Corporate Branding

[Ducky]

When does it become too much?

Hi everyone,

I wanted to start a discussion on a topic that has been bothering me for quite sometime - corporate branding. It seems as of late there has been a tendancy for equipment manufacturers to increase the size and quantity of corporate branding on golfing equipment. When does it become too much?

Ultimately, it is personal preference. However, I feel that there are certain instances where manufacturers use corporate branding to the point where it becomes intrusive. A great example is Scotty Cameron putters. Don't get me wrong, Scotty Cameron putters are great quality, but there is only a certain amount of times I need to be reminded of my putter brand/model. Lets take a look at the Red X.





The brand is displayed twice on the bottom (which is fine, as both Scotty Cameron and Titleist need to be noted). However, the model is displayed a total of four times! Honestly, if consumers are paying anywhere up to $600.00 AUD (depending on the model), why should we be walking advertising billboards?

I can understand that some people enjoy supporting their favourite equipment manufacturers, but in my opinion, it makes the equipment look cheap. I use the analogy of a sports car. Do Ferrari or Porsche (who are two of the most expensive car manufacturers worldwide) have to paint intrusive corporate branding on the hood of their cars? No, they don't, because they understand that their product will be distinguished from competitors by the quality craftsmanship, not the size and quantity of their corporate branding.

Of course, the overuse of corporate branding is not simply limited to putters.

I look forward to hearing other peoples opinions.

[Gxgolfer]

For me, as long as it doesn't distract me from address, its Ok.

[lysaght68]

For me it's all about a consistantly recognizable and aesthetically pleasing logo. I agree with you that the otherwise wonderful Red X putters look far too busy and cheap, but I'm not a fan of the way the cameron name is unevenly printed on his putters either. Other logo's I love seeing = Nike's swoosh, TM's TP/flag, Cleveland's circular CG, Titleist's old DCI underscore triangle, the block printed Mizuno, SMT's simple logo = all of those are nice to my eye and I don't mind seeing any of them in numerous locations on a club.

[steve81]

for me, a company could put their logo, name, whatever anywhere on the club as long as the club performs to my liking.

 

now it's a different story when TM comes out with a line of "tour issue" TP boxers.

 

Never mess with a man's shorts.

[Boba]

 

Yeah, I hate Corporate Branding too. I bought these balls by nike once & they put the nike swoosh, one logo & TW logo all over the box. Then I opened it up & there were 4 sleeves with the nike swoosh, one logo & TW logo on every side of the sleeves, then when I open the sleeves up the damn balls have not one but TWO swoosh logos on it! I was so angry that I took the balls back & demanded a refund! Take that Phil Knight!

 

On a side note, americans pay $100 for each X. I am joking about the balls, but brand loyalty is a touchy subject for some members here. Attack someones club of choice & you will start a war. If you buy a new high end club without hitting it, you are buying it because of the brand loyalty they have set up through advertising, or your interest in the "special new features" the club has. It is a head on a stick with a rubber grip. I am guilty of this too, I have bought balls, shafts, drivers, irons & soon wedges without hitting them. I have had some turn out better than expected, others just sucked (hibore).

Also if you have a bag filled with one brand & you put :betty: :betty: :sonartec: :) :smilie_tm: :smilie_cally: :smilie_tm: :cheesy: after every post, say MOOO! because you have been branded.

Or you just happened to buy 14 of that companies clubs :rolleyes:

[Johnny]

funny you should complain...

 

TW logo for avatar and a little nike "just do it " animation as your sig...you are more quilty then the putter you are complaining about :cheesy:

[shoe295]

Interesting topic for several reasons.

 

Ferrari and Porsche don't need a lot of logo's as you seldom see knockoff's for sale at a tenth the price. As for putters, that' s an entirely different matter. I can't tell you how many knock off 2 ball, Red X, bullseye, etc etc etc putters I've seen around. Just helps eliminate the confusion.

 

Golf balls are often displayed in the dozen box, or the sleeve so the excessive label branding makes sense from a strickly merchandising standpoint. At least to an old retail guy it does, I could be alone in this.

 

Thank the creator of the universe most golf shirts I purchase from major brands carry a small logo as opposed to a Nascar driver's suit. Now THAT is where I'd draw the line!

 

I am curious that you choose to bring this up since you have a TW logo in your avatar and Nike's just do it animation in your signature? Perhaps that's just me being odd however.

[Ducky]

I knew my avatar/signature would come up. Personally, I don't see it as being ironic, as it is my way of supporting my favourite player (Tiger Woods) and my favourite equipment manufacturer (Nike) without needing to have it plastered excessively over my clubs.

