Earlier this year, Wilson launched a new golf ball called Staff Model, complete with what they called a Baller Box subscription. Within just a few short days, the subscription service was scrapped, but the Staff Model golf ball remained their current premium product in line.
Today, they are launching an extension to that line with the Staff Model R. Conjuring up images of Gordon Ramsay, R stands for RAW! Yes, that’s right, Raw golf balls. You are probably asking yourself “why”, so we will get to that before getting into the nuts and bolts of the product.
“The painting process can frequently result in balls with poor, uneven paint coverage and pooling of paint in these shallow dimples,” said Frank Simonutti, Global Director of Golf Ball Innovation. “This can significantly affect the trajectory and the directional stability of the flight of the ball. By eliminating the paint, we were able to eliminate all of the short comings attributed to the paint process used on all golf balls.“
According to Bob Thurman, VP of Wilson Labs, current tour golf balls on the market can result in offline drift as much as +/- 25 feet from 200 yards, based on their internal testing. Under a black light he says it is very easy to observe the inconsistencies and paint pooling in the dimples. Wilson added the imagery to the front of the box as seen below.
Wait what? Is this true? Now I have to keep black lights away from hotel rooms I am staying in and my golf ball stash? This brings up a lot of questions, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Wilson Labs is absolutely correct. That paint is causing drift upwards of 25 feet. What does this say about their entire ball line, including the Staff Model released earlier this year?
Whether true or not, taking them on face value, it makes a little bit of sense. Dimple designs are created at a depth and configuration for aerodynamics. Introducing another layer on top of the thin urethane layer will could alter consistency. With that said, it is done for a number of reasons, including aesthetics.
Nobody likes playing a scuffed up golf ball. Well, paint is a big part of that. UV stability, resistance to staining and overall looks come from that application. The Staff Model R is not going to have that. In fact, you should expect it to stain, discolor and look pretty “pre-owned” after a short bit of play. Will a level of consistency change that way of thinking for you?
If you have made it this far, you are probably ready to hear about the Staff Model R and what makes it unique in terms of tech. Nothing. Well, not nothing as far as the golf ball performance, Staff Model is a very good golf ball. Nothing as far as it being new or different in terms of construction from that ball. The Staff Model R is the Staff Model, minus paint. Thinking about Gordon Ramsay again…”It’s Effin Raw”!
The new Staff Model R golf ball will hit Wilson.com and select retailers starting today for $50 a dozen. Joining the Staff Model as two of the higher priced golf balls on the market. Have you seen inconsistencies in the current product you choose making you want to give this a shot? Give us your thoughts below.
Update: Wilson has updated the pricing to $45. $50 was an error and that both Staff Model golf balls will be priced the same.
Same price as Staff Model
I’m more and more convinced that paying $40 a dozen of golf balls is not in my best interest.
I’m just confused at why this is a thing.
We talk about the staining in the article. It will definitely occur. How much it bothers you is subjective I believe.
As mentioned in the article, you do have to question the messaging. The angle is rather good in terms of creating curiosity. Yet the messaging is about launching two balls available now, both called Staff Model and priced the same. One painted and one not. Yet the entire messaging is about how paint can make a ball fly offline.
Should have just called these Wilson Pro R.
The idea that paint adds to directional dispersion is a really strained effort to create buzz and differentiation among the highest performing of top of the market balls.
Awful messaging. Why would anyone buy the standard model now after they claim that in their testing the paint made the ball fly offline almost 10 yards on a 200 yard shot? Who the hell is running the joint over there at Wilson?
If they did this for their entire line of golf balls I might be more inclined to think…ok maybe there is something to this and give it a try. They are basically saying their other balls aren’t as good because they have paint on them
$50 a dozen for a ball that’s going to look like you pulled it out of the woods after some play…? No Wilson, No…
That is the million dollar question.
I totally agree here. Make the entire line Raw and put the notice out that paint is bad for dispersion. Whether true or not, that is a real differentiator and brings curiosity.
Someone in our office said the exact same thing
I think that’s the other thing that jumped out at me. You’re essentially telling us the “flaw” in your other offering that happens to be positioned at the same price point.
Eh?
Why is this ball $50 a dozen?
Who green lit this?
Is it the same person that came up with the Baller Box?
Is this person still employed, if so, why?
Wilson feels like ‘99- ‘00 WCW every match has a gimmick, and trash finishes.
Baller Box on a Pole Match
They need to drop the gimmicks, make quality product, at a low price point (at first). Gain traction, then raise margin.
See the OG Chromesoft as the model.
What I ultimately get out of this marketing is that playing a W/S painted ball is probably a bad idea. And since there’s no way I’d pay 50 bucks for a dozen of their Raw balls, I should probably be looking elsewhere. Now I want to know which urethane ball has the best painted finish. By their own admission it’s apparently not W/S. Unintended consequences of a poorly thought out marketing plan.
If they offered this at say $35 I would actually be interested in trying it out of curiosity. $50 is just silly. Shouldn’t it cost less by using less material?
I blame the millennials and their Instagram posts of old yellowed golf balls they find in their grandpa’s old bag in the attic.
First off, at $50 a dozen, I don’t see many people interested.
Secondly, as JB mentioned in the article & on Twitter, why sell two balls under the same line, one with paint, and one without while explaining that paint is bad.
The entire thing screams desperation, and I am not sure this is going to win anyone over.
If this is warranted, all balls should have been done, and brought the curiosity that the industry has an "aesthetic problem".
I think their lower end balls would surprise you how well they sell. For a couple of years (before SuperSoft), they were the number 1 selling two piece. That was a very different communications regime at the company though.
I was going to say. Duo Soft was a pretty good seller.
This is where I disagree a bit.
If Wilson Golf had come out and said the golf industry has been lying to you. Like Fashion Week they have an "Aesthetics Issue". Paint makes balls lose precision, for the sake of looks.
Then announce all of their balls will be paint free and if you learn to accept the imperfections, you will have better precision and control.
In my opinion that message brings curiosity.
Not necessarily. It’s not always true, but manufacturing processes are usually optimized for cost. The alternatives are more expensive. I’m old enough that I worked for an oil company in the 70s. I was a part of their Speakers’ Bureau, and the number 1 question I got at the Rotary Club lunches was, " Why is unleaded gasoline more expensive when you’re taking something out of it?" The answer is that the lead compound boosted octane (for antiknock) and provided some valve train benefits. The materials used to do those things in unleaded were more expensive than the lead compound they replaced.
Wilson could require a different urethane cover formulation to appear whiter in unpainted form. That could be more costly.
I really think they cull the R balls from the production runs – the best looking unfinished balls become Rs. That adds cost.
The 25 feet number is interesting, but I wonder
All that said, these are out of my purchasing plans based on cost, color, and discoloration. It will be interesting to see how these sell.