We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Golf Ball Hypothetical: Your Thoughts Wanted

SuperStroke
Jman

Jman

Here for the Conversation
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
181,613
Reaction score
96,106
Location
Oklahoma
Handicap
SOFTCAPPED
So, a hypothetical.

Let’s say a company has two urethane golf balls they hang their hat on, and those balls do well for them. Over the years they’ve woven a story that those two can cover the fitting gamut, and fought the belief there is a wider fitting realm out there and always offer some solid non urethane balls in their lineup.

Years go by and they intro a new “top” level ball, hitting a very small group of players. Now there are three “tour” offerings.

What would you say if another ball were to be released, also urethane, at a lower price point and arguably aimed at the largest segment of golfers needs out there while still pushing their top balls as a fit for all?

Make sense? Reactionary? Contradictory? No biggie? Options are good? What do you think about this hypothetical? It’s something. I’ve been thinking on a long while, and how these things do or don’t effect our perception of companies.

Lets chat!
 
I think the marketing would need to be refined across the board. It's tough to have a lineup where most golfers would theoretically have 2 (if not more) balls that fit them, especially with one at a lower price.

I think it's easy to get past the "history" because consumers as a whole have short memories, and there's plenty of ways to spin it positively.

Might be good to consider how Bridgestone markets their 4 tour balls, although those are at least priced the same.
 
Their is a company that has 4 balls already that have the perfect marketing plan already that they could refine to fit their “hypothetical” company.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Staff
  • #4
MattyD-MPLS said:
Their is a company that has 4 balls already that have the perfect marketing plan already that they could refine to fit their “hypothetical” company.
Click to expand...
But I would ask this, if they’ve historically been adamantly against this, and then suddenly adopt what a competitor has been preaching for YEARS, wouldn’t that make some consumers scratch their heads?
 
:unsure: All things being hypothetical. Seems with more competition offerings at the lower rate they have to combat the other rising shares in the market. It does seem bad because of the previous marketing strategy focused on just the two balls at the upper end of the spectrum to fit “all golfers” and having turned around to offer another lower cost option to fit those said to be in the previous two offerings. All this being hypothetical of course as well to slow the loss of shares due to newer designs and options through competing brands allowing fresher offers to the consumer. Hypothetical of course.;)
 
I think they go the Callaway route and offer “soft” versions. That’s all they really are (AVX...). Similar tech, but softer for those that want that feel.
 
So titleist and Bridgestone I’m guessing haha.

but sure. I think the one company that has pushed soooo long to say their top two balls were for everyone, and now to change is a little, “just make something new so we can sell more”. But. At the same time, with the changes in technology, there are so many types of players out there with different launch conditions and as we’ve always said here, choices are awesome!!
 
I like options. I like less expensive. I say go for it. Even if it’s not “new” tech I’m still in. If it’s a previous gen ProV1 or CS under a different name for 1/3-1/2 less, I’d still go for it.
 
With the myriad of options available at this point with the ball marketplace. My opinion would be 95% of the market/consumer knows little about the past of the hypothetical company and only views/cares about what works for me right now.
 
great hypothetical question.

Thats a tough one now with ball fitting on the rise, as well as direct to consumer companies.

Look at Kirkland now, minus their last release they recalled. Great Ball, fits most, and is cheaper and widely available.
 
Is @Jman shopping Kirkland Signatures? Honestly, if it works for you, play whatever you want. I’ve really enjoyed the Callaway ERC balls though they don’t really fit in my usual profile.
 
If those three tour urethane balls are promoted as covering every golfer, then it has to be clear that something is being sacrificed if a lower priced urethane ball is offered. Even then there's a genuine risk of cannibalizing your own premium lines, something no golf ball manufacturer wants to do.
 
Bryndom said:
Is @Jman shopping Kirkland Signatures? Honestly, if it works for you, play whatever you want. I’ve really enjoyed the Callaway ERC balls though they don’t really fit in my usual profile.
Click to expand...
Not just no, that’s a big ole HELL no.
 
