Titleist Marketing - or lack there of

[rakke17]

Why does Titleist continue to lose players?

First let me start off by saying I am a huge Titleist equipment fan. I have played Titleist irons (962's & 735's) for the past decade and still am searching for a driver as solid feeling as my old 975D. That said ...

Has Titleist given up completely on marketing their non-ball products? With the recent loss of Els I am wondering who the next big name to leave Titleist will be. Last year they lost Glover - I know, no big loss but he was a good young player at the time. Obvious past big names include Mickelson, Woods, etc. I guess my real question is why do they continue to fight paying the players what they are worth when other companies (Callaway, Taylormade, Nike) will step up to the plate?

My only guess is that they truly are a ball company, and think of their equipment as an afterthought. Or maybe they feel the benefit of signing big name players doesn't exist, and that the general public will make an educated decision on the best equipment, not the most popular. With advertising maxims like "sex sells" though, I think that is a bad assumption to make.

I don't intend for this to be a "Callaway/Taylormade/Nike/Titleist" equipment bashing post. I just want to get others thoughts why Titleist continues to lose players to other manufacturers.

Thanks for your comments.

[pingshack22]

Trend will continue ! Adam Scott is next.

[oregongolf]

i think they're banking on the 907 series to be pretty hot.

 

i haven't had a chance to hit one yet, so that's definitely a priority.

 

they'll come bank around -- it's a huge company.

[finalist]

They remind me of the Oakland A's. They get the good players while they're young, but don't hold on to them when it's time to get paid.

 

Anyone know of any top PGA names in need of a contract soon?

[spk74]

What do you mean? They've got O'Meara and Love III.

 

I respect Titleist for not paying huge amounts to retain star players...just like I respect the Steelers for not paying paying Cowher 8 million just because the Seahawks pay Holmgren that much. In golf equipment (and professional football) some organizations are built on record-breaking contracts for high-profile people. Other organizations are more down to earth.

 

Tiger and Phil switched for contract money, obviously. Certainly there are people who would play the equipment that Tiger or Phil play just for the sake of it. I don't think Titleist's business is built on exploiting those customers.

[obobgolf]

It's hard to think of the rash of signings/leavings as being accidental. Most corporations think of brand protection/promotion and image management as being not only strategic but implicit in the way they think about doing business. To hazard a guess, I suspect that Titleist feels as though they have signficant pull in terms of how the "average" golfer views their equipment. By that I mean that the Titleist brand has always represented the "better player" regardless of what particular touring pro is or is not playing their equipment.

 

Said another way, most forward thinking corporations don't rely on circumstance or accidents to develop their marketing/brand management strategies. Titleist wanted Ernie and Phil to leave just as much as they wanted to leave, I suspect. Just my .02

[TexasAg]

Titleist puts it's brand first. Unlike Callaway or Nike, they do not want the brand to become linked to a specific player. As such, they don't pay the kind of money that other brands will come up with to sign big name players. I suspect that they would also rather have 50 journeyment tour pro's playing their equipment than one Tiger or Phil.

[rgk5]

For a lighter take, I think it is because they have the most boring , uninteresting players :) as a group on Tour. Some are very nice guys but who would want to drink beer with Jay Haas, Billy Mayfair, and Tom Pernice? ;)

[kkhere]

They remind me of the Oakland A's. They get the good players while they're young, but don't hold on to them when it's time to get paid.

 

Anyone know of any top PGA names in need of a contract soon?

 

wow excellent comparison with the A's. That is right on

[conan007]

I have to disagree with the people that say Titleist is for the better player, or a specific market within the golf industry. Money drives the economy, whether you like it or not. The idea of letting Tiger go, in part by Titleist was a terrible mistake. Not a tragic, but not a not so smart decision. Numbers indicate the success that Tiger alone brought to Nike. Not only is Tiger a spokesperson, but also the image of the entire Golf Division for Nike. That goes to show that Tiger sells, not just the TW brand but every piece of golf equipment that carries the swoosh sign on it. IMO Titleist did not know what to do with such a great asset, and decided to only focus n something else. Consequently, not only did they lose a share of the market --however small it is-- but also the opportunity to sell their product to a different market. The faster the company grows the more money it can be put on research and development something that companies like TM, Nike, or Callaway already do.

