After dozens of meetings with top-level people in Marketing, Promotion and PR, here are some of the top reasons they said why chess is not more commercially viable than and not as big as it could be with the media. Again, these are NOT chess people. They do not how to play but they represent other industries from sports, fashion to entertainment, etc. They said the #1 problem is:
– Chess players themselves!
I asked what that means. The answer they gave me was to take an example of a game show or perhaps a chess TV show. People want drama, suspense, entertainment, excitement and fun, etc. Skills are less important than the other factors, just as “The Price is Right”, “Deal or No Deal”, etc. Even though there are over 40 million people knowing the rules of chess in the US and nearly 700 million worldwide as claimed by FIDE, most people are not “experts” in chess. They would have no comprehension of the difference between a 700 rated player and a 2700 rated player.
Chess players tend to care about the ratings and quality of chess. The mainstream people do not. They do not want to know the details of the analysis. They just want to quick summary with the drama, excitement and other goodies with it. They want to have fun sitting there and watching the show.
They asked me if I have ever looked at the problems from the outside looking in. They said that if they asked a random tournament chess player about his / her game or tournament, that person would go on and on about how his / her Knight on g5 was powerful, the Bishop on b3 creates a deadly pin, and the Sicilian Najdorf is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4, etc.
They said the worst is when players go on the analysis mode with non-chess players. What does it mean? Nothing and boring to a non chess player! No excitement, suspense, fun or drama! Just purely chess and too much chess!
They told me that they have watched many chess commentators including some of the usual names we know. They said some are fine and some are not but the same problems exist. They may be adequate for the chess audience which is very small. They would be unacceptable for the mainstream people and that is the demographic everyone wants to go after.
Their conclusion was the same thing about the media. They said that most tournament reports and articles are boring and not attractive to the mainstream. There should be a lot more focus on the unusual, exciting and unique angles instead of who finished first, second or third. We have to compete with many other headlines and unless things are done better, chess will not get the adequate space.
We talked about the length of the games. They said for a live broadcast, it would make a difference to make things fast and furious. However, if it is a taped show, the lengths of the games do not matter. What matter is good editing and all the other stuff I mentioned above.
We also talked about the dress code. They said business casual or suit are both fine. The code for women is more vague. Even logo shirts from sponsors is fine. The main thing is the players have to be smart and logical about it. For example, opening and closing ceremonies require a better dress code and it could be less during the competition. However, it is critically important that the clothes have to be nice and neat. The word they used was “presentable”. They also stressed about personal hygiene.
Another major topic that most of them complained a lot about was dealing with the people in chess federations and organizations, both nationally and internationally. They said that it is virtually impossible to talk or negotiate with chess people.
They gave me a lot of examples but here are a few that stick out in my mind:
1. One major company (Fortune 500) wanted to sponsor chess. They thought that the image of chess would be good for the company. So they contacted someone in a chess organization. After 15-20 minutes, it abruptly ended. This company said that it was the most bizarre and most unprofessional experience they have ever faced.
What happened was this company wanted this organization to provide / recommend 10-20 chess players (that fit their mold) for a commercial shoot for a series of chess events that they wanted to sponsor. That means that hundreds of chess players will benefit financially and a lot of free mainstream publicity for chess and the organization.
The person who represented the chess organization kept asking what their organization will get out of it personally. After explaining a few times that the chess community will get free major publicity, chess players will be able to compete in prestigious events with big money, and donations will be made to various schools to create chess programs, the person who represented the chess organization said unless money is paid directly to this organization, they are not interested and walked out.
2. Another example is a major airline wanted to sponsor chess. They could be the official airline for this organization in exchange for free travel. The person who represented the chess organization said that he does not fly this airline because it does not go to his city. So therefore, no thanks.
This is part 1 of this topic. I will publish part 2 in about a week or so. It will include about communications and conducts, etc. Please note that the experiences that they mentioned were with various chess organizations and not just one.
