Memo: Brand-Proofing In The Post-SVB Age

Profitability in online retail is no longer a journey, it’s a race. The SVB crash, while minimally impactful on many companies in direct-to-consumer or retail technology, will still accelerate brands’ and software companies’ need to reach a form of sustainable profitability moving forward. The past few years have been a slog for many, personally and professionally. First, the pandemic, then the crypto crash, and now this.

While the SVB contagion has yet to spread like the 2008 meltdown, the assets involved reached near 2008 numbers, with more fallout to come.

World War I and the Spanish Flu pandemic inspired creators like Ernest Hemingway to publish their first works. Hemingway followed with The Sun Also Rises, a pioneering, modernist novel shortly after. The Civil Rights movement inspired some of the greatest musical acts of the past century. Sam Cooke, Nina Simone, Bob Dylan, and Gil Scott-Heron’s music filled the radio waves. Each were inspired by their interesting times. And the Great Recession of 2008 inspired creators of another kind. Companies like Venmo, Uber, Pinterest, and Instagram navigated the interesting times of a formative decade. [2PM]

The most interesting times inspire the greatest creativity; brands will need to employ that creativity to survive macroeconomic headwinds. Tough times can actually produce tailwinds if handled directly. Here is a rundown of five changes that we foresee and how brands can proof themselves with the hopes of turning a headwind into a tailwind.

Reduced access to funding and capital:

One of the primary consequences of the SVB crash will be a reduction in available funding for startups and businesses, including DTC brands. SVB and other similar financial institutions often provide loans, lines of credit, and other financial services to help these companies grow. With a crash or significant financial disruption, these resources might become scarce, making it more challenging for DTC brands to secure the necessary funds to expand their operations, invest in marketing, or develop new products.

SVB was the largest venture debt lender, regularly offering the best rates to a riskier class of business. Many of these companies will have difficulty finding comparable terms. Another impact is the decreased valuations that will result as traditional venture firms gain more leverage as financing options shrink.

The declining access to capital brought about by the demise of SVB and the chill it’s brought to the venture debt space will mean VCs have more leverage to drive down valuations.

Stripe’s valuation is the most significant marker here. Once privately valued at $95 billion, the company recently raised $2 billion at a $55 billion valuation.

Decline in consumer confidence:

As the SVB contagion continues to materialize, a significant financial crash could lead to a decline in consumer confidence and spending, which will have an outsized impact on modern brands. A contagion is typically described as an “initial shock” that propagates across global markets for securities, savings, and loans. This often happens without relationship to the “patient zero” bank. This correlates with consumer spending crashes.

As consumers become more cautious with their spending, they might cut back on purchases of non-essential items. This decline in consumer spending could lead to lower revenues and slower growth for these businesses. So far, the contagions spread seems to be mitigated as well as possible. From the Northlines:

The rescue was necessary to preserve the Silicon Valley ecosystem, as Larry Summers described in a conversation with the Economist magazine. Secondly, as he sensed, it was to stop what could be a “21st Century contagion”. A failure would have consequences for a large group of players.

Credit Suisse’s firesale acquisition by UBS is the latest example of this phenomenon. And First Republic Bank is down 42% despite a $30 billion infusion as consumers still lack confidence in the bank’s long-term viability.

Increased competition:

In the face of reduced funding and declining consumer confidence, DTC brands will find themselves facing increased competition, both from other DTC companies and traditional retailers. As businesses scramble to secure their share of a shrinking market, they might be forced to lower prices or offer promotions to entice consumers, which could further squeeze profit margins.

As a result of the challenges mentioned above, modern retail brands will need to place a greater emphasis on cost-efficiency and profitability. This could involve cutting operational costs, streamlining supply chains, and finding innovative ways to reach customers with minimal marketing spend. This will mean that more retail brands will pursue lean business models by reducing SKU count and focusing solely on core products while focusing marketing spend on products with the highest margin. A recent McKinsey study adds:

Some plan to cut the number of annual collections, while others are focusing on creating streamlined brand narratives, imposing demanding efficiencies, and introducing tighter cost discipline. In all cases, identifying whether a product is a statement piece, a margin driver, or something else, and baking these perspectives into the planning process, is key.

