The results were:
wi-fi/high-speed connections 131 mentions
press room seating 142
press pack with documentation 21
stadium seating 87
favourable deals on hotels 81
favourable deals on flights 17
transportation 58
food 18
transcripts of press conferences 67
plug-in mixer boxes 11
press/media parties 0
press/media gifts 0

Other press services listed were: monitors showing matches (on all courts preferably), press clippings, free or affordable phones, guaranteed one-on-one interview access, water in press roomsSpecific questions about various topics (qualitative research).

This section of the questionnaire asked 14 specific questions, with a box for people to fill in answers with detailed information if necessary. It also offered the chance for additional suggestions. In each case the question is listed, followed by the statistical results, and then the comments offered along with relevant cross-sectional information by the survey compilers. Where possible the respondents’ exact words have been used, but inevitably some wordings have been interpreted (for example, on the question about how much use is made of press conference transcripts, “a lot” and “a great deal” are taken to mean the same thing).

Important note: three questions in this section involve money. Most respondents answered in either dollars or euros. For this survey, euros have been converted to dollars at a rate of €1=$1.20. Those answers given in pounds have been converted to dollars at £1=$1.75. All figures in these answers are therefore now in US dollars.

If a tournament were willing to provide wi-fi or high-speed lines but wanted a contribution to the cost from journalists, how much do you think is reasonable for journalists to pay at

(a) the Grand Slams?
The range of answers went from nil (eight people said the media should not be required to pay for wi-fi or high-speed lines at Grand Slam tournaments) to $180. The average was $67.00 counting all respondents and $83.44 excluding those who said nil. The most popular answers were round numbers, with five people saying €50, four saying $75, five saying $100 and five saying €100.

(b) week-long tournaments?
The range of answers went from nil (10 people said the media should not be required to pay for wi-fi or high-speed lines at tour events) to $170, though the figure of $170 was freakish, as the second-highest figure was $75. The average was $33.37 counting all respondents and $44.13 excluding those who said nil. The most popular answers were again round numbers, with four saying €20, three saying $25, five saying $50, and six saying €50.

In general the ratio was 2:1 in favour of the Slams, but a few people had 3:1 or 4:1, and one had $75 for the Slams and none for Davis Cup or tour events, all of which may reflect the increasing difficulty of making it financially viable to report from anything other than the Slams. One person said the Slams should charge “a nominal fee” but didn’t specify what this would be.If analogue phone lines were cheaper than wi-fi or high-speed lines, would an analogue phone line be adequate for your purposes?

Of 44 people who answered this question, 21 (47.7%) said yes, 20 (45.5%) said no, and 3 (6.8%) said “Don’t know”.
Not surprisingly, those who said yes were generally the print journalists. One person said: “It’s at the point where I wouldn’t attend an event that didn’t provide instant internet access.” (this person was willing to pay up to $100 for wi-fi at Slams and $50 at tour events). Another said the willingness to use an analogue line was dependent on there being a viable AOL local number. There were a lot of comments expressing surprise that an analogue line should still be cheaper than high-speed or wi-fi. And a couple of people said yes on the basis of the word “adequate” but said w-fi or high-speed would be preferable.

Would you be willing to share a high-speed line at certain tournaments with people sitting next to you?
Of 46 people who answered this question, 22 (47.8%) said yes, 16 (34.8%) said no, and 8 (17.4%) said “Maybe”.
Many people made the comment that willingness to share depended on who the sharing partner was. This is not just a question of whether two journalists get on, but whether they are likely to be on the same deadline, and how much they would each need to use the phone, and thus whether they would need it at the same times.

How important is it for you to see the main court, or are you happy to follow matches off a television?
Of 46 people who answered this question, 36 (78.3%) said it was important for them to see the main court, 10 (21.7) said they were happy watching a match off television.

One person said: “Main court is ‘morally preferable’ but as we all know, TV is sometimes more practical.” Another said: “Main court seats are necessary, TV I can watch at home.” Two said it was very important to have both main court access and TV pictures, with the ability to move between the two.

Do you need a press pack when you arrive, or can you get your own information (as long as the basic information such as draw sheets, rankings, alphabetic entry lists etc is available)?
Of the 47 people who answered this question, 9 (19.1%) said yes, 23 (48.9%) said no, and 15 32%) said they liked getting press packs but that these were not essential.

