Wilson Staff Model Golf Balls and Baller Box

[JDax]

Question?

Wilson has the most expensive ball on the market (I know the Honma ball cost more, but stay with me). JB mentioned that the ball has 362 dimples, just like their previous golf ball line did. One would think that a totally new ball with a higher price point wouldn’t be so similar to their previous ball offering on the surface.

Why the higher price?

 

[JB]

Question?

Wilson has the most expensive ball on the market (I know the Honma ball cost more, but stay with me). JB mentioned that the ball has 362 dimples, just like their previous golf ball line did. One would think that a totally new ball with a higher price point wouldn’t be so similar to their previous ball offering on the surface.

Why the higher price?

That is really perceptive actually and something that gets glossed over a lot. Dimple pattern in golf balls matter. But if I dive into that a bit (great question), golf balls are made with tooling. To use an example that everybody can relate to, Bridgestone was called the B330 for a number of years because they had that many dimples. When the TOUR B came out, there was some naming backlash, but they had to change it, since the dimple count changed.

As you pointed out, the tooling used to create the ball appears to be the same as the DUO Professional ball, that also features the 362 dimples. So from the cover stand point, it would be the same (I have not verified that). As a company bringing out their most expensive golf ball to date at $50 a dozen (although that goes down with bulk purchase), some might have expected a complete rebuild.

None of that says the golf ball is not incredible, because I believe it will be very good. But it is super perceptive and does the opposite of create intrigue for those that have played their balls in the past.

 

[JDax]

We need a Live Stream Q&A with Wilson Marketing... Forget Driver v. Driver, we need a show on this. If a Driver was named “The Baller” on the show, they would laugh it out of the room.

 

[Iceman!]

That is really perceptive actually and something that gets glossed over a lot. Dimple pattern in golf balls matter. But if I dive into that a bit (great question), golf balls are made with tooling. To use an example that everybody can relate to, Bridgestone was called the B330 for a number of years because they had that many dimples. When the TOUR B came out, there was some naming backlash, but they had to change it, since the dimple count changed.

As you pointed out, the tooling used to create the ball appears to be the same as the DUO Professional ball, that also features the 362 dimples. So from the cover stand point, it would be the same (I have not verified that). As a company bringing out their most expensive golf ball to date at $50 a dozen (although that goes down with bulk purchase), some might have expected a complete rebuild.

None of that says the golf ball is not incredible, because I believe it will be very good. But it is super perceptive and does the opposite of create intrigue for those that have played their balls in the past.

So based on your explanation (Which is really good BTW), do we have in the end a "B330 RX" and "B330 X" like golf balls here if the dimple patterns are the same, Professional and Staff?
If this is truly the case, that might have been a better sell....

 

[JB]

So based on your explanation (Which is really good BTW), do we have in the end a "B330 RX" and "B330 X" like golf balls here if the dimple patterns are the same, Professional and Staff?
If this is truly the case, that might have been a better sell....

No, not necessarily. While I am not saying this, the closer comparison would be 2010 model to 2012 model if one assumed the cover made the tooling made the ball, right?

To use a different parallel, Titleist used the same tooling in the Pro V1 over the span of two cycles. The compression did in fact change and get firmer, but that wouldn't make it a Pro V1x. And if it got softer, it wouldn't make it an AVX.

The complete make up make a ball what it is. In this instance, it appears quite different from the Professional, albeit the same tooling, which is a bit perplexing (for multiple reasons). I explained it in the article, but will add to it here. There are two mantle layers. One firmer than the other, which makes perfect sense and helps create speed, while still offering a feel that the Wilson fans enjoy. Most companies do this in one way or another and it is a fantastic process. In this case they are called Ionomer and HPF. The confusion for those that know materials is that HPF is ionomer. Its made by Dupont.