In the long term, this focus on efficiency could help modern brands become more resilient and better prepared for future market fluctuations.

Shift in investor priorities:

In the aftermath of the SVB crash, angel investors and venture capitalists will become more risk-averse and shift their priorities towards businesses with proven track records and strong fundamentals. This could make it more difficult for unproven brands and retail technologies, particularly those in their early stages, to secure funding. In response, early stage companies will need to demonstrate their ability to generate profits and achieve sustainable growth to attract investment. I found this quote helpful in a recently published report by India’s The Telegraph:

Start-ups would have to cut out fat and focus on profitable lines of business to stay afloat. The impact on employees will be high in the form of delayed joining, low investment in new skill building, and fewer opportunities for global projects.

Early business models will matter more than ever and investors will make faster decisions on which businesses they feel are worth keeping afloat through traditional venture capital.

Importance of brand loyalty and customer retention:

In a challenging market environment, modern brands will need to focus on building brand loyalty and retaining customers to maintain revenue streams. This could involve investing in customer service, personalization, and targeted marketing efforts to nurture existing customer relationships and encourage repeat purchases. By fostering strong connections with their customer base, retail technologies and brands could better weather the storm of the slowly spreading SVB contagion.

Understanding the SVB contagion’s potential impact on modern retail brands can provide valuable insights for businesses looking to navigate further financial disruption. By considering the five points and focusing on cost-efficiency, profitability, and customer retention, the retail industry can position itself for success in a market landscape influenced by heightened price sensitivity, an increase in “utility purchases,” and general uncertainty.

Brand-proofing in the post-SVB age will produce some of the most durable brands since the Great Recession of 2008. While the number of banks impacted will not resemble 2008’s fiasco, the assets under management does reflect similar levels of damage. It’s best to operate with principles that reflect the potential for SVB’s crash to influence our economy in similar ways over a longer-term.

Por Web Smith | Editado por Hilary Milnes con arte de Alex Remy

Resource: The History of The Bank Run

Within three years of the bank’s founding, the first to ever issue banknotes, its illiquidity issue became the first of many examples throughout history. A greater irony is that just 1,213 kilometers away from the Stockholms Banco, the first speculative bubble in history came and went: Tulipomania. Speculative bubbles and bank runs share similar dynamics.

A bank run occurs when a large number of customers withdraw their money from a bank at the same time, usually out of fear that the bank may become insolvent or fail. This phenomenon has a long and complex history, dating back centuries and occurring in many different forms around the world.

Though both events occurred within 25 years, the Stockholms Banco fiasco is commonly associated with current events. Whereas tulipomania was forgotten (outside of niche financial circles), the origin of the bank run was not. Stockholms Banco was a Swedish bank established in 1656 by a Latvian-born entrepreneur and financier named Johan Palmstruch. He is credited with the introduction of paper money to Europe and it quickly became the largest bank in the country. In 1668, however, the bank experienced a major crisis when it was discovered that its reserves were insufficient to cover the notes it had issued.

A recent report by Economic Times shares the notion that many bank runs are just self-fulfilling prophecies. The article began with perhaps the first in history.

Since his deposits were short-term and loans long-term, he began issuing credit notes to customers which could be exchanged for metal coins. That is said to be the first paper money to be used in Europe. His bank ran into a problem when Sweden issued lighter copper coins and a large number of his customers lined up to withdraw their old, heavier copper coins which were worth more in metal. That led to the collapse of his bank. He was jailed and his bank was later transferred to the Swedish government

Sound familiar? As news of the bank’s troubles spread, customers began to demand their deposits back in the form of gold and silver coins, which the bank was unable to provide. This led to a mass withdrawal of deposits, as customers lost faith in the bank’s ability to honor its obligations. The crisis at Stockholms Banco was eventually resolved through a combination of government intervention and private sector support. The Swedish government stepped in to provide additional funds to the bank, and wealthy merchants and other individuals also lent money to the bank to help it meet its obligations.

