We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Caley Golf LIED to you. 01T Irons & 01X Driving Iron do NOT have foam or tungsten

SuperStroke
ConsumersMatter said:
but aren't willing to make it right with the 1000+ customers that were duped and purchased a product based on false marketing information.

Either way, they need to be held accountable.
Click to expand...
What does accountable mean to you? I suspect that any resolution that would make you happy would put them out of business. Even giving a $100 refund would likely put them out of business. They probably could have handled this much better, but what's done is done, move on.
Did anyone buy Caley clubs thinking they were getting something far superior to it's competitors for the same price? There are hundreds of forum and social media posts pointing out that they are the same as every other DTC club.
 
ConsumersMatter said:
Doubt they ever will be held accountable. Doesn't seem GD are interested in the story.
Not sure where else to go to get significant traction to expose this fraud.
Click to expand...
Haven’t you already succeeded at that? They’re no longer advertising the alleged missing ingredients, and you’ve planted a good amount of doubt in the brand here. For a random social media crusade, I’d say you’ve been pretty successful already (y)
 
Last edited:
ger21 said:
What does accountable mean to you? I suspect that any resolution that would make you happy would put them out of business. Even giving a $100 refund would likely put them out of business. They probably could have handled this much better, but what's done is done, move on.
Did anyone buy Caley clubs thinking they were getting something far superior to it's competitors for the same price? There are hundreds of forum and social media posts pointing out that they are the same as every other DTC club.
Click to expand...
I would say no, but I would argue when the graphic floating on social media in an ad comparing it to other irons and talks about premium feel, tungsten and foam interior and then says the difference is price, if people bought based on that, that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Like buying a computer with a certain processor and then opening it up and seeing something completely different. It’s why transparency laws in advertising exist.

The flip side is if they didn’t advertise those things and just talked about what they had, that “they feel great”, none of this would be an issue I would imagine.
 
ger21 said:
What does accountable mean to you? I suspect that any resolution that would make you happy would put them out of business. Even giving a $100 refund would likely put them out of business. They probably could have handled this much better, but what's done is done, move on.
Did anyone buy Caley clubs thinking they were getting something far superior to it's competitors for the same price? There are hundreds of forum and social media posts pointing out that they are the same as every other DTC club.
Click to expand...

To me, they should be contacting every customer the defrauded. We know now that multiple people have contacted them, and they are ignoring. We have seen from a poster in the forum that they blocked them on social media after asking the question. It is clear they know they got caught and are just hoping to blows over.

You think everyone should just move on from a company blatantly lying about the technology in their products and when they get caught, they take it off the website, knowing that over 1100 people who have left reviews bought the product on false marketing? So, take the slap on the wrist mentality moving forward for all companies that lie about their products? They shouldn't be in business if they are going to lie outright to their customers in their marketing tactics.

Ok, guess I am in the wrong then.
 
Last edited:
JB said:
I would say no, but I would argue when the graphic floating on social media in an ad comparing it to other irons and talks about premium feel, tungsten and foam interior and then says the difference is price, if people bought based on that, that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Like buying a computer with a certain processor and then opening it up and seeing something completely different. It’s why transparency laws in advertising exist.

The flip side is if they didn’t advertise those things and just talked about what they had, that “they feel great”, none of this would be an issue I would imagine.
Click to expand...
100% agree, except they did market it with foam and tungsten, aka lied.

I am having a tough time knowing over a thousands people got scammed over something so stupid. Why lie? If thats the only way they can make sales, says a lot about the person running the business and the business in general.
 
JB said:
I would say no, but I would argue when the graphic floating on social media in an ad comparing it to other irons and talks about premium feel, tungsten and foam interior and then says the difference is price, if people bought based on that, that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Like buying a computer with a certain processor and then opening it up and seeing something completely different. It’s why transparency laws in advertising exist.

The flip side is if they didn’t advertise those things and just talked about what they had, that “they feel great”, none of this would be an issue I would imagine.
Click to expand...
The real problem is that they attempted to sell a tech story with no tech.
 
ConsumersMatter said:
To me, they should be contacting every customer the defrauded. We know now that multiple people have contacted them, and they are ignoring. We have seen from a poster in the forum that they blocked them on social media after asking the question. It is clear they know they got caught and are just hoping to blows over.

You think everyone should just move on from a company blatantly lying about the technology in their products and when they get caught, they take it off the website, knowing that over 1100 people who have left reviews bought the product on false marketing? So, take the slap on the wrist mentality moving forward for all companies that lie about their products? They shouldn't be in business if they are going to lie outright to their customers in their marketing tactics.

