We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Who is Callaway's Face of the Brand? Do they need one?

I don't think they really have one. Most people would probably identify Phil when asked who a Callaway player is to the avg golf fan but I think like most companies they aren't building around a player, but their brand. The equipment speaks for itself. It's not like a sports team who uses a marquee player to appeal to the fans and draws them to their team, games etc
 
The BRAND is the face of the brand. Look at the stable they've assembled.

Plus, Phil still moves the needle a lot more than some think.
 
I don't think they need a "face". The Zoocrew has insured that with their level of marketing.
 
Jman said:
The BRAND is the face of the brand. Look at the stable they've assembled.

Plus, Phil still moves the needle a lot more than some think.
Click to expand...

I'm one of those. I've already been corrected in other threads haha.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I don't think they need a "face". The Zoocrew has insured that with their level of marketing.
Click to expand...


Evidenced by the fact I only remember Callaway ads during the PGA Championship and they featured Chris Kirk.
 
I think the real question here is "Who is the face of Omega watches?"
 
Tadashi70 said:
I don't think they need a "face". The Zoocrew has insured that with their level of marketing.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking about this.. While I think Phil has been the face of Callaway, I think the Zoocrew has really spread the wealth so to speak - introducing us to their stable of young players. I have really enjoyed their marketing direction.
 
I really don't know who I see as the face of Callaway. They have some big stars...but I think it would benefit them to get someone that's constantly up at the top and gaining the admiration and follow of fans. Although in today's day and age, I'm not so sure that exists as it once did....

And now that I think about it, I don't usually associate a specific brand with a golfer. I couldn't tell you what Spieth has in his bag...I think Jason Day has TM? Gosh I've gotta start paying more attention.... I usually just love the shots they are hitting. Brands rarely catch my eye when watching a tournament.
 
Tadashi70 said:
I don't think they need a "face". The Zoocrew has insured that with their level of marketing.
Click to expand...
Freddie stole my post.

fupresti said:
Evidenced by the fact I only remember Callaway ads during the PGA Championship and they featured Chris Kirk.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Twitter, Instagram, all across social media, the ZooCrew gives you a bit of a "behind the scenes" look at some of their advertising. And it's more times than not with one of the pros from their stable.​
 
Wasn't some Carroll guy quoted in a Chrome Soft ad?
 
I think it has to Be Phil still.
With JMAN a close second!
 
The face of Callaway is at something called The Grand Daddy.
 
TexasHacker34 said:
I think Tony Finau has a chance. He is going to be a star I think. Maybe Ollie as well
Click to expand...

I agree on Finau for sure.

But I think they need someone who is Speith, Day, Rory, Johnson like. Reed has potential golf wise, personality wise not so much. Phil obvi always has cameras on him, but his game isn't at his best, even tho its fun to watch his amazing recovery shots
 
I think Phil is still the face of Callaway, but they changed strategy a couple years ago in several areas with their tour staff being a big one. Instead of getting into a bidding war for someone like Rory, they have spread that money out to lots of young players that could grow into a superstar. For example look at just some of the signings from the last couple years:

Reed
Kirk
Lydia Ko
Ryo
English
Woodland
Finau
Ollie
Grace
Stenson


This gives them a lot of exposure and every weekend their best in class marketing department can go out and talk about how great X player did. Like everything Callaway is doing, it sure seems to be working well. Maybe they go after Spieth at some point, but IMHO I am not sure they would get the return on investment since he is basically the face of Under Armour not of the clubs he plays.
 
fupresti said:
Evidenced by the fact I only remember Callaway ads during the PGA Championship and they featured Chris Kirk.
Click to expand...
I'll be honest, I don't even pay attention to the adds. They always feature their stable of players. When I thunk about Callaway, I'm thinking quality gear, customer service and a crew that interacts with the fan (zoocrew)
 
With the way Callaway is set up on social media, for the younger generation, that's all they need IMO.
 
IMO, its still Phil. Other than Phil, I honestly couldnt name anyone who even plays Callaway.
 
Sox Fan said:
Phil still is and I don't believe his heir apparent is currently on their roster. Reed does not strike me as a guy you want to hang your face of the brand tag on.
Click to expand...

I agree. I see them signing someone new in the near future to take Phil's place at the top.
 
if this was a vote, I'd go for "They don't really need one"......they have a great stable both men/women.

Maybe Patrick Reed will get all ripped and go around shirtless and get more attention or something.
 
I think Callaway, Titleist, PING and TM staffers get lost in the sea of other patches on their clothing. The casual fan has no clue that Adidas owns TM, that dual sponsorship alone cluttered things up. Nike and UA guys are associated with those 2 brands. Titleist I think Adam Scott before Spieth.
 
What I'd like to see is more players with contracts limiting how many other endorsements they can have on their apparel. Obvious example Zack Johnson, I think his main sponsor gets lost in the clutter. I get that Nike guys have woodshed on everything, and UA guys have UA on everything but at least it's consistent.
 
Last edited:
YetiLooper said:
What I'd like to see is more players with contracts limiting how many other endorsements they can have on their apparel. Obvious example Zack Johnson, I think his main sponsor gets lost in the clutter. I get that Nike guys have woodshed on everything, and UA guys have UA on everything but at least it's consistent.
Click to expand...

so you want to limit an independent contractors ability to make money? So Spieth shouldn't be allowed to have an AT&T bag because Titleist sponsors his clubs and UA sponsors his clothing so that's the only money he can make outside of his tournament winnings?
 
Yes, I would. Undoubtedly Nike compensates their staff players additionally for having their clothing Nike only minus other endorsements... That's the contract said independent contractors agree to. Obviously Nike has more $$ to throw around. The Nike contract hasn't limited their players from endorsements on bags, or doing watch commercials. I didn't say I wanted to see a PGA rule limiting it, I would like to see endorsers write contracts up that way so their endorsement is more prominent... it's up to the player to agree to a contract.
 
YetiLooper said:
Yes, I would. Undoubtedly Nike compensates their staff players additionally for having their clothing Nike only minus other endorsements... That's the contract said independent contractors agree to. Obviously Nike has more $$ to throw around. The Nike contract hasn't limited their players from endorsements on bags, or doing watch commercials. I didn't say I wanted to see a PGA rule limiting it, I would like to see endorsers write contracts up that way so their endorsement is more prominent... it's up to the player to agree to a contract.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter where the limit comes from it's silly. How does limiting a contractor from making money make sense. It should be up to a person to determine what amount of money is tool much money. I would love to meet any person who says they are willimg to sign a contract that limits them to making x dollars and not a penny more...Let's take Rory, Tiger, Spieth and a lot of the other big names out of the picture. So a guy who has a Nike contract that pays $100k should sign a contract that states we pay you $100k so that's enough money and you can't go make any more money from anyone else because you have a contract with us.

edit: would you sign a contract with your company that stated you couldn't get a pay raise because you signed a letter stating your annual salary is x dollars and that should be enough for you to live on?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top