Sergio rejoins TaylorMade

[sailfishchris]

3 hours ago, smashdn said:

Just out of curiosity, how many golfers do you really think take into account what clubs a pro golfer uses when they buy their own clubs?

Did anybody sell their TM clubs and go buy new Callaway clubs when Sergio went to them?  Will any of those dump the Callaway clubs and re-buy new TM clubs now that he is back?

 

Do you go buy TM irons because Tiger uses them or are we all pretty well in the know that Tiger has custom forgings with a TM stamp put on them?

 

And in case you weren't...

https://www.pgatour.com/long-form/2019/04/09/golf-clubs-equipment-through-the-years-driver-nike-tiger-woods-history-augusta-national-masters-tournament.html

Blasphemous Rumors You should be banned for such speak!  LOL!

[smashdn]

10 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

the pros are walking billboards. What’s the advertising/marketing value if Sergio is in contention on Sunday and the TaylorMade logo on his hat is plastered on everyone’s television screen?

 

That is what I would like to know I guess.  Someone has to have quantified it along the way.  Maybe not here of course but in some marketing think tank.

 

I couldn't tell you what brand was on KH Lee's hat.  I know he uses [some] Callaway clubs but I am not going to run out and buy them because he won.  Not anymore than I am going to go get TM clubs due to Tiger or Nike clubs when he was with Nike.

 

I might get on board that Tiger using Nike clubs legitimized that brand in the club business.  But the guys who are capable of playing clubs like TW was/is using I want to think are not swayed by what he plays.  I guess I would like to think better players and more educated (in golf) guys are smart enough to know they can't/shouldn't or just know enough to play what works for them and not let the marketing impact their decision.

[JayAreOhh924]

1 hour ago, straightshot7 said:

It’s the combination of everything.

 

the pros are walking billboards. What’s the advertising/marketing value if Sergio is in contention on Sunday and the TaylorMade logo on his hat is plastered on everyone’s television screen?

 

having 10+ top pros in your marketing “stable” starts to leave an impression on the viewer.

 

it doesn’t mean they will drop their current clubs.

 

but it might mean a 10-50% difference when they go to choose between similar brands.

 

and a consumer being influenced just enough to choose Taylormade over Callaway some percentage of the time might mean $100 million in additional revenue, For example 

 

i.e. it’s not a black and white monumental deal to sign Sergio. It’s the combination and long term influence of exposing people to the Taylormade brand thousands and thousands of times

 

Sergio is still a huge name though. Especially in Europe. He will pull more eye balls than a higher ranked no name. 

 

I agree with you here. I also question if a company departure has more effect than the signing. Like, for instance his PR team specifically making a statement about the TP5x.. do people go "oh the new callaway ball must be crap then!" and psychology starts process of elimination in their equipment decision? 

 

For instance, if Tiger dropped Bridgestone next year and TM's marketing ploy is "Tiger trusts the new TP5x." Do people go "oh man, bridgestone must be crap because even Tiger didnt like it!" ? 

 

 

[ebrasmus21]

Meh…

[indianagolf2]

2 hours ago, straightshot7 said:

It’s the combination of everything.

 

the pros are walking billboards. What’s the advertising/marketing value if Sergio is in contention on Sunday and the TaylorMade logo on his hat is plastered on everyone’s television screen?

 

having 10+ top pros in your marketing “stable” starts to leave an impression on the viewer.

 

it doesn’t mean they will drop their current clubs.

 

but it might mean a 10-50% difference when they go to choose between similar brands.

 

and a consumer being influenced just enough to choose Taylormade over Callaway some percentage of the time might mean $100 million in additional revenue, For example 

 

i.e. it’s not a black and white monumental deal to sign Sergio. It’s the combination and long term influence of exposing people to the Taylormade brand thousands and thousands of times

 

Sergio is still a huge name though. Especially in Europe. He will pull more eye balls than a higher ranked no name. 

So very well said. 

[CCTxGolf]

I will admit that certain pros playing certain clubs do help grab my attention toward that brand. Does not necessarily end with me buying it but it gets me in the hitting bay or practice green with it in hand for sure. Case in point DJ’s spyder. Also hit and bought 714  Ap2’s cause of Jordan. The i210s with all their recent tour success got me thinking too. I also try shafts based on certain pros having success 😂 

 

so yes I think certain players move the needle to an extent. And I’m pretty educated on gear. I really bet it works on people new to golf just buying off the rack

 

 

[dubbelbogey]

This is much less about what any individual player uses.

 

Instead, what the game seems to be is to create as much of a presence as possible. It's having as many players as possible using your stuff and wearing your logos. It's best to get those players that get the most TV coverage - those are usually the top players plus the select set that have a lot of charisma, even if they're not really in the top-tier. Even today, they put Sergio on the screen a lot even when he's not playing well. 

 

If you can get a stable of big stars, and then back that up with dozens of bags and headcovers among the 2nd and 3rd tier PGA Tour players, you've established that presence.

