Does Nike need Rory to struggle or start slow?

[Smallville]

I think Rory starting slow is the last thing they want.

 

[blugold]

I know you didn't say that blu :act-up:. I'm just reflecting on their reputation amongst golfers of different skills.

To be fair. You're pretty awesome in general. Especially with equipment considerations. I trust your rationality.

 

[tgtt]

I don't think it will make any noticable difference. The fact that they signed rory is enough of deal. Rory being with nike and playing nike will be talked about because he's the number player in the world and a budding superstar. That's enough. Whether he plays well or not will have minimal comparative affect.

They've had Tiger forever... Is that really enough?

 

[War Eagle]

Very interesting thread, and some good thoughts in here. IMO, Nike has nothing to gain from a slow start out of Rory. They need him to come out on fire, and blaze the field with some impressive scores.

 

[cj3ap2]

So you don't think that if Rory goes winless this year that Nike will take a beating? I would think that the internet would explode with a mushroom swoosh cloud

it'll be a subject of discussion, a part of the discussion anyway. However I don't think it'll make much of a difference in nike's overall image and certainly not in their bottom line.

It's an interesting thing because Rory might go winless this year if he was still using titleist clubs. Everybody is expecting Rory to be the next Tiger and win like Tiger did. He won't because nobody will do that again for a number of reasons. Last year could have been Rory's career year because what he did in august would be a career year for almost any professional golfer. He might win this year, with his talent level he'll certainly win more throughout his career, but he's not immune to a slump and the clubs wouldn't necessarily be the culprit.

Certainly if he plays bad it will be a story because of who he is, and the clubs will be a part of that discussion. Although there are other golfers winning with nike and there are golfers losing with titleist, so I think ultimately the conclusion of "it's the clubs" will be proved false and then all of this nonsense goes away and what we're left with is that the number one player in the world, the budding superstar of this generation is likely the face of nike for the duration of his prime. That's what will matter, in my estimation.

They could care less about a bunch of internet golfers bemoaning about it. The internet golfer is a small portion of the golfing audience.

 

[InHartWeTrust]

They've had Tiger forever... Is that really enough?

By sponsoring Tiger Woods for 10 years, the Nike golf ball division reaped additional profits of $60 million through the acquisition of 4.5 million customers who switched as a result of Tiger Woods’ endorsement. In fact, as a result of Tiger Woods switching away from Titleist to Nike in 2000, it is estimated that the Titleist golf ball division experienced a decline of revenue of 7.48% (-8.11% in profit).

I'd say yes, it's really enough. Especially considering they now have 1 and 2.

 

[tgtt]

By sponsoring Tiger Woods for 10 years, the Nike golf ball division reaped additional profits of $60 million through the acquisition of 4.5 million customers who switched as a result of Tiger Woods’ endorsement. In fact, as a result of Tiger Woods switching away from Titleist to Nike in 2000, it is estimated that the Titleist golf ball division experienced a decline of revenue of 7.48% (-8.11% in profit).

I'd say yes, it's really enough. Especially considering they now have 1 and 2.

Interesting. However, they have 1 & 3.

 

[JB]

By sponsoring Tiger Woods for 10 years, the Nike golf ball division reaped additional profits of $60 million through the acquisition of 4.5 million customers who switched as a result of Tiger Woods’ endorsement. In fact, as a result of Tiger Woods switching away from Titleist to Nike in 2000, it is estimated that the Titleist golf ball division experienced a decline of revenue of 7.48% (-8.11% in profit).

I'd say yes, it's really enough. Especially considering they now have 1 and 2.

Do you have a link to these statistics? Because while the Titleist golf ball division has in fact lost marketshare, Nike's ball marketshare is absolutely tiny and another company saw the biggest growth in the Tiger era.

 

[War Eagle]

By sponsoring Tiger Woods for 10 years, the Nike golf ball division reaped additional profits of $60 million through the acquisition of 4.5 million customers who switched as a result of Tiger Woods’ endorsement. In fact, as a result of Tiger Woods switching away from Titleist to Nike in 2000, it is estimated that the Titleist golf ball division experienced a decline of revenue of 7.48% (-8.11% in profit).