While Stockholms Banco is often cited as an early example of a bank run, some argue that similar events had occurred earlier in history. For example, there is evidence to suggest that similar crises occurred in the Italian banking system as far back as the 14th century. It remains an important case study in the history of financial crises and the role of government and private sector actors in resolving them. The lessons learned from the crisis at Stockholms Banco have helped shape the development of modern banking systems and regulations, and continue to be relevant to financial policymakers and practitioners today. However, in the United States where regulation is a sine wave of sorts (more and less, more and less), periods of bank runs happen more often than they should.

A Western History: 1866, 1907, 1929, 2008, 2023

Samuel Gurney of Overend, Gurney and Company:

When a panic exists a man does not ask himself what he can get for his bank-notes, or whether he shall lose one or two per cent by selling his exchequer bills, or three per cent. If he is under the influence of alarm he does not care for the profit or loss, but makes himself safe and allows the rest of the world to do as they please.

In the 19th century, the rise of modern banking systems in Europe and America brought about new forms of bank runs. One of the most famous of these occurred in 1866, when the Overend, Gurney & Company bank in London, which was considered one of the most stable and prestigious financial institutions of its time, suddenly collapsed. This is event was as (or more) impactful on England’s economy as the Bear Stearns collapse was on the American economy. The failure of Overend, Gurney and Co. inspired writers like Walter Bagehot who frequently referred to the Overend collapse in his 1873 book Lombard Street.

The good times too of high price almost always engender much fraud. All people are most credulous when they are most happy; and when much money has just been made, when some people are really making it, when most people think they are making it, there is a happy opportunity for ingenious mendacity.

Unsurprisingly, Karl Marx often cited the Overend collapse as one of the many negatives associated with capitalism. And like the Bear Stearns collapse, no one at Overend was held legally accountable. The bank had been heavily involved in risky investments, and when a series of financial crises hit, it was unable to meet its obligations. As news of the bank’s troubles spread,the bank run ensued.

During the summer of 1907, two small-time Wall Street bankers conjured up a plan to acquire the stock of the United Copper Company at a cheap price and drive up its price. The scheme failed, and the company’s stock plunged.

The Panic of 1907 is often cited as one of the most significant bank runs in the country’s history. This crisis was triggered by a combination of factors, including a sharp decline in the stock market and rumors of impending financial failures. As customers began to withdraw their money from banks, the government intervened to restore confidence and prevent further runs. One of the most famous interventions was made by J.P. Morgan, who personally lent millions of dollars to several banks in order to prevent them from failing.

After The Panic, there was unanimous agreement around the need for a central bank. Morgan and his peers wanted a private central bank and progressives wanted one under the control of the federal government. President Woodrow Wilson established the Federal Reserve in 1913 after agreeing with the progressives.

The Great Depression of the 1930s brought about a new wave of bank runs as customers lost faith in the banking system as a whole. Banks at the time were highly leveraged and often made riskier-than-typical loans. And when the stock market crashed in 1929, many banks were unable to meet the demands of their customers. As news of bank failures spread, customers across the country began to withdraw their money, leading to a mass exodus of deposits from the banking system. This crisis eventually led to the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which guaranteed deposits in participating banks up to a certain amount and helped restore confidence in the banking system.

On June 16, 1933, President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Banking Act that created the FDIC. In 1934, Congress officially insured deposits up to $2,500 ($50,641 adjusted for inflation).