One person said: “Not necessary, but alphabetical list of competitors is useful.” Another said it is less essential if there is a workable wi-fi system. One person who said yes added that it was useful “for local information”. The most vehement person in favour said: “We should not give up things we have achieved. It is dangerous to start giving up things we have fought for.”

Do you feel tournaments generally get the level of hotel right, or do they tend to be too expensive or too cheap?
Of the 42 people who answered this question, 26 (61.9%) felt hotels were generally too expensive, 15 (35.7%) felt they were about right, and 1 (2.4%) thought they were too cheap.

This question attracted more comment than any other, which perhaps explains how important hotels are to an itinerant profession. Many people said there is such a wide range of prices that a general answer was difficult, so the overall answer here should be taken to be a general feeling. Many who said “too expensive” made it clear that it wasn’t by much (“a little too expensive” was a typical answer). Two people said the levels varied greatly, implying that some get it right, while many get it wrong for different reasons. Three people said there was a growing tendency for journalists to get better deals with the official press hotels when booked directly, especially via on-line bookings, than via the quoted press rate. One person described hotel rates in general as “larcenous”, while another said “there is no such thing as a too cheap hotel.” Only one person said hotels were “sometimes too cheap”, adding “hotels need to be quiet and comfortable after a day’s work.” One respondent said: “I need a good hotel with cheap rates” and then made the suggestion that offering a choice of four or five hotels would be best.

What sort of price do you consider reasonable (per night) for a press hotel?
Among the 41 people who offered a price, the range went from $70 per night to $180. The average was $120.37, but it was noticeable that the higher figures generally belonged to the staff respondents and the lower figures generally to the freelances.
A handful of respondents said it is important to know whether a quoted rate includes breakfast and taxes, and if it doesn’t, what the rate including taxes (and in some cases breakfast) is.

How close would a hotel have to be to the tennis site for you to accept that you could walk, thus saving the tournament the need for transportation?
Among the 40 people who said they would be willing to walk, the range went from 5 minutes to half an hour. The average time was 17.6 minutes. 20 people (50%) said 15 minutes, and 12 (30%) said 20 minutes.

Many people quoted the distance rather than the time – in most cases “1 mile”, which has been taken to be 15 minutes, and many said “15-20 minutes” which has also been taken to be 15. One person said “very close” which is hard to quantify. Another said “doesn’t matter”, which indicates an unusually large willingness to walk. But there were some reservations expressed about safety which are elaborated on two questions below.

If a hotel were on a good public transport link, how long would you be willing to travel on public transport to the tournament site?
Among the 43 people who said they would be willing to walk, 34 actually gave a time, 6 said just “yes” (or in one case “very willing”) and three said no. Among the 34 who gave a time, the average was 24.8 minutes. 17 people (50%) said 30 minutes, and 10 (29.4%) said 20 minutes.
A number of people who expressed a time said they would not be willing to use public transport if there were late finishes.

If you were guaranteed a locker at the site, would you be happy to walk or take public transport on every day except the first and the last?
Of the 44 people who answered this question, 30 (68.2%) said yes, 9 (20.4%) said no, and 5 (11.4%) said “Don’t know”.
A number of people expressed concerns about the safety of the neighbourhood through which one would walk, the distance between hotel and site, and the times of finishes. Three people said the time of finish of play was crucial, and that no-one should be put in a position of having to walk or use public transport at night. One person said they were willing to walk, except when it rained. Several people said they were not comfortable leaving their computer in a locker.

As long as you knew the food situation in advance, would you be willing to forego press food, knowing that you can either buy your own food on site or bring your own?
Of the 42 people who answered, 28 (66.7%) said yes, 6 (14.3%) said no, and 8 (19%) said either “don’t know” or “maybe”.
Several people said they had no objection to paying for food, as long as the food was available and prices were reasonable. A few – especially freelances – said that notifying journalists in advance about what food was available and whether free or paid-for would be very useful. One person said they were happy to forego press food if it led to free wi-fi, cheaper hotels and more press seating. One person who said yes added “except in USA where rubbish is the rule”. Another said: “They should make nice food available – we are working journalists helping them, not beggars.” Another said: “discounts such as those at Melbourne and Miami are appreciated.”

