almost the same but with one you get 1 podcast a week (4 times a year you get a bonus one), revolving one sport that generally only has major interest 34ish weeks of a year vs second captains average of about 5 podcasts a week, alongside some great content from other journalists, special guests, players chair etc.

    Mad decision, but expect they'll get a few thousand subs which will make it worthwhile vs what they're getting at the minute.


  • Options
    #90
    Running Balance
    Registered Users Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Running Balance


    I wonder how many people will subscribe / what would their breakeven be.

    I would have thought 2000 members x €4 × 10 months (reduced from 12 as no one cares about the sony open and like) = 80k giving them each 15k after expenses?

    I doubt they will hit 2000 but best of luck to them.

    I hate the arguement all for the price of a coffee or a pint. Yeah my mortgage is only 200 pints a month. My sky is 40 coffees a month. My coffee is 6 pints a week. Such a stupid justification like people dont know what a euro or pounds value is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Arnold54321
    Registered Users Posts: 51 ✭✭Arnold54321


    I’m a fan of the show but doubt they’ll get 500 subscribers. People buy so many different subscriptions these days, another on a golf podcast is just too much. I may be in the minority but really enjoy listening to Peter Lawrie, people forget he had 10 good years on tour. Seems like a decent chap too.


Advertisement