Titleist - Who's the new face for them now?

I couldn't agree more. Titleist lets their equipment doing the talking. Nike needs to have the worlds #1 and #3 in their stable because their gear is dog poop. Out of the 12+ guys I golf with regularly not a single one has a Nike club in their bag, pretty much every other brand is covered but not a single Nike.

Here we go... I think I just got dumberer by reading that. Heaps gooderer reasoning...!
 
Why does a company have to have 1-2 "main" marketing guys?
 
Apparently, according to JB they pay the most staffers

I think the fact that so many are paid to play the ProV makes them "pay the most players". I doubt he meant fully staffed. I'd love to see some numbers comparing companies though.
 
Titleist threads fall off the hinges quickly, for some reason and I have no idea why. Lol.

Anyways, I'll echo what others are saying. Seems to me, Titleist has never had "A Guy". Just a stable of solid players. Hell, no Titleist ad featured Rory as a whole and no one else, but instead the full stable of guys. Titleist is just fine and will continue to be.
 
Anyways, I'll echo what others are saying. Seems to me, Titleist has never had "A Guy". Just a stable of solid players. Hell, no Titleist ad featured Rory as a whole and no one else, but instead the full stable of guys. Titleist is just fine and will continue to be.

I agree with JR. They have always been very good at assembling a stable of strong golfers.
 
I agree with JR. They have always been very good at assembling a stable of strong golfers.

Me too, but will the hole opened up on their roster result in bigger deals for guys like Adam Scott, more lesser knowns getting sponsorships or will Achushnet gobble up the extra cash?
 
Me too, but will the hole opened up on their roster result in bigger deals for guys like Adam Scott, more lesser knowns getting sponsorships or will Achushnet gobble up the extra cash?

I didn't think Achushnet owned Titleist any longer. I thought it was FILA
 
Me too, but will the hole opened up on their roster result in bigger deals for guys like Adam Scott, more lesser knowns getting sponsorships or will Achushnet gobble up the extra cash?

I can't see bigger deals for someone who is already with the company.
 
Me too, but will the hole opened up on their roster result in bigger deals for guys like Adam Scott, more lesser knowns getting sponsorships or will Achushnet gobble up the extra cash?

Not in my opinion. It means more spots to fill from some younger players so that they can continue at the top of certain counts. They have always been very good at this and will continue to be. They lost a lot of very good players this offseason, but each one will be replaced with another player up and coming.
 
I guess I just don't get how Rory leaving for Nike equals the demise or suddenly changes Titleist going forward. I mean, we have seen this before, multiple times. Tiger. Phil. Ernie. Pretty big names in the sport or getting ready to be. All leaving in their marketing prime, for greener pastures. And yet, Titleist still was able to peice together a strong stable of staffers. Titleist still has guys with buttloads of talent and unrealized promise and potential lurking. Matteo, Bud, as well as some pretty nice seasoned veterans, like ZJ, Stricker, Scottie and Ogilvy, just to name a few. This to me, just seems like history repeating itself when it comes to Titleist and how they assemble a staff.
 
Titleist may have more staffers on their books but I would think that the handful Nike have are getting paid more collectively than the Titleist Staffers collectively, this being down to McIlroy and Tiger.
 
Titleist may have more staffers on their books but I would think that the handful Nike have are getting paid more collectively than the Titleist Staffers collectively, this being down to McIlroy and Tiger.

Maybe. Not sure as nobody knows for sure what certain guys are making despite numbers being thrown around. In my opinion none of it matters. I have never understood how some companies get bashed for signing talent and others get a pass or are looked at as "above that" when they all do the same thing.
 
Maybe. Not sure as nobody knows for sure what certain guys are making despite numbers being thrown around. In my opinion none of it matters. I have never understood how some companies get bashed for signing talent and others get a pass or are looked at as "above that" when they all do the same thing.

I had never really thought about this, I guess I knew it in the back of my mind but now that you have brought it up that is really so true. One of the company's that receives the most bashing was one I would never even consider, now their product is in my bag too. I am glad THP has removed this subconscious snobbery from my golf psyche.
 
