I don’t think Titleist would ever sell a multi piece ball for the same price they sell their over priced 2 piece balls.
Golf Ball Hypothetical: Your Thoughts Wanted
All the hypothetical got me a bit confused. As I see it the golf ball market is loaded with wood quality products. I would think that Bridgestone and Srixon have both seen growth, which has taken a piece of the top tier pie. Also the new CS line up is much improved and fits that category as well. I’d guess there may be a good chunk of cash flow available in that less expensive category. All categories money spends the same. Hypothetically of course.
I never understood why Titleist advertised that the ProV fits all golfers, yet sells other balls as well...especially the AVX which is both expensive and not as responsive around the greens as the ProV.
Where would Titleist position such a ball in their lineup? If I'm not mistaken, the blended-cover Tour Soft is already at $35 a dozen, which is at or above the price of most entry level urethane and DTC balls. Unless this new ball were to replace the Tour Soft, it would need to squeeze in between it and the Pro V's, right? So $40+ presumably. Many will pay a premium for Titleist, but it has to be within reason.
I think you're giving the average consumer too much credit here. Most dont even bother to consider the overall message from a manufacturer.
Personally I think it's silly for a company to preach one ball for all, and then also have 2-5 alternatives.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2019
- Messages
- 10,511
- Reaction score
- 6,882
- Location
- Boulder City, NV....... for a while
- Handicap
- N/A
I'm not a "hype" kind of guy. I don't putt much stock in marketing claims. I use to be that gullible guy, especially with golf stuff. Not any more.
If a company came out with a 4th ball, and I heard good things about it from other amateur golfers, I'd probably try a sleeve, or two to find out for myself. I would have to see a significant improvement in my game to change to a new, different ball.
I'm trying a few different balls now, since my regular gamer has been discontinued. I don't expect to find a better ball, but one that will help me keep the game I now have.
If a company came out with a 4th ball, and I heard good things about it from other amateur golfers, I'd probably try a sleeve, or two to find out for myself. I would have to see a significant improvement in my game to change to a new, different ball.
I'm trying a few different balls now, since my regular gamer has been discontinued. I don't expect to find a better ball, but one that will help me keep the game I now have.
This exact situation would suggest the argument that people want to “play what the pros play” is moot.
It’s definitely reactionary, in that the brand is reacting to consumer demand. People are going to buy it, otherwise they wouldn’t make it.
- Thread starter
- Staff
- #33
I don’t think I am at all, dependent on the brand.
Agree to a point. The only reason I can see for alternatives is to meet certain price points, but how many alternatives do you need to do that? I would also assume that since something changes in the materials/design of the alternatives to meet those price points that performance would differ from the "one ball for all".
I would’ve given this hypothetical company the benefit of the doubt that those 2 original balls probably did (and possibly still do) cover the large majority of golfers. But as technology has advanced and more info has been gathered, this company probably realize that the “smaller” Segments of golfers are larger than originally realized. AND/OR they realized that despite golfer A being fit for Ball A and golfer B being fit for Ball B, golfer A and B could also find benefits to playing Ball C. Hopefully that all makes sense
I think the “value” urethane ball makes a lot of sense! I personally play the Q-Star Tour because of the performance I get for the value. My thoughts are that I’m not good enough to play a ProV1 because of the high cost and the likely hood of me losing them.
I would say, to the extent two balls can fit all players, the ball fitting of A Co. is not as precise as B Co. with 4 options of urethane balls, which are meant to fit different speeds and swings. I'd say B Co has the better marketing and a product that will precisely fit more golfers.
The fact that A Co markets a third urethane ball for a different range of player (high speed, high spin) tells me that B Co. is influencing the market and A Co is attempting to "catch up" before it loses market share.
This reminds me of Bridgestone today and Bridgestone of yesteryear. I used to play the Precept Pro which was their top of the line, but they had less expensive balls which were great for most folks like the Laddie and Lassie, the latter actually a great ball for men. I wonder (and am guilty myself) if people gravitate towards the more expensive balls as they "must" be better. Probably not true for most of us.
Steve-O
Frugal Golf Dad
It seems to me that even if objective performance considerations suggest fewer model offerings, subjective feel preferences might make it profitable to have more choices. What sounds and feels good to two people can be different. And even though that might be completely subjective, it can still influence scores since mental confidence can be influenced by these factors and confidence certainly influences a persons play.
I won't pay a premium for Titleist - I won't buy their balls at all. The ProV1 feels like a rock to me and I'm not paying $50 a dozen for any golf ball, and their lower tier balls have always (IMO) been overpriced and underperformed compared to other brands. A friend was playing the Tour NXT S when I was playing the Bridgestone e6 - the NXT felt harder, didn't perform any better around the greens in terms of spin, and was almost twice the price of the e6 - but this friend was very conscious of name brands and liked people to know that he paid more for things than you did. The Tour Soft costs more than comparable balls from other manufacturers, and more than a lot of the DTC balls that supposedly compare to the ProV1. The AVX, I have no idea what they were thinking - "here's a ball that's inferior to the ProV1/x, but costs just as much". I guess Titleist just assumes that what you said is correct - that many people will pay a premium for their balls without thinking about it because Titleist.