I'd say yes, it's really enough. Especially considering they now have 1 and 2.

Interesting info.

I also find it interesting that people switched to a Nike Golf Ball because of Tiger, when he didn't play a Nike Golf Ball.

 

[InHartWeTrust]

JB - I don't have the link, just the .PDF. Google search for this:

Economic Value of Celebrity Endorsement: Tiger Woods’ Impact on Sales of Nike Golf Balls
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University

 

[Chunkylover77]

Interesting info.

I also find it interesting that people switched to a Nike Golf Ball because of Tiger, when he didn't play a Nike Golf Ball.

But did Nike market it that he did. I can say that back in the day, I played all the equipment that Freddie played. If he switched irons, I switched

 

[InHartWeTrust]

Do you have a link to these statistics? Because while the Titleist golf ball division has in fact lost marketshare, Nike's ball marketshare is absolutely tiny and another company saw the biggest growth in the Tiger era.

That was a statistical estimate made by the researchers, and things have again shifted post-Tiger life drama (paper was from 2010). As with all projections, there is to be some assumed variance and I don't recall a confidence interval being mentioned either, so I don't know how exact their calc is.

I agree with what you're saying 100%, Titleist took a small ding while other OEM's make bigger strides than Nike. However, when looking at it in terms of market sales, having a top name in your corner is absolutely "enough", especially when you are pairing it with one of the other most popular names in the game. Having that player play well straight out of the gate would be nice, but imo, it isn't really essential. There is enough buzz already created by him signing his name on the line next to the "X" to increase market share, sales, and margins for Nike Golf...just as they did with Tiger.

 

[blugold]

Interesting info.

I also find it interesting that people switched to a Nike Golf Ball because of Tiger, when he didn't play a Nike Golf Ball.

Tiger did win the 2000 US Open with the Nike Tour Accuracy. Which was the first solid core ball to win a major, I believe.

 

[JB]

JB - I don't have the link, just the .PDF. Google search for this:

Economic Value of Celebrity Endorsement: Tiger Woods’ Impact on Sales of Nike Golf Balls
Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University

I have read that report and they seem to forget a few things. The two biggest are the major jumps in marketshare by Bridgestone and TaylorMade in the golf balls that essentially covered almost the entire loss that Titleist saw. In fact if you break it down number by number, those two companies made up almost the exact same amount of market share that Titleist lost.

Then add in the fact that Nike had virtually no ball market before Tiger Woods and its very hard to say that Nike took marketshare from Titleist because of Tiger's switch.

The biggest tell tale sign of his effect is simple. You have the most famous athlete in the world. You have the best golfer in the world. Yet when it comes to hard goods, you rank near the bottom in market share(major companies) in every category. Golf balls you rank behind Titleist, Bridgestone, Callaway, TaylorMade. All of which made up market share numbers against Titleist during the same time frame.

So if the Tiger meter were to work (merely in this example), the other companies would not have made up as much (in many cases more) market share as Nike.

 

[blugold]

That was a statistical estimate made by the researchers, and things have again shifted post-Tiger life drama (paper was from 2010). As with all projections, there is to be some assumed variance and I don't recall a confidence interval being mentioned either, so I don't know how exact their calc is.

I agree with what you're saying 100%, Titleist took a small ding while other OEM's make bigger strides than Nike. However, when looking at it in terms of market sales, having a top name in your corner is absolutely "enough", especially when you are pairing it with one of the other most popular names in the game. Having that player play well straight out of the gate would be nice, but imo, it isn't really essential. There is enough buzz already created by him signing his name on the line next to the "X" to increase market share, sales, and margins for Nike Golf...just as they did with Tiger.

Just having a name is nowhere near enough to sell equipment. Not even close to enough.

 

[InHartWeTrust]

I have read that report and they seem to forget a few things. The two biggest are the major jumps in marketshare by Bridgestone and TaylorMade in the golf balls that essentially covered almost the entire loss that Titleist saw. In fact if you break it down number by number, those two companies made up almost the exact same amount of market share that Titleist lost.