Jman said:
Not just no, that’s a big ole HELL no.
Click to expand...

Just sayin - not *much* judgement here if you need to come out of the Costco store
 
Bryndom said:
Just sayin - not *much* judgement here if you need to come out of the Costco store
Click to expand...
I’d quit golf first.

Kidding....actually no, no I’m not.
 
Jman said:
But I would ask this, if they’ve historically been adamantly against this, and then suddenly adopt what a competitor has been preaching for YEARS, wouldn’t that make some consumers scratch their heads?
Click to expand...

For the very informed consumers I can see your point. I think that is a small segment of buyers. Those consumers aren’t making a decision on a ball without getting the low down first.
 
MattyD-MPLS said:
For the very informed consumers I can see your point. I think that is a small segment of buyers. Those consumers aren’t making a decision on a ball without getting the low down first.
Click to expand...
I’d argue there are some brands that the masses are educated on, by forced repetition, over literally decades. This hypothetical isn’t really about educated versus non educated in that manner, imo at least.
 
Giving the consumer more options is never a bad thing. There may have been people who never played one of those two "perfect fit" balls for whatever reason - it could be cost, feeling that they aren't "good enough", etc. Now that the market has evolved such that every manufacturer has developed and priced a model (or two) the same as said manufacturer the remainder of the market opens up. Yes, they've always made "cheaper" balls but there is a steep performance drop off once you move outside those two tour balls. As a market leader you can bet they work daily on developing the same performance in a lower price point offering.

As others have pointed out, the average golfer doesn't just grab a box off the shelf anymore. They want to know the features of the ball, how it performs for their skill level, etc. If a manufacturer can occupy more shelf space with models that perform the same it's a win for the consumer IMO. Seems like a pretty solid way to remain the #1 ball in golf.

Hypothetically speaking if they ever starting putting graphics all over their balls I may have to look for another brand.
 
Jman said:
But I would ask this, if they’ve historically been adamantly against this, and then suddenly adopt what a competitor has been preaching for YEARS, wouldn’t that make some consumers scratch their heads?
Click to expand...
Maybe some loyal customers might scratch heads. But let's be honest, there is increasing competition in the ball market with the DTC brands gaining traction and other competitors that can go toe to toe with this company. And for me, the discriminator is urethane -- no disputes for green side control that urethane balls are best. Offering that at a low price just tells me (the premium consumer) that my company is creating cash flow which equates to more R&D and my premium model offerings will only get better each generation.
And btw, which type urethane is the question? I think this drives price points.
Thermoplastic Urethane = (injection molded) & Thermoset Urethane/more expensive to make = (mixed in a cast mold)
 
Last edited:
Jman said:
But I would ask this, if they’ve historically been adamantly against this, and then suddenly adopt what a competitor has been preaching for YEARS, wouldn’t that make some consumers scratch their heads?
Click to expand...
I think some consumers, who like the brand and their reputation, and would play their top-line balls if they didn't have to pay $50/dozen for them, would probably jump all over them. Regardless of what the company's historical stance had been.
 
Contradictory, to what they’ve done and are doing. I guess?
 
Makes sense to me, and is smart business. They’re expanding their spectrum to try to keep up, and cover a wider audience.

Chevy and Ford once ... only sold one type of car... (Series C Classic 6 & Model T)

Now look at their spectrum of offerings.
 
So you're saying that Titleist is coming out with a new ball tp compete against the Q-Star Tour type balls, and don't know how they're going to swing the marketing ...... :confused2:
 
OldeDude said:
So you're saying that Titleist is coming out with a new ball tp compete against the Q-Star Tour type balls, and don't know how they're going to swing the marketing ...... :confused2:
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I was thinking! I figured they were going that route with the AVX - until they priced it right up there with the ProVs. That move made zero sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top