[Warszawa]

The message Titleist is sending us is that they're more interested in producing quality products, not promoting them. Whether this is genuine or some weird marketing stratergy is for you to decide.

[Belman]

As a marketing guy myself, I would say that Titleist appears to have a very firm grasp of their strategy and their financials. A company uses "celebrity" endorsements typically to improve the credibility of the brand with its target customer group. There are other marketing techniques, too. You can have ads that focus on the product (car companies do this a lot) or ads that focus on a particular customer benefit (think whiter teeth for toothpaste).

 

A good marketing department will know from customer surveys and focus groups just which levers they want/need to pull to achieve their goals. And you know within reason what an appropriate cost is for doing that.

 

So, putting myself in Titleist's shoes (ok, in a pair of Foot Joys), I would think that their marketing strategy is to focus on the knowledgeable golfer. These people probably won't buy sticks just because Player X plays them. So we don't want to spend big money for player endorsements. On the other hand, the knowledgeable player wants at least some validation that their clubs are "pro" quality. So our strategy is probably to have a stable of credible pros using our equipment to ensure that. But we don't want to pay crazy money for that. We fix our budget and work within it.

 

So when guys like Tiger, Ernie or Phil start getting big $ offers from other manufacturers, we aren't necessarily going to match that.

 

Just my $0.02.

[rufus mangler]

It seems as though Nike would have given ANYTHING to get Tiger.

 

Titleist has never done that.

 

It's like telling your boss you have an opportunity to double your salary somewhere else. No matter how good you are, most bosses are going to shake your hand and say, "We'll miss you, good luck".

[Sixcat]

Why does everybody get so upset about who plays what on tour? PING, Mizuno and Titleist have been doing this for years. They place there products above the people representing them. It has been done in the business world for years, look at Toyota and Honda.

[leftiesonly]

Good points. I think of it this way. A few years ago Titleist was THE fish in a relatively small pond. When you think about their tour staff a few years ago it's amazing who they had at the same time. However, with Nike, Bridgestone, Callaway and TMAG becoming bigger players in the endorsement arena there is no way Titleist can keep the tour staff it once did. TMAG and Nike have far more money than Titleist ( I know ,they are owned by Fortune Brands, but it is not a sporting goods company). It also seems like Callaway has grown a money tree and is bolstering it's staff that used to be fairly sparse. Titliest is known for not giving away the farm to one player so when the other companies offer big bucks they tend to let the player go. Is this a smart marketing strategy? We will see. If they do not resign Adam Scott at the end of the year I think it will be a big deal. And you know the other companies will be offering the big bucks not just because he's young and a great player, it would really hurt Titleist's tour staff.

 

I also think the growth of Nike, Callaway, TMAG and Bridgestone as FULL LINE OEM's (clubs, balls and shoes) has made a significant impact on tour. They can now and do offer player's full line contracts.

Used to be these companies would supply the clubs but Titleist could get a number of their top players to play the Titleist ball. I always thought it was great marketing to see the guy with a different OEM on their hat hawking Titleist balls on TV. Now these OEM's have their guys playing their balls and if you play Titleist balls you are either a Titleist staffer or on the Ping, Cleveland, MacGreagor or Wilson staff. That's a big difference and I'm sure Titliest pays significantly more money out for guys to play their balls than in the past. I think this pressure to preserve their ball counts on the professional tours has created a situation where they really can't go out and throw around the big bucks at players. To protect their ball turf they have had to sacrifice signing the big fish to full line deals. This situation has been brewing for a few years but it now appears that it's reaching a head. Hopefully they will end up better off in the end.

