In this five-part series I'll suggest potential, perhaps radical, ways to get 50 to 1000 times more spectators than we have now. Without a quickly growing base of paying spectators, whether in person, live online, or post-production video, there will continue to be just enough money in the game for a small number of professionals to eek out a living from their winnings and sponsorships. This is true for any emerging sport, not just disc golf. 

Several pros certainly get some expenses covered and earn bonuses from disc golf related sponsors. But even that is only sustainable as a business model when each sponsor does their business math and is satisfied that their sponsored pros generate incrementally more product sales than they would otherwise sell to justify their sponsorship outlay. If not, then it may be a poor business decision to continue sponsoring a team of pros or at least as many of them.

The first sport credited with bringing together large numbers of spectators has a basic connection with disc golf. In the 1870s, big crowds turned out to watch race walking (pedestrianism). One 500-mile(!) race around the track between two men packed a stadium for six days straight. The race wasn't even close with one guy winning by more than 50 miles. One might hope that 140 years later combining walking with throwing discs at targets would draw even bigger crowds...

Photo credit: KingOfThePeds.com

In what some historians consider the first modern spectator sport, one reason for the number of spectators was a lack of much alternate legal entertainment at the time - no movies, cars, or outdoor lighting for sports at night. Sports we now take for granted, like football, baseball and basketball, were just being developed. Their pro versions started a few decades later when race walking started a steep decline in spectator interest by the 1890s.

What's instructive from early race walking history is that events draw spectators because they perceive it's fun and interesting plus a good value and use of their time. When other competing alternatives become available, interest can drop. Once the electrical grid, horseless carriages, and interesting new sports became available as the 20th century emerged, I suspect people looked back and wondered why they ever thought spending hour upon hour watching two guys walking around a track was worth it. But apparently it was fascinating for its time...and gambling was involved.

Regardless of whether you think about it consciously or not, we all do this mental calculation on how we choose to spend our free time. We can think of activities by how much we enjoy them relative to their cost. The more enjoyment we get per dollar spent for an activity, the more likely we are to choose it versus another activity. Some free activities we might prefer even more. But how long they take does have a hidden mental cost that varies with each person. The value of time continues to increase and attention spans decrease as evidenced by faster cuts in news and videos and, BTW, fewer words being used, LOL. 

This creeping increase in time value could be one underlying reason for the steady drop-off in rounds of ball golf played per year. I doubt those who play ball golf enjoy it any less. But as perceived time-cost increases, it might reduce a ball golfer's overall enjoyment value for this typically 4+ hour activity. It's easy to see why many disc golfers prefer rec rounds to typically slower tournament rounds when considering how players might calculate their enjoyment value for both activities. Now taking it a step further, consider the challenge we have to attract people to watch any activity versus participate.

We have the commonly shared perception over the past 30+ years of PDGA competition that people who play disc golf, if they have a choice, would usually prefer to play it than watch it. This seems to hold true even though watching our best players is usually free when the event is in their backyard. Watching free live disc golf coverage online also hasn't been sufficiently compelling versus doing other non-disc golf related activities even when players are not able to play.

There's an ongoing frustration among many pros who feel that, "We play this cool sport at a World Class level. People should want to watch us!" Unfortunately, there are world class players in many sports and games playing in many world class competitions where few, other than fellow competitors, coaches and family, watch their awesome skills let alone pay to watch.

Photo credit: KayakingJournal.com

The PDGA has firm numbers showing the competition side of disc golf is experiencing unprecedented growth approaching 25+% annually with recreational play perhaps growing even faster. One might think this would naturally result in more potential spectators. But even if their percentage or level of interest in watching continues to grow at the same percentage as our current base, it's not going to be enough for the pro purses to really take off, especially since we're currently just talking about a small percentage of people willing to watch free, not necessarily pay to do so.

Our growth in pro purses has been agonizingly slow so far for most pros on the road trying to make a decent living. The huge Ledgestone Insurance Open event on the surface appeared to be a major breakthrough in cash added to the pro purse. However, it may have been a temporary windfall. Tournament Director, Nate Heinold says that none of the Ledgestone purse came from spectators and some money came from players buying tournament stamped discs which continues to be our traditional means of indirect sponsorship.

