Did Nike get into clubs at the wrong time?
- Thread starter
- #27
You wouldn’t say that part of that marketing problem is that the right people weren’t of the age though? It’s similar to say, Tesla. They seem to be gaining traction and working well enough. But if they tried this 10 years earlier than they started, it would have bombed horribly. Sometimes the market just isn’t right for your timing, and I feel that was part of it for Nike. Hell its the same with the current boutique putter market. Some of these brands now doing ok would have bombed horribly 10-15 years ago. I’m not saying it has everything to do with it, I just can’t help but feel they were about a decade too early with it.
Fair point, I just see it the other way. For example, Tiger was sponsored by Buick for a while. The typical Buick demographic would be way way different than Tiger’s race and age. The tag line for those ads was something like “Not your dad’s Buick”. To me that was smart advertising because they were acknowledging that their existing demographic was different than who Tiger naturally appealed to but engaging Tiger to expand their base. That’s what I’m getting at with Nike - it’s lazy thinking, IMO, to keep banging away at the small demographic, but it’s smart marketing to expand your footprint. That’s how I think Nike blew it.
Buick is still doing a variation of "not your dad's Buick"
how well it's working, well they've been on the GM chopping block for many years now
Their marketing was fantastic. I just started playing a couple of years ago in my early 30’s and was really only considering Nike for my first used set. As a non-golfer i trusted their brand and I figured if Tiger was playing Nike they had to be the best. I casually followed the pro game and all you saw was Tiger and Nike. I ended up buying mostly old Callaway stuff as i found a good price on a used set but Nike had a huge lead thanks to their marketing.
hef63303
Member
Total profits, yes. Profit margin, no. They sold plenty enough to be in business. They chose to get out because their profits on that business and the cost of doing that business was high compared to the other categories they sell. They chose to invest that money in categories where they make a higher margin. Smart move IMHO.
RetiredBoomer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 479
I think that most of us are beyond wanting to play what the pros play.
That meant something before the GI club era.
Who among us think that we'd play our best golf with a Mizuno MP14 / MP29 mixed set?
No matter who makes them under which logo, isn't that what Tiger always plays regardless?
Basically that with which he won THREE USGA Amateur Championships?
When he was already possibly the best player in the world at an age when he could shave with a pint of cream and an affectionate cat?
No, we're interested in what the best players in the world play.
Most of us in this era, though, have the sophistication to know that we need to find our own maximum setup.
That meant something before the GI club era.
Who among us think that we'd play our best golf with a Mizuno MP14 / MP29 mixed set?
No matter who makes them under which logo, isn't that what Tiger always plays regardless?
Basically that with which he won THREE USGA Amateur Championships?
When he was already possibly the best player in the world at an age when he could shave with a pint of cream and an affectionate cat?
No, we're interested in what the best players in the world play.
Most of us in this era, though, have the sophistication to know that we need to find our own maximum setup.
- Admin
- #33
No sir, it is not.
RetiredBoomer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2012
- Messages
- 1,303
- Reaction score
- 479
- Admin
- #35
It wasn’t entirely accurate then either.
Nike generally is not an equipment company in most if any of their many divsions. I think golf looked like a place to make clubs and balls but even from a sourcing perspective it was differnt for them. They can source any shoe or apparel item but running a plant in Ft. Worth was even not in their normal operations and after the accountants made their case on the money they were losing on golf it was probably not a hard decision. Nor one they as a multi billion dollar brand worry about. They do well in golf in the areas that are visable. They like the swoosh to be seen so folks like us buy it.
Haven’t seen it posted about so far but I think a huge issue was also that the big wigs at Nike had too much control over what the guys at the oven put out. They had some legit people there that given the freedom that callaway has recently given their guys (both R&D and marketing) it would have gone differently for them. But too much restraint from the parent side instead of letting the golf department do their thing.
hence why the clubs always looked different than what they made for their tour guys and having very a lot of tour only where retail was ho hum
hence why the clubs always looked different than what they made for their tour guys and having very a lot of tour only where retail was ho hum
Supposedly bags are coming back
Tiger getting chased by his wife waving a 2 iron, and subsequent personal struggles and absence from the tour killed Nike. Rory wasn’t enough of a ‘world wide’ presence to carry the brand. The players who WERE winning weren’t Nike guys, so the adage of “win on Sunday, sell on Monday” didn’t help either. Although I’ve heard that Nike said it was leaning towards pulling out before ‘Tiger-Gate’ anyway, but I call shenanigans on that.