What is your take so far? Do you agree or do you think that these top-level Marketing, Promotion and PR people are wrong?
I fully agree with their assessments. Good points.
So chess become just another arbitrary filler for the marketing/PR directed drama?
To what end?!
How does it help chess?
Susan, it sounds like the problem is honest-to-goodness geekiness–not any “geeky image” or “perceived geekiness”, but the real deal.
Lafferty, Payne, Quinn and Sloan are good people. They have the right to trash you and destroy your life. If you’re a public figure, they can say what they want unless you decide to drop out of the election. Your choice.
Girls don’t belong in chess. Let’s get rid of the Polgar Invitational for Girls. Everyone should vote for Stephen Jones, Joe Lux, Don Schultz and Sam Sloan! Go back to where you come from!
Susan, the two anecdotes you give are examples of self-serving people involved from the chess side of it all. If these people were interested in advancing chess these two situations would have turned out better.
It helps chess in that even if the program is 99% “fluff” you can attract sponsors and derive some revenue from it all. If people will sit down and watch the show for whatever reason, maybe the spin of the show will help dispel the geeky or nerdish image chess has.
I fully agree with the professionals assessment of the situation.
I agree with them.
{“a chess TV show”}
A Good TV Format:
Have 2 celebrities, they move by selecting from a list of Fritz generated moves, moves that range from good-to-best.
The eval ranking of each move is hidden.
Have 2 announcers, each as an advocate for either White or Black. Each advocates one-sidedly (and a bit theatrically), arguing that his celeb is winning.
– – – – –
{“focus on the unusual, exciting and unique angles instead of who finished first, second or third.”}
Chess Season
Many sports stories are generated by the context of the ‘season’. The season creates drama and stories, in ways that isolated individual tournaments never do. A season is necessary to create a certain long term ebb and flow.
Tennis lacks a season, and it suffers for that lacking.
Danailov’s success at getting 4-5 major tournaments to cooperate in a chess “grand slam” is smart, could have a big future. Now over a period of weeks or months, each of those 5 tournaments helps to build anticipation toward a larger outcome.
– – – – –
(A Fortune 500 company) they contacted someone in a chess organization. After 15-20 minutes, it abruptly ended.
An Illusion
Why would the Fortune 500 company need to involve or even contact the USCF or any other chess org, just to hold a series of chess events? I do not get it. This problem is partly an illusion.
I’m nobody, but even I might be able to developed a list of 20 chess players for them in one week.
GeneM
The Greatest Chess Event and personality in public praxis was Bobby Fischer in 1927 to present. If you read most articles and interviews and newscast from that era you will notice not once is chess analysis part of story. Fischer somehow got the whole world interested in him and his quest to become chess World Champion from the Russians. This is what is needed today, a method to get the public interested in chess grandmaster again.
The ONLY problem is the chess organizations which are turning down these media outlets who are willing to work with chess. If the chess organizations are giving problems to these media sponsors then nothing will ever be done for our sports.
We should not worry about how our top players look to the outside world but rather how our chess organizations deal with the outside world.
The two organizations involved in the instances stated in this article should be COMPLETELY embarrassed by their actions!
Wow. My first response was spot on. No wonder you congratulated me.:)
I think from now on I will dress up for tournaments. Maybe I can get my company to sponsor my national tournaments!? I never thought of that. I’m sure they would pay for me to go if I promoted them while I was there.
As you probably know marketing is a small part of the puzzle. Marketing is primarily concerned with exchanging goods and services for some value.
There is much to learn from other sources. I would recommend talking to some sociologists. There is research in the field of the sociology of sports concerning commercialization of sports and the pros and cons that low visibility sports experience in often extremely asymmetrical relationships.
I am of the belief that we need a change in our thinking if chess is to become more of populous interest. Specifically a different organization than the USCF is needed with different goals. You have my vote Susan.
fh asked how such marketing would help chess, and mayanking gave an excellent example. Fischer’s chase of the world championship 35 years ago produced a huge growth in the number of people who joined the USCF or otherwise got interested in chess. The number of tournaments increased, as did the prize money. A lot of people who would never have started playing chess did because of the drama and interest of the Fischer boom. This was a good example of what promoting chess and getting it in the public eye can do for our game.