Since the Great Depression, bank runs have become less common in developed countries, thanks in part to increased regulation and the establishment of deposit insurance programs. But in recent years, the rise of digital banking and fintech startups has also raised new concerns about the potential for bank runs in the event of a cyberattack or other disruption to the financial system. Additionally, regulation is along its down cycle in that proverbial sine wave analogy. In a recent deep dive on the FTX fiasco, I explained:

Crypto is largely unregulated, and investments were essentially bids on digital-first infrastructure and the idea that it could replace more traditional (and to some archaic) ways of building and transferring wealth. At the same time, the parallels between this crypto crash and the 2008 crash are strikingly similar.

In March 2008, a bank run began on Bear Stearns, a bank that financed long-term investments by selling “asset backed commercial paper” (short-maturity bonds), making it vulnerable to panic. Industry rivals began a public campaign against Bear Stearns, citing a lack of ability to make good on obligations. In just two days, a capital base of $17 billion was down to $2 billion. The bank filed for bankruptcy the next day. Wilson’s Federal Reserve decided to lend money to Bear Stearns while JPMorgan Chase acquired the bank as part of a government-sponsored bailout. In the coming weeks and months, 25 banks failed. This includes Washington Mutual and IndyMac. 

And here is where several of the largest banks stand with respect to exposure to bank runs.

Each era of bank run resulted in some form of government regulation. 1907 led to The Federal Reserve, 1929 birthed the FDIC, and 2008 led to the Dodd-Frank Act. Signed in 2010, the measure was set up to increase regulation. But in 2018, in an effort to bolster activity in the sector: President Trump scaled bank some of the landmark act, reducing some of the regulations and requisite “stress tests” on local and regional banks. Objectively speaking, this directly influenced 2023’s bank run on Silicon Valley Bank. By Politifact:

Silicon Valley Bank CEO Greg Becker was among those who sought lighter regulations for smaller banks as the rollback bill was being crafted. At the time the bill was passed, Silicon Valley Bank had about $40 billion in assets.

SVB’s customers withdrew over $42 billion on the first day of the bank run, reaching a withdrawal volume of $4.2 billion per hour. Previously, the largest bank run in history was 2008’s run on Washington Mutual, totaling $16.7 billion over 10 days.

The history of the bank run is a complex and multifaceted one, spanning centuries and continents. As the banking industry continues to evolve and new risks emerge, it is important for regulators and financial institutions to learn from the past and to consider the origins of America’s banking regulations. It’s also important to understand the history and its precedents. History suggests that the resulting regulations with return us to stress tests on smaller banks and, perhaps, an increase to $1,000,000 or more in FDIC coverage.

By Web Smith | Art by Alex Remy and Christina Williams 

Memo: Golf Diferente

El golf está intentando tener su propio momento Fórmula 1, gracias a Netflix y al drama natural que parece desarrollarse dentro y fuera del campo. Pero a diferencia de la cuidada Fórmula 1, el golf profesional está siendo arrastrado en dos direcciones.

Los consumidores quieren sentirse más cerca del juego y que los muros entre los clubes de campo más exclusivos y los campos públicos más frecuentados se tambaleen. Pero aquí hay salvedades. Al igual que muchos aficionados a las carreras quieren acceder al cacareado paddock club de la F1, no quieren que sea menos exclusivo. Se trata de una aspiración.

Una nueva generación y un nuevo grupo demográfico de consumidores están aportando una nueva energía a un deporte más aburrido. Las marcas y los patrocinadores que antes eran los más populares están perdiendo su influencia. Están surgiendo nuevas marcas y tecnologías que introducen a los consumidores en una nueva era del golf definida por joggers en lugar de pantalones, zapatos de golf de la marca Jordan y más afroamericanos que nunca dando el primer golpe. Es una época interesante, por no decir otra cosa.

