Ping/Prammanasudh split based on principles

[golfdigest]

BOMB: Just prior to last week’s Safeway International, Stacy Prammanasudh and her equipment sponsor, Ping, parted ways and Prammanasudh played the event with just one Ping club in her bag (her Rapture driver). A new set of Tour Edge Exotics irons as well as TaylorMade wedges and putter were pressed into service.

The reason for the split? Prammanasudh—a Thai-American—signed an endorsement deal with Singha Beer and Ping’s company policy does not allow for any alcohol-related logos on their staff bags. It’s unclear as to whether Prammanasudh knew of this before inking the pact with Singha, but regardless, I give the Solheims and Ping a big, healthy round of applause. Not because I don’t like Prammanasudh. The two times I’ve spoken to her she has been nothing short of cooperative and pleasant and she is a fine player. Not because I have anything against booze, as I personally enjoy a lovely beverage as much as the next person. No, my admiration comes because I find it absolutely refreshing that a business entity simply did not sell out its principles for a change.

Make no mistake. Prammanasudh is an asset. She’s currently 15th on the Rolex Rankings. But Ping has a policy, they’re sticking to it and I say good for them. And if Prammanasudh did not know of the policy, I don’t blame her as much as I would her agent. After all, it’s Sports Agent 101 that prior to signing any new deal, the agent needs to know how it might impact existing contracts.

So to Ping I raise my glass of Diet Coke and say thanks for reminding us that you can still find the word “principles†in the dictionary of today’s sports world. It’s a word found far too little by far too few these days.

View the full article

[phil75070]

I really like Stacy Prammanasudh and I hope any switch in equipment doesn't hurt her game, but good for Ping for sticking to their guns.

[wedgetoafoot]

If she didn't know or the agent didn't know I would be shocked. As for following policy, that sounds like something I would expect from the DMV. If it was really worth it to lose this player over red tape, then good, otherwise, time to look at the benefits of such a rule and weigh the rule's importance to the core of the brand.

[TheCapedAvenger]

I like beer a lot more than I like ping, so at least she ended up on the right side of the line.

[abewley]

ping won't anything by her not playing their clubs... lets hope its the same for her.

[withdrew]

Couldn't she just have the beer logo on a patch or embroidered on her shirt/collar/visor/hat?

 

Seems weird. I agree with "sticking to guns" and I know Ping has always been a solid company, but couldn't they have just warned her? "Remove logo or contract is void..." Maybe that's what happened and Stacy stuck to her guns...

 

Did Ping have a problem with Angel Cabrera puffing away cancer-sticks at the U.S. Open, then hamming it up on camera and pointing at his PING hat in the tent while he awaited victory?

 

Doesn't seem very consistent if you ask me.

 

Perhaps there are deeper issues?

[mat562]

Strange decision.

 

I can't see the logic in having a 'non-alcoholic' clause in a contract. I doubt many people will be swayed into abusing alcohol because they've seen a logo on a golf pro's bag for a particular beer brand.

 

Sandy Lyle was always a favorite of mine as an impressionable teenager but the 'Ballantynes Scotch Whisky' logo on his bag didn't cause me to mimic Oliver Reed as a young adult. Similarly, big Greg Norman fan as I am/was, the McDonald's logo on his shirt never led me to a life of Big Mac-fuelled obesity...

 

Yet another extension of the Nanny State protecting me from myself I suppose. Thanks Mr Solheim... :cheesy:

[ktbfsu]

Ping and Stacy are getting more pop from the sponsorship pull than they ever would have gotten from allowing the deal to continue notwithstanding the beer sponsorship. there are no losers here - not stacy, not ping and not the beer company.

[withdrew]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

[HipCheck]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! :cheesy:

[withdrew]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! :cheesy:

 

HC, that's an OUTSTANDING avatar!

[Seve424]

You know if Bubba Watson had a couple of Singhas he probably wouldn't be trying to fight Steve Elkington.

[HipCheck]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! :cheesy:

 

HC, that's an OUTSTANDING avatar!

 

 

Hey thanks. We were toying around with some hat/shirt designs. That's where it came from.

[withdrew]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! ;)

 

HC, that's an OUTSTANDING avatar!

 

 

Hey thanks. We were toying around with some hat/shirt designs. That's where it came from.

If that logo was on a shirt/hat I'd scoop that up in a second!

[drpino]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! ;)

nope....Ping will not budge on this policy...no matter who the player is.

[HeadonaStick]

Strange decision.