Assumptions and conjecture are bread from lack of knowledge. We assume that Nike has to pay due to inferior equipment. And some assume that Titlesist is cheap and arrogant, they don't need to pay.
It comes down to personal choice on your and in the amateur ranks. People play what they want. Some pros chase the money out of need but the top guys play what they want and what works for them.
Admit it or not Rory was the face of Titleist. When he crushed that 340 three wood in charlotte, Titleist homers wanted it hell I wanted it. When Steve Striker won the John Deere I didn't google witb to seen what he was hitting. Didn't do it when Adam Scott won or when rickie fowler. Rory moved the needle for Titleist like no one else in their staff. Now they don't have that, just a stable of winners. Don they need a face, I think so the way marketing is working.
 
THE DUFF!!!
 
Maybe. Not sure as nobody knows for sure what certain guys are making despite numbers being thrown around. In my opinion none of it matters. I have never understood how some companies get bashed for signing talent and others get a pass or are looked at as "above that" when they all do the same thing.

I do agree, I think Nike do get an unfair rep for throwing money at it but everyone hates the "big boys". Nike have probably earned their right to throw money at stars with their success in other sports and possibly taking chances on other athletes before their success.
 
Last edited:
Titleist still has plenty of staffers. No "marquis" player, but still tons of good players.
 
Assumptions and conjecture are bread from lack of knowledge. We assume that Nike has to pay due to inferior equipment. And some assume that Titlesist is cheap and arrogant, they don't need to pay.
It comes down to personal choice on your and in the amateur ranks. People play what they want. Some pros chase the money out of need but the top guys play what they want and what works for them.
Admit it or not Rory was the face of Titleist. When he crushed that 340 three wood in charlotte, Titleist homers wanted it hell I wanted it. When Steve Striker won the John Deere I didn't google witb to seen what he was hitting. Didn't do it when Adam Scott won or when rickie fowler. Rory moved the needle for Titleist like no one else in their staff. Now they don't have that, just a stable of winners. Don they need a face, I think so the way marketing is working.

So true. I've been trying to get yellow New Decade grips since I saw Rory's. They've been sold out in every store I've asked. (I could order them online, but that's another story.)
 
THE DUFF!!!

yes!

On the note of payments and contracts, i hear titleist doesn't pay as much because they allow different logos on their pros (netjets, comcast, jumeirah, etc). And nike pays more because they purchase exclusivity for the swoosh on their pros.
 
Marketing is a crazy thing. These are just generalizations of how I perceive some of the marketing strategies. Taylormade markets on aggressive names that inspire thoughts of distance. Rocketballz, RocketBlades, and now the Lethal. They market constantly and aggressively. Nike markets on big names. They get the best names money can buy, and the market products around those people. Would Nike Golf exist if Tiger had never jumped onto that sponsorship? When I see Nike advertising, I see the general message of "this big name uses our clubs, so should you." Obviously, all club companies use staffers to market clubs, but I see more use of the staffers by Nike as opposed to Taylormade. Taylormade focuses a lot more on the distance factor, Nike seems to focus on who plays their clubs. Then there's Titleist. Titleist seems to market to the "elite" and "high prestige" group. They don't need the biggest names on TV saying "I'm awesome because of Titleist." They seem to rest on their own prestige and quietly market in the background. Their ads tend to focus on their golf ball, and the fact that more people in the field play a Titleist ball than any other brand. But mostly, I feel like they don't aggressively market b/c somehow that would make them "a little more dirty" and less prestigious.

Those are all generalizations. Obviously, all companies have multiple marketing strategies. But coming around to the real point, I don't think Titleist is going to lose much from this. They will get new staffers, they will continue to quietly market their products and maintain their reputation as "we make clubs for elite golfers," and they will continue to sell clubs and balls just fine.

Besides, they have plenty of good staffers still, and those staffers are certainly on their way up. Dufner ftw.

~Rock
 
Did anyone see Bill Haas throw a temper tantrum and kick his bag over? That sure shines a bright light on Titleist :confused2:
 
Back
Top