How much use do you make of press conference transcripts?
Of the 41 people who answered this question, 38 (92.7%) said “a lot”. The only three answers that didn’t were “it depends”, “a fair bit” and “useful but not essential”.

One person who said they made a lot of use of transcripts added “but I have fast shorthand so could do without.” Another said transcripts were “absolutely indispensable”, and a third said transcripts were particularly important for those with English as a learned language. One person said: “Of course I use them when they’re available but I have misgivings about their existence.” One person said they made use of them a lot for the top players, but not for the lesser ones. One person said “20%”.

What impresses you most about the tournaments you most enjoy reporting from?
These last two questions were the least specific, in that no options were offered, so people could have said the same thing using different words, and people could put as few or as many attributes as they wanted. As such the information elicited should be viewed less in terms of absolute statistics and more as a general feel and a little bit as a brainstorming session.

The following received mentions:
Good organization and press room set-up 28 mentions
Friendly staff/welcome for media 23
Good access to players 11
Good access to courts 7
Understanding our needs 4
Free wi-fi 4
Wi-fi whether free or not 3
Good facilities 2
Good stadium seats 2
Favourable time difference 2
Good spot in the world 2
No night play 2
Decent food 2
Comfortable desk space 2
Press pack 1
Proximity of site to hotels/restaurants 1
Hotels 1
Convenience of hotel 1
Transportation 1
Lots of courts 1
Low costs 1
Women’s & men’s tournaments 1
Profitability 1
Good scheduling 1
Workable TV from all courts 1
Comfort and temperature of press room 1
Transcripts 1
Quick transcripts 1
Desk facilities at the Slams 1
The tennis 1

Two people quoted the Australian Open as being an example of a good tournament for the media; one quoted Miami as an example of “good vantage points and easy access to the press room”.

What will impress your sports editor (if you’re staff) or your own planning (if you’re freelance) in terms of deciding whether you go to a tournament or not?
The following received mentions:
Marquee names 14 mentions
Access to players/interview possibilities 12
Profitability 9
Lowering/assistance with costs 9
Players from respondent’s country 8
Good/helpful press set-up/ambience 7
Early finishes 2
Technology 1
What other sport is going on back home 1
Past experience 1
Reputation of tournament 1
Reader interest 1
Court sound effects 1

(The categories “lowering/assistance with costs” and “profitability” could be taken to mean the same thing – for this survey, the former means direct assistance from the tournament, the latter means the financial viability of the tournament regardless of whether any subsidy is available.)

One person said the chance of an interview with a top-five player with no more than a few journalists (and ideally over dinner) was the determining factor in whether to go to a tournament.

Are there any other comments you would like to make?
The following comments were received and are printed unedited:
¥ “It is important to make tournaments realize and understand that the media is a crucial part of the event and that we are not some bunch of hangers-on.”
¥ “The tennis media are often seen as expensive guests at tournaments but they are actually massive revenue earners for events and for the sport as a whole. Tournaments should bear this in mind when budgeting for media. Also it would be mutually beneficial to consult with media before making decisions about where to make cuts in expenditure on media. We can help with questionaires like this one but tournaments need to get into the habit of consulting us on these issues.”
¥ “Any help from tournament is appreciated. Hopefully they appreciate our contribution.”
¥ “Do not let them take the written press lightly.”
¥ “ITWA has a voice, one that should be heard concerning important matters that make our efforts to tell people about the game less complex.”
¥ “Having covered other sports, particularly football, I think tennis reporters are generally treated exceptionally well.”
¥ “Tournaments with a lot of profit shouldn’t charge for wi-fi connections.”
¥ “A hotel in my opinion doesn’t have to be very modern and professional. The only things important are a good bed, technology equipment and some fine restaurants in the hotel or in the neighbourhood. I like more the family cosy style hotels.”
¥ “Good statistics are great, press room with enough televisions, not too many non-working people in the press room and especially in the interview room. Good seats on the show courts very welcome.”
¥ “Cost of food and telecommunications at Montreal is prohibitive.”
¥ “French wi-fi situation could cause some editors not to send to Paris next year.”

