- Admin
- #1
Last edited by a moderator:
Wilson Staff Model Golf Balls and Baller Box
My head hurts reading that maths.....
It sounds like a ball I would like to try, but being subscription only makes it a gamble unless you fork out the extra for just a single month first
It sounds like a ball I would like to try, but being subscription only makes it a gamble unless you fork out the extra for just a single month first
I was a big fan of the DUO U and still have a sleeve or two in my bag. They have offered a "tour" ball along with the lower spin urethane ball for quite some time but I do not need the extra spin it provides. I am using the CS TT 2020 this year but have always loved the soft feel and long distance the Wilson balls provide.
The specs around the ball are intriguing, although the "math" around the subscription model is a bit confusing. Not sure I would want to go that route since my golf season is limited to only a few months.
- Staff
- #5
I know this may fire some up, but I feel like Wilson is moving backwards here. They’re taking what I have no doubt is a super solid and well performing golf ball (Frank is GREAT at his job) and slapping a big-box bulk mentality on it but with a name we would have thought was cool in the 90’s.
I just don’t get it.
I just don’t get it.
Admittedly I have never gamed a Wilson ball, but the design story and specs seem more similar to the 2020 CSX rather than the CS. is this right @JB ?
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #9
Not sure I would go that firm. It’s still going to come in softer than the new CSX.
Seems like a money grab by subscription service. I do think that people that buy now or quicker should lay premium because they have access to the equipment. My questions... How many people actually need a subscription for golf balls? Isn't the golf ball market severely crowded market?
That's what I mean... Who needs to plan the next 12 months of golf ball purchases? I can easily go to sporting goods store of choice, DTC, local pro shop, online golf store (seems like 1,000 exist) or directly to manufacture website and get a deal.
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #13
I'm curious why you think that? It's not a limited edition, but a subscription, right? So a person with a 6 month season that buys 2 dozen balls a month, should pay more per dozen than the person that plays year round and buys only 1 dozen per month?
I am for de-escalating costs based on longevity, but I think it must also come with reduction based on how many dozen one buys. Maybe I am off base, but there is literally zero incentive to buy more than a single dozen per month and they can pretty much eliminate that drop down, since you are being charged more for them, right?
I agree on the subscription model FWIW. It has been tried, but perhaps a larger brand like Wilson has more success than others have.
- Staff
- #14
My other question, is if the goal here is to grab new customers, then isn’t a legitimate discount system necessary when going D2C? Here, it seems to me they’re only going to tap into mostly their current fan base, and even then the “baller box” name could bring in diminishing returns there.
Since this is designed for a lower handicapper, I'm not the target audience... as it is, I'm not really interested in a subscription box... the idea doesn't appeal to me. Especially when the maths don't work out.
I do like Wilson elite 50's and duos... partly because they're softer-ish and their price.
I do like Wilson elite 50's and duos... partly because they're softer-ish and their price.
Kevinhooch
Well-known member
Ugh, I’m a huge Wilson fan and I have to say that while I really look forward to trying the Staff Model ball, I think this program is a bad idea. I play either the Duo Pro’s or Bridgestone Tour B S’s and I usually only buy balls in bulk and when I find them on sale. There is no way that I (or most people imho) will pay 44.99 for a Wilson ball (sorry Wilson). Even at 40.99 they are expensive. They are clearly trying to show with this price point that they are as good as the big boys, but how did that work out for the Cortex? Their only hope is if Gary Woodland starts winning a bunch of tournaments with it. Lastly, the Baller Box name is terrible.
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2012
- Messages
- 54,274
- Reaction score
- 19,713
- Location
- South Georgia
- Handicap
- Cold Temps
The ball sounds pretty intriguing but the subscription, to me, does not. Just a method of purchase that does not really appeal to me. So the balls will not be available for purchase in stores?
Two things:
1) Golf ball subscriptions don't work. Many have tried. None of succeeded. This won't be any different.
2) The math straight up suggests Wilson wants customers to go long-term instead of budget-friendly, which is a bad look.
1) Golf ball subscriptions don't work. Many have tried. None of succeeded. This won't be any different.
2) The math straight up suggests Wilson wants customers to go long-term instead of budget-friendly, which is a bad look.
See that’s what I don’t like. Saying a ball is for a certain level of golfer. It
I completely agree that the cost is high for people to take a chance. And Wilson introduced a barrier to acquisition that seems silly - you can’t impulse buy these balls at stores or green grass shops. Crazy to me to limit your sales like that when you are already there.
and I don’t think Woodland plays their balls.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- Admin
- #22
FWIW, I don't like that either, but in this instance, Wilson used it as a differentiator from the rest of their lineup (not sure if you read the article yet).
- Staff
- #22
The tech of the ball sounds very interesting, however, I see so many issues with this “Baller Box” model.
The name is horrible, who green lit the name? Wilson is an older brand , with a older demographic traditionally. The use of the slang term “Baller” to appeal to a younger demographic misses the mark.
The cost of the subscription model is idiotic. The price point is too high and there isn’t an incentive to buy more at a reduced cost.
Why would I switch to this ball from say the Z-Star line? The Z-Star is a lower price point, great ball, and you don’t have to deal with this subscription model.
Too many good balls on the market in this price point, to get cute with the marketing.
Even at the 12 month price point of $40.99, it still costs more than the Z-Star line. They should have positioned this ball with a price point of $36.99, just like Callaway did when they launched the OG Chrome Soft in ‘15.
The name is horrible, who green lit the name? Wilson is an older brand , with a older demographic traditionally. The use of the slang term “Baller” to appeal to a younger demographic misses the mark.
The cost of the subscription model is idiotic. The price point is too high and there isn’t an incentive to buy more at a reduced cost.
Why would I switch to this ball from say the Z-Star line? The Z-Star is a lower price point, great ball, and you don’t have to deal with this subscription model.
Too many good balls on the market in this price point, to get cute with the marketing.
Even at the 12 month price point of $40.99, it still costs more than the Z-Star line. They should have positioned this ball with a price point of $36.99, just like Callaway did when they launched the OG Chrome Soft in ‘15.
Last edited:
Dumb, right? First, low handicap is not Wilson’s regular market and second, anyone can play a 4-piece ball if they want.
Congratulatins to JB for just explaining all of this. The ball sounds great but I dont like the model. At least I think I dont. I'm slow on the uptake.