[gjones77]

I have to agree with those who believe it is a smart move.

 

Titleist, as a brand, is extremely strong, when you ask a non golfer to name an equipment company Titleist will always be one of the most common names heard because it's built into society much like Coke is with soda.

 

When you say Nike, people think sneakers, Callaway, they'll say "Who?", but if you ask them who Titleist is, they'll say a golf company.

 

Titleist enjoys that brand awareness and doesn't need to spend a fortune to keep it going, don't forget, Titleist has been around a very long time and has always maintained it credibility and quality when many other companies have come along, spent a fortune of signing big names, and then disappeared a few years later (RAM, Lynx, and Spaulding to name a few).

 

Even MacGregor learned the hard way what happens when you let your brands image take a hit (clubs on the shelf at discount stores) it almost killed a once strong and proud company that was known for one thing, high end golf equipment that only the best played, now they're slowly but surely rebuilding that image, but once it goes it's hard to get back.

 

So from a business perspective Titleist is doing the right thing, sign young players and give them a contract when many won't, and if they make the PGA hope that loyalty to the company will help keep some of them, and those that stay take care of monetarily, those that keep looking for multi-million dollar contracts that become a financial burden, let them leave.

[hungrymarine]

I have to agree with those who believe it is a smart move.

 

Titleist, as a brand, is extremely strong, when you ask a non golfer to name an equipment company Titleist will always be one of the most common names heard because it's built into society much like Coke is with soda.

 

When you say Nike, people think sneakers, Callaway, they'll say "Who?", but if you ask them who Titleist is, they'll say a golf company.

 

Titleist enjoys that brand awareness and doesn't need to spend a fortune to keep it going, don't forget, Titleist has been around a very long time and has always maintained it credibility and quality when many other companies have come along, spent a fortune of signing big names, and then disappeared a few years later (RAM, Lynx, and Spaulding to name a few).

 

Even MacGregor learned the hard way what happens when you let your brands image take a hit (clubs on the shelf at discount stores) it almost killed a once strong and proud company that was known for one thing, high end golf equipment that only the best played, now they're slowly but surely rebuilding that image, but once it goes it's hard to get back.

 

So from a business perspective Titleist is doing the right thing, sign young players and give them a contract when many won't, and if they make the PGA hope that loyalty to the company will help keep some of them, and those that stay take care of monetarily, those that keep looking for multi-million dollar contracts that become a financial burden, let them leave.

 

 

I have to disagree with the statement that average golfers or laymen think of Titleist as a golf company. They think of Titleist as a ball company. Many of the people I play with or talk to didn't even know that Titleist made clubs. I seriously doubt that Titleist generates the same level of sales that TM, Callaway, or Ping does on equipment sales. I went to Dick's and Golfsmith the other day and they were selling out of the new FT-5 and FT-i drivers, but the Titleist rack was filled with clubs. However, they probably don't need to sell a lot of equipment to generate revenue due to their dominance in ball sales.

 

I think of all of the golf club manufacturers, Callaway and Ping have the best name recognition. Callaway due to the Big Bertha driver and Ping for the putters. These products were so unique at the time that they built these companies to the corporate giants they are today. I was talking to someone the other day at work about golf and he told a story about how a lot of guys at work were carrying around their shiny new Big Berthas years ago. It was so big at the time that every golfer had to get their hands on one.

 

I prefer Titleist clubs because they fit me, but do I think they make a superior product to everything else? I doubt it, and I think many of the other companies are leading the technology race. Titleist just introduced a "seamless" ball which has been on the market for several years.

 

Titleist has been around for years and developed brand loyalty, but they need to gain market share / brand visibility to lure new and young amateur golfers.

[golf-ccc]

I'm a marketing guy too and have 2 cts to share:

 

Companies act managin two concepts: profit and market share to acomplish their company objective.

