What is "PT"?
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
DGWT cancelled?
- Thread starter DavidSauls
- Start date
What is "PT"?
Quinntastic
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 469
Pro tour I guess. I have heard people talk about it and not even sure what they mean. I put it in precisely for that reason, if it isn't a real tour but it's still perpetuated as such in small talk circle on the course, then there is a real problem in the marketing strategy of the real tours. I can't say I follow a specific tour, as I'm sure most of us don't, because there really isn't a "tour". Just some affiliated tournaments that all run simultaneously under separate names.
Edit: I suppose they could be just referring to the DGPT and just shortened it to PT?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Edit: I suppose they could be just referring to the DGPT and just shortened it to PT?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
dehaas
* Ace Member *
Long term i see the pdga acting as the sanctioning body and the collection of BIG tournaments being handled by whatever separate entity. Pdga focuses on grassroots stuff, getting new people into the game and the am side. Still have sanctioned tournaments, but maybe restructure tiers to only have 2 and let the "tour" focus on the larger ones and make them heavily leaning towards the pro side. Maybe larger am events would have the opportunity for top performers to earn a spot in one of the big boy events. Or the larger events become invite only.
Having pro and am events the same weekend is tough because a lot of your potential volunteer help is playing. Doing separate weekends is tough too because ams who want to volunteer basically are tied up for an entire week between playing their side and volunteering for the other side. I don't know if there's an easy answer to that problem.
Having pro and am events the same weekend is tough because a lot of your potential volunteer help is playing. Doing separate weekends is tough too because ams who want to volunteer basically are tied up for an entire week between playing their side and volunteering for the other side. I don't know if there's an easy answer to that problem.
Quinntastic
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2017
- Messages
- 469
Absolutely. It feels like Dg is stuck in a jam. On one side growth requires some level of concession to streamlined, revenue oriented, packaged marketing. On the other this whole sport is about community involvement and accessibility, so moving towards a less accessible pro oriented environment can really stagnate grassroots growth. But if the end result never reaches a consumer on a large scale growth is limited to a much smaller potential. No easy solutions, no magic fix. Time will tell
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The first time you mentioned PT, I assumed it was short for DGPT.
There is no actual "Pro Tour"....it's a casual term for the higher level events that the dozen or so top pros are likely to attend. There are now 2 tours---the NT, run by the PDGA, and the DGPT, run by Steve Dodge.
However, everyone worked together so that the Majors (Worlds, etc.), NT, DGPT, and suddenly-defunct DGWT didn't overlap, and together formed a logical string of events so the touring pros could travel around and more easily hit them all, playing a big event every week couple of weeks---or almost every week, if they hit A-tiers in between. That would be close to a "Pro Tour".
At this point in our growth, no one can command the structure---not even the PDGA. Which is good. The others have experimented with their own theories as to how to bring disc golf to a wider audience, and I think we're better off with the diversity of ideas being tested, than one top-down system (which we had for decades before 2016).
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
I've always heard PT used the way David has defined it, traveling Pros and the events they play at. It isn't a formal tour.
The NT thing is loose at best. Yes, there is a tour recognition, but I never thought of it as that big of deal.
The simple fact is that until DGWT and DGPT there wasn't a tour. That is why Steve pursued the idea in the first place. IIRC his goal was to use the NT events as the base of a tour, and the PDGA felt he didn't have the financial backing to make a go of the thing. He was committed to a tour, so he grew one based on his expertise and from events he could get to go along. It seems, by speculation, that he gave up the Maple Hill NT status so he could make it a component of his tour.
The DGWT suddenly appeared when Steve started his tour. I don't know the basis, development etc. of that tour, although there seemed to be an attempt to include major events controlled by Innova as a base and to stick to Innova backing, that is, it was an Innova gig.
Everything I've heard out of the PDGA is that they want a tour. They want it to be well backed and supported, they don't want it to be a PDGA gig. I'd guess they agree with the sentiment that no one is ready yet, that is, no one has a good enough package to run a PDGA sanctioned tour - if there was such a thing.
The notions that things stink, we're not ready, it all sucks etc. is sort of ignoring our history, some of it pretty recent. The structural growth of single events, and the overall package of events, over the past ten to fifteen years, in a sport with no major financial backing, is phenomenal. It took soccer over thirty years to grow into the MLS and they had a ton of financial backing. I understand the short term, I want my pro tour now so that as a 980 rated player I can quit my day job and go on tour, idea, but that isn't likely in any sport.
What is the goal? Of a tour?
1) Fan participation - take a look at the Smash betting set up and other similar tools. Look at the growth in metrics (including both DGPT and DGWT) All of that leads to fan engagement. Is our expectation that it should be perfect and solid day one?
2) A structural path for pro players to follow? The PDGA increasingly maps out a path through the events to make it as easy for the Pro players as possible. Is it perfect? Probably not, but the effort is there.