 

In my opinion, Nike make some of the most simplistic but stylish equipment designs (unfortunately, they are getting worst). Take the blades or pro-combo irons for example, they contain no other branding apart from the Nike swoosh and the iron number, but are two of the most appealing irons on the market.

[Boba]

Take the blades or pro-combo irons for example, they contain no other branding apart from the Nike swoosh and the iron number, but are two of the most appealing irons on the market.

 

Appealing to who? They don't appeal to the vast majority of golfers (90% +/- 9.99%) who don't play nike clubs (If they appealed enough those people would play them). Since you have a favorite company you are a victim of corporate advertizing.

I understand, take the first advertisement I saw for a nike driver for example, It was a blue nike hammer with the question asking "do you know how far you can hit a golf ball?" Pretty power full advertizing IMO. If only the driver performed as well as their ads.

 

You & every other golfer out there is lured into buying new equipment by nike, just some people are better at laughing at the powerbow than others.

Nike is an advertizing machine & they are very good at it. Before nike came around, how many people were robbed and killed for their tennis shoes? 3 at the most & they had it coming to them, YOU DON'T WEAR WHITE AFTER LABOR DAY!!! The truth is every one want's to have tigers game, he is the best player in the world, perhaps the best of all time. If you cant get your swing perfected by Rudy Duran, you can do the next closest thing & that is buy nike. I have played diamana shafts, titleist irons & blacked out ping grips in my effort to reach his level but all they did was give me too much ballooning off the tee and black marks on my thumb(I've got to let the ink dry next time). I play what I like, not because others use it, but because it helps me score my best. If nike want's to sponsor me I'm sure I could change my mind. *cough* full sponsorship *cough* all black SQ tour *cough* without the step in the back *cough* brushed hosel *cough* 10.5 bent 2 deg open *cough* air Boba *cough*

:cheesy: "just buy it"

[Ducky]

Appealing to who? They don't appeal to the vast majority of golfers (90% +/- 9.99%) who don't play nike clubs (If they appealed enough those people would play them).

Are they actual statistics, or are they made up in an attempt to better support your point of view? Would you say that other manufacturers have a better market share than Nike?

 

Since you have a favorite company you are a victim of corporate advertizing.

As previously mentioned, Nike is my favourite manufacturer as they design simplistic/stylish equipment that appeals to me and performs well. If I felt that another manufacturer accomplished this at a better standard than Nike, I would have no hesitation in switching.

 

I understand, take the first advertisement I saw for a nike driver for example, It was a blue nike hammer with the question asking "do you know how far you can hit a golf ball?" Pretty power full advertizing IMO.

Every manufacturer is guilty of persuading customers to buy their products by claiming that it will increase performance. This is how they sell their products. However, there is a difference between advertising through media (magazines, newspapers, TV, and websites) and advertising on the product itself.

 

If only the driver performed as well as their ads.

Once again, is this according to you? By your theory, if I hit the Titleist 905R poorly (which I did), would this make it sub-standard to other drivers? No, it's simply personal preference. The SQ has earned various awards when compared to other top-of-the-line drivers, so I would believe that the general consensus disagrees with you.

 

Before nike came around, how many people were robbed and killed for their tennis shoes?

Wait... so now Nike is to blame for delinquents committing crime?

 

I have played diamana shafts, titleist irons & blacked out ping grips in my effort to reach his level but all they did was give me too much ballooning off the tee...

I thought we were anti-Nike? Now we're anti-Tiger?

 

I look forward to your next zig-zag rebuttal.

[Boba]

The Nike ball had a market share of just 6.6% in January. Nike had only 1.4 percent of the driver market in the first quarter of 2005 & now has 5.4 percent of the market thanks to the SQ. That means 93.4% of golf balls purchased were not nike & 98.6% of driver sales were not nike. I used this method to get my stats (a company's unit sales volume (in a market) divided by the total volume of units sold in that market). Where else shall I zig? I am not anti-nike Just as I am not pro-nike either. You said "I look forward to hearing other peoples opinions." next time you could state "I look forward to hearing other peoples opinions as long as they are the same as mine" if you don't like the nice debate we have. Don't take it personal, not all clubs are perfect. The 905r is terrible for me too. Will I get offended if you say it doesn't perform as well for me as they say it will? nope.

[Ducky]

I do like hearing other peoples opinions, but you have given me your opinion on Nike as a company, not on corporate branding as a whole. My intention was not to get personal (and looking back on my posts, I don't think I have), but I apologise if you feel this way.

 

I am interested in the figures you are quoting to us. I think it would be great if you could share them, as I am curious to see what kind of market share component manufacturers have as well.