 

In one hand you have Nike, who will sell the idea that "best performers (Jordan, Woods, Ronaldinho, etc) use Nike goods, therefore, you should use them too"...thats how they keep their market share and then profit, so, no matter how much Titleist offers Woods to stay in the company, Nike will always offer more, so there is no point in fighting that....can you imagine Nike Golf without Tiger behind?...Focus on Image.

 

On the other hand, Titleist has a great market share and that gives them a very good profit, specially in the balls industry selling @$45 a dozen of ball that don't cost to manufacture any more than a $16 DT SoLo dozen. So stay with the ones that are willing to stay because you have a great product and don't depend on anyone to support it.....and still making big money. Focus on Product/profit. You dont see a new driver unless its much better than the predecesor.

 

Callaway is a follower, trying to lean on a big name as any other brand to sponsor trying to make thier profit by selling more clubs and then attacking the improvement sector wich is the fattest of the golf industry....just like Taylor Made, always new clubs, always new things, but not much of great improvement from one model to the other. Focus on Volume.

 

So Titleis is loosing big names in the marketing arena? I don't think so, they are a serius golfers company and want to keep it that way. I would not set up my whole strategy behing one man.....what if he dies? or ends up in drugs? I mean, too many things can happen to anyone to create an strategy on one guy....would you?

[golf-ccc]

I'm kind of suspicius on always renewing brands like Nike, Call and TM, because they don't focus on the product. Big volume and lowest manufacturing costs (China).

 

Instead I'm allways more atracted to brands like Mizuno, Bridgestone or Sonartec that will break their backs to offer you a more club with improved performance. Get more of your club.

 

Don't like the idea of paying $100 extra for the "draw" paiting next to the R7 and another $100 for the draw XD version and $300 extras for the TP logo in the shaft.....c'mmon!!!!

 

BTW there isn't a XD version....but was probably considered.

[Night train]

Titleist will continue to be very successful as long as they have the dominant share of the premium ball market, as mentioned the profits are huge. Pro V1's cost less to produce than the old wound balatas........and sell for far more. It's a cash cow that must be protected at all cost. That's why they are smarter to spend their money freely to keep people playing their golf balls on tour........it's a far better investment than superstar contracts.

 

Callaway would be better off without Phil and Ernie and offering BIG money for ball usage on tour. Selling golf balls is far more profitable than selling clubs.

[sergizmo]

Titleist seems to concentrate more on the grass-roots level. Almost every teaching pro I've taken lessons from has a Titleist bag full of Titleist clubs. IMO this is a smart move. They market themselves to good players and golfers looking to become good players. This demographic is very likely to take lessons in the name of improving their game; more than a few of them will be influenced by what their pro plays.

[Big Ben]

Very insightful thread; I agree with most on many levels. Titleist is the industry giant; in no way do they feel at a loss if a tour player signs a new deal. Titleist recognized many years ago that they will always be the "players" choice and brand loyalty for them is established right there. Behind the boardroom doors I bet they would all admit that they are a ball company first. I would love for someone to post yearend revenue comparisons between Titleist and everyone else. It wouldn't surprise me to see that they are as large as all of the rest combined.

[drpino]

as a previous marketer, i'm in full agreement with the two "marketer" posts above.

 

in my opinion, Titleist tends to focus more on strategic marketing, customer retention, upselling and cross-selling. whereas TM, Callaway, Nike, etc. focus (and spend more) on brand marketing, new customer acquisition and sales volume.

 

titleist has a long, entrenched history in the game of golf. they support the grassroots movements and amateur golf in an attempt to plant the seed early and develop loyal/repeat customers.

 

Callaway, Nike, TM, etc. are "relatively" new and are focusing more on brand and operational marketing (thus huge ad budgets, player sponsorships, high visibility initiatives, etc.).

 

Titleist would rather spend $50MM on 1000 different amateurs, non-superstar players and other more "grassroots" marketing efforts to the end result of enhancing and securing their brand presence. the clubs and non-ball equipment sales will come if the brand is firmly established and the public perception of the company, its customer service and product quality meet and exceed expectations.