USCF President has consistently attacked you and gave false information about you and your foundation. What do you think about this?
They didn’t mention
1. Do chess players spend enough money at events? A professional conference I attend didn’t get a great deal at the usual hotel this year because researchers don’t spend money at the bar.
2. The view of entertainment/PR value is too simple. Depends on how it’s done, and what’s done. The musical took the potential to the max. For genuine chess, they’re right – too much work for the public at large. “Goon show” chess alla TV wrestling might have a chance. Topalov-Kramnik made a start.
3. Essentially, “professional chess” is limited to a small audience, and depends on well-to-do patrons. No getting around that, really, although the World Open model, and Internet chess gambling would have some potential – i.e. house proceeds cover the pros.
4. The potential for computer cheating is a very serious threat that may prevent chess from being taken seriously by future patrons. If I had kids, I wouldn’t want them spending as much time on chess as I have.
Anonymous Frank
In the middle, Mr. Goichberg has done a lot for chess with Continental Chess Association. We should appreciate his accomplishments.
If he feels that there is a need to attack me or my foundation as the President of the USCF, there is nothing I can do about it. I am not interested in chess politics.
I will let the USCF members decide if it is appropriate or not. I prefer to focus on how I can help the USCF.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
Susan,
In all organizations that promote an endeavor that allows for excellence, the people that most commonly hold high administrative positions are those that are experts in whatever it is that the organization does. For example, the top administrators of USCF probably all have cool letters like IM or GM that they’re allowed to write before their name. The problem with this is that people who are experts in one field are no more likely than the average person to have skills unrelated to their field.
Marketing and other business skills are completely unrelated to playing chess, but they are required to successfully run an organization. Whether running USCF or a local chess club, it is not necessary to be great at chess. It is only necessary to love chess and to know how to run an organization. There is no difference between running a chess organization and any other organization — you learn what the needs of the stakeholders are, and you act in their best interests.
Marketing chess is difficult not because of the players but because the majority of people in charge of chess organizations probably have no idea how to run their organization as a successful business. One of the best things to do while learning, which you have already done, is get advice from people that specialize in marketing organizations but have no biases about your organization’s field. The next step, really, is just listening to them.
If we cannot get more sponsorship for chess, then a lot of players will quit chess and we will never have another American World Champion (unless Kamsky can do it this year). Many GMs have quit chess because the money is just not there.
What will happen in US chess if Kamsky becomes World Champion this year?
Interesting comments. I remember back in the 90s the BBC did coverage of the KK world championship matches.
The Panel consisted of Bill Hartston and a mix of Ray Keene, Jon Speelman and some other chess “personalities”.
As you can imagine Speelman at the time was a top rated player and former World Championship semi finalist. He gave a commentary that sounded like he was talking to other top GMs in the skittles room.
“Yeh I think 22… g3 ahould work since then 24 Kh7 Bf4 ……(lots more tricky analysis)…….29 Rf1 and White should be able to draw the resultant opposite colour bishop ending”
The show’s presenter Jeremy James was livid and kept trying to stop JS getting into reams of complicated variations and didn’t even want him mentioning the name of the squares (ie don’t say g3, point to the square with the telestator but Speelman just couldn’t help himself)
It was hilarious!
I am not a great chess player but it was interesting to hear Jon rabbit on just to see how much a good chessplayer would see in a given position.
I think you need to strike a balance between making the game interesting for non regular chess players and turning off those who do play chess and won’t bother watching because there is no real commentary about the game. The last thing you want to listen to is someone taking like this:
“My God he really smashed that rook down on the intended square. He nearly broke it ….How exciting is this Ladies and Gentlemen!!!”