Then add in the fact that Nike had virtually no ball market before Tiger Woods and its very hard to say that Nike took marketshare from Titleist because of Tiger's switch.

The biggest tell tale sign of his effect is simple. You have the most famous athlete in the world. You have the best golfer in the world. Yet when it comes to hard goods, you rank near the bottom (major companies) in every category. Golf balls you rank behind Titleist, Bridgestone, Callaway, TaylorMade. All of which made up market share numbers against Titleist during the same time frame.

So if the Tiger meter were to work (merely in this example), the other companies would not have made up as much (in many cases more) market share as Nike.

All very good, and valid points. Especially the bolded part, I never even thought about that.

 

[InHartWeTrust]

Just having a name is nowhere near enough to sell equipment. Not even close to enough.

Not to us (internet golf equipment junkies), no. But to most consumers, yes.

 

[tgtt]

I guess I'm the only one that thinks they will REALLY benefit if he starts slow. I don't see the media blaming Nike but announcing, after every tourney or struggle, as a transition period. But, it will be Nike this and Nike that. Once he starts rolling then Nike sales will follow. Hell, they might increase even during the slow start just from the added press.

 

[JB]

Just having a name is nowhere near enough to sell equipment. Not even close to enough.

I would agree with you to an extent. It does validate the brand a little bit and certainly sells soft goods (shoes, apparel, etc), but sadly tour leaders still dominate sales. Its a different philosophy than Nike has dealt with in the past. Pay the stars, the consumers follow. In golf, market share says its the opposite. Pay the masses and the consumers will follow.

 

[blugold]

Not to us (internet golf equipment junkies), no. But to most consumers, yes.

I disagree wholeheartedly. As JB said. Nike ranks near the bottom in most hard good categories. And did so when tiger was ruling golf

 

[blugold]

I guess I'm the only one that thinks they will REALLY benefit if he starts slow. I don't see the media blaming Nike but announcing, after every tourney or struggle, as a transition period. But, it will be Nike this and Nike that. Once he starts rolling then Nike sales will follow. Hell, they might increase even during the slow start just from the added press.

Do you really think it would benefit Nike to have commentators say after playing poorly "Rory just isn't hitting that new Nike driver very well. "

 

[tgtt]

Do you really think it would benefit Nike to have commentators say after playing poorly "Rory just isn't hitting that new Nike driver very well. "

I just said they wont blame Nike.

 

[InHartWeTrust]

I disagree wholeheartedly. As JB said. Nike ranks near the bottom in most hard good categories. And did so when tiger was ruling golf

We can agree to disagree. To me, it's about margins for your company year over year...if signing a big name increases them for you, I'd call it a success. Nike is relatively new to the market, a market that is very brand loyal with a high percentage of educated consumers. I agree with you that I don't think signing Rory is going to propel Nike to the golf equipment forefront, but I do believe it will help all facets of the golf sector at Nike.

JB does make a great point with the "signing the masses", see TaylorMade.


Getting AutoCorrected on my iPhone with Tapatalk since 2012.

 

[Oregon Jack]

i would think it would be all the better for nike, because if Rory can do well with nike clubs, than so can everyone else!


of course, you have to say that with a salesman's voice.

 

[JB]

We can agree to disagree. To me, it's about margins for your company year over year...if signing a big name increases them for you, I'd call it a success. Nike is relatively new to the market, a market that is very brand loyal with a high percentage of educated consumers. I agree with you that I don't think signing Rory is going to propel Nike to the golf equipment forefront, but I do believe it will help all facets of the golf sector at Nike.

JB does make a great point with the "signing the masses", see TaylorMade.


Getting AutoCorrected on my iPhone with Tapatalk since 2012.

Hart,
Its actually every market.

Putters - Scotty/Odyssey (Scotty pays slightly more players)
Wedges - Titleist
Hybrids - Adams
Drivers - TaylorMade
FW Woods - TaylorMade
Irons - Titleist
Ball - Titleist

Those are the tour leaders (normally) in played gear. Ironically enough, they are also the market share leaders in sold to consumers.