Last edited:
I don’t have your answers, but I hope this hypothetical comes true.
blueonblack
...tears on a river
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2020
- Messages
- 3,059
- Reaction score
- 1,396
Just doing a quick rundown on Titleist, B-stone, and Srixon's sites, Titleist is very dumbed-down as far as overall info they provide about the products.
Srixon gets to the info I like in a more straight-forward way, and Bridgestone to some degree as well. I want cover material and core compression. Things like that. The U.S. market is dumbed down a lot compared to the Asian market as to how they market and the info they make available.
It's a little insulting when all you can throw my way is "better" and "matters" over-used marketing buzzwords @ $46/dz.
There's always going to be market segment for a urethane ball at price points below the top tier. Your game improves, you want short game spin with urethane, but they are still finding the woods on occasion. For Titleist to chase this segment wouldn't make sense at all at this point. There are so many ball choices. I think they are trying to do "streamlined" marketing, but make sure the more nuts and bolts stuff is still made available on their website so us golf wonks can read up on the product before purchase.
We use emotion in the pro shop too, its not all logic. No convertible ever would be sold automotively speaking in the snowbelt if it made any sense.
If you play a couple times a year and want to treat yourself to a top ball, that's part the top golf ball segment too. Tour presence is huge there.
Srixon gets to the info I like in a more straight-forward way, and Bridgestone to some degree as well. I want cover material and core compression. Things like that. The U.S. market is dumbed down a lot compared to the Asian market as to how they market and the info they make available.
It's a little insulting when all you can throw my way is "better" and "matters" over-used marketing buzzwords @ $46/dz.
There's always going to be market segment for a urethane ball at price points below the top tier. Your game improves, you want short game spin with urethane, but they are still finding the woods on occasion. For Titleist to chase this segment wouldn't make sense at all at this point. There are so many ball choices. I think they are trying to do "streamlined" marketing, but make sure the more nuts and bolts stuff is still made available on their website so us golf wonks can read up on the product before purchase.
We use emotion in the pro shop too, its not all logic. No convertible ever would be sold automotively speaking in the snowbelt if it made any sense.
If you play a couple times a year and want to treat yourself to a top ball, that's part the top golf ball segment too. Tour presence is huge there.
I have to presume their marketing research tells them exactly that. I think many of us have seen it firsthand. I certainly have. An occasional golfing buddy won't play anything not wearing the Titleist logo. He'll argue all day long that his Velocity is superior to any competitive ball - including premium urethane offerings. He simply doesn't understand ball construction, and he has no desire to. And this is someone you'll find on the course at least four days a week. Logical or not, you have to credit Titleist for creating the image they have.
A friend of mine plays nothing but ProV1s, but he hasn't bought a golf ball in years - he plays the balls he finds on the course, and there seem to be an abundance of ProV1s in the rocks, bushes and on the edge of ponds. I think maybe that's really why he likes golfing with me - I give him all the ProV1s I find, because I won't use them.
Ha velocity is superior! ha!
I'm a Titleist fanatic, but my favorite ball is the TP5x. Otherwise, yes credit Titleist for brainwashing me haha.
It sounds to me like you are talking about something like the Srixon Q-Star Tour or Callaway ERC. I would say that its reactionary (because they are reacting to urethane balls from DTC companies that are at a lower price point) but that its also a good thing because more competition and more value is a great thing for consumers.
Look at me: I play the Maxfli Tour and it performs like a Pro V1 but at a much lower price point. Unless I were someone who needs the Titleist script on my ball, I honestly don't see any reason why I would play a Pro V1 over this ball or any of the comparable DTC options.
If Titleist were to offer a urethane ball in the $25-30 price range, Id consider it.
Look at me: I play the Maxfli Tour and it performs like a Pro V1 but at a much lower price point. Unless I were someone who needs the Titleist script on my ball, I honestly don't see any reason why I would play a Pro V1 over this ball or any of the comparable DTC options.
If Titleist were to offer a urethane ball in the $25-30 price range, Id consider it.
I think it would be important to highlight the differences between the new, less expensive urethane covered ball and the prior 3 iterations. If they could justify the reasons for the lower cost, I'd have no issue. They could justify it a couple of ways
1) one of the pricier models could fit best, but given cost considerations the new one may come "close enough" for the consumer
2) they found a gap in the fitting matrix and the new sku will help fill that
1) one of the pricier models could fit best, but given cost considerations the new one may come "close enough" for the consumer
2) they found a gap in the fitting matrix and the new sku will help fill that
I noticed the EXP is gone from titleist's website.... I didn't go to detective school, but I did stay at a holiday inn express.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2010
- Messages
- 19,618
- Reaction score
- 4,085
- Location
- Liberty Lake, Washington
- Handicap
- GHIN 7.1
Companies and individuals alike need to be careful what you say or type or print.
Like they say....
You can never un ring a bell.
Like they say....
You can never un ring a bell.