Perception vs Reality In Golf Equipment Sales

[JB]

I am going to keep this rather bland, but open it up for good dialogue amongst THPers. To give you an idea of what I am speaking of, let's look at a couple of companies. We will call them Company A and Company B, but truthfully it's a great conversation for many companies and while I am keeping names out of the examples, they are absolutely allowed to be discussed.

Company A produces a solid product, bold in nature and is getting rave reviews. Due to some light marketing, minor use on tour, the perception is that the company is doing extremely well and drivers are flying off the shelf. Yet the reality in this example is that the company has stayed rather stagnant in sales.

Company B also produces a solid product, very vocal about their whereabouts in terms of sales and even using it in their marketing at times. They get heavy use on tour and the perception is that the company is continuing to build on it's incredible platform. The reality is that in this example, the company has failed to deliver on their own goals by a large margin.

So while these are just examples, with no rhyme or reason behind them, these exist in some form or another. Companies that get major buzz behind marketing, the internet, message boards, etc and then for some reason or another (this is not about the equipment necessarily) fail to deliver on those lofty goals. Not sure where this will lead, but I thought it would be a great conversation about perception vs reality in terms of the business side of the game.

 

[Tadashi70]

The general public really would never know if a company was failing to meet market predictions. The average golf fan bases their opinions on what they see at their local course, in their buddies bags and what they hear from other uninformed golfers.

The golf industry is a tough old bird and a little uptick in the market share is always good and a large drop can be devastating.

 

[JB]

The general public really would never know if a company was failing to meet market predictions. The average golf fan bases their opinions on what they see at their local course, in their buddies bags and what they hear from other uninformed golfers.

The golf industry is a tough old bird and a little uptick in the market share is always good and a large drop can be devastating.

I completely agree, however I do not believe that most THPers would be considered the general public as it pertains to equipment.

 

[Hawk]

I think our world (the internet) builds some impressions of companies that are fairly unrealistic. The biggest example in my mind would be Cobra, who fits pretty well into the Company A description. Have heard more times than I can count that they are back in the game, coming back, came back, doing well, etc. In terms of sales though, I just don't think that's the case. I also think without PUMA they'd be gone or almost gone by now. That has no bearing on their quality of course. Their product for the last three years has been top-notch - and really I don't think it was bad before then. Just in terms of how they are doing in the marketplace.

I do think they picked a good path to rebuild on by targeting a younger customer and their Tour presence is very marketable. Hopefully that results in long-term growth for them.

 

[Wake]

Company b is obvious. But I wonder who would be comparable to company a, Cleveland? Cobra?

 

[Awkward silence]

I feel like A is Bridestone and B is a Taylormade type. A could even be wilson, or srixon maybe. All I can say is companies like A need to lay back and not spend to much on marketing and let their product sell itself then once you see a big player faulter try and take advantage. Companies like B need to constantly be aware of companies like A and take anything for granted (which it may been doing the last couple of product launches). Great topic though.

 

[JB]

Company b is obvious. But I wonder who would be comparable to company a, Cleveland? Cobra?

They were made up examples. Company A is a combination of 3 or 4 companies. Company B is actually based on the Acushnet model from 8 years ago.

 

[Vegan702]

I completely agree, however I do not believe that most THPers would be considered the general public as it pertains to equipment.

Do you really think that most THPers really know the numbers behind these companies? I think they just go by what is written on here or heard from, etc. and assume lots of things.

 

[Tadashi70]

You are 100% correct. When I refer to average it does not include the membership.

I see it in my men's group. They fit all the stero types we discuss on the forum. One plays Titleist because its the ball the Pro's use. Another is TaylorMade homer, another is a tour club hoe. These are the guys that get all their facts from the guy riding next to him for 18 holes. These are the guys that would never know if company a or B was doing well. They would swear to you that 'B' was killing it and they heard it some where.

I completely agree, however I do not believe that most THPers would be considered the general public as it pertains to equipment.

 

[T0AD]

I think our world (the internet) builds some impressions of companies that are fairly unrealistic. The biggest example in my mind would be Cobra, who fits pretty well into the Company A description.

I was thinking Cobra too, but then also Nike came to mind. Outside of THP, and there still aren't many here, I've seen a grand total of TWO coverts in all my wanderings around the mid-state area here. They, too, are bold, but they really only have Rory (now) in the game (spotlight).

They were made up examples. Company A is a combination of 3 or 4 companies. Company B is actually based on the Acushnet model from 8 years ago.

I knew I smelled them in that.

 

[Awkward silence]

I was thinking Cobra too, but then also Nike came to mind. Outside of THP, and there still aren't many here, I've seen a grand total of TWO coverts in all my wanderings around the mid-state area here. They, too, are bold, but they really only have Rory (now) in the game (spotlight).

