Product Cycles

[Hawk]

Product/release cycles are always an interesting conversation, so let's have one. It seems like there is a perception regarding certain company's release cycles that isn't really imposed upon other companies that do the same thing and I've always wondered why. Who do you think releases products to often? Who is doing it right?

Also, what are the negatives concerning a company that releases a new generation of products once, if not twice a year?

 

[JB]

This is an interesting topic. TaylorMade gets torn apart for releasing too many products, but ironically the last 2 years has their release cycles (especially drivers) slowed quite a bit. In fact each release since the R11 has been on a yearly cycle.

Other companies seem to release stuff every 6 months in batches and kind of get a pass. I think it comes down to whether or not a person wants/needs to have the "latest and greatest". If they do, I understand it a little bit. But I believe that the 2 year company release cycles of the past are gone.

 

[CharlieMoy]

I used to have alternative thoughts but have recently changed.


Companies should release however many products theyd like, as often as theyd like. The game is ripe for the taking and they should try and take advantage of it as much possible as long as they do it ethically.

 

[blugold]

I think Bridgestone does it right. I like how Titleist does things. I guess I like two year cycles. If a company is going to release every year, make it simple. Ping does a good job with that. So does Nike IMO. If you have to release a booklet explaining ALL of the different releases, you're probably doing it wrong.

More than that for me though, make it obvious that something has changed or been improved on with the new release. There is nothing more insulting than seeing a current model that looks the EXACT same as last years.

 

[Damaikis]

I like the alternating 2 year product cycle. Like what Bridgestone does with their balls: B330 one year, then e series the next. Each line only has an update every 2 years, but there is something new coming out every year.

 

[Hawk]

One thing that we hear a lot is that short product cycles devalue products, which is true to an extent when you look at the used market for certain brands. Personally, I haven't ever considered resale as a factor when I'm choosing a club. To me, that's almost like selling it before you bought it.

One of the most interesting comments I hear about product cycles is the complaint that, "I just bought their last driver and I'm annoyed that I now how to pick up their new one." To me, the two things are completely unrelated, which is sort of why I brought up the technology advancement topic. It's almost as if product cycles are tied to some sort of internal struggle saying that what we thought was great is now obsolete.

 

[blugold]

One of the most interesting comments I hear about product cycles is the complaint that, "I just bought their last driver and I'm annoyed that I now how to pick up their new one." To me, the two things are completely unrelated, which is sort of why I brought up the technology advancement topic. It's almost as if product cycles are tied to some sort of internal struggle saying that what we thought was great is now obsolete.

What's funny is that I hear a lot of, "Why get this year's driver, just get last years at a cheaper price." A lot. Depends on the individual I guess. It's up to the consumers to decide if the new product is worth their time and money. The companies, however, should definately take advantage of the players that HAVE to have the newest stuff.

 

[Hawk]

What's funny is that I hear a lot of, "Why get this year's driver, just get last years at a cheaper price." A lot. Depends on the individual I guess. It's up to the consumers to decide if the new product is worth their time and money. The companies, however, should definately take advantage of the players that HAVE to have the newest stuff.

No doubt about the bolded.

I think Titleist is an interesting example. Hopefully nobody takes this wrong either, because I do believe they have a very good product that performs exceptionally well for certain people.

We look at their last two generations of equipment and they are very similar in looks - and I'd argue the same for performance for the most part, but I'm not sure I believe performance ever changes that much with golf equipment. It almost seems like their model is saying - we have a product that people like and we are going to give them more of it when the time comes that they need to replace it. Other companies seem to push the idea that their newest is a large improvement over the past. The R11/R11s driver comes to mind there.

 

[McRock]

Companies that release products twice a year of course run the risk of ticking off their customers who wished they had waited for the newer and better product. As a result, it's possible that those consumers end up waiting for years to find a product they know works for them and won't be made inferior by a new product within a couple of years.

