Flicking Between The Two
The Masters was always going to provide a compelling spectacle for the TV viewer, as it does every year. But for the second year running, we viewers were given the opportunity to make a choice on where to pledge our allegiance. Who to go with…the BBC or Sky?
The pros and cons of both are subjective of course. The BBC has Peter Alliss, tradition, and loyalty, but unfortunately they don’t have the same quantity of coverage anymore. Gone are the days of ‘exclusivity’ with the BBC. This year, their Masters exposure included highlights on the first two days, live coverage over the weekend. Sky, on the other hand, had full coverage throughout the week. Almost too much at times, but they also have commercials, Mark Roe, and unnecessary amounts of technology. As you can see, subjective!
One of the “great” advantages of social media is that it allows you to gauge the public mood. Observing comments on Twitter, you couldn’t help but notice the endless debate surrounding the merits, qualities, and loyalties of the respective broadcasters. Of course, it has to be said that ultimately the choice lies in hands of the viewer (or at least the person in charge of the remote control) but you wonder whether the broadcasting bosses take much notice of the conversations going on in the social media world.
One would assume they must, as poor Michael Vaughan – yes he of cricketing fame – seemed to get so much abuse on Twitter after dropping the proverbial ball in an interview with Tiger Woods, that we can only presume the BBC took stock of the public appeal and decided to give him out after reviewing the television replay. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of Michael Vaughan in a cricketing environment, where he is a superb, insightful, knowledgeable, and valuable asset to the coverage. But that, coupled with the fact that he likes golf, doesn’t qualify him to ask the appropriate questions to the best golfers in the world – especially when they’ve just walked off the course at the first Major of the year, something he has never experienced.
Even if it had worked, the decision to employ him in this role sent out the message that the BBC couldn’t get a golfer to do it, were cutting corners or he was there on a jolly. Perhaps all were true. I could spell out several other reasons why it irked me, but clearly from comments I read over the weekend, there probably isn’t any need. To me, it’s a golfer or a professional broadcaster please, not an ex-cricketer.
Sky received their fair share of bashing too. Not in the credibility department, as they’d assembled a sizeable team of golfing experts. The problem lies more in the fact that Monty (love him or loathe him) divides opinion, as does Mark Roe. The same could be said for other presenters on both broadcasters, but the feelings appear to be concentrated where these two are concerned. Too many people pointed out that Monty likes to talk about himself, for it to be a coincidence.
Of course, the commercial breaks on Sky infuriate all but the tea addicts, but no shots are ever missed on either channel, due to breaks being controlled by the host broadcasters in the US. The problem for the broadcasters is how to fill this time. Sky’s answer was the ‘Shot Centre’ which could be deemed to be part of the ‘footballisation’ (excuse the made up word there, but I’m sure you’ll see what I mean) of golf coverage. Just because the technology is there to replicate, analyse, record, and replay one swing in thirty different angles and speeds, it doesn’t mean what you’re showing is of interest to your audience, insightful, or benefitting the viewer’s experience. Some of the drawings on the ‘Shot Centre’ looked like a child’s ‘Etcher Sketch’, and you couldn’t help but feel that the technology is being used because it’s there rather than because it adds something.
The BBC found a winning formula a few years ago that most people found particularly engaging, ‘Ken on the Course’. But again, some people now find this a tired format. Personally, I like the light hearted insight into how the course is playing, but how Ken managed to get a mouldy banana, a toilet brush, and various other props past the Augusta National Committee is beyond me.
What quickly became apparent was that instead of choosing a broadcaster and sticking by it, a large number of golf fans spent most of the weekend flicking between coverage. Usually a decision that was prompted by: a return to the commentary box for Monty; an interview with Michael Vaughan; Mark Roe in the ‘Shot Centre’; or Ken and his banana.
Perhaps all this, and the fact that the golfing pictures were by and large identical on the two channels, serves as evidence that golfers just want to watch golf. It sounds obvious, but the bells and whistles that accompany the actual golf footage are simply there to pad out the time. It seems that in some cases, all of these extra touches had the opposite effect of their intentions, pushing viewers to try the alternative, rather than acting as a reason to remain with the current channel.
Whether you’re a fan of Butch, Ewan, Shot Centre, and Sky or Ken, Peter, Andrew, and the BBC , I only hope you were watching the BBC during the closing stages as Peter Alliss (and it could only be him), muttered the words that may be forever associated with the climax of the 2012 Masters. As Bubba Watson walked nervously towards his short putt for victory, Alliss found the perfect comic timing to deliver the unforgettable line…“well this is hardly the time to be wearing white trousers!”