 

With TM and Callaway and Titleist "everywhere" - it starts to sink in with the market (i.e the customers) that these are the main brands that the best golfers use. It's almost like in the early computer days, nobody got fired for buying IBM. Everybody else plays for what's leftover.

 

 

 

 

[dalehead]

13 hours ago, No_Catchy_Nickname said:

 

Seemed like a little dig at the Callaway golf ball there.

This little dig is nothing compared to the fact that Callaway can’t even get all of their staffers to play the ball.

[dalehead]

10 hours ago, smashdn said:

Just out of curiosity, how many golfers do you really think take into account what clubs a pro golfer uses when they buy their own clubs?

Did anybody sell their TM clubs and go buy new Callaway clubs when Sergio went to them?  Will any of those dump the Callaway clubs and re-buy new TM clubs now that he is back?

 

Do you go buy TM irons because Tiger uses them or are we all pretty well in the know that Tiger has custom forgings with a TM stamp put on them?

 

And in case you weren't...

https://www.pgatour.com/long-form/2019/04/09/golf-clubs-equipment-through-the-years-driver-nike-tiger-woods-history-augusta-national-masters-tournament.html

Well if you are right that golfers don’t take what the pros play into account when buying equipment, that means the management of golf companies are a bunch of idiots for giving multi million dollar contracts out with no ROI.

[Greg_B]

17 hours ago, smashdn said:

Just out of curiosity, how many golfers do you really think take into account what clubs a pro golfer uses when they buy their own clubs?

 

Do you go buy TM irons because Tiger uses them or are we all pretty well in the know that Tiger has custom forgings with a TM stamp put on them?

 

 

I think you have to differentiate between the bulk of tour pro endorsements and TW. There is a segment of the TW fanbase that will follow him everywhere and buy whatever he says is good. Whether it actually is or not does not matter. This is the only reason why Nike Golf ever got off the ground. In the early days especially, it surely wasn't due to their equipment. As Phil M. said, it was often junk, but he was winning in spite of it, not because of it. And in a lot of cases, it wasn't Nike-manufacturred anyway, just restamped/rebranded products from other companies willing to play along. But the worshippers of TW all jumped on the Nike train with him for a while. It was a very strange phenomenon.

[jallen0119]

27 minutes ago, Greg_B said:

 

I think you have to differentiate between the bulk of tour pro endorsements and TW. There is a segment of the TW fanbase that will follow him everywhere and buy whatever he says is good. Whether it actually is or not does not matter. This is the only reason why Nike Golf ever got off the ground. In the early days especially, it surely wasn't due to their equipment. As Phil M. said, it was often junk, but he was winning in spite of it, not because of it. And in a lot of cases, it wasn't Nike-manufacturred anyway, just restamped/rebranded products from other companies willing to play along. But the worshippers of TW all jumped on the Nike train with him for a while. It was a very strange phenomenon.

Is that really just a TW (and his "worshippers") thing? How many people started buying old Ping Eye 2 wedges when Phil M. first did it? Look how popular one-length irons have become since Bryson D. arrived on tour. 

 

I remember Phil's "junk" comments, while he was playing for Titleist. Didn't he move to Callaway not long after that?

[Krt22]

I bet Rahm has FOMO. Did anyone else catch his TM/Cally gaff in the presser this week?

[ASN21]

11 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I bet Rahm has FOMO. Did anyone else catch his TM/Cally gaff in the presser this week?

Yeah I did haha

[Soloman1]

21 hours ago, Mustard_Tiger said:

 

I constantly see this argument on wrx. Everyone claims to not be influenced by endorsements. However, marketing is one of the most researched aspects of business. Endorsements are ubiquitous in the business world because they work. Businesses simply wouldn't pay (collectively) billions of dollars for endorsements if they did not increase sales in a meaningful way.

 

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of marketing lemmings in all industries. There's no double blind test to verify endorsements work enough to offset the costs. How much incremental sales are being booked vs cost? No one knows. But, if Company X is doing it, we have to do it too. Why? Because!

 

Plus, it's all tax deductible for the company. For example, companies pay for ads in PGA magazine that have zero return. Nothing, nada, zilch. They are not increasing sales at all, let alone in a meaningful way.

[smashdn]

12 hours ago, dalehead said:

Well if you are right that golfers don’t take what the pros play into account when buying equipment, that means the management of golf companies are a bunch of idiots for giving multi million dollar contracts out with no ROI.

 

I am not saying that it does or doesn't work (I am like you, I think it must to an extent) but I am reluctant to trust marketing people's numbers when they are at the same time using those numbers to sort of justify their existence.

 

"Of course signing Sergio and expanding our marketing campaign is a good idea.  Look at these numbers I can provide."

 

I have to do that stuff occasionally with my job to get things I want/need too.

 

I just find it odd it works is all.  I would think the majority of people who would be swayed by endorsement like this would not be capable of making use of the equipment he uses.  So, if they got equipment they could use, they might get the game improvement type iron from the brand that Sergio plays.  What's the point then?