Companies that release products once a year (or less, *cough* titleist drivers) are missing out on the gravy train. The general consumer is pretty stupid. Many want the current best. As an example, EA releases NCAA 12 in July, using the Madden 11 engine, and then releases Madden 12 in August, which always seems to have better physics and playability than the NCAA released just a month earlier. People complain every year about it, and even complain that it's really not necessary to force us to spend $60 every year on our favorite football game. Yet, every year, the game sells and it sells very well. The same with golf clubs, people might be a little angry, but they quickly get over it with their lust to own the latest and greatest golf equipment. Also, by releasing only once per year, you may be missing out on the Holiday shopping season.

Those are just my thoughts on it. It never bugs me which way a company goes, because I'm meticulous about buying anything. It took me 2 years to buy a driver and 1 year to buy a wedge. It's been four years since I started looking at new irons and still haven't made the jump. I just know that when I purchase something, it's going to last me several years.

~Rock

 

[blugold]

I don't think Titleist wants to push the looks. They like being taditional in shape and color. I do think there is a difference between the 910 and the 913 stuff. But most of it is internal. Each company likes to do business a certain way, Titleist and Ping like to work within the box, while Taylormade and Nike like to move beyond that box. At least from what I can see.

 

[TRyan]

As long as the companies continue to make big profits, why would they allow longer life cycles for their products? Companies are in business to make money, and these OEMs have found that people "need" the newest stuff.

 

[WessCook]

I'm a big fan of yearly releases. I think it's really nice to see new equipment from OEM's each year because they compete with the other OEM's. Equipment Competition leads to Equipment Innovation and innovation is a must in the golf industry!!

 

[blugold]

I'm a big fan of yearly releases. I think it's really nice to see new equipment from OEM's each year because they compete with the other OEM's. Equipment Competition leads to Equipment Innovation and innovation is a must in the golf industry!!

Without a doubt. But I feel like the urgency to put out a new release every year makes for some sloppy releases. I look at the Burner Superfast and the Superfast 2.0. What was the biggest difference, the color. I know there was stuff internally that was different, but it didn't feel like there was a tremendous difference.

 

[Jank]

I think that you can see the conflict from both sides within the first few posts. People have their opinions on whether companies should release bi-anually, anually, or every other year. I wouldn't call it a lose-lose necessarily, but you cannot make everyone happy. I like the release of a product every year or every other year. I just find it hard to believe that there can be a significant difference in clubs that come out 6 months apart. Even 1 year apart for that matter. I would like to believe that every release of a club gets marginally better, but that's not always the case.

Taylormade gets its profit by releasing clubs quite often while having to lower the price on the previous models.
On the other side, Titleist makes its profit by releasing every other year, but keeping the prices on their clubs more or less constant for those 2 years. These models work well for both companies.

 

[Jersey Nate]

I also think that 2 year release cycles are going by the wayside because of the "gotta have the new stuff" mentality of some. I for one love seeing an influx of new equipment in a shorter span than 2 years, even when some think that it devalues their "older" equipment. I think it just gives the consumer plenty of options to choose from whether or not they are on a budget (slightly older equipment) or have to have the latest and greatest. And more options means more competition between companies, which is great for us golfers to ponder over.

 

[ddxu]

Quality over quantity in my opinion. But I'm not at the corporate board table having to answer to shareholders and stakeholders.

 

[JB]

I just find it hard to believe that there can be a significant difference in clubs that come out 6 months apart. Even 1 year apart for that matter. I would like to believe that every release of a club gets marginally better, but that's not always the case.

Taylormade gets its profit by releasing clubs quite often while having to lower the price on the previous models.
On the other side, Titleist makes its profit by releasing every other year, but keeping the prices on their clubs more or less constant for those 2 years. These models work well for both companies.

Jank,
There are things that are different though. Lets look at the R9 line as it was the last time TM released products quickly. The R9 and the R9 Supertri were very different drivers. One was low/mid spin and one was mid/high spin. Were they revolutionary from each other? No. But they were very different drivers. They were marketed well, and everyone flocked to them it seems, but in the end quite different.