Ok, guess I am in the wrong then.
Click to expand...
Worst part is they supposedly have so many orders pending, according to the website, there is a 4 week back order.
 
ConsumersMatter said:
To me, they should be contacting every customer the defrauded. We know now that multiple people have contacted them, and they are ignoring. We have seen from a poster in the forum that they blocked them on social media after asking the question. It is clear they know they got caught and are just hoping to blows over.

You think everyone should just move on from a company blatantly lying about the technology in their products and when they get caught, they take it off the website, knowing that over 1100 people who have left reviews bought the product on false marketing? So, take the slap on the wrist mentality moving forward for all companies that lie about their products? They shouldn't be in business if they are going to lie outright to their customers in their marketing tactics.

Ok, guess I am in the wrong then.
Click to expand...
Do we really think all 1100 of those people that left reviews actually have these clubs? I'd be extremely surprised.
 
ConsumersMatter said:
To me, they should be contacting every customer the defrauded. We know now that multiple people have contacted them, and they are ignoring. We have seen from a poster in the forum that they blocked them on social media after asking the question. It is clear they know they got caught and are just hoping to blows over.

You think everyone should just move on from a company blatantly lying about the technology in their products and when they get caught, they take it off the website, knowing that over 1100 people who have left reviews bought the product on false marketing? So, take the slap on the wrist mentality moving forward for all companies that lie about their products? They shouldn't be in business if they are going to lie outright to their customers in their marketing tactics.

Ok, guess I am in the wrong then.
Click to expand...

You seem to have quite an appetite for the dramatic.
 
@ConsumersMatter I think your story is extremely valid, but being able to provide photos right away to give to GD or whoever else would have gone a long way.

Assuming you have the full set are you thinking of cutting them all?

A video would be even better!

For Caley I think the word is out, I've seen it on other forums as well. This is the beginning of the end for them (at least in the "higher end" DTC).
 
The next time I hear "they are just the same as...." I'm going to send people here. Reality is, you don't know. Sounds like the company didn't even know lol.
 
IMG_7593.png

I’m still seeing ads on Instagram promoting the foam 🤦🏼‍♂️
 
TJRyska said:
View attachment 9235193

I’m still seeing ads on Instagram promoting the foam 🤦🏼‍♂️
Click to expand...
Not just foam, but AeroFoam, a registered trademark.

So me being me, I went to the USPTO website to find out a bit more about AeroFoam(R). There is only one live trademark for "aerofoam" using a different capitalization in their wordmark for a class of good consisting of "Flexible tubes of plastic; Foam rubber; Insulated pipe supports; Insulating tapes; Insulating materials; Insulating materials, namely, polyurethane foam and polyethylene foam; Non-metal flexible tubing; Rubber tubes and pipes; Substances for insulating buildings against moisture; Synthetic rubber; Synthetic rubber for use in the manufacture of thermal insulation" owned by a company out of the UAE. A bit of further research suggests that this a foam used in construction applications. There is a dead application for "AeroFoam" that was abandoned by L.L. Bean, but that was for "Insulation material in the nature of foam sold as an integral component of footwear and outerwear, namely, jackets."

But then I got this Gordon Ramsey-like voice in my head saying "You Donkey" because Caley is a UK company! So I searched the UK Intellectual Property Office database for "AeroFoam" and found three results, with the first being the same UAE company and wordmark stated above, the second being owned by Proctor & Gamble for a material used in "Hair care preparations, Skin care preparations, and Soaps for personal care; laundry preparations." with a totally different stylized wordmark, and the third being another registration from proctor & Gamble for the same class of goods (hair, skin and body preparations).

So now I wonder, what exactly is AeroFoam(R)?
 
BigDill said:
Not just foam, but AeroFoam, a registered trademark.

So me being me, I went to the USPTO website to find out a bit more about AeroFoam(R). There is only one live trademark for "aerofoam" using a different capitalization in their wordmark for a class of good consisting of "Flexible tubes of plastic; Foam rubber; Insulated pipe supports; Insulating tapes; Insulating materials; Insulating materials, namely, polyurethane foam and polyethylene foam; Non-metal flexible tubing; Rubber tubes and pipes; Substances for insulating buildings against moisture; Synthetic rubber; Synthetic rubber for use in the manufacture of thermal insulation" owned by a company out of the UAE. A bit of further research suggests that this a foam used in construction applications. There is a dead application for "AeroFoam" that was abandoned by L.L. Bean, but that was for "Insulation material in the nature of foam sold as an integral component of footwear and outerwear, namely, jackets."