So circling back I believe this all comes back to messaging. They might have something very good on their hands. I am very much looking forward to testing them out soon (my dozen arrived Saturday). Over the last 6 months we have seen some really really good golf balls launched and I believe Staff Model could be one of those. But if you take a look at the features on THP (and other places) and read the messaging and info provided by the different companies, you see some stark differences.

I hope this rambling makes sense and answers the question. Im happy to add more if you have other questions.

 

[annsguy]

We need a Live Stream Q&A with Wilson Marketing... Forget Driver v. Driver, we need a show on this. If a Driver was named “The Baller” on the show, they would laugh it out of the room.

Might be better than Tiger King. Just call it Baller Box!

 

[Scorp]

I just took a look at Wilson's web site... they've got some nice looking irons and a plethora of choices for golf balls... the thing I came away with is confusion. Looking at ther 50 Elite... 2 different prices for the same thing? Slightly different packaging but same ball... I'm guessing different model years. And some of their offerings are buy 3 get 1 free...

The ballet Staff Model has its own dedicated web page... the packaging is greyscale... the price structure is listed, but there's nothing to me that compels me to check it out. I'll grab the Elite 50 for $12.99

 

[G-Man]

No, not necessarily. While I am not saying this, the closer comparison would be 2010 model to 2012 model if one assumed the cover made the tooling made the ball, right?

To use a different parallel, Titleist used the same tooling in the Pro V1 over the span of two cycles. The compression did in fact change and get firmer, but that wouldn't make it a Pro V1x. And if it got softer, it wouldn't make it an AVX.

The complete make up make a ball what it is. In this instance, it appears quite different from the Professional, albeit the same tooling, which is a bit perplexing (for multiple reasons). I explained it in the article, but will add to it here. There are two mantle layers. One firmer than the other, which makes perfect sense and helps create speed, while still offering a feel that the Wilson fans enjoy. Most companies do this in one way or another and it is a fantastic process. In this case they are called Ionomer and HPF. The confusion for those that know materials is that HPF is ionomer. Its made by Dupont.

So circling back I believe this all comes back to messaging. They might have something very good on their hands. I am very much looking forward to testing them out soon (my dozen arrived Saturday). Over the last 6 months we have seen some really really good golf balls launched and I believe Staff Model could be one of those. But if you take a look at the features on THP (and other places) and read the messaging and info provided by the different companies, you see some stark differences.

I hope this rambling makes sense and answers the question. Im happy to add more if you have other questions.

Very interested in hearing feedback on the balls. Thanks for the explanations that are coming. I think the distribution is key. They have an uphill battle as the Baller Box has them taking a couple steps backwards as does the price. Hope they hit a home run and then continuation of the following that the Duo earned.

 

[JB]

Very interested in hearing feedback on the balls. Thanks for the explanations that are coming. I think the distribution is key. They have an uphill battle as the Baller Box has them taking a couple steps backwards as does the price. Hope they hit a home run and then continuation of the following that the Duo earned.

Based on what we have in place, there really isn't distribution. As we said in the article linked in the first post, these are currently being offered exclusively from Wilson Dot Com.

 

[JDax]

I can't wait to see the reviews on the performance of the ball itself and maybe the performance of the ball will make up for the marketing disconnect.
I don't understand why (if the product is outstanding), they don't want to attempt to get it in more golfer's hands (like the Srixon trial pack promotion).

 

[annsguy]

I am super curious to see what changes they make to the subscription service once it is rolled back out. I expect that some of them will sound like suggestions from this thread. The way this thing has gone the ball will probably be awesome and everyone will want it. Wilson has nothing to lose. As JB pointed out they dont have any of the better ball market anyway. Still. Tim Clarke has probably raised his voice a few times this week.

 

[G-Man]

Based on what we have in place, there really isn't distribution. As we said in the article linked in the first post, these are currently being offered exclusively from Wilson Dot Com.

Was not clear in post. Distribution meant getting them in online bloggers Instagram users and podcasters. They need word of mouth to travel positively and fast.

