Nike golf

[StrokerAce]

Another great article on the blog by MGS, this time about Nike Golf - http://www.mygolfspy.com/why-nike-golf-failed

 

If you're counting that is one about Nike and one about TMAG and their recent failures.  This is great, great stuff that is one of many reasons I'm happy to be a part of this community.  You don't get this independent reporting other places.

 

Not sure if you're familiar with this case or not but it is a great example of the hubris and arrogance of the Nike empire: http://footwearnews.com/2016/focus/athletic-outdoor/nike-sues-olympic-hopeful-boris-berian-new-balance-breach-of-contract-lawsuit-226796/

 

Too bad really; sounds like they had good 'golf' people in place but the senior execs thought they could use their other sports models (football, bball, track, etc.) and just bully everyone around.

 

Glad to hear they're keeping their apparel lines though!  Big fan of their shirts/shorts.

[alfriday101]

The TM and Nike articles have been interesting.

 

I would be interested in a follow up article on some of the remaining OEMs:  how they initially reacted to the changes in the golf environment causes by TM and Nike, adjusted to the changes and how they are positioned for the future.  

[jayjay0808]

I understand that Nike really pushed the envelop in equipment design when maybe they hadn't earned the right to. However a few of their products were innovative because of this. The Nike RZN Tour Balls this year are really some of the best out there

[Golfspy_CG2]

Just finished reading it.  Very good read, and in-depth insight into their exit. 

[BigtazzGolf]

Thinking Nike will come back to golf like Wilson. I did like the Nike golf balls. Time will tell.

 

 

Sent using the MGS app!

@bigtazzGOLF on Twitter

[chemclub]

Thanks for starting this thread Ace! (if only because it is difficult to engage in the main post comments) 

 

I also want to add my thanks to MGS (Tony and John) for the great articles recently. Maybe it has been fertile ground with the TM and Nike business moves, but I have really been enjoying the longish-form journalism. It has been great to read some insider perspective. Thank you. 

 

I also want to highlight a theme that was touched on in both articles and I had not really thought about. The success of the driver. TM built their house on immensely successful drivers that then fed into their other club offerings. Nike never had a successful flagship driver. It was really interesting to think about how important that single club can be to a brand.

[numberonecoog]

Article was great. 

[StrokerAce]

Thanks for starting this thread Ace! (if only because it is difficult to engage in the main post comments) 

 

I also want to add my thanks to MGS (Tony and John) for the great articles recently. Maybe it has been fertile ground with the TM and Nike business moves, but I have really been enjoying the longish-form journalism. It has been great to read some insider perspective. Thank you. 

 

I also want to highlight a theme that was touched on in both articles and I had not really thought about. The success of the driver. TM built their house on immensely successful drivers that then fed into their other club offerings. Nike never had a successful flagship driver. It was really interesting to think about how important that single club can be to a brand.

 

Great point!  Seems like it all starts with the big stick (TM/Callaway/Titleist, etc.) to the irons and companies are trying to integrate driver technology into irons (Callaway XR).

[silver & black]

Not sure about the driver thing. Mizuno does pretty well without a popular driver.

[numberonecoog]

My understanding is Mizuno woods are popular in Asia

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Interesting points. From a branding standpoint - Mizuno is branded as an irons company and they do nicely. Their overall market share, from what I've read, is well below the Big 5 of TM, Cally, PING, Titleist and Cobra.

 

Had an interesting conversation with Michael Vrska of Wilson Staff on this very subject a while ago (yep, I just dropped a name ). Even in its heyday Wilson was an irons focused company. He said a strong driver is like a halo product - if your driver is hot, all of a sudden your irons taste better, and people start looking at your wedges and hybrids, and maybe a matching fairway wood.

 

Mizuno is definitely getting metal woods serious. The JPX EZ is a