 

I can't see the logic in having a 'non-alcoholic' clause in a contract. I doubt many people will be swayed into abusing alcohol because they've seen a logo on a golf pro's bag for a particular beer brand.

 

Sandy Lyle was always a favorite of mine as an impressionable teenager but the 'Ballantynes Scotch Whisky' logo on his bag didn't cause me to mimic Oliver Reed as a young adult. Similarly, big Greg Norman fan as I am/was, the McDonald's logo on his shirt never led me to a life of Big Mac-fuelled obesity...

 

Yet another extension of the Nanny State protecting me from myself I suppose. Thanks Mr Solheim... ;)

Two things:

 

It isn't the "Nanny State" here or even an extension of it, it is a privately owned company whose ownership has a standard they have set. It really doesn't matter why they have such a policy, it is theirs to have or dispose of... they chose to keep it. It would be entirely different if the state imposed such a rule (like not allowing cigarette adverts in motorsports for example). The state has no right to protect me from me, in this we agree 100% but the Solheims do have the right to refuse to support something to which they are personally opposed.

 

That said, if you need a reason for such a policy, here you go:

 

 

 

 

[mat562]

I see your point, but there's a world of difference between something like the Daly shots above that may well reflect badly on a sponsor, and a small unobtrusive logo on a bag or shirt that promotes an alcoholic beverage. If I were Daly's sponsor it would be his attitude and behaviour on the course that would be the issues - not a logo on his bag.

 

I don't agree that it's a company's place to dictate what's acceptable sponsorship and what's not - but then again I haven't got anyone from Ping beating at my door with a contract for me to sign so it's immaterial.

 

I actually like Ping as company. I think their products and customer service are absolutely top notch (probably largely due to the family-owned nature of the business) and as a junior golfer Ping were very supportive to me and many others, but I'm not in agreement with having someone else's views on a particular matter forced on me as a player and endorser of their products. It's a different state of affairs to state-sponsored meddling though, since I don't have to sign a contract with Ping and I'm free as a pro to go elsewhere if I were to so choose. If I differ from John Solheim's views for whatever reason, I can sign with Brand X.

 

The fact is, if that's the company line then so be it.

 

As an aside, I can't believe that Prammanasudh (or her manager) wouldn't be aware of the clause prior to signing with the beverage company, so it strikes me as odd that she signed - assuming, of course that her contract still has time to run with Ping.

[withdrew]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! ;)

nope....Ping will not budge on this policy...no matter who the player is.

 

And you know this because....?

 

There's a big difference between dropping Stacy Prammanasudh and Lorena Ochoa or say Angel Cabrera or Chris DiMarco...I'd venture to say that 7 or 8 out of 10 weekend golfers have never even heard of Stacy Pramanasudh, so by Ping "enforcing" their policy with her, it's not a huge deal to Ping. I'd love to see if they'd flat-out dump Mark Calcavecchia if he wanted to sign with Johnny Walker and get a logo stitched on his bag.

 

I could be dead wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time), but I just have a feeling that they could or would work out a compromise with certain staff members.

[drpino]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! ;)

nope....Ping will not budge on this policy...no matter who the player is.

 

And you know this because....?

 

There's a big difference between dropping Stacy Prammanasudh and Lorena Ochoa or say Angel Cabrera or Chris DiMarco...I'd venture to say that 7 or 8 out of 10 weekend golfers have never even heard of Stacy Pramanasudh, so by Ping "enforcing" their policy with her, it's not a huge deal to Ping. I'd love to see if they'd flat-out dump Mark Calcavecchia if he wanted to sign with Johnny Walker and get a logo stitched on his bag.

 

I could be dead wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time), but I just have a feeling that they could or would work out a compromise with certain staff members.

I know this for a fact because I was present when Chance Cozby, Director of Tour Operations for Ping, was specifically asked if they would ever consider being flexible with this policy for a top ranked player and he said no they would not. I also heard this from John Solheim in person during a round-table discussion with the top executives at Ping.

 

Fact is, I don't even agree with the policy but respect a company that's willing to stand behind its principles. I do agree with Headonastick that it's completely within a privately owned company's right to refuse financial sponsorship and brand affiliation with a player who has a sponsorship and/or affiliation with an alcoholic beverage brand - just like we always say about brands that players choose...it's their money, they can do what they want with it.

[HeadonaStick]

I see your point, but there's a world of difference between something like the Daly shots above that may well reflect badly on a sponsor, and a small unobtrusive logo on a bag or shirt that promotes an alcoholic beverage. If I were Daly's sponsor it would be his attitude and behaviour on the course that would be the issues - not a logo on his bag.