3) Increased payout. Holy Cow, Steve Dodge brought $10,000 in immediate payout to the winner of his tour. DGWT brought the coveted gold jacket, (giggle) The payout over the season has grown five to tenfold over the past five years. Um, my portfolio doesn't do that well.
I can't help think this is more of the American, I want my reward and I want it now, phenomena. I'd say the sport is doing darned well and that is due to some serious effort on the part of: Innova, Tri, Discraft, the PDGA, DGWT, DGPT, TDs everywhere, all the smaller manufacturers, none who existed five to ten years ago, and a damned fine group of participants, some who like to come here. It's a pretty amazing growth. Now, you've probably noticed, I left out Smash, CCDG, McFly, Jomez etc. I give those guys huge kudos. They are engaging 5,000 to 70,000 fans every week during the season. That, IMO, is pretty good stuff.
The NT thing is loose at best. Yes, there is a tour recognition, but I never thought of it as that big of deal.
The simple fact is that until DGWT and DGPT there wasn't a tour. That is why Steve pursued the idea in the first place. IIRC his goal was to use the NT events as the base of a tour, and the PDGA felt he didn't have the financial backing to make a go of the thing. He was committed to a tour, so he grew one based on his expertise and from events he could get to go along. It seems, by speculation, that he gave up the Maple Hill NT status so he could make it a component of his tour.
The DGWT suddenly appeared when Steve started his tour. I don't know the basis, development etc. of that tour, although there seemed to be an attempt to include major events controlled by Innova as a base and to stick to Innova backing, that is, it was an Innova gig.
Everything I've heard out of the PDGA is that they want a tour. They want it to be well backed and supported, they don't want it to be a PDGA gig. I'd guess they agree with the sentiment that no one is ready yet, that is, no one has a good enough package to run a PDGA sanctioned tour - if there was such a thing.
The notions that things stink, we're not ready, it all sucks etc. is sort of ignoring our history, some of it pretty recent. The structural growth of single events, and the overall package of events, over the past ten to fifteen years, in a sport with no major financial backing, is phenomenal. It took soccer over thirty years to grow into the MLS and they had a ton of financial backing. I understand the short term, I want my pro tour now so that as a 980 rated player I can quit my day job and go on tour, idea, but that isn't likely in any sport.
What is the goal? Of a tour?
1) Fan participation - take a look at the Smash betting set up and other similar tools. Look at the growth in metrics (including both DGPT and DGWT) All of that leads to fan engagement. Is our expectation that it should be perfect and solid day one?
2) A structural path for pro players to follow? The PDGA increasingly maps out a path through the events to make it as easy for the Pro players as possible. Is it perfect? Probably not, but the effort is there.
3) Increased payout. Holy Cow, Steve Dodge brought $10,000 in immediate payout to the winner of his tour. DGWT brought the coveted gold jacket, (giggle) The payout over the season has grown five to tenfold over the past five years. Um, my portfolio doesn't do that well.
I can't help think this is more of the American, I want my reward and I want it now, phenomena. I'd say the sport is doing darned well and that is due to some serious effort on the part of: Innova, Tri, Discraft, the PDGA, DGWT, DGPT, TDs everywhere, all the smaller manufacturers, none who existed five to ten years ago, and a damned fine group of participants, some who like to come here. It's a pretty amazing growth. Now, you've probably noticed, I left out Smash, CCDG, McFly, Jomez etc. I give those guys huge kudos. They are engaging 5,000 to 70,000 fans every week during the season. That, IMO, is pretty good stuff.
Agreed, except that I have a higher opinion of what the PDGA has tried to do with the NT. It was a more spread out, 6- or 7-month tour, the next level below Majors, with a points champion and the rest.
The difference is that DGPT and DGWT put more focus on drawing spectators, in person and online, and particular with DGPT, on promotion. At least on social media promotion.
The PDGA wisely didn't want to hand the NT off to someone unproven, but they did seem to coordinate the scheduling to put the others in a similar level.
The difference is that DGPT and DGWT put more focus on drawing spectators, in person and online, and particular with DGPT, on promotion. At least on social media promotion.
The PDGA wisely didn't want to hand the NT off to someone unproven, but they did seem to coordinate the scheduling to put the others in a similar level.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
One other thing I left out, the effort of Pros to engage in social media. Yeah, they ain't out there letting the ham-handed beat them up, but their available commentary and other efforts can't be ignored. Sorry Nate, Jerm etc. for the forget.
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Onemilemore - Um, a nice article on the structure and intent of the PDGA for such a thing, what they'd want, in terms of backing etc. well, I'd read that, save it to my hard drive, quote it, annoy other new posters with info from it, etc. You know, just sayin'.
Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? The first person to answer that correctly (and show work) will be a happy entrepreneur.
I just think both of the tours began 2-3 years too soon. They're spending too much time either a) assisting with the 'heavy lifting' part of the growth curve which is too soon for major partners/investors, or b) making too many compromises to their quality objective which results in a product that people are 7/10 excited about instead of 10/10.
These are of course just my opinions, based on my experience working with both tours, and obviously these are 'lessons learned in hindsight' and not 'I told you so' prophecy.