El propio deporte se está democratizando con personajes como Patrick "Tiger Hood" Barr, Jacques Slade, Roger Steele y empresas como Eastside Golf y Fairgame a la cabeza de la moda y la tecnología. Tanto Eastside como Fairgame cuentan con propietarios afroamericanos y una relajación de la tensión entre las tradiciones de antaño y la perspectiva de lo nuevo. Entonces, ¿por qué este cambio cultural no se traduce en una atención más positiva para LIV Golf, la liga profesional rival de la PGA?

Este es mi resumen:

  • Crecimos con Michael Jordan y Kobe Bryant. La cultura prefiere la competición dura y los jugadores despiadados. Esta es la marca de la PGA, pero no actualmente del LIV tour.
  • Democratización no significa "falta de clase" o simplificación, sino mejor acceso. Los nuevos aficionados al golf quieren que se les incluya en las conversaciones de antaño, revisándolas cuando lo consideren oportuno. No quieren que se deseche esa conversación por algo totalmente nuevo.
  • La historia es tan importante como la innovación. Esta es una generación que innova sobre el pasado al tiempo que le rinde la reverencia que se merece, desde zapatillas de golf Jordan retro hasta estilos de ropa que recuerdan tendencias de moda olvidadas con los años 90 y 00.

Si estas cosas son ciertas, puede empezar a explicarse cómo se equivocaron LIV y sus inversores. Para entender mejor la división, es necesario comprender las diferencias entre las dos ligas. Para el adicto al golf, la mayor parte de esto es evidente, pero para el público en general, hay mucho que aprender. El duelo de retransmisiones de febrero de 2023 fue la primera vez que el consumidor medio tuvo la oportunidad de comparar el producto por sí mismo.

El Honda Classic del PGA Tour (23-26 de febrero) fue retransmitido por el Golf Channel y la NBC durante las dos rondas finales. Por primera vez, el LIV compitió en cabeza (24-26 de febrero) y fue retransmitido por The CW, una cadena más conocida por Superman & Lois. Según el sitio corporativo de LIV, el fin de semana fue un éxito.

El fin de semana inaugural de cobertura en directo de la liga tuvo una media de audiencia lineal de más de 537.000 espectadores, superando la media de audiencia de la temporada actual de la Liga Nacional de Hockey de 105 años en ESPN y TNT (373.000), la media de audiencia de la final masculina del Open de Australia 2023 en ESPN (439.000), y la media de audiencia de ABC y ESPN de la Major League Soccer 2022 (343.000), lanzada en 1996. Todos los índices de audiencia se refieren únicamente a las audiencias nacionales de Estados Unidos.

Sin embargo, el comunicado de prensa omitió lo obvio. Según ESPN.com, la retransmisión en directo de The CW atrajo a una media de 289.000 espectadores con un "índice de audiencia de 0,18 hogares el sábado y el domingo". Golf.com dejó clara la comparación:

En comparación, las retransmisiones de fin de semana del PGA Tour en la NBC atrajeron a algo más de 2 millones de espectadores y promediaron una audiencia de 1,24 hogares, casi siete veces más espectadores que la LIV.

Las críticas a la comparación sugieren que la asociación entre LIV y CW tardará un tiempo en tomar forma. También se da el caso de que el Honda Classic se disputó entre cuatro grandes eventos de la PGA, por lo que la comercialización del Honda Classic no fue la que podría haber sido. El tiempo dirá si la nueva LIV puede encontrar la audiencia televisiva que The CW Network espera. Los dos productos tienen muy poco en común.

El PGA Tour tiene una historia mucho más larga y una reputación más consolidada. Se fundó en 1929 y ha sido el principal circuito profesional de golf del mundo durante casi un siglo. De él han salido algunos de los mejores golfistas de todos los tiempos, como Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods y Arnold Palmer. El PGA Tour es conocido por su tradición y prestigio, y muchos lo consideran la cumbre del golf profesional.