 

[baylrballa]

Probably going to hold out for the upgraded Shot Caller Box.

 

[Golfever]

Might be better than Tiger King. Just call it Baller Box!

You say Baller Box and all I can see are those square face Drivers.

 

[JB]

I am super curious to see what changes they make to the subscription service once it is rolled back out. I expect that some of them will sound like suggestions from this thread. The way this thing has gone the ball will probably be awesome and everyone will want it. Wilson has nothing to lose. As JB pointed out they dont have any of the better ball market anyway. Still. Tim Clarke has probably raised his voice a few times this week.

Im not sure I agree about management, but that is for a different thread.
My gut feeling is what was spoken to them before release. Sliding scale in price based on amount purchased as well as duration.
Then possibly other items thrown in or discount codes.

Did I say that about not having anything in the premium market sales wise? If so, it wasn't meant that way. Going off memory I would say their Professional and Urethane models make up .5-1% of off course golf ball sales. Thats not a tiny number, despite it sounding that way. If a company has 5-8% of off course market share, it definitely matters.

Was not clear in post. Distribution meant getting them in online bloggers Instagram users and podcasters. They need word of mouth to travel positively and fast.

Gotcha. Pretty sure that was done, or at least most media has them in hand already.

 

[annsguy]

Im not sure I agree about management, but that is for a different thread.
My gut feeling is what was spoken to them before release. Sliding scale in price based on amount purchased as well as duration.
Then possibly other items thrown in or discount codes.

Did I say that about not having anything in the premium market sales wise? If so, it wasn't meant that way. Going off memory I would say their Professional and Urethane models make up .5-1% of off course golf ball sales. Thats not a tiny number, despite it sounding that way. If a company has 5-8% of off course market share, it definitely matters.



Gotcha. Pretty sure that was done, or at least most media has them in hand already.

I did not intend to misrepresent what you said in regard to the premium market sales. What I read in a reply you said," Most shops do not carry their premium balls". I do believe that management can't be thrilled with how this has been received based on this thread alone. I think its safe to say they would have wanted it to be much smoother. Still, I don't know what's in Tim's head and probably best for me to leave it alone.

 

[golfunfiltered]

I find it hard to believe the average golfer cares about dimple patterns and numbers.

 

[ddec]

I find it hard to believe the average golfer cares about dimple patterns and numbers.

they don't. Have to be a golf nut to care about that stuff. Dimple pattern only if it's something different and marketed as such.

 

[golfunfiltered]

they don't. Have to be a golf nut to care about that stuff. Dimple pattern only if it's something different and marketed as such.

But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?

 

[ddec]

But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?

in design or to the consumer? In terms of design, sure it does. To the consumer, nah.

 

[golfunfiltered]

in design or to the consumer? In terms of design, sure it does. To the consumer, nah.

I guess that's my main point.

There's a lot of chatter about the price point of the new ball, which happens to also have the same dimple count. But if we agree that the average consumer doesn't really care about dimple count, then why couldn't Wilson charge whatever they want to see if consumers buy?

 

[Molten]

But even still, if the core is different, does the dimple count matter?

It can matter, absolutely. But not to people buying them typically.

 

[Molten]

What I really want to know.... is the ball any good? The intrigue is there.

 

[radiman]

I guess that's my main point.

There's a lot of chatter about the price point of the new ball, which happens to also have the same dimple count. But if we agree that the average consumer doesn't really care about dimple count, then why couldn't Wilson charge whatever they want to see if consumers buy?

Are you saying that people are balking on the price because the dimple count is the same?

 

[ddec]

I guess that's my main point.

There's a lot of chatter about the price point of the new ball, which happens to also have the same dimple count. But if we agree that the average consumer doesn't really care about dimple count, then why couldn't Wilson charge whatever they want to see if consumers buy?

I am missing something here. To me, I'm reading this as a bizarre parallel. I guess I am not seeing the dimple count vs price battle. Wilson can charge whatever they want for the golf ball.