Conclusions and recommendations
The main conclusion to come out of the quantitative research on press services was how important wi-fi or high-speed connections and the set-up of the press room is. These two were well ahead at the top, and this ties in with the answers given in the two qualitative questions about what attracts journalists to tournaments. Clearly high-speed connections – whether by wi-fi or plug-in DSL line – are now standard, and there is no question that there is a strong feeling that these should be free, especially at the tour-level events. But if that is impractical – and there is an argument to say that tournaments never had to pay for people making collect calls to file their copy so why should they have to pay for wi-fi – then there is a willingness to pay approximately $70 for wi-fi/high-speed at the Slams and $40 at tour events.

The low-scoring of broadcast-quality plug-in mixer boxes and favourable deals on flights appear to have some natural explanations. The only respondents to put down the plug-in mixer boxes were the radio news reporters, and these are a core tool of the trade for radio journalists. Many journalists would no doubt have wanted to put down favourable deals on flights, but recognise that these are often outside the scope of tournaments, and that the cost of the hotel is normally more than the cost of the flight, so help with hotel prices is likely to be of greater value to journalists than help with flights.

The fact that no-one put press parties or press gifts is obviously a sign that journalists do have a sense of priorities, but should not be taken to mean parties and gifts are not appreciated. They are, and if a tournament has a deal with a sponsor which includes merchandise to give away as press gifts, or if a tournament’s marketing department wishes to hand out T-shirts, bags, umbrellas etc as a way of getting the name of the tournament known in the wider tennis world, this is all well and good. But this should be a marketing decision, not a press decision, and if money in the press officer’s budget is limited, it is much more important that it is spent on things like high-speed connections and good press room facilities than on parties and gifts.
There appears to be a certain willingness to share a high-speed line. This is not universal among the tennis journalistic profession, and even among those willing in principle there are conditions about who the sharing partner would be. But given the importance of wi-fi or high-speed lines, if tournaments wanted to provide shared lines, there is likely to be a certain willingness by journalists to accept this where practicable.

There seems to be a strong feeling that if a journalist is at a tournament he/she should be able to watch the main matches in a stadium seat in the main court. This question was put in to test whether the main advantage of being at a tournament is access to the players rather than the chance to watch from the side of the court. The answer is clear: journalists feel that without being courtside they are only partly at the event, and many added comments about the need to report on the atmosphere and ambiance which one can hardly do from a television.

There is a perception that press hotels are too expensive. The general feeling is that they should be no higher than $120 per night, and for freelances ideally no higher than around $100. For freelances in particular, it is important to know whether a published rate includes breakfast and/or taxes – in other words, they need to know how much they will end up paying, not what price is quoted.

There are certain options tournaments might have to save some need for media transportation. One of the main ones would be to have a press hotel no more than 15-20 minutes walk from the site, as many journalists say they would be willing to walk that distance. This assumes the neighbourhood is safe, and that play does not finish late. A journey of 25-30 minutes, of which part were done by public transport, would also satisfy some. Providing lockers would clearly enable some journalists (though by no means all) to walk.

A number of tournaments still provide press food. Though this is very much appreciated, if budgets are tight and it comes to a choice between, say, free wi-fi and free food, most tennis journalists clearly favour the money to be spent on wi-fi (or enhanced press room facilities), especially if there is reasonable food available on site at reasonable prices. Though some are clearly willing to bring their own food, not many feel this way, so the willingness to go without press food is very much based on food being available on site.

Press conference transcripts are clearly a core tool of the trade these days. Almost everyone questioned said they made a lot of use of them, and they have clearly made it easier for those without English as a first language to have more reliable quotes from the top players.
The functionality and ambiance of a press room and the helpfulness and friendliness of the staff appear to be highly influential factors in a journalist’s choice of which tournaments to attend, along with the more obvious ones like profitability and the chance to interview marquee names (for some, getting a good interview can make the difference between making a profit and a loss).

The findings of this survey are a snapshot of opinion among the leading tennis writers and broadcasters. They are of course subject to change, which makes regular dialogue with ITWA particularly important for tour bodies and tournaments.

Appendix
About ITWAThe International Tennis Writers Association (ITWA) was formed five years ago to represent the select group of journalists who travel the globe, week-in and week-out, covering tennis for the written and broadcast media. ITWA includes members from 17 countries, and the coverage they provide brings tennis to millions worldwide. ITWA is committed to working with the sport’s governing bodies, tournaments, agents and players, both to improve the working conditions of tennis journalists and to gain recognition for the media’s vital role in the promotion of the sport.