We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Signing Tour Pros: Your Take

dcbrad

dcbrad

locked and reloaded
Joined
May 23, 2012
Messages
8,524
Reaction score
4
Location
Fairview, PA
Handicap
Geography
If you had a limited tour pro budget, or at least a set amount that you felt you could comfortably spend, how would you go about signing tour pros for "your" golf company. There's no set budget, but it's probably going to be unrealistic for you to to sign 5 top 50 golfers at 3 million a piece.

Top 50 for $2-3 million a pop
Top 51-100 for anywhere from $250,000 - 1 million
Web.com/Euro Tour (price varies widely)

Do you feel like it would be necessary to have a big name on your staff or would you want to spread your budget over more golfers or even try to nab up and comers/the younger crowd? Would you go all out for 1-2 guys or spread your money over 15-20 lower echelon/Euro tour guys.

Just interested to see how everyone would spend their budget on and hopefully this sparks some good convo.
 
Give me the 1-2 guys that can get the product on TV, print, etc. when running a company, gambling that an up and comer pans out is too risky IMO.

A company like Wilson could benefit from something like this greatly for example.
 
I think the big names help make the biggest impact. Getting to see that guy on Sunday time in and time out on TV with your brand in his hand, on his head or in his bag is huge.

Therefore Id do what I can to get a guy or a few in the top 50 (assuming budget warrants that), and sprinkle a few bucks elsewhere on guys you think could be there someday.
 
I need multiple top tier guys. Guys who have the ability to get air time week in and out. Then sprinkle in some of the young guns who won't cost as much, but have the ability to win or be relevant every now and then.
 
I would probably try to get one or two top 50 guys and a couple lower echelon guys just playing a couple of my clubs - like TaylorMade does with drivers. The more guys you get on the TV with your driver and maybe hat, for instance, vs. dumping all your cash into making a guy play EVERY CLUB of yours, a la Nike. I think that works REALLY well if you pick the right guy (which Nike has historically been pretty damn good at), but most companies don't have that kind of cash to throw around.
 
I'd go for as many big names as I can. I don't know how much golfers move products, but I know that in most other sports the top names are seen more often (and therefore would result in more sales) than mid-tier guys. Basically, I'd rather hit a home run than a few singles.
 
#Cookie said:
Give me the 1-2 guys that can get the product on TV, print, etc. when running a company, gambling that an up and comer pans out is too risky IMO.

A company like Wilson could benefit from something like this greatly for example.
Click to expand...

Didn't wilson run commercials with ricky barnes.
 
gizmo3putt said:
Didn't wilson run commercials with ricky barnes.
Click to expand...

Yes, and he's not a top 50 guy in my eyes. They need a top 20 at worse. Ricky, Streels, and Paddy just don't sell clubs.
 
#Cookie said:
Yes, and he's not a top 50 guy in my eyes. They need a top 20 at worse. Ricky, Streels, and Paddy just don't sell clubs.
Click to expand...

Probably not even in top 100 these days but when they signed him I think he was on the fringe of top 50
 
Give me one top end guy and the rest can be consistent top 25 finishers week in and week out and you'll get the air time with them.

Also, guys who are out there a ton, not I only play 10 tourneys a year.
 
#Cookie said:
Yes, and he's not a top 50 guy in my eyes. They need a top 20 at worse. Ricky, Streels, and Paddy just don't sell clubs.
Click to expand...

There have been discussions in the past on this topic, so I'll ask the question again: which guy out there really sells golf clubs anyways? The example that is always thrown out there is that Nike's club sales didn't go through the roof when Tiger was dominating in the last decade, and I don't think Rory has given them much of a bump either.

To that end, I'm spreading the money around to the up and coming guys and betting that 1 or 2 of them makes the leap to the upper reaches of the PGA Tour. For example, a couple of years ago Patrick Reed was having to Monday qualify for events, now he's a Ryder Cup member and multiple winner on the PGA Tour, that kind of stuff can happen every single year. Of course, if I could accurately predict which player is going to do that, I'd go to Vegas right now.
 
I think if you can find a top guy who is marketable it is worth it. It can't just be a top 50 guy, it has to the right top 50 guy if that makes sense.
 
arydolphin said:
There have been discussions in the past on this topic, so I'll ask the question again: which guy out there really sells golf clubs anyways? The example that is always thrown out there is that Nike's club sales didn't go through the roof when Tiger was dominating in the last decade, and I don't think Rory has given them much of a bump either.

To that end, I'm spreading the money around to the up and coming guys and betting that 1 or 2 of them makes the leap to the upper reaches of the PGA Tour. For example, a couple of years ago Patrick Reed was having to Monday qualify for events, now he's a Ryder Cup member and multiple winner on the PGA Tour, that kind of stuff can happen every single year. Of course, if I could accurately predict which player is going to do that, I'd go to Vegas right now.
Click to expand...

I think pro frequency on weekend afternoons sells clubs. Look at TM: Rose, DJ, Sergio, Day, etc. White clubs in the hands of those guys sells.

Reed's a great example actually because inevitably he's still not a big name in the casual golfers eyes. Win a major and that changes. But, even with all that he would've been tough to pickup a few years back on a gamble.

While Nike's sales weren't through the roof, they definitely increased with his success and I think that will continue with Rory.

