Club Release Cycle Question

Being left-handed..........and cheap, the more the merrier. I might look at '15 clubs and the more cycles out the cheaper they are, if they are available in lh.

Releases cost the OEMs money in terms of marketing, demos, and unsold inventory which could probably be better spent on R&D if the releases weren’t so close together. Yes the releases drive market excitement and thus sales to some degree but if we agree that there are only so many folks that will buy each and every cycle it means that rapid cycles don’t necessarily equate to a wider sales base in the long run. I would think that fewer cycles, while less sexy for the marketing department, would actually lower costs over time. That said, I get the pressure each company is under to not lag behind the others so if anything I would guess the cycles will continue to accelerate.

KingSinghUNLTD said:

When an OEM has small incremental improvements with 12 month release cycle, to me it just seems like they purposely held back all the improvements 12 months back just so they can have “improvements” in the new release. This indicates to me the marketing mavens think the consumer is a fool and they can continue to pull wool over the consumers eyes. Irritates the hell out of me. So yes, I’ll (generally) take the OEM that puts all the improvements in the clubs even if it means a 2 year cycle.

Click to expand...

you know, everybody likes to hate on TM for this, yet other companies do the same thing (and it's not subtle when the iterations are labeled in sequence)

obedt said:

I re-read your original post and it’s really accurate. While Callaway did replace the Steelhead iron line, for example, they changed them visually and acoustically drastically. It does differ from TM’s approach with the M series irons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It'll be interesting to see if whatever comes after the rogue has the Steelhead shape again, or if that was a one off.