Well that's the million dollar question isn't it? The first person to answer that correctly (and show work) will be a happy entrepreneur.
I just think both of the tours began 2-3 years too soon. They're spending too much time either a) assisting with the 'heavy lifting' part of the growth curve which is too soon for major partners/investors, or b) making too many compromises to their quality objective which results in a product that people are 7/10 excited about instead of 10/10.
These are of course just my opinions, based on my experience working with both tours, and obviously these are 'lessons learned in hindsight' and not 'I told you so' prophecy.
I'll agree with you on the DGWT, while also adding in the caveat that Jussi really did not help himself at all from a PR perspective with some of the things he said/did. However, I think the Pro Tour started at about the right time, and is positioning itself through doing some of the heavy lifting to be one of the premier tours. Part of this is the lessons which have been learned and ideas tried when it's peanuts on the line, compared to the big money that could potentially be had in the next 3-5 years (or longer) with growth. In some respects they are also learning from the NT from both a macro (i.e. analyzing what was done well or not done well) and from Steve's own experience running a NT tournament for a while. Steve has basically taken a lot of the tournaments that pros were already playing as part of their individual tours and linked them together to form a cohesive tour with a tour championship finale at the end of the year. While it may not be big enough yet for some of the huge names to get on board with playing in all the events, it has certainly created a tour which many of the second tier pros can play in and make enough to make touring possible. He's also using the brand to create bigger tournaments (the Idlewild Open and Jonesboro Open last year, for example, as well as the San Francisco event this year) to see what will stick and what won't. To me, that's a worthwhile investment of work because you're able to build your own brand and coordinate efforts, rather than have everyone do their own thing and then try to knit it all together (for example, the Nick Hyde Memorial dropping from the tour this year because of all the extra stuff that goes along with running a Pro Tour event)
Not trying to sound argumentative, but everything you mentioned as a pro about the DGPT, the DGWT was doing equally as well. It was just an internationally focused concept and not a US-focused one. In general, the US audience didn't appreciate not being the focus of all of the attention IMO.
The biggest difference in the tours to me was the caliber of events (which goes hands down to the DGWT in terms of both prestige and organization), and the fact that DGWT insourced its media whereas DGPT spreads it out. The cons for the DGPT is that the viewership isn't in the same league as WT events, but the pro is that Steve pays much less and the audience shoulders that burden on multiple fronts (Patreon, Merchandise, etc.)
tomdizzlefizzle
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 558
I just farted and It smells like cabbage.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
DGPT Championship Final round live stream/vid view count: 20,592
Smashboxx DGPT CHamp final round live stream/vid view count: 15,799
Jomez coverage of DGPT final round: f9 80,585 b9 75,592
DGWT USDGC final round lead card: f9 93,380 b9 90,568
Also, roughly half as many people also watched the chase card vids.
Am I missing something?.....
Interesting numbers. Among other things, the DGPT final round was an event created entirely by the DGPT, whereas the DGWT USDGC final round was an event whose prestige preceded the tour.....and had the virtue of already being a Major, one of the top 2 events on the calendar for more than a decade.
DGWT event final rounds for 2017 averaged 102,800 views
DGPT event final rounds (last 4 events) averaged 78,357 views
SpinTV has 15k more subs than Jomez, gets 24,500 more views on average on the compared vids.
So maybe "not in the same league" is a bit of a stretch but almost 24% more views is nothing to scoff at either considering it's literally the same product.
Feel free to agree or disagree but I'm not going down a rabbit hole on this. I can see over the proverbial edge here and I don't want to turn this into another tired DGPT vs DGWT debate. That path has been worn enough, my bigger point is still that I'm of the opinion that both tours were too early to be viable. Time will tell, and if I'm wrong that means good things for the sport so it's a win-win.
SD86
Banned
Completely disagree with this. Fans in the USA appreciate good disc golf in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc., as well as the USA. You're really clutching at straws to blame American DG fans for Jussi's failures.
zj1002
* Ace Member *
Not arguing here but I'm not sure what subscribers proves other than your brand is twice as old and started as a media vehicle for Innova/DM. I'd be curious to know which channel has gained more in the last 2 years when Jomez first started gaining more ground and both tours came around. That would be probably more telling considering that covers the entire lifespan of both tours. I also know nothing of the media agreements, this is purely my outside observation on the success of both in the past 2 years where Jomez appears to be more popular with most fans as a result of the US focused DGPT.
brutalbrutus
* Ace Member *
Didn't Jomez do the post-pro coverage for both tours?...
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
My thought is this comparison of coverage numbers masks the bigger issue of numbers large enough to generate not only enough income to support that coverage but the 10s of thousands in $$ and resources truly needed to host each event of this magnitude. Speaking of magnitude, are we talking one order of magnitude (10x) increase in viewership? Not that Dodge and Jussi are required to share their financials. But some better estimate of viewership needs might help guide this discussion and perhaps brainstorm new ways to improve them.