Now, I'm not saying that Rory could make Wilson sell as well as Nike or TM, etc. But, they need something out there that makes golfers want to give them a chance....and they simply don't have that with their current staff no matter how good their clubs are. Unfortunately, I also have to wonder how much they are associated with cheap entry level clubs given where their clubs have sold in the past.

But I'm rambling now.... :)
 
If it was me I think I might go a different route. I'd be looking at Hollywood to help sell equipment, these guys golf as a hobby etc, not their primary job. So they are like 99% of all the golfers.

http://www.golfdigest.com/golf-tours-news/hollywoodrankings1_gd2005

Looking at some of those handicaps, I'd be looking at who's got a big release coming at the same time as new equipment releases.

PS: That's an old list
 
Give me the top guys for sure. Way more exposure from one or two top guys than several "no namers".
 
#Cookie said:
I think pro frequency on weekend afternoons sells clubs. Look at TM: Rose, DJ, Sergio, Day, etc. White clubs in the hands of those guys sells.
Click to expand...

With regards to that line of thinking: I'd argue that having so many drivers out there that looked different from almost any other company's club, and being able to consistently say that their company is the "#1 Driver on Tour" meant more than having those particular players have those clubs in their bag.

Also, while I said that I'd go low end and sign a bunch of up and comers, I think that there is merit in having 1 big-time player on a company's staff, if (and this is a big if) it's the right fit. A guy like Rickie Fowler is a great fit for Cobra/Puma, and to a certain extent someone like Fred Couples or Matt Kuchar for Bridgestone is the same way. But it's really hard to find someone that can be the face of a brand for a long time.
 
If you don't have one of the five (not my number) magic players that actually can sell golf clubs then I think you need visibility in general. You do that with guys that are going to be on TV on Sunday afternoons, so top 50 is my vote. The rest can go towards development tours.
 
arydolphin said:
With regards to that line of thinking: I'd argue that having so many drivers out there that looked different from almost any other company's club, and being able to consistently say that their company is the "#1 Driver on Tour" meant more than having those particular players have those clubs in their bag.

Also, while I said that I'd go low end and sign a bunch of up and comers, I think that there is merit in having 1 big-time player on a company's staff, if (and this is a big if) it's the right fit. A guy like Rickie Fowler is a great fit for Cobra/Puma, and to a certain extent someone like Fred Couples or Matt Kuchar for Bridgestone is the same way. But it's really hard to find someone that can be the face of a brand for a long time.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with the different look helping so much. But, it takes having players in the top 20 to catch consistent airtime in those final hours of weekend coverage.
 
I'd probably want to sign a couple guys in the top 50, then sign a bunch of lower tier guys that are either promising up and comers or frequent winners on the other tours, like Euro, Web or LPGA. My thinking is I want the most air time possible, even if it is a non PGA tour event, as I know a lot of my market base watches these tournaments as well. I want that air time not only to show case the clubs, but also the apparel. And in commercials, I could brag if I wanted to that player X has 7 wins on the Euro tour, etc. for equipment. The couple top 50 guys are the flagship and are competitive in the tournaments they play while the up and comers are the wild cards; they should be exciting to watch, and hopefully pull it together to get on the same level as the top 50 guys.
 
I would sign 1 top guy who is a household name then spread the rest around between a couple 50-100 top rated players and find a couple guys with potential on the Webb.com also I would bring in some eye candy that can hold to be a brand embasador similar to a Blair O'Neil or Holly.
 
There is only a handful of guys who move the needle. I would try to land one of those guys. If that is not an option than I would look for younger talent and roll the dice that I can find the next guy who will move the needle.
 
For the smaller companies I think the problem is that you'd have to sign these other guys to long term deals (which could be risky) otherwise they could just as easily flip to a company with a bigger wallet if/when they make it big. That space on the front of their hat doesn't have a fixed cost.
 
gizmo3putt said:
Didn't wilson run commercials with ricky barnes.
Click to expand...

#Cookie said:
Yes, and he's not a top 50 guy in my eyes. They need a top 20 at worse. Ricky (318), Streels (49), and Paddy (325) just don't sell clubs.
Click to expand...

Updated with official world rankings in bold above.

Agree with Ary here: what actually sells clubs? Nike has Tiger and Rory and isn't dominating the market (only about 7% market share).

Is it "how many" vs. "who" plays the clubs? I don't know, but on the ball side of things, it sure is impressive when Titleist can show 98 of 135 pros used a Titleist ball for XXX tournament... or TaylorMade with their driver count each week.

Based on that, I would try to spread the wealth to as many as I could get to be able to say, X number of pros play my product.
 
I think the key to increasing sales through pros is winning or consistently being in the final round. The exposure from that in my experience leads to sales. And if they can look cool doing it in the process that is a bonus (think Rory and Fowler). Nike will always have an edge in apparel but to sell clubs you need to be able to connect to the consumer. I think that is why Nike still hasn't really gotten as big of a share in clubs. Nike has chosen two of the coldest athletes to represent them in golf, Tiger and Rory. Both of them do not connect to the public like Fowler, Tom Watson, Couples, Jimenez, Dufner, Spieth and some other golfers. Not to say those guys are pulling in huge numbers for their company, but I look to those guys more to see what they are using or are wearing because of how likable they are. Tiger, Rory, Scott, and Watson off the top of my head have a disconnect with fans. I have never met any of them but as a consumer I am turned off by them and the products they use.

Guys that are likable and are successful makes for a more successful investment for a company.
 
I'd want a big name and clients that people could relate to be the face of my brand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top