LIV Golf, por su parte, aunque ha realizado algunos fichajes de alto nivel, carece del prestigio del PGA Tour. LIV se ha inspirado en los hombres a los que les gusta beberse un paquete de seis cervezas en el campo con sus amigos. Hay equipos de cuatro jugadores, nombres ridículos, uniformes y música a todo volumen en el campo. El atractivo del segundo atributo más importante del golf (por detrás del talento) está prácticamente ausente: el prestigio y la afinidad. Rob Oller, columnista del Columbus Dispatch:

No muchos de los jugadores de la LIV son especialmente simpáticos. (Sergio) García, (Patrick) Reed y (Bryson) DeChambeau pertenecen a un cartel de abogados especializados en lesiones. La mayoría de los campos de la LIV están formados por jugadores que nunca han existido. Pero mi aversión por la LIV va más allá... Los resultados importan. La LIV es golf de exhibición, simple y llanamente. También lo es la liga de golf virtual que están montando Tiger Woods y Rory McIlroy... Cualquier cosa que huela a TopGolf mezclado con Putt-Putt no puede mantener mi interés.

Queda por ver si LIV Golf será capaz de establecerse como competidor legítimo del PGA Tour, en cualquiera de los dos sentidos, a largo plazo. El tercer obstáculo al que se enfrenta LIV es propio del carácter de este deporte. El golf, que durante mucho tiempo fue una afición de hombres blancos adinerados, se está democratizando. Pero esta dispersión de intereses no es suficiente para que los detractores de la LIV silben sobre la fuente de su financiación: El Fondo Saudí de Inversión Pública (FPI).

La ironía de mi comparación entre la F1 y el golf profesional es que Arabia Saudí ha gastado mucho más dinero en el principal circuito de carreras de la FIA que en el golf LIV. De hecho, en varios deportes se invirtió más que en el LIV. También es importante señalar que el LIV Golf cuenta con muchos golfistas que ya han pasado su mejor momento: Phil Mickelson, Sergio García, Bubba Watson, Ian Poulter e incluso el a menudo lesionado Brooks Koepka están de salida. Hay algunas excepciones, por supuesto: Dustin Johnson y Cam Smith estaban en la cima de su juego antes de marcharse en busca de dinero garantizado y una carga de trabajo menor. La PGA ha profundizado en su posición de que se basa en el rendimiento y es financieramente honrada, en contraste con su nuevo competidor.

La connotación del "dinero saudí" sólo funciona en el golf precisamente porque el orden jerárquico ha permanecido monolítico durante mucho tiempo (hasta que un golfista multiétnico de Stanford irrumpió en escena). Este mismo enfoque de culpabilidad por asociación no recibe mucha atención en otros ámbitos, especialmente en las inversiones en los mercados estadounidenses.

El fondo soberano de Arabia Saudí invirtió más de 7.000 millones de dólares en nuevas posiciones en valores estadounidenses como Amazon.com Inc., Alphabet Inc., BlackRock Inc. y JPMorgan Chase & Co. mientras los mercados se veían sacudidos por el temor a una recesión.

La diferencia entre estas inversiones mucho mayores en las queridas empresas estadounidenses y la llegada de LIV es que el golf siempre se basará en la cultura del club de campo de excluir a los forasteros. Los golfistas de LIV que han firmado son probablemente demasiado distantes para entender su propia relación con el consumidor medio. Vea el programa de Netflix y verá a profesionales envejecidos y perdedores volando en avión privado, visitando sus múltiples casas y apareciendo en los mejores campos de golf de Estados Unidos. Mientras tanto, a nosotros nos toca tomarnos en serio comentarios de Bubba Watson como este:

Mi hijo de 10 años estaba sentado en la cama conmigo, y estábamos viendo golf en la televisión, y él conocía a los Ases - todo el mundo conoce a los Ases, siguen ganando. Conocía a los Aces, conocía a los Stingers.