Nike fit a whole different mold IMO. They reley on purly brand recognition from their name alone to draw people into buying their gear I think. I mean besides that Anonthy Kim spot a couples years ago for their liune of woods they really just trot Rory or tiger out there to hit balls on camera.

 

[Hawk]

I feel like A is Bridestone and B is a Taylormade type. A could even be wilson, or srixon maybe. All I can say is companies like A need to lay back and not spend to much on marketing and let their product sell itself then once you see a big player faulter try and take advantage. Companies like B need to constantly be aware of companies like A and take anything for granted (which it may been doing the last couple of product launches). Great topic though.

See I would almost say the opposite for #1. In a market where differences in actual performance are so small, what really gets something in a person's golf bag? I think marketing and tour presence is the only way.

 

[JB]

See I would almost say the opposite for #1. In a market where differences in actual performance are so small, what really gets something in a person's golf bag? I think marketing and tour presence is the only way.

I think for the most part this is very true. Especially for the casual golfer. The perfect example of this would be the comparison line between soft goods and hard goods. How many golfers do you know that are 1 million percent brand loyal to a company (fill in the blank) and then only use the Pro V1 golf ball? Or how many golfers do you know that get decked out in orange, or have swooshes all over their apparel, but never try the hard goods? Its very common actually.

 

[Agent Jay]

Sales will tell the tale of the tape of course, and make anyone (in any industry) relevant or not. However, I've never been one who needs to see a companies bottom line splashed across MSNBC's ticker to tell if they are good or not. The industry, as a whole, feels like it's floundering. Doesn't matter if we are talking about club sales, tee times or memberships being purchased at the local country club.

Company A and Company B are going about doing things the way they feel is best in two different ways. Callaway, for example, is and has really drawn in and taken hold of Social Media, and with the way consumers are being connected in todays world. I feel this is the way things are heading, for just about everything! So for them to tap into this platform and ride this wave in, was a pure master stoke. Other companies seem to be trying to play catch up, but the bar is so high now from the ZooCrew!

What can companies do, to reach there target market moving forward? The demographic(s) are startling, the generations growing up now have everything on a touch screen. My kids (for example) hardly ever watch TV with commercials. They watch Netflix, YouTube, DVD's or it's already been recorded on the DVR. This isn't news to anyone, but if these two companies....or any company for that matter, wants to connect with consumers in todays world. There is going to have to be another way.

 

[Hawk]

I think for the most part this is very true. Especially for the casual golfer. The perfect example of this would be the comparison line between soft goods and hard goods. How many golfers do you know that are 1 million percent brand loyal to a company (fill in the blank) and then only use the Pro V1 golf ball? Or how many golfers do you know that get decked out in orange, or have swooshes all over their apparel, but never try the hard goods? Its very common actually.

The soft goods vs hard goods is a good point. For as loyal as we'll see some people in apparel or with Tour stars, the bags often don't refect that.

 

[Awkward silence]

See I would almost say the opposite for #1. In a market where differences in actual performance are so small, what really gets something in a person's golf bag? I think marketing and tour presence is the only way.

I completly agree. I didnt alude to it very well but my line of thinking is this. You cant jump right in with the big boys and win, their isnt that much air at the top or in general. I think for the most part bridgestone offers an amzing lineup in terms of performace but not many people know about them becasue of a lack of marketing. But they are a potential company A in the making or that is what they should strive for i think.

 

[Philly Golf Guy]

It is pretty easy nowadays to project a certain perception of a company through marketing, social media and the internet. But reality, in terms of performance of the equipment or how a company is actually doing with sales and profits, is now much easier to discern through the same media channels.

The throwback Thursday thread from today, along with a recent Golf Digest article, reminded me that back in the late 1990's and even early 2000's, infomericals were enormously successful for a number of golf products. And I think one of the main reasons for that was because golfer X could watch the entire show and feel more educated about the product before purchasing it, and maybe in is or her mind, felt satisfied that they were able to see through the marketing hype of the infomercial and determine that the club's actual performance would help them. I guess what I'm saying is back then, perception and reality were more closely tied together because they were very few ways to talk about whether a produce actually performed on its promises, how their customer service was, etc.; all you really had were regular joes on the infomercial telling you how they went from a 20 something handicap to a single digit in a matter of months because of product x.

As far as the business performance of any OEM, I have no idea how well any of them are doing. This is probably because perception here is from the marketing that all of them are coming up with new equipment, most of them have a presence on tour, and most of them tout that tour presence and/or that they have the best selling ball/driver/wedge/etc. And even someone like Tour Edge, who I don't think does very much marketing or has any tour presence, I have no idea how they're performing either. So that's a case where there may be no perception projected whatsoever. Yet they still turn out new models each year and have a very dedicated following. But nowadays, determining the reality of how equipment performs and whether it lives up to any marketing claims is much easier, which I think affects how bold you want your marketing claims to be.

