We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Release Cycles - Once a Year vs Once Every 2 Years

SuperStroke
JB

JB

Follow @THPGolf on Social Media
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
283,593
Reaction score
435,195
Location
THP Experiences
Companies in all industries have release cycles they work with. Golf is one that was set at a 2 year period for a long time and some companies pushed that to faster moving and even months in between. The norm that has settled in it appears is once a year or once every 2 years. Is there a right or wrong? Do you have a preference?

Right now it appears most companies are working on an every 2 years with iron lines and staggering them so each company has a release each year.
Titleist has AP line 1 year and then CB/MB the following year.
Callaway has Apex line 1 year and then XR and Big Bertha the following year
Ping has done this well.
And so on.

Metal woods on the other hand have some companies release every year and other companies going with the same staggering for every other year.

So back to the original question. Do you have a preference in the release cycles? And why?
 
Release cycles never bothered me. If the OEM's understand the market and have technology in the pipeline to have a staggered release cycle then who am I to knock them for it.

I think inventory control and being able to tell us why this version of club X is different/better than the one it's replacing.

I think what gets lost on the golfer/buyer is that the last release of a product is fresh in their minds (Callaway CF-16 for example) & they think the latest iron being released is a replacement for that one when in that isn't the case.

Options are good and that's all I care about.
 
I feel 2 years is on point. Nothing more irritating then getting a new driver in February and it being replaced by June

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #4
Franklin51 said:
I feel 2 years is on point. Nothing more irritating then getting a new driver in February and it being replaced by June

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Does anybody do that though? Honest question.
I remember TaylorMade did with the R9 line and Ping kind of did with G30, but I dont think it has happened since then right?
 
I love choices and I wouldn't care if they released something every month. I think one of the biggest reasons people complain about release cycles is that

1. New golf equipment is not cheap

2. It's an emotional purchase

3. Those emotions make you believe it is an investment rather than a liability
 
I love fast release cycles because it means "new" stuff will be heavily discounted. All I have to do is show a little patience and I'm gaming new gear at a fraction of the price.

To the extent release cycles bother me it usually comes from not understanding the product and how it fits with the OEMs overall suite of products. I want to understand the release - which line it is, which segment it is going after, how these clubs are distinct from other offerings. Ping's old G and I demarcations were great that way.
 
I've never understood people feeling offended (or whatever the word is) when a new club comes out too soon after they bought theirs. I for one think frequent releases are good for the consumer, especially the cheap guy like me, cause it drives down previous year prices.

I would think from the company's perspective though that it would be more profitable to go with every two years, because it drives your unit price down. However, I suppose this assumes you still have strong sales for over a year, where Callaway and TM have the marketing clout to cause buzz every year and move a bunch of units quick, then move on to the next buzz worthy item.

So short answer, no wrong way for me. Depends on the company's situation and strategy.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #8
tequila4kapp said:
I love fast release cycles because it means "new" stuff will be heavily discounted. All I have to do is show a little patience and I'm gaming new gear at a fraction of the price.

To the extent release cycles bother me it usually comes from not understanding the product and how it fits with the OEMs overall suite of products. I want to understand the release - which line it is, which segment it is going after, how these clubs are distinct from other offerings. Ping's old G and I demarcations were great that way.
Click to expand...

This is great info.
What if the biggest difference maker is price? Like the C series from Titleist, the Tour Edge and Exotics line, or the Apex and XR line from Callaway?
Granted they still have to be marketed different, but is there room for releases in different price points (see tech and car manufacturers as examples).
And a further question always remains to me, why are putter exempt from release cycle norms?
 
I have no issues with faster release cycles. Just because a new club comes out, doesn't mean my older club stops working.
 
Personally I like the every other year cycle for a product alternating with another product like the Callaway example. I feel like that is long enough for a product to run its course, but short enough that it doesn't feel outdated.
 
blugold said:
I have no issues with faster release cycles. Just because a new club comes out, doesn't mean my older club stops working.
Click to expand...

Right, I get that. I dont want this to be do we hate quick cycles and my wording might have been poor.
Do we have a preference as golfers at 12 or 24? And what makes or made that 24 the right timeline, when its not in just about every other consumer good category?
And do staggered releases like Titleist and Callaway are doing now, where they replace every two years, but still have something new every year, appease the masses?
 
I like the release cycles Titleist, Callaway and others have for irons but I feel the metals releases are too quick. I'm assuming it's because of innovation, and the thought of getting 'their' new product to market before someone beats them to it. Regardless, the pace of releases for metals has me losing interest in the 'next model'.
 
I kinda of like when an OEM has both. One line on a 12 month cycle and another line on a 24 month release cycle. Keeps new gear coming out yearly and that means more options
 
JB said:
Right, I get that. I dont want this to be do we hate quick cycles and my wording might have been poor.
Do we have a preference as golfers at 12 or 24? And what makes or made that 24 the right timeline, when its not in just about every other consumer good category?
And do staggered releases like Titleist and Callaway are doing now, where they replace every two years, but still have something new every year, appease the masses?
Click to expand...
I think golfers who pay attention to equipment want 24 month staggered cycles. I believe there are two reasons. 1) Many golfers are superficial creatures who like having the newest and shiniest and more frequent releases are harder (read most expensive) to keep up to date with. I am one of them that likes shiny and new. 2) resale values are important for some. Slow release cycles seem to keep resale value up. It's not how I view equipment, but many do. Right or wrong.
 