But then I got this Gordon Ramsey-like voice in my head saying "You Donkey" because Caley is a UK company! So I searched the UK Intellectual Property Office database for "AeroFoam" and found three results, with the first being the same UAE company and wordmark stated above, the second being owned by Proctor & Gamble for a material used in "Hair care preparations, Skin care preparations, and Soaps for personal care; laundry preparations." with a totally different stylized wordmark, and the third being another registration from proctor & Gamble for the same class of goods (hair, skin and body preparations).

So now I wonder, what exactly is AeroFoam(R)?
Click to expand...
That is quite interesting.
Maybe the Aero is less about dynamics and more about air 😀
 
JB said:
That is quite interesting.
Maybe the Aero is less about dynamics and more about air 😀
Click to expand...
I am starting to think it may be the same technology found in the OnCore Genius golf ball.
 
JB said:
That is quite interesting.
Maybe the Aero is less about dynamics and more about air 😀
Click to expand...
So maybe they aren’t lying all along? The irons are empty because it’s “Air”foam. There’s nothing there 😂
 
I certainly don't approve of a company lying about the tech in their product, but...

Is the outrage because the irons didn't live up to expectations (because of the absence of the tungsten and foam)?
Or did they perform admirably, but now people are upset because they aren't filled with foam?

Maybe the foam and tungsten don't make such a huge difference in performance?
 
What a mess that just keeps getting better.
 
RomaParisZurich said:
I certainly don't approve of a company lying about the tech in their product, but...

Is the outrage because the irons didn't live up to expectations (because of the absence of the tungsten and foam)?
Or did they perform admirably, but now people are upset because they aren't filled with foam?

Maybe the foam and tungsten don't make such a huge difference in performance?
Click to expand...
The outrage is because allegedly a product is being marketed as “same as this, but don’t pay for marketing”.

And it’s ********…allegedly.

There is a reason transparency laws exist. It’s not as if people can go into Dicks or Club Champion and do some testing
 
BigDill said:
Not just foam, but AeroFoam, a registered trademark.

So me being me, I went to the USPTO website to find out a bit more about AeroFoam(R). There is only one live trademark for "aerofoam" using a different capitalization in their wordmark for a class of good consisting of "Flexible tubes of plastic; Foam rubber; Insulated pipe supports; Insulating tapes; Insulating materials; Insulating materials, namely, polyurethane foam and polyethylene foam; Non-metal flexible tubing; Rubber tubes and pipes; Substances for insulating buildings against moisture; Synthetic rubber; Synthetic rubber for use in the manufacture of thermal insulation" owned by a company out of the UAE. A bit of further research suggests that this a foam used in construction applications. There is a dead application for "AeroFoam" that was abandoned by L.L. Bean, but that was for "Insulation material in the nature of foam sold as an integral component of footwear and outerwear, namely, jackets."

But then I got this Gordon Ramsey-like voice in my head saying "You Donkey" because Caley is a UK company! So I searched the UK Intellectual Property Office database for "AeroFoam" and found three results, with the first being the same UAE company and wordmark stated above, the second being owned by Proctor & Gamble for a material used in "Hair care preparations, Skin care preparations, and Soaps for personal care; laundry preparations." with a totally different stylized wordmark, and the third being another registration from proctor & Gamble for the same class of goods (hair, skin and body preparations).

So now I wonder, what exactly is AeroFoam(R)?
Click to expand...
Just a made up term they used for the non existent foam in their irons. I will give it to them..... It does sound good. Great marketing.
Just the same lie just exaggerated by a made up term they don't actually have a patent/trademark for.
Another piece of proof they are full of it.
 
JB said:
The outrage is because allegedly a product is being marketed as “same as this, but don’t pay for marketing”.

And it’s ********…allegedly.

There is a reason transparency laws exist. It’s not as if people can go into Dicks or Club Champion and do some testing
Click to expand...

I agree, whether foam "makes a difference" or not is irrelevant, you can't advertise features you don't have. There are transparency laws that exist (which admittedly i am not an expert on) that should deal with this.

Does anyone know if Caley has formally made a statement? Considering features were (from the looks of it) advertised and now are not?
 
also.....why doesn't anyone use the popcorn gif here?

1705017310913.gif
 
JB said:
The outrage is because allegedly a product is being marketed as “same as this, but don’t pay for marketing”.

And it’s ********…allegedly.

There is a reason transparency laws exist. It’s not as if people can go into Dicks or Club Champion and do some testing
Click to expand...
"It's the same as P790 except you're paying less because we are lying about the tech we use, so really it's not the same, which is why you are paying less"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top