We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Would you sign Jordan Spieth?

ddec

ddec

I have many leather-bound books
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
97,294
Reaction score
26,753
Location
NY
Handicap
The Driver
Here's the scenario. You are in charge of putting together your company's tour staff. Coming off of a huge year, Jordan Spieth hits the free agent market in terms of clubs. Would you sign him for whatever amount he wants? Here's the rub though, he gets to keep playing his golf ball, his putter, and his current deals for golf bag and apparel are still intact. Essentially you get to say that he plays your clubs, but your companies logo is not on his body or bag. So knowing all of that, would you sign him? Is it a no-brainer? Would you spend $10 Mil+ a year on a guy who you would be hard pressed for the avg golf fan to know which clubs he plays?
 
I don't think so. His clothing is only under armour his bag is ATT. I just don't know how much exposure you would get from him on TV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No chance. Not enough ROI at that price.
 
My gut says no, not if I can't plaster the company logo on him. Otherwise, you'd have to spend more in advertising to make sure people knew what he had in the bag.
 
No. All that TV time where he's endorsing some other products (by wearing them) and not mine? Don't think I could justify it.
 
Nope. Either a Rory or TW type deal or nothing. I don't think it would be worth it.
 
I say yes. All you need is the sign in the golf store that says "Jordan plays X, come try them out!" and that's all the exposure that needs. I get emails every time someone wins from golf stores with a list of what the player uses and to come in and try it out. I don't think it hurts you that much that your logo isn't on anything on course as long as he still performs and wins with it.
 
Might as well, but not for the maximum amount. He's the hot commodity right now. As much exposure that he's going to get over the next few years, I don't think there will be any problem with people wondering what he is playing. Bags and hats are nice, but that's not the only way to let the masses know that he plays your gear. People will know.

Having said that, because of the lack of exposure my brand would get on TV, I wouldn't give him the full, top dollar deal. If I'm paying Tiger money, I want my logo everywhere he goes.
 
I think it would depend on marketing rights via media, (tv commercials, radio advertisement, print ads with said product) it could be lucrative if certain rights are in play but chances are they're not. Being a nice guy isn't enough to make money with anymore.
 
well, there's not a lot of tmag apparel worn except for the hat and glove, and i've always heard they spend bookoodles of money on their staffers. so i don't think it's out of the question. i think he needs one more year of productivity before he gets that kind of money. if he can win a few times next year and compete in the majors, then he's worth it.
 
ddec said:
Here's the scenario. You are in charge of putting together your company's tour staff. Coming off of a huge year, Jordan Spieth hits the free agent market in terms of clubs. Would you sign him for whatever amount he wants? Here's the rub though, he gets to keep playing his golf ball, his putter, and his current deals for golf bag and apparel are still intact. Essentially you get to say that he plays your clubs, but your companies logo is not on his body or bag. So knowing all of that, would you sign him? Is it a no-brainer? Would you spend $10 Mil+ a year on a guy who you would be hard pressed for the avg golf fan to know which clubs he plays?
Click to expand...

Yes. For the commercials alone.

That said, it's not the perfect scenario as I am sure there would still be visual headcovers to reference my company. Either way, I still think it's a green light. He's not getting Rory money, but after that season, he's getting something.
 
The only way he gets that from me, is if he will change his ball or his putter. Without those changes, Titleist can have him.
 
Trout Bum said:
I think it would depend on marketing rights via media, (tv commercials, radio advertisement, print ads with said product) it could be lucrative if certain rights are in play but chances are they're not. Being a nice guy isn't enough to make money with anymore.
Click to expand...

...but winning is.

And Titliest still uses him in all their stuff even after AT&T took over the bag, so I'm guessing advertising rights are still open in the deal. heck, he's their home page right now.
 
Nope - if I am investing in a player these days, they need to wear my logo to get the brand exposure to the casual golfer - that is where the best bang for the buck is.

When I think Joran Spieth, I think Under Armour - not Titleist. Plus, Jordan doesn't seem too keen on switching to the latest and greatest just because, so I just don't see how it would be worth it.
 
Canadan said:
Yes. For the commercials alone.

That said, it's not the perfect scenario as I am sure there would still be visual headcovers to reference my company. Either way, I still think it's a green light. He's not getting Rory money, but after that season, he's getting something.
Click to expand...

He should get more than Rory money. Him being from the US is reason enough - the US market will simply support him more than they've ever supported Rory.

There was a thread last year debating what would be better for golf - Rory winning or Fowler winning. I think most everyone agree that it was Fowler because of his US roots. Same goes for Spieth
 
cbaker2882 said:
...but winning is.

And Titliest still uses him in all their stuff even after AT&T took over the bag, so I'm guessing advertising rights are still open in the deal. heck, he's their home page right now.
Click to expand...

But is Titleist selling more clubs? At&T getting more customers because of it?
 
cbaker2882 said:
...but winning is.

And Titliest still uses him in all their stuff even after AT&T took over the bag, so I'm guessing advertising rights are still open in the deal. heck, he's their home page right now.
Click to expand...

I think you're right, I was taking my own thoughts into account because I'm far from the avg consumer lol, I don't buy because someone wins with it. Good point.
 
I would say yes. Someone mentioned it earlier about saying "Jordan Spieth plays ..." and a ton of people would play it just because of that. I totally get the gear part of it and the lack of a walking billboard, but I still think it would be a good investment.
 
Business wise, it would be like a big free agency signing in sports. You might get a a massive return, you might get very little in return if the play drops off.

I would stay away, unless he was going all in on your gear.... clothes, shoes, balls, and every club in the bag.
 
Really depends on what it will cost and what I'm paying others.

Would I want him though? Absolutely.....just using his likeness in print media along with commercials would be a revenue generator IMO.
 
I don't think so, with his apparel/shoes/hat/bag locked up, the head covers would be the only thing I could use to get exposure.
 
It's all about how you activate the sponsorship. Since it would be hard to expose your brand while he is golfing, it would require extra advertising dollars to get him talking about your clubs and all that. Therefore, I say no, but if they think the ROI is up to par, then go for it.
 
In heart beat ... if he is the next Tiger/Jack I want on that train! Hell I name a line of clubs after him ... maybe victory Blue's
 
jlukes said:
He should get more than Rory money. Him being from the US is reason enough - the US market will simply support him more than they've ever supported Rory.

There was a thread last year debating what would be better for golf - Rory winning or Fowler winning. I think most everyone agree that it was Fowler because of his US roots. Same goes for Spieth
Click to expand...

For a guy who shows zero signs of playing their gear, why would he get more money than a guy who plays all 14 and is of similar prestige?
 
Howzat said:
But is Titleist selling more clubs? At&T getting more customers because of it?
Click to expand...

No idea honestly. I'd have to think there is a peaked interest in Titleist if nothing else. It doesn't help that they are one of the more expensive brands and the irons he plays are pushing $1,300 after tax. I don't think Titleist grabs the casual golf fan because of that alone at least for equipment sales.

You saw what TW did for Nike though. There are no Nike golf clubs without a guy like Tiger repping the brand. And I don't think it would have had that much of a negative effect on the brand even if he was wearing someone else's clothes and the bag is AT&T in that situation either. People would have been looking at his clubs at stores no matter what.

It's all obviously IMO of course, but a frequently winning player will bring eyes to your brand no matter what. I mean it's just his putter, but google searches for Zach Johnson's putter have to sky rocket when he wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top