Tour Use and Influence: Quality or Quantity?

[PhillyV]

We've had the discussion about companies and what would bring them back or what would help them build up their brand, whether it be clubs, clothes, shafts or golf balls and the discussion always leans towards the topic of tour acceptance and tour use. Golf products in large part are leisure items and most of us make purchases with emotion attached to it. We want to know we are spending our money on the best available and seeing that equipment being used by the best in the world is a big thing for most. So the question i have is whats the bigger influence to consumers? Having one or two of the top players in the world having an item in play or dozens of others who may be less known having it in play? I think the best example for this currently is the HZRDUS shaft. None of the current top 3 players in the OWR have one in play, but its a shaft thats taken the tour by storm in general and i know has a lot of buzz around here. So as a consumer, is it Quality or Quantity when it comes to tour use and influence to put something in play?

 

[tahoebum]

Quantity plays a bigger role. Titleist balls and Taylormade drivers come to mind.

 

[RNG]

I have to go with quality. I don't buy items unless they work for me!!

 

[JB]

I have to go with quality. I don't buy items unless they work for me!!

I dont think too many do. But people do test what is used and marketed well.

 

[mpeterson]

Hmm. When it comes to tour use, I see this as a kind of chicken and egg thing. These guys are making a living off of this stuff, so they're not going to put something in play that isn't quality. At the same time, these guys get customization that we don't have access to in some cases - they're playing something slightly different than what's on the shelf.

One thing I always find interesting are the clubs that guys have in the bag that they aren't sponsored/getting paid to put in play. I think that can be telling if you see a trend.

 

[TRyan]

Honestly for me: neither. I guess I get some validation when I see guys using the clubs I use, but at the end of the day, I use the clubs I use because they work for me.

Great question by the way dude, look forward to reading the responses.

 

[JB]

I think one thing that is important to note is I dont believe Philly V is talking about lack of quality or high quality products. More quality vs quantity in amount of players. I will use Bridgestone as an example. THey dont have a lot of people playing their equipment. They do have a couple of pretty high quality players.

 

[CBaker]

I think it's definitely a mix of both, as you need some top players to make that use seem valid to the average person; but I'd say 60/40 towards quantity. Being able to advertise as the most used on tour is huge, and then it doesn't matter who uses it or not. Especially with golf balls, because you can't really tell what they are using on TV anyway.

 

[PhillyV]

Yes. Lets face it, most of the equipment out now a days is high quality. Some just are a better fit for some. I am speaking more towards the tour player and how much their influence is. In the shaft thread my one word answer for mistubishi was "cars". Yet 2 of the top 3 players in the world have one in play in their drivers. I am more of a quantity over quality guy personally

 

[ArmyGolf]

I'll say quantity simply because I'm a huge Rory fan but have never been inclined to buy Nike gear.

When I see a club or shaft take the tour by storm like Hzrdus or Rogue I'm eager to demo it for myself.

 

[jdtox]

I'd say quantity definitely attracts more attention as a whole, but I prefer quality personally.

 

[JB]

Yes. Lets face it, most of the equipment out now a days is high quality. Some just are a better fit for some. I am speaking more towards the tour player and how much their influence is. In the shaft thread my one word answer for mistubishi was "cars". Yet 2 of the top 3 players in the world have one in play in their drivers. I am more of a quantity over quality guy personally

I will also say in my opinion its very product and player driven.
Tiger Woods comes to mind. Sold soft goods like you would not believe, but as dominant as he was, the hard goods sat.

 

[GregDan]

I think it's a fine line between the two. But I also think it's how you get the message out there as well. You can have a high quality player with your equipment, but if no one knows about it, you don't get add much exposure.

If you have a lot of less known players all playing your equipment, but you get your message out, that certainly will get more notice by the amateur golfer.

 

[mikeg_74]

I like quality. Tour use doesn't move the needle for me in the sense of having to rush out and buy a product bc player X has it in the bag.

I think all the OEM's put out quality products, but I'll gravitate to top notch customer service/engagement. I played Callaway before #TheGrandaddy and now after that experience I'll admit I'll give them first shot at a spot in my bag because they understand the consumer better than any other OEM right now.

 

[mpeterson]

I think one thing that is important to note is I dont believe Philly V is talking about lack of quality or high quality products. More quality vs quantity in amount of players. I will use Bridgestone as an example. THey dont have a lot of people playing their equipment. They do have a couple of pretty high quality players.

I completely misread that - thanks for the clarification.

In that case, I think it's a bit of both. If you can get a bunch of guys where 1-2 of them are in contention every week - maybe not the absolute top golfers, you're staff bag is going to get a lot of time on television, and your ball logo is going to be seen rolling into a lot of cups. So, that's still quality, but I'm not necessarily talking about the OWGR top 5 or anything.

To me, that feels like the approach Callaway has taken. Sure, they've got Phil, and to a lesser extent Stenson, but I feel like it's been quite a while since I haven't seen a Callaway staff bag featured prominently on a Sunday afternoon.

 

[War Eagle]

I think most people look to the quantity of tour usage when looking at equipment. And that is directly tied to marketing companies use. "Most used ball on tour." "Most drivers on tour." Etc.

For me, I prefer quality, FOR ME. Honestly, rarely do I have a purchase that is based on something that a pro is playing. Heck, I would probably say that there is a good chance I am not gaming a single piece of equipment that I have noticed a Tour Pro playing.

Also, I probably read the original post wrong.

 

[JB]

Scotty Cameron once said he doesnt need any advertisements, as long as he has putters in play every week on TV and they pay handsomely to make sure that is the case.

 

[lightningbolt44]

I will also say in my opinion its very product and player driven.
Tiger Woods comes to mind. Sold soft goods like you would not believe, but as dominant as he was, the hard goods sat.

Style is something most people like to replicate very few out there (on tour or real life) are true trendsetters beat to their own drum when it comes to style. I think this is one huge reason soft goods sell because of players. Not to mention the cost difference but I don't think that is a major factor in a player moving soft but not hard goods.

Tiger had he been with Taylor Made or Callaway or someone that knows how to market clubs would have sold a boat load IMO. Nike still has a stigma around it that they can't break and imo it is their fault they can't break that. Over the years they have put out some great stuff they just can't package it up and deliver to the consumer in a quick and direct approach (no direction marketing) and it kills them.

To answer the OP I would say it is 70% quantity and 30% quality. You need some good players but the more players you have the better odds you are getting TV time.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[JB]

Style is something most people like to replicate very few out there (on tour or real life) are true trendsetters beat to their own drum when it comes to style. I think this is one huge reason soft goods sell because of players. Not to mention the cost difference but I don't think that is a major factor in a player moving soft but not hard goods.

Tiger had he been with Taylor Made or Callaway or someone that knows how to market clubs would have sold a boat load IMO. Nike still has a stigma around it that they can't break and imo it is their fault they can't break that. Over the years they have put out some great stuff they just can't package it up and deliver to the consumer in a quick and direct approach (no direction marketing) and it kills them.

To answer the OP I would say it is 70% quantity and 30% quality. You need some good players but the more players you have the better odds you are getting TV time.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

You might be right. Although in my opinion he didn't really sell Titleist drivers either.

 

[ArmyGolf]

I should add that I just bought a Nike sweater because I saw Rory wearing it and it looked awesome. Tour players influence me more with soft goods than clubs for some reason.

 

[lightningbolt44]

You might be right. Although in my opinion he didn't really sell Titleist drivers either.

Don't they sell themselves

I wonder how much is the perception. (Right or wrong) that people think tour players are playing different equipment than retail equipment

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[KEV]

In the past I would have said it was definitely quantity. I saw the field was filled with _______ companies equipment and just assumed it was good because it was so popular. I honestly didn't open myself up to other lesser known brands such as Bridgestone until I joined THP and became more educated.

 

[JB]

Don't they sell themselves

I wonder how much is the perception. (Right or wrong) that people think tour players are playing different equipment than retail equipment

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Is there one for regular consumers? I ask genuinely because I dont know.

 

[lightningbolt44]

Is there one for regular consumers? I ask genuinely because I dont know.

I honestly don't know either. My gut says some yes but most no. That said I will add I have 0 clue what is actually in anyone's bag other than the company they may be with. I am curious how many others are the same and can actually name the clubs people play without looking it up. Sure we know what companies they rep but down to the specific club u am guessing not many know.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[emart2173]

For me it's quality. I don't base purchases off of tour use so the number of players has no bearing on my purchase.