For me personally I'd like to see 2 year release cycles. I'd like to see more time go into developing a new line. Of bring a bit more change. It seems to me that on a 12 month release cycle the amount of change we see is smaller Or less impacting. I have no issue with there being 3-4 different lines from an OEM though.

I guess what I'm saying is if company X puts out a blade, then in two years let's see the new blades.
 
I feel like there is a point of diminishing returns where too fast release cycles contribute to excessive marketing churn/expense, and less ability/calendar time for product teams to incorporate feedback from current model into newer designs. If 2 year product cycles help streamline R&D and marketing expenses, improve engineering/product, and club prices were lower accordingly, I'd be OK with it compared to more churn. But I am not holding my breath regarding club prices, companies will charge what the market will support.
 
T2GRN18 said:
For me personally I'd like to see 2 year release cycles. I'd like to see more time go into developing a new line. Of bring a bit more change. It seems to me that on a 12 month release cycle the amount of change we see is smaller Or less impacting. I have no issue with there being 3-4 different lines from an OEM though.

I guess what I'm saying is if company X puts out a blade, then in two years let's see the new blades.
Click to expand...

Genuine question though. Looking at the companies that release metal woods annually vs the companies that release metal woods every 2 years, where does the "appearance" of innovation come from? Which side i mean?
 
T2GRN18 said:
For me personally I'd like to see 2 year release cycles. I'd like to see more time go into developing a new line. Of bring a bit more change. It seems to me that on a 12 month release cycle the amount of change we see is smaller Or less impacting. I have no issue with there being 3-4 different lines from an OEM though.

I guess what I'm saying is if company X puts out a blade, then in two years let's see the new blades.
Click to expand...

Which is interesting to me, when comparing a 12 month and 24 month metal wood releases. I feel like Callaway's evolution/progression from the 2014 Big Bertha Line, to the 815 Bertha Line, to the 816 Bertha Line was really remarkable. There was a lot of advancement and new tech in those three releases. But when I look at a 24 month company like Titleist, there advancement over the 913-915-917 just seems so much less. I feel like there has to be more tech and more noticeable improvement in a 12 month release because the comparisons are so much fresher in peoples minds.
 
JB said:
Genuine question though. Looking at the companies that release metal woods annually vs the companies that release metal woods every 2 years, where does the "appearance" of innovation come from? Which side i mean?
Click to expand...

That's a good question, because I could see that a product team could have a ton more ideas than they can incorporate into one release every 2 years, thus making even more clubs more individually tailored to certain segments, and having the engineering horsepower and budget to do justice to yearly releases. What I like about Callaway at the moment.
 
GraniteRoost said:
That's a good question, because I could see that a product team could have a ton more ideas than they can incorporate into one release every 2 years, thus making even more clubs more individually tailored to certain segments, and having the engineering horsepower and budget to do justice to yearly releases. What I like about Callaway at the moment.
Click to expand...

And let me ask this as an add on. Doesnt this depend entirely on how deep a team is at the engineering level? I mean there are companies with more people in this department than others.
 
JB said:
Does anybody do that though? Honest question.
I remember TaylorMade did with the R9 line and Ping kind of did with G30, but I dont think it has happened since then right?
Click to expand...
I think it has slowed down some. I also think it lead to some of Taylormade issues.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
As far as 12 or 24 goes I fall closer to the 24 month side of things and I don't really know why. I fully admit I'm a "mental" consumer and resale value does play a small role for me.
The main thing for me is that I want to see a difference between successive models and I don't think anything should be released until the manufacturer has successfully improved upon the previous version in the line in some meaningful way.
 
I think you have to give the public what they want which in this case means "newer, better, sexier, FASTER". That is why I think the one year cycle is better. The people that buy clubs as an investment won't like it and the local golf shop won't either!! IMHO!
 
JB said:
And let me ask this as an add on. Doesnt this depend entirely on how deep a team is at the engineering level? I mean there are companies with more people in this department than others.
Click to expand...

Yep. I'm speculating from experience not within this industry, but if I were a small team trying to keep up with yearly releases across a full product line trying to keep up with much larger OEM's, it seems like one could get snowed. There just may not be enough time to get good market feedback before you have to order tooling for next year's widget, and you've got a small budget and need to get it right, and on time. If you have a more personnel you have bandwidth for more pots on the stove, and maybe even more ideas than you can try across a model line in a given year. I guess it depends a lot on the nature of the team members and how they mesh and innovate as well.
 
ArmyGolf said:
As far as 12 or 24 goes I fall closer to the 24 month side of things and I don't really know why. I fully admit I'm a "mental" consumer and resale value does play a small role for me.
The main thing for me is that I want to see a difference between successive models and I don't think anything should be released until the manufacturer has successfully improved upon the previous version in the line in some meaningful way.
Click to expand...

Let me ask this for argument sake (FWIW I dont disagree with you on wanting to see a difference).
Titleist releases the AP line every two years and they are very good irons. Have you seen a major difference between the last 3 (meaning 6 years)?
Now TaylorMade on the other hand released back to back years of RSI and PSI and i dont think people saw major differences there either, although do in the M2.
Ping was every two years and the differences were kind of in between
Callaway is every two years and I think the differences were pretty stark in some and not as big in others.
Mizuno is every two and I think the differences were pretty stark as well.

So my honest question is that is it more of a time thing, or is it more of a visual look combined with marketing that differentiates itself? See R15 to M1 as an example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top