El gran atractivo de la PGA, el mismo que muchos consumidores comparten por la F1, es que un golfista de clase media de Pensacola puede abrirse camino desde la universidad, pasando por la Universidad de Georgia, hasta ganar dos veces el Masters. Ese triunfo es lo que alimenta la democratización del golf profesional. Los niños de orígenes similares quieren tener la misma historia que Bubba. LIV no alcanza ese prestigio. Trata de hacer que algunos de los hombres mejor conectados del planeta parezcan el hombre de todos los días. El circuito de la PGA le recuerda que requiere rendimiento para entrar en la conversación del modo en que lo hizo Watson en 2012 en el Augusta National.

Lo que hace posible esta revancha es la amplia gama de eventos del PGA Tour, que incluye grandes campeonatos como el Masters, el Abierto de Estados Unidos y el Campeonato de la PGA, así como otros numerosos torneos de alto nivel a lo largo del año. Estos eventos siguen atrayendo a muchos de los mejores golfistas, patrocinadores y la atención de los medios de comunicación del mundo. Estas plataformas, las paradas del circuito, brindan a los aficionados la oportunidad de ver competir entre sí a las mayores estrellas del deporte. A partir de ahora, es más difícil para los jugadores de la LIV competir en esos majors de alto perfil.

El PGA Tour también se beneficia de una infraestructura más estable y consolidada. El circuito tiene un sistema bien establecido para el desarrollo y la progresión de los jugadores, con varios niveles de circuitos y pruebas clasificatorias. Esto permite a los golfistas más prometedores abrirse camino hasta llegar al PGA Tour.

LIV Golf, por su parte, aún no ha establecido una vía clara para que los jugadores se ganen un puesto en su circuito. No está claro cómo gestionará la organización el desarrollo, la promoción o la comercialización de sus talentos. Esta falta de claridad podría disuadir a algunos golfistas prometedores de seguir una carrera en la organización LIV Golf.

El circuito cuenta con numerosos y apasionados seguidores que se interesan por el éxito de sus golfistas favoritos y sus historias. La PGA logra esto con su narración de historias. También tiene una sólida presencia en los medios de comunicación, con cobertura en las principales cadenas deportivas y una amplia estrategia en Internet y en las redes sociales. Aunque LIV Golf ha declarado que planea aprovechar la tecnología y las redes sociales para interactuar con los aficionados, está por ver si será capaz de repetir el éxito del PGA Tour en este sentido.

Mientras el golf atraviesa su momento de Fórmula 1, el PGA Tour se encuentra en una posición ventajosa. La clase y el prestigio del PGA Tour se asemejan a los de la F1. Entre bastidores, se sabe que los hombres que están detrás de los 20 coches del circuito son personas normales. Pero en cuanto la cámara les enfoca, se les ve con pompa y circunstancia. Como si comprendieran que el atractivo no es sólo la velocidad. Es también que un pobre británico mestizo pueda convertirse un día en caballero. Si Estados Unidos tuviera caballeros, el golf profesional sería uno de sus caminos hacia lo extraordinario.

De hecho, tenemos figuras caballerescas en el deporte. En Estados Unidos, las reconocemos cuando las vemos. Nos esforzamos por convertirnos en ellos y eso alimenta nuestra pasión por los deportes que practican: el PGA Tour es uno de esos caminos. Puede que sea lo más importante; y es la ventaja de marketing sobre LIV que el dinero no puede comprar

Esto es lo que está impulsando la democratización del golf y una nueva era de afición que hará un guiño a lo antiguo sin descartarlo de plano. A pesar de las deserciones, el PGA Tour -y los numerosos proyectos de nuevos medios, startups tecnológicas y personalidades de Instagram que lo apoyan- mantiene la primera posición sobre el rival respaldado por Arabia Saudí. El golf será diferente, pero no tanto como esperaba LIV Golf.

Por Web Smith | Editado por Hilary Milnes con arte de Alex Remy y Christina Williams