 

I don't agree that it's a company's place to dictate what's acceptable sponsorship and what's not - but then again I haven't got anyone from Ping beating at my door with a contract for me to sign so it's immaterial.

 

I actually like Ping as company. I think their products and customer service are absolutely top notch (probably largely due to the family-owned nature of the business) and as a junior golfer Ping were very supportive to me and many others, but I'm not in agreement with having someone else's views on a particular matter forced on me as a player and endorser of their products. It's a different state of affairs to state-sponsored meddling though, since I don't have to sign a contract with Ping and I'm free as a pro to go elsewhere if I were to so choose. If I differ from John Solheim's views for whatever reason, I can sign with Brand X.

 

The fact is, if that's the company line then so be it.

 

As an aside, I can't believe that Prammanasudh (or her manager) wouldn't be aware of the clause prior to signing with the beverage company, so it strikes me as odd that she signed - assuming, of course that her contract still has time to run with Ping.

 

The John Daly thing was more of a lame joke than anything else.

 

If it isn't a company's place to dictate what products they are aligned with, then whose place is it?

[withdrew]

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Call me crazy, but if Lorena Ochoa was going to sign a deal with Corona or Modelo or Dos Equis, I have a feeling that they would come to an agreement, and the agreement wouldn't include canceling her contract with Ping.

 

 

Correcto! ;)

nope....Ping will not budge on this policy...no matter who the player is.

 

And you know this because....?

 

There's a big difference between dropping Stacy Prammanasudh and Lorena Ochoa or say Angel Cabrera or Chris DiMarco...I'd venture to say that 7 or 8 out of 10 weekend golfers have never even heard of Stacy Pramanasudh, so by Ping "enforcing" their policy with her, it's not a huge deal to Ping. I'd love to see if they'd flat-out dump Mark Calcavecchia if he wanted to sign with Johnny Walker and get a logo stitched on his bag.

 

I could be dead wrong (certainly wouldn't be the first time), but I just have a feeling that they could or would work out a compromise with certain staff members.

I know this for a fact because I was present when Chance Cozby, Director of Tour Operations for Ping, was specifically asked if they would ever consider being flexible with this policy for a top ranked player and he said no they would not. I also heard this from John Solheim in person during a round-table discussion with the top executives at Ping.

 

Fact is, I don't even agree with the policy but respect a company that's willing to stand behind its principles. I do agree with Headonastick that it's completely within a privately owned company's right to refuse financial sponsorship and brand affiliation with a player who has a sponsorship and/or affiliation with an alcoholic beverage brand - just like we always say about brands that players choose...it's their money, they can do what they want with it.

 

Well I guess that makes me ;)

 

I can't argue with that!

 

EDIT: However, I would still love to see it tested. The day after winning the U.S. Open, Angel Cabrera signs with Quilmes, I'd love to see Ping just walk away.

 

EDIT 2.0: Better yet, Angel Cabrera has an 10 stroke lead on Saturday, signs contract with Quilmes on Saturday night. They drop him and let him win with TaylorMade or Titleist clubs?

[drpino]

i think one reason why the policy isn't really "tested" is because it's made quite clear to the players and, more importantly, to their agents from the start. from the anecdotes we were told by Mr. Cozby, it seems most players "run it by" Ping/John Solheim/Tour Dept before committing to anything anyway.

[withdrew]

i think one reason why the policy isn't really "tested" is because it's made quite clear to the players and, more importantly, to their agents from the start. from the anecdotes we were told by Mr. Cozby, it seems most players "run it by" Ping/John Solheim/Tour Dept before committing to anything anyway.

Makes sense. Which is why I think there are deeper issues with Stacy and Ping.

Good info doc.

[mat562]

If it isn't a company's place to dictate what products they are aligned with, then whose place is it?

 

No one's?

 

Unless a product was clearly detrimental to the image of another sponsor, or a direct competitor, I can't see why it should be an issue. If a player's general conduct was such that it was likely to embarrass a sponsor I would understand (or expect) an objection; but in the case of the 'it's encouraging people to drink irresponsibly to advertise a brand of alcohol' argument I don't get it.

 

A beer comany as a co-sponsor doesn't reflect badly on Ping's image for me, and I can't see any reason why it would to anyone else. Does it really encourage underage or irresponsible drinking amongst the golfing public? Does it send out a message that Ping condones irresponsible drinking habits? No. No more than Charles Howell having a picture of a Lamborghini on his golf bag encourages golfers to break the speed limit on their way home from the tournament.