 

[Canadan]

They were made up examples. Company A is a combination of 3 or 4 companies. Company B is actually based on the Acushnet model from 8 years ago.

That's pretty interesting. When I look at Titleist right now, I see a sort of cult following. Their marketing is endless on the ProV1 and people buy them because they are so visible on tour etc. There's this strange prestige about playing them regardless of whether they actually suit their games. So I suppose in your structure it's quite accurate, but they have to be losing marketshare to other, more proactive companies. Bridgestone comes to mind immediately.

To the equipment, I just don't see it marketed anymore. Is it that they simply rely on the prestige of the brand? Am I not watching enough TV? There's no doubt in my mind that Titleist makes quality equipment and a quality ball, but I'd be hard pressed to confidently load my bag up with their gear and say I've got the best possible setup for my swing. Less so now than 8 years ago, by your timeline.

 

[Mulligan9111]

This is a slightly off-topic but not really as it has to do with perception versus reality with regards to golf equipment.

How do you feel perception effects the sales of those companies you mentioned in examples A and B?

While the companies have the hard numbers, do you think perception ever plays an influence in the decisions these companies make?

 

[JB]

That's pretty interesting. When I look at Titleist right now, I see a sort of cult following. Their marketing is endless on the ProV1 and people buy them because they are so visible on tour etc. There's this strange prestige about playing them regardless of whether they actually suit their games. So I suppose in your structure it's quite accurate, but they have to be losing marketshare to other, more proactive companies. Bridgestone comes to mind immediately.

To the equipment, I just don't see it marketed anymore. Is it that they simply rely on the prestige of the brand? Am I not watching enough TV? There's no doubt in my mind that Titleist makes quality equipment and a quality ball, but I'd be hard pressed to confidently load my bag up with their gear and say I've got the best possible setup for my swing. Less so now than 8 years ago, by your timeline.

The Titleist marketshare of golf balls is staggering. I mean it was even bigger, but it is still them vs everybody else with Bridgestone carving a nice niche at the #2 spot right now. As for their equipment, they do well in wedges and moderately well with putters. The rest of their hard goods does okay, but certainly less than some of the other major players. Which is interesting considering the stranglehold they had on green grass shops for so long.

 

[JB]

While the companies have the hard numbers, do you think perception ever plays an influence in the decisions these companies make?

Absolutely.

 

[Canadan]

The Titleist marketshare of golf balls is staggering. I mean it was even bigger, but it is still them vs everybody else with Bridgestone carving a nice niche at the #2 spot right now. As for their equipment, they do well in wedges and moderately well with putters. The rest of their hard goods does okay, but certainly less than some of the other major players. Which is interesting considering the stranglehold they had on green grass shops for so long.

Do you think their attitude towards sales is represented by their marketing? 1 - Balls, 2 - wedges, 3 - putters, and 4 - everything else

I've always found Titleist driver/woods/hybo/irons to be somewhat of an afterthought to the rest of their product line. Considered because of the name (but purchased because of their quality, to be fair).

 

[JB]

Do you think their attitude towards sales is represented by their marketing? 1 - Balls, 2 - wedges, 3 - putters, and 4 - everything else

I've always found Titleist driver/woods/hybo/irons to be somewhat of an afterthought to the rest of their product line. Considered because of the name (but purchased because of their quality, to be fair).

I can't answer that. That is a perception I think some share however.

 

[McRock]

IMO, people's perception is based mostly on sight, and confirmed by word of mouth. Sometimes the perception is accurate, sometimes not. White driver heads was, perhaps, one of the greatest golfing marketing mechanisms of my lifetime. Were there more Taylormade drivers on tour than any other brand, I don't know. They claimed there were. But my perception was that 90% of the tour was playing a TM driver because I remembered the white heads. I could distinguish the white head more than just the black head. Plus, at the time, the white head was a clear indication that it was a TM driver.

I also have the perception that Titleist dominates the golf ball market on tour. Maybe its the commercials telling me how many are playing Titleist and the next closest competitor. My perception is that they are doing strong. However, I do actually believe that reality would indicate that many other balls have been gaining ground, and that what the pros are playing is not at all a reflection of what everyday joe is playing.

I'm sure I, and everyone else, could come up with countless examples, but those were the first two that immediately popped into my head. The funny thing is, I don't even know if I know the actual reality or not, I only know my perceptions.

[h=1] “The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.”
[/h]
― William Shakespeare

~Rock

 

[fupresti]

Part of me wonders if companies can be successful in some markets of the country but not others. For example, Ping is HUGE in Phoenix because they are based there. Every other bag seems like it has a G series driver or irons of some kind. However, in all the events I play with THP, Ping is generally very lightly represented. Does this phenomenon actually exist and if so, does it influence overall success?