 

Back to my Tiger analogy.  

You walk up on a guy at the range.

-"How you like those TM irons?"

-"They're great.  They are what Tiger plays."

-"You mean they are the brand he plays?"

-"Yeah, he plays TM irons like me."

-"Except not that model."

-"Yeah, he plays those custom made muscle back blades.  I can't hit those."

 

The guys that would come closest to using the actual equipment the pros are really using are either bright enough to know they aren't actually playing that stuff when they buy it off the rack or are not the least bit concerned because they only care what works for them and not what a tour pro is using.

 

Hopefully the guy at Edwin Watts can talk the guy coming in wanting Sergio's clubs into some clubs that actually work with his game.

Edited May 19, 2021 by smashdn

[NJBigFish22]

20 hours ago, straightshot7 said:

It’s the combination of everything.

 

the pros are walking billboards. What’s the advertising/marketing value if Sergio is in contention on Sunday and the TaylorMade logo on his hat is plastered on everyone’s television screen?

 

having 10+ top pros in your marketing “stable” starts to leave an impression on the viewer.

 

it doesn’t mean they will drop their current clubs.

 

but it might mean a 10-50% difference when they go to choose between similar brands.

 

and a consumer being influenced just enough to choose Taylormade over Callaway some percentage of the time might mean $100 million in additional revenue, For example 

 

i.e. it’s not a black and white monumental deal to sign Sergio. It’s the combination and long term influence of exposing people to the Taylormade brand thousands and thousands of times

 

Sergio is still a huge name though. Especially in Europe. He will pull more eye balls than a higher ranked no name. 

Exactly!  If I was on tour and never won a tournament, but I’m always in contention and on TV, I’m more valuable than someone who wins 1 time and misses the cut or finishes at the bottom.

[MUNIGRIT]

On 5/18/2021 at 8:19 AM, JayAreOhh924 said:

I just don't understand this. How do you let JDay and Rahmbo walk, but then turn around and re-sign Sergio? 

I do when you are flipping the business for your own profits. 

 

Roughly 4x money made back in just under 4 years.

Edited May 21, 2021 by MUNIGRIT

[PowerPlayer]

On 5/19/2021 at 11:45 AM, Soloman1 said:

 

 

There are a lot of marketing lemmings in all industries. There's no double blind test to verify endorsements work enough to offset the costs. How much incremental sales are being booked vs cost? No one knows. But, if Company X is doing it, we have to do it too. Why? Because!

 

Plus, it's all tax deductible for the company. For example, companies pay for ads in PGA magazine that have zero return. Nothing, nada, zilch. They are not increasing sales at all, let alone in a meaningful way.

I try to refrain from commenting on these topics as I don't care enough about them to hurt people's delicate sensibilities. But you have to admire when people are so unequivocally wrong but their pronouncements are so emphatically certain. 

 

So, I'll be brief:

 

1. There are ways to quantify what you claim "no one knows." The fact that you don't know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Marketing has become an incredibly complex semi-science that is drawing from a lot of different fields of study. Beyond that, you can do a cursory search on Google and find answers to this very same question. For instance, a study that has been thrown around here multiple times before: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228435410_Economic_Value_of_Celebrity_Endorsement_Tiger_Woods'_Impact_on_Sales_of_Nike_Golf_Balls. Or search how Apex Marketing arrives at this number: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/pga-championship-what-tiger-woods-win-in-2019-masters-means-for-nike.html.

 

2. Companies - or financially savvy people for that matter - never do anything because it's tax deductible. Why would you pay $1 to get, at best, $0.25 and in the process actively destroy value? 

 

There are some other nuggets of earth-shattering insight but they've been declared with such confidence that I'm starting to doubt my own sources.

[Soloman1]

 

 

The first citation is a paper from a couple of grad students looking back in time in an attempt to quantify the past with the effect of Tiger Woods on Nike golf ball sales. The conclusion was that the incremental sales was not equal to the endorsement money paid.

 

They failed to expand on the fact that Tiger leaving Titlest for Nike had a minimal effect on Titleist golf ball sales. They failed to recognize that if his endorsement was so important to sales, why didn't sales at Titlest tank equal to the sales of the Nike ball?

 

Nike was a new ball and sales had nowhere to go than up and all other brands took small hits in sales from Nike taking a small market share (<10% total).

 

This paper was ironically a post mortem. Apparently I'm a moron, but the Tiger Woods' impact with Nike was so successful after the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on an endorsement deals that Nike quit the golf business completely.

 

The other source referring only to Tiger Woods endorsements again. Apex Marketing "estimations" are by a company that sells marketing estimations based on how many seconds a product is on TV. Ain't no data. Just happy numbers to get brig brain marketing types to buy more endorsement and placement ads.

 

There's Tiger, then there's everyone else.

 

Mark King (Do you know who he is?) famously said that Tiger did nothing to add to product sales in golf. He filled his own pockets, but not the pockets of manufacturers.

 

OK, well, thanks for the insults.