 

I don't understand why Ping have an issue. It's not detrimental to the brand image, and alcohol is not a 'disreputable' product per se; so why have a rule that states that it is incompatable with the brand's image?

 

If it's not a clash of image but an edict by John Solheim, then I simply see it as being an unjust way of forcing his beliefs onto a player.

 

Either way, I don't agree with it.

[withdrew]

Very interesting points.

I wonder how far Ping would take it, with respect to parent companies and what-not.

[HeadonaStick]

If it isn't a company's place to dictate what products they are aligned with, then whose place is it?

 

No one's?

 

Unless a product was clearly detrimental to the image of another sponsor, or a direct competitor, I can't see why it should be an issue. If a player's general conduct was such that it was likely to embarrass a sponsor I would understand (or expect) an objection; but in the case of the 'it's encouraging people to drink irresponsibly to advertise a brand of alcohol' argument I don't get it.

 

A beer comany as a co-sponsor doesn't reflect badly on Ping's image for me, and I can't see any reason why it would to anyone else. Does it really encourage underage or irresponsible drinking amongst the golfing public? Does it send out a message that Ping condones irresponsible drinking habits? No. No more than Charles Howell having a picture of a Lamborghini on his golf bag encourages golfers to break the speed limit on their way home from the tournament.

 

I don't understand why Ping have an issue. It's not detrimental to the brand image, and alcohol is not a 'disreputable' product per se; so why have a rule that states that it is incompatable with the brand's image?

 

If it's not a clash of image but an edict by John Solheim, then I simply see it as being an unjust way of forcing his beliefs onto a player.

 

Either way, I don't agree with it.

John Solhiem isn't forcing anyone to do or believe anything. He is simply saying that if you want to be associated with me understand that I don't want to be associated with alcohol. Players are free to accept or reject Ping's sponsorship.

 

Would a player be free to reject Ping's sponsorship because they do not approve of their policy in regards to alcohol? If so, how is that really any different than Ping rejecting a representative with a policy with which they do not approve?

 

It is also possible that John Solhiem doesn't really give a rip what people do in regards to alcohol; he may simply have decided he does not want to be personally or professionally associated with the product.

[mat562]

I agree that the ultimate right of veto lies with the player when they choose whether or not to sign with Ping.

 

I'm obviously not privy to the thinking behind the decision. What I'm saying is that, in the case of the two scenarios I quoted, I don't understand or agree with them respectively. Either of those scenarios may be wrong. Whatever, I can't conceive of a scenario that makes sense, where an alcohol-related sponsorship is incompatable with a golf-related deal. Not one. And, if the policy is a personal edict based on a set of beliefs or values I think it's wrong; but that's just my opinion versus someone else's.

 

For what's it's worth, were I to be a pro in the market for a sponsorship, I wouldn't turn my nose up at a Ping deal based on the policy. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind it though.

[BFC]

Does Ping serves or has booze available at the Xmass employee party? Or any business dinner/fonction for that matter? Anybody in the golf biz ever got taken out to lunch or dinner by a Ping rep, ordered booze and Ping picked up the tab? Just wondering how far it goes.

[HeadonaStick]

I agree that the ultimate right of veto lies with the player when they choose whether or not to sign with Ping.

 

I'm obviously not privy to the thinking behind the decision. What I'm saying is that, in the case of the two scenarios I quoted, I don't understand or agree with them respectively. Either of those scenarios may be wrong. Whatever, I can't conceive of a scenario that makes sense, where an alcohol-related sponsorship is incompatable with a golf-related deal. Not one. And, if the policy is a personal edict based on a set of beliefs or values I think it's wrong; but that's just my opinion versus someone else's.

 

For what's it's worth, were I to be a pro in the market for a sponsorship, I wouldn't turn my nose up at a Ping deal based on the policy. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind it though.

If nobody interjects their beliefs or values into anything, what, exactly, are we left with? Perhaps the world would be a different place if more people stood by a set of beliefs.

 

In the end, it doesn't have to be incompatible with a golf-related deal; it just has to be incompatible with Solheim's values and beliefs.

 

I doubt any of us will know why the policy is in place. Frankly, it isn't any of our business although I admit to being as curious as the next person.

[78Staff]

FWIW, Stacy is quoted in GW that she/they had no idea about the Ping restriction ahead of time...somebody in the SP camp screwed the pooch on this one.

 

Also, I recall that several years ago PING did not hire any tobacco users (not staff, but actual employees)...not sure if that is still in effect?