Perhaps they should get complete (well dressed celebrities?) patzers to play the game and then get some IM/GM to comment on it (if they can stop laughing). The games would never last long and there would be plenty of blunders to analyse and situations in which the players just left their pieces hanging. “Oh no he’s just left his queen en prise …Oh…its ok she missed it!” Even better if they thought out loud!
I am currently reading Silman’s The Amateurs Mind and some of his comments on the thought processes of amateurs are quite funny.
Just some food for thought.
WOW – THAT IS SPOT ON !!!
An interesting note is that I have frequently tried to explain Chess to non-chess players and I have had the greatest success using Josh Waitzkin’s Annoted games in the Chess Master series.
His stories and style of explanation see to have the right appeal – even to people with ZERO knowledge of the game.
I often hear people (non-players) exclaim: “I had no idea that people could think like that!”
Go through that game collection and find the game:
Waitzkin vs Frumkin
http://www.chess-poster.com/great_games/gg_josh_waitzkin.htm
(This seems to be the most popular, but they are all good.)
Also, what astounds people is that Josh was only 10 years old when he played this game. People are stunned that a ten year old boy could think more logically and clearly than they could!!! (especially parents)
So yes, I have had GREAT SUCCESS in explaning and interesting non-chess players to the game – with a usefull assist from Josh Waitzkin.
So far I have not found another chess commentator with his ability to bring the game of chess alive and introduce it to non-chess playing audience.
I humbly suggest, if you are looking to bridge this divide start by studying Josh Waitzkin’s annotation style. He is an all-star in this respect!
I think both sides have their points. This is not a chess game where either marketing/PR or chess organization wins. It can only be realized when there is a win-win.
Chess organizations probably need fundings to exist as well. Have the marketing/PR thought about the WIIFM for them? If it is money, then is there a way to offer a deal where at the end both parties will increase their bottom line?
the #1 problem is:
– Chess players themselves!
I don’t see why this cannot be easily resolved.
Just don’t let chess players decide/direct what should be published!
Get people who has strong understanding of the mainstream audience, what excites them, etc as directors.
lIts hard to make people enjoying chess game without certain level of understanding.
In other sports, like Tennis or Basketball, everybody who watched the game know which one gets the benefit if one scored, and who was leading, and how far the differences. The evaluation could be evaluated in every scored made by both of the players or teams. At brief, their scoring system is easy to be evaluated.
But I suggest that TV or internet chess show of an event will put a or two bars graph or scoring system that are easy to follow who is leading, how far the differences between both players, who will finish or sure to be win.And the fluctuation of the bar graph could be seen in every move made.
How is it done? I suggest using Fritz or any other chess program evaluation. Give each player one bar graph. If one of the player move, and Fritz assign that move increase its evaluation +0.5 let the player’s bar graph move closer to complete filling bar graph, and if the assignment was mate in X moves, the complete filling the bar graph.
If the evaluation -0.5 let it move closer to complete hollow bar graph. It also applied to the other player with the other player’s bar graph.
What we will see is a racing of two bargraphs reflecting both the players strength in the game. Even a novice chess player would eventually understand who was winning, and how good was a move made just now. How far the game would finish (because the bar graph is about to completely filled up).
Hopefully this idea will be usefull.
No shock here that the self-serving interests of those with thier finger on the chess button interfere with the promotion of the game.
I’d bet Sam Sloan was one of those two idiots you did not name.
We had a large chess event in our smallish town a few weeks back. 148 entries in a very enjoyable weekend congress. I looked forward to seeing the report in the local paper. Result? Nothing! Not one word! Despite doing an excellent job of organising the event (under the English Chess Federation) no one saw fit to phone the local paper.
Later this year, we have the British Chess Championships in the same town, Great Yarmouth. I will personally contact the paper this time!
Chess seems to attract some people who are good in a narrow way but useless in others (social skills, dress sense, personal hygiene, etc.) Like the interviewee said, the problem is the chess players themselves!
lsur
I say that us,AMATEUR chess players,should ask ourselves:
DO WE REALLY NEED SPONSORS???