[Boba]

If you doubt my facts here you go.

forbes cnnmoney

 

"Before nike came around, how many people were robbed and killed for their tennis shoes?" Is an example of the power of big business & their ability to shape peoples way of life. Nike is responsible for creating the demand for their product. Are they responsible for people with lower incomes killing for a new pair of sneakers. No.

"Now we're anti-Tiger?" Tiger is now a brand. He is an image, a video game, a shoe, a car, a set of golf clubs... We can't have a debate about corporate branding without tiger. BTW where did I say I was anti-Tiger? I said I used equipment that he uses because I want to play as well as him. That means I admire the guy and his talent & I strive to be as good as him.

I sense you misunderstood some things I said. Corporate branding is just the tip of the iceberg of our society's addiction to consumerism & materialism. Tyler Durden said it best "God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy $#!_ we don't need..." I don't hate my job, but I will shoot the same score with any high end club out there as long as it fits me. We don't need new super clubs but we will still buy them because we have a craving for new "better" stuff. The 4 logo's on a putter that you don't like is the same as nike's yellow sole. They are all an effort to feed our craving for newer "better" stuff.

[Ducky]

Do you have your own opinion, or are you stealing them from fictional movie characters? You are going off on a tangent to such an extent that I do not even think it is worthwhile to address what you have said.

 

I will comment on one thing, however. You mentioned previously that Nike (using their golf balls as a reference) do not appeal to the large majority of players. Although, your second article that you have used as a source goes onto say:

 

"Nike is already the second largest seller of golf balls and has also done very well in golf footwear and apparel, not surprisingly."

So, it appears Nike golf balls are quite popular. Are you getting yourself confused?

[Boba]

Acushnet controls 40 percent of the golf ball market & Top-Flite XL balls have the largest market share worldwide, with 15 percent (compared to Pro v1 or nike one). I used that article more for my driver stats so touché. But you see because no ball has a 50% market share I can say "most golfers don't use nike balls."

Also I used one quote about consumerism & all of a sudden I don't have my own opinion? I could quote Thorstein Veblen or Karl Marx but they don't say it as blunt as Chuck Palahniuk's character did. Never the less I accept your concession. :cheesy:

[oldgoalie]

As previously mentioned, Nike is my favourite manufacturer as they design simplistic/stylish equipment that appeals to me and performs well. If I felt that another manufacturer accomplished this at a better standard than Nike, I would have no hesitation in switching.

 

 

I think this basically summarizes your point. You don't like lots of logos and and flashy designs on your clubs. Some people do. So you don't like the Red X.

 

Some people hate bumper stickers, some people plaster their cars with them.

 

What is boils down to is personal preference.

[Ducky]

I agree, it really is personal preference. I really just wanted to hear what other players classed as 'excessive' corporate branding.

[sandy]

Hi everyone,

 

I wanted to start a discussion on a topic that has been bothering me for quite sometime - corporate branding. It seems as of late there has been a tendancy for equipment manufacturers to increase the size and quantity of corporate branding on golfing equipment. When does it become too much?

 

Ultimately, it is personal preference. However, I feel that there are certain instances where manufacturers use corporate branding to the point where it becomes intrusive. A great example is Scotty Cameron putters. Don't get me wrong, Scotty Cameron putters are great quality, but there is only a certain amount of times I need to be reminded of my putter brand/model. Lets take a look at the Red X.

 

 

 

The brand is displayed twice on the bottom (which is fine, as both Scotty Cameron and Titleist need to be noted). However, the model is displayed a total of four times! Honestly, if consumers are paying anywhere up to $600.00 AUD (depending on the model), why should we be walking advertising billboards?

 

I can understand that some people enjoy supporting their favourite equipment manufacturers, but in my opinion, it makes the equipment look cheap. I use the analogy of a sports car. Do Ferrari or Porsche (who are two of the most expensive car manufacturers worldwide) have to paint intrusive corporate branding on the hood of their cars? No, they don't, because they understand that their product will be distinguished from competitors by the quality craftsmanship, not the size and quantity of their corporate branding.

 

Of course, the overuse of corporate branding is not simply limited to putters.

 

I look forward to hearing other peoples opinions.

 

The most recent is Cobra who are putting huge COBRA letters on the toes of their drivers in white font for easier viewing at address and follow throughs. I agree somewhat and that is a major reason why I refuse to buy and wear anything with a Tiger Woods logo on it. First it is a dopey looking logo. Second I refuse to walk around with any athletes name on my person (sort of like the sad people that wear jerseys with their "heros" name on them---like they knew them personally). The only downside is that the Tiger Woods apparel seems to be some of the more good looking stuff that Nike does in golf clothing. At least with their Tennis Clothing you don't have Federer all over it. I guess the only signature stuff in tennis would be Rafa's capri pants :cheesy: