We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Tour Use and Influence: Quality or Quantity?

Tour Use and Influence: Quality or Quantity?

  • Quality

    Votes: 26 57.8%

  • Quantity

    Votes: 19 42.2%
  • Total voters
    45
SuperStroke
To me, quantity is a better gauge of broad appeal of a product than quality as 1 or 2 players at the top could be a very specific fit into that product or could simply be a very expensive effort on the company's part to promote the product...
 
lightningbolt44 said:
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
Click to expand...

The general consensus has always been you could tell the driver, the putter and the ball from TV, and the rest needed/should be told with good marketing. I will use Cleveland as an example and how they used to do a great job of telling the world how many wedges were out there.

Some companies pay for the putter, others dont have to or just dont. The putter is a hot commodity, because if branded correctly is so easily seen. The white driver comes to mind as one of the most brilliant marketing moves done in consumer goods to highlight a large count used on tour. Funny story about it, I have a friend who worked at Cleveland Golf and about a decade ago went to the then President and said if you look at Tennis, the white racket is all of the rage. We have a deep staff, but nobody is talking about our driver. Lets paint it white, and even went to the parking lot and did it with a club, shaft and grip and he was told "That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard, and our players wouldnt play it and nobody would buy it". 5 years later, white was everywhere.
 
honestly, tour use doesn't influence my buying decisions.

If it did, I would say quality over quantity. give me what the top 10 play, not the bottom 50
 
For me I would say tour use influences my demos but not my purchase. I think on a whole quantity far outweighs quality on the hard side. I think quality is able to have a bigger impact on soft side. I wouldn't have a guess as to why that is but anyone else see it as a difference in hard vs soft side as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
JB said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's the truth and one of the first things that came to mind. I was playing with a really bad putter recently that was convinced his putting all came down to him not using a Scotty Cameron.

Also, why do so many people choose to hit Pro Vs despite them not being the best ball for them and major $$$$? (Rhetorical question).
 
I feel it's quantity because the quality is already there. I don't think that pros will put anything into play that wouldn't make them competitive or that they perceive any quality issues with the brand.
 
buckeyewalt said:
I feel it's quantity because the quality is already there. I don't think that pros will put anything into play that wouldn't make them competitive or that they perceive any quality issues with the brand.
Click to expand...

Buckeye, he is speaking of quality of player. Meaning top players vs a large amount of players, not necessarily the quality of the equipment.
 
When I watch those Titleist ball count commercials, I always think about how many people are going out and buying them just because of that advert. Their advertisements that are based on quantity of tour use work really well.

Bridgestone is marketing their line of golf balls with the quality strategy, in my opinion at least. They've grown, now leveled off with Callaway's re-emergence, but even Callaway is approaching their ball line with a quality-centered focus.

Its obvious that in this example "quantity" is working better than "quality," saying "More people are using this ball" is outselling "This ball is the best."

I'm not sure I subscribe to that same convention personally, but I think that comes with being a part of THP.

There are, I'm sure, lots of other examples that prove the opposite but this is the one that is the clearest for me to see.
 
I think it's more about how much use, rather than who is using! But I think it also speaks volumes when it's un paid use as well.
 
Quantity. I am not really influenced by what pros play; apples and oranges. But they do serve as highly visible marketers for companies. So more visibility through quantity of PGA players seems the way to go to me. And as others have noted, having a superstar doesn't necessarily translate to brand interest. Rory and Nike are the prime example for me too.

Aside from Tour players, I find feedback and reviews from trusted sources like THPers or golf buddies has the most influence on my brand views. For example, I think Ping (or Titleist) and Callaway make equally great golf equipment. But Callaway does a much better job connecting with golfers through THP, social media, etc. Each of those people become, to some extent, brand ambassadors. With good Tour presence, that combo is powerful.
 
If you picked quality, please explain why Nike continues to suck.
 
My first thought would be quantity. See it on tour everywhere and i think the average uninformed golfer would gravitate towards that
 
I'd lean towards quality. I'd rather have a stable of solid, top performing players who have face time just about every week, over a large group that most of the consumers don't really know.
 
Well, after totally not understanding the topic lets try it again:

I still go with quantity. You can claim to have some top players using your stuff, but if you put up sheer numbers of players using something else, I think that would trump the best anytime.
 
I think you will see a bit of all of the following:

1. Your off the rack purchaser is probably most influenced by TV marketing which is why you primarily see Callaway and Titleist clubs at places like Dick's and Sports Authority. That's why you'll also see the majority of people play Titleist balls. Titleist's ball marketing is massive and people buy anything when Jim Nance is narrating the commercial.

2. Your "get fit at Golfsmith" kinda golfer is probably more flexible in terms of what they buy but are still probably going to lean more heavily to towards a trendy purchase "M1 driver, Titleist irons, etc." because that's what they see the tour players using. They're at least going to get on a launch monitor and get some numbers but they're probably still buying off the rack.

3. Your more avid golfer that goes through more rigorous fitting processes may still lean towards "trendy" custom options like Tour AD (becasue SPIETH!!!) or HZRDUS shafts (because lots of rapid adoption by many players) and these items are popular on tour. These kinds of golfers "always play what fits them best" but often convince themselves that what fits them best is what's most popular.

4. Another version is the avid golfer that is convinced that cost=performance. They're going to get fit but usually trend toward expensive upgrades, Scotty putters, forged irons, etc (nothing wrong with any of those, just that some people often are convinced that most-expensive is what fits best)

5. You'll have the brand homer (this is me). You're completely open to getting fit but you tend to fit yourself into a particular brand (CALLAWAY! CALLAWAY! CALLAWAY!)
 
I voted quality of player because that is more important to me, but I think quantity plays a bigger role for the average golf consumer.
 
Personally, I don't really care too much about what gets played on tour. Those guys are playing a different game than I am so what shaft they play, or even what head doesn't translate to what will fit my slow swing.

For me to then compare my game to say, Rory or Jason Day it is EVEN FURTHER away than say a Zach Johnson is.

That said, I definitely follow what the pros are playing, but it doesn't impact what I buy, at least not in any conscious way.
 
I have to go with quality
 
I said quantity. Here's my thinking: Jason Day and Dustin Johnson are two of the longest hitters on tour, and they both play TaylorMade drivers. To me, the fact that they're physical freaks has a greater impact on how far they hit the driver than the company they use. They could hit a golf ball with a down pillow farther than I could with a driver. Don't get me wrong, very smart of TM to bag some guys who murder golf balls off the tee for sponsorship. But inasmuch as I am actually influenced by tour use (which isn't much) I'd say quantity affects more. The number of tour players who use a #7 putter is a great indication of the success of that putter, for example, let alone the number of players who have Odyssey putters in an otherwise non-Callaway bags.
 
When it comes to tour representation, I think quantity likely plays a bigger factor, but, there are some companies who have done well with product messaging with just a few "quality" players rep-ing their products (or maybe even using the products without being a "brand ambassador").
 
I didn't answer the survey because there wasn't a box that said both.

I think it's quality and quantity in equal parts. Each has their own marketing appeal. The quality appeal is self-explanatory, the quantity appeal gives me the impression that the product may also be good for me since so many on tour are using it.
 
theoverswinger said:
I didn't answer the survey because there wasn't a box that said both.

I think it's quality and quantity in equal parts. Each has their own marketing appeal. The quality appeal is self-explanatory, the quantity appeal gives me the impression that the product may also be good for me since so many on tour are using it.
Click to expand...

Can you explain the quality appeal being self explanatory?
 
If it's for the majority then definitely tour performance and usage.

People buy into the marketing and sales very easily.

For me it's quality, I read the reviews on THP, i ask questions and do my research. Then when I'm ready I get fit and make my decision from there.
 
JB said:
Can you explain the quality appeal being self explanatory?
Click to expand...

Having a few but quality players that move the needle I think has marketing impact as well. I will also be observing what top players like Spieth, McElroy, Day are using, and in his prime, Woods. True or not, Bubba gaming the Ping driver reinforces the impression that the Ping driver is a candidate for long drives.
 
I picked quality....but I mis-understood...whoops.

I think as far as the market as a whole goes, quantity is king. ProV1(x) is a prime example. Lots of people play pro-v's that don't need them. BUT it's what EVERYONE on tour is using so it MUST be the best. Right?

For me? Meh, neither really. I'm going to play what I like. Seeing a bunch of something on tour might pique my interest, but the odds that I'm going to go buy one because a bunch of tour pros are playing something are slim to none.

Soft goods are a whole different story. If I see something I like on tour, especially if it's an unknown brand to me, I'm more likely to go look for it, or give the brand a look, but that's not limited to tour exposure either. If I hear about a brand from someone on here I'll go look it up if it looks interesting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top