 

Remember, pro tour staff serves only 2 purposes - research & development and advertising. I think Titleist would rather have 1000 staffers with broader feedback and greater overall market share at EVERY level of golf than 10 superstars and a fraction of the feedback, insight and recommendation with visibility only on weekends on major network television.

 

Titleist = total brand marketing with strategic upselling and cross-selling

TM, Nike, Callaway, etc. = direct marketing through advertising, volume and in-your-face visibility.

 

why do you think TM and Callaway release new products every six weeks?

 

Tiger Woods is bigger than any brand - he is his own brand. Titleist doesn't see (or want) any single or few players as being bigger than their brand.

[3whacker]

in the world of golf TITLEIST is the 800 lb gorilla, just like Sony is in electronics, and Toyota is in autos...they look at the big pix. they have Foot Joy , Pro V1. Scotty Cameron , Vokey wedges all are # 1 on the Darrell survey of WITB on the pro tours...I think they're happy with those results.. even when Tiger was with them those were MP-14s in the bag with the towel covering them...

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

Although I am not in marketing, Titleist's strategy is as follows:

 

Will the amount we spend for marketing get u back what we want in the long run?

 

Nope if you keep all the high profile guys, heck, TW JUST MIGHT BE, bigger than the game of golf itself.

[majors34]

I'm kind of suspicius on always renewing brands like Nike, Call and TM, because they don't focus on the product. Big volume and lowest manufacturing costs (China).

 

Instead I'm allways more atracted to brands like Mizuno, Bridgestone or Sonartec that will break their backs to offer you a more club with improved performance. Get more of your club.

 

Don't like the idea of paying $100 extra for the "draw" paiting next to the R7 and another $100 for the draw XD version and $300 extras for the TP logo in the shaft.....c'mmon!!!!

 

BTW there isn't a XD version....but was probably considered.

 

 

I couldn't agree more! I've never understood how a certain company can only offer square face "players" drivers with decent shafts for $800. If you get the $399 model, you get a closed face and whippy shaft, unless you pay an upcharge for a shaft that titleist offers at no upcharge. On the other hand, if you are a good player you can buy anything in Titleist line and know that it will have a square face and quality shaft and that the paint on the sole won't wear off after a few range sessions. You dont' even have to pay $800 for it either.

[dansrixon]

Good points. I think of it this way. A few years ago Titleist was THE fish in a relatively small pond. When you think about their tour staff a few years ago it's amazing who they had at the same time. However, with Nike, Bridgestone, Callaway and TMAG becoming bigger players in the endorsement arena there is no way Titleist can keep the tour staff it once did. TMAG and Nike have far more money than Titleist ( I know ,they are owned by Fortune Brands, but it is not a sporting goods company). It also seems like Callaway has grown a money tree and is bolstering it's staff that used to be fairly sparse. Titliest is known for not giving away the farm to one player so when the other companies offer big bucks they tend to let the player go. Is this a smart marketing strategy? We will see. If they do not resign Adam Scott at the end of the year I think it will be a big deal. And you know the other companies will be offering the big bucks not just because he's young and a great player, it would really hurt Titleist's tour staff.

 

I also think the growth of Nike, Callaway, TMAG and Bridgestone as FULL LINE OEM's (clubs, balls and shoes) has made a significant impact on tour. They can now and do offer player's full line contracts.

Used to be these companies would supply the clubs but Titleist could get a number of their top players to play the Titleist ball. I always thought it was great marketing to see the guy with a different OEM on their hat hawking Titleist balls on TV. Now these OEM's have their guys playing their balls and if you play Titleist balls you are either a Titleist staffer or on the Ping, Cleveland, MacGreagor or Wilson staff. That's a big difference and I'm sure Titliest pays significantly more money out for guys to play their balls than in the past. I think this pressure to preserve their ball counts on the professional tours has created a situation where they really can't go out and throw around the big bucks at players. To protect their ball turf they have had to sacrifice signing the big fish to full line deals. This situation has been brewing for a few years but it now appears that it's reaching a head. Hopefully they will end up better off in the end.