This story is a wake-up call to pros, TDs, and their sponsors to brainstorm and try new and even some radical ideas that might significantly accelerate not just the number of spectators, but more who are willing to pay to watch. This famous adage, which might apply to our history of high level disc golf events cautions,  "If you continue repeating the same process, you are foolish to expect a different outcome."

One of those "same processes" is if we simply continue making the game better for pros in our top events, such as incorporating longer or more challenging courses suitable for spectating, using better or different equipment (smaller targets), and adding more amenities (bleachers, snack bars, alcohol), it should boost spectator numbers. They might do that. But shouldn't we also determine whether those improvements are in-sync with what really compels people to watch various pro sports? 

Our 30+ year track record of tweaking equipment, improving courses and venues. at least in North America, does not indicate these methods produce much of an increase in spectators or produce an increase any faster than the general growth in the sport. It's reasonable to consider ways to improve our current pro game. But doing that alone may not do much to help produce orders of magnitude increase in spectators in North America.

The success Jussi Meresmaa and his team had this year generating TV viewership for the European Open provides hope that generating disc golf spectators including those willing to pay may be an easier task outside North America. The sport in Northern Europe, especially Finland, has recently grown faster than in North America. The question is whether that media success can be duplicated in the much larger, more diverse North American market. We know that sports fans outside the U.S. are avid spectators in large numbers for sports like cricket and soccer that have yet to really gain traction in the U.S. compared with the NFL, MLB, and NBA. Maybe disc golf, as currently played in our majors, will turn out to have broader appeal to generate paying spectators outside the U.S.

The bottom line: Shouldn't the ability to significantly increase interest from spectators be an important factor when considering potential game improvements or changes at our highest pro level? Otherwise, the long term money available to support our professional stars will not be sustainable.

One of our early big time promoters, former PDGA Commissioner, Jim Challas, was successful in the 70s and early 80s getting 4000-5000 spectators for the legendary Sky of 10,000 Frisbees events in the Twin Cities using the conventional marketing and promotion options available such as finding a radio sponsor, getting a charity tie-in, planning relentless media spots, and paying for some advertising. Jim shares his perspective that, "Players, workers, spectators, sponsors and media are the elements for a successful event, in that order. There's no disc golf course that's ever been designed with room for spectators with excellent public access, public parking and public facilities at the course."

Here's one important promotional concept learned from his experience, Jim says, "Run your event where many people are already located," versus the tougher task prodding them to visit a more remote, perhaps lesser known, venue. This mantra, known among retailers and real estate agents as "Location, Location, Location," was applied for the 2001 Pro Worlds and 2014 Am Worlds Finals. They were held on a temporary layout at Como Park in the middle of St. Paul where 50,000 already visit the park, zoo and conservatory on a typical summer weekend. The crowds at these disc golf events may have been among our largest ever in the U.S.

Rather than only look at these traditional ways to attract more spectators to watch the current best version of our sport, this series of stories will also jump outside the box. We'll explore elements in other sports that seem to draw spectators and see if they can be applied to disc golf at the highest levels. Some of these ideas are out there and meant to stimulate new thinking.

However, we don't want to scare amateurs and rec players that any of these ideas would necessarily be applied to change the current recreational game they've grown to love. Just consider this story a brainstorming session for the highest level pro game. We know you love to play recreational disc golf  just as it is. What we're discussing here is what changes in the high level pro game might compel you and your friends to watch and even pay to watch them much more than you do now.

The following stories, starting with Part 2: Increasing the Perceived Value of Watching, gradually ramp up from: things that could be done today to either increase revenue from spectators and/or increase the number of spectators with little if any changes in the current game, to: creative ideas that would significantly change how the high level pro game might be played. Concepts, ideas, and potential programs presented in each part come from research, interviews, personal experience, analysis, and speculation - writing for myself, not the PDGA. Please consider how each idea presented has the potential to increase the enjoyment relative to cost for both players and non-players to become spectators. And if you're willing to do something about it, we'll look forward to your efforts.