To the bolded part, I am not sure I agree anymore. Yes, they have price drops, but the last 24 months have shown them release drivers no different than most companies. I think they have found a more stable model of releases that has worked over the past year and their marketshare numbers show it is working well. They may release irons at a different time than metal woods, but it is still yearly as of now.

 

[blugold]

Jank,
There are things that are different though. Lets look at the R9 line as it was the last time TM released products quickly. The R9 and the R9 Supertri were very different drivers. One was low/mid spin and one was mid/high spin. Were they revolutionary from each other? No. But they were very different drivers. They were marketed well, and everyone flocked to them it seems, but in the end quite different.

To the bolded part, I am not sure I agree anymore. Yes, they have price drops, but the last 24 months have shown them release drivers no different than most companies. I think they have found a more stable model of releases that has worked over the past year and their marketshare numbers show it is working well. They may release irons at a different time than metal woods, but it is still yearly as of now.

JB, look at Adams last season. They had their big release with the Fast 12, and then smaller late season releases with the LaunchLab and Speedline Tech. But they were quietly done. Do think all of their buisness dealings had something to do with that?

 

[TRyan]

Quality over quantity in my opinion. But I'm not at the corporate board table having to answer to shareholders and stakeholders.

Shareholders have big time influence man. People are all about the short-term gains over the long-term stability of a company at times it seems. Obviously the upper management at these companies might not agree, but pleasing shareholders is crucial for these companies and sometimes that means forgoing the long-term goal.

 

[Trout Bum]

I used to think that TM and Callaway were product pigs putting new stuff out every few months, then I started playing Mizuno lol. Mizuno puts stuff out there like they stole it. I wish they would promote the current lines a little more and slow down on the tech aspect of for a while. I see so many impulse buys because golfer A saw golfer B with it and he killed it, or he could hit a draw with it, they then put in the garage because they can't and wait for the next hot stick. I think releasing products too often makes the golfer that buys a new set of irons twice a year a poorer golfer, because they never take the time to adjust to what they have. God forbid when adjustable irons come out.

 

[Hawk]

Another interesting one is Mizuno.

Here you have a company that seems to release irons all the time and is essentially putting out the same product without any qualms.

In the end, I think variety is probably a good thing. I've always just been curious about where certain beliefs come from.

 

[blugold]

Another interesting one is Mizuno.

Here you have a company that seems to release irons all the time and is essentially putting out the same product without any qualms.

In the end, I think variety is probably a good thing. I've always just been curious about where certain beliefs come from.

But the new irons are grainier forged or something. They're softer than last years irons because they're even more forged.

 

[Hawk]

But the new irons are grainier forged or something. They're softer than last years irons because they're even more forged.

Jokes aside, Mizuno is one of the only companies that I am never sure which product is current or what it's even named. They have a very good product, but they confuse the hell out of me.

 

[JB]

JB, look at Adams last season. They had their big release with the Fast 12, and then smaller late season releases with the LaunchLab and Speedline Tech. But they were quietly done. Do think all of their buisness dealings had something to do with that?

I dont think they were as much quiet as they were quietly received. LaunchLab was definitely not a mainstream driver, but the Speedline Tech just seemed to underwhelm the mainstream media. But another good example of nobody really saying much about a company releasing 3 drivers in the same year. More if you count the options on the Fast 12.

Another interesting one is Mizuno.

Here you have a company that seems to release irons all the time and is essentially putting out the same product without any qualms.

In the end, I think variety is probably a good thing. I've always just been curious about where certain beliefs come from.

Another good example. During their MX-300 launch a couple of years ago, they had something like 6 or so sets of irons as current in their lineup.

 

[Hawk]

I think Adams keeps throwing drivers out in the hopes that something will be a success. They've abandoned normal cycles to push buzz, but it's not really working from what I see.