 

 

Good point...think about this...Srixon picked up Furyk last year from Callaway (Strata/Ben Hogan) and Stenson this year....that opens up alot of budget for Callaway when to top 15 (now top 5) players are off your payroll.

[title]

The reason that Titleist has been losing players is because they have to make room for George Lopez in the Acushnet family.

[trossignol]

in the world of golf TITLEIST is the 800 lb gorilla, just like Sony is in electronics, and Toyota is in autos...they look at the big pix. they have Foot Joy , Pro V1. Scotty Cameron , Vokey wedges all are # 1 on the Darrell survey of WITB on the pro tours...I think they're happy with those results.. even when Tiger was with them those were MP-14s in the bag with the towel covering them...

 

I think this post is very good. The only part I would change is Acushnet for Titleist. Titleist is just one of the spokes in this giant wheel. As long as Titleist is the number one ball in golf Acushnet will sign and release players like I change my socks. I do not think they care who is on staff with them. They are the most frugal golf company in existence. They give very little away. That being said their gear is number one or two in almost every survey.

[StaffBag]

First let me start off by saying I am a huge Titleist equipment fan. I have played Titleist irons (962's & 735's) for the past decade and still am searching for a driver as solid feeling as my old 975D. That said ...

 

Has Titleist given up completely on marketing their non-ball products? With the recent loss of Els I am wondering who the next big name to leave Titleist will be. Last year they lost Glover - I know, no big loss but he was a good young player at the time. Obvious past big names include Mickelson, Woods, etc. I guess my real question is why do they continue to fight paying the players what they are worth when other companies (Callaway, Taylormade, Nike) will step up to the plate?

 

My only guess is that they truly are a ball company, and think of their equipment as an afterthought. Or maybe they feel the benefit of signing big name players doesn't exist, and that the general public will make an educated decision on the best equipment, not the most popular. With advertising maxims like "sex sells" though, I think that is a bad assumption to make.

 

I don't intend for this to be a "Callaway/Taylormade/Nike/Titleist" equipment bashing post. I just want to get others thoughts why Titleist continues to lose players to other manufacturers.

Thanks for your comments.

 

 

True, they have always been mostly a ball company that has offered clubs. Most of the designs for a while about 10 to 15 years ago were HORRIBLE and worthless!

 

Titleist has always looked to be a green-grass, grass-roots sort of company. They like to spread the wealth as far as they can. That means they payout a lot of money, but it is spread so thinly that not any one particular player is going to be making Taylor Made, Callaway, or Nike type endorsement money. Sure, they currently have a small stable of big name players (DLIII, A Scott, Camillo, etc.); however, Titleist is more reliant on incentive based pay scales than most companies. They hand out a BUNCH of money every year in Staff product to local PGA Professionals on Advisory Staff (I'm one) and they have incentive pay scales even for club pros!

 

The fact that "star-power" players move-on from Titleist (like Mickelson, and Els) is purely because they believe that THEY are worth more money. That may be true, but Titleist is about the BRAND, not the INDIVIDUAL player! They won't match many of the deals the other companies have to steal away some of thier staff players, but Titleist DOES value (and reward) LOYALTY! To Titleist the brand name and the product image is more important than having player "X" on thier staff. Sure, they would love to have a stable of all the superstars, but it isn't possible. Titleist believes that the large amount of people who use the product speaks for itself... some even using it w/o getting paid more than some incentive based pay scale!

 

Also, if they did pay out all that money, like Taylor Made, Callaway, Nike, etc. to get a huge stable of superstars, they wouldn't have enough money left over in the end for all that they do.

 

It's all about perspective.