I’m 35yold and 1900 rated.I really HATE what I see last 20 years in Chess:
-Players refuse to fight for the World Title unless they are paid some X.000.000 $.(I heard once a story about a boy he could not afford to buy a chess set and made pieces of his own:His name was Wilhelm Steiniz.)
-“Make chess more TViable” is the very phrase that already damages the game/sport.FIDE reduces time limits:result? more blunders.Topalov missed a mate in 3 in the recent match.And it’s for the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!! Can you compare the games’ quality with Karpov-Kasparov…?
Do we want THIS chess???
Anyone that has played some 6-hour games in his life,has turned the tables at 5.30,or has blundered,think agrees with me:if sponsors like the game the way it’s played,they’re welcomed.But don’t ruin the nature and essentials-like “time to think”- of the game.
Gian
***start quote***
What happened was this company wanted this organization to provide /recommend 10-20 chess players (that fit their mold) for a commercial shoot for a series of chess events that they wanted to sponsor. That means that hundreds of chess players will benefit
financially and a lot of free mainstream publicity for chess and the organization
The person who represented the chess organization kept asking what
their organization will get out of it personally….
***end quote***
The company wanted to use a chess organization to further their own
goals. It’s not clear how much publicity the chess organization would be given in exchange for their help. At the proposed event, would they have banners? allowed to hand out membership forms? would their internet address be given
prominent display?
What was the tone of the person calling the chess group? respectful or contemptuous. There is no way we can determine what really happened by hearing only one side of the story.
I agree with their points. Nothing inherent in the game of chess limits its potential commercial popularity. Success only depends upon the willingness of top chess players and organizers to work together, and with sponsors, to create the kind of packaging that will grow the sport.
We falsely attribute mystical qualities to other sports that have achieved significant commercial success. We forget, or don’t realize, that they built their popularity through the years, by continually tweaking their marketing strategies in a purposeful way.
Think about this — if a TV golf broadcast just consisted of a continuous camera shot following only Tiger Woods the entire round, it would be very boring. Lots of walking, and standing. The vast majority of his golf shots would be routine strokes. Even though he is one of the greatest golfers ever, that type of packaging would drive away all but the most ardent fan. But that’s not the way they do it.
Instead they have developed a highly choreographed mix of live and replay shots, intermixed with expert commentary, background stories on the players, places, and other golfing related personalities.
The marketing firms get it. They want to do things the right way.
But the guys from the chess organizations definitely DO NOT get it! I am especially struck by the stupidity of the representative in example #1. Offered a golden opportunity, namely huge publicity and chess sponsorship, he spurned it because his organization wasn’t getting money direct! What is he thinking???
All this is logical. I read the article with great pleasure. But maybe the reasons of unpopularity of chess are lying deeper?
As history shows, all the games become much less popular when they lose its secret. Since the computer has begun to play better than human, one can hardly speak about secrets in chess. Let alone the existing 6-pieces Nalimov tablebases, which will soon inevitably turn into 7-pieces (probably it already exists?!), 8-pieces and so on. Is the good old situation possible nowadays, when someone sits days and nights near the board to solve some position or to find a novelty? I think not, because the programs like “Rybka”, “Fritz” and others, about 3000 playing strength (or more), will solve all the positions much faster and more precisely than any humans! Years ago, after seeing a good move, combination or technical decision, the solution one could feel an unexpressable feeling of self-pride for finding something revolutionary! I remember it very well, though I’m only 26. But this is already in the past.
About half-a-year ago I have written an article on this subject before the Kramnik-Fritz match, where I found some analogies in chess with the “15” puzzle, checkers and some other games. It can be found here: http://www.chesspro.ru/_events/2006/fritz2.html , though there’s still only a Russian version.
Andrey Deviatkin, IM, Moscow
Poker players don’t dress nicely and they certainly get attention. It’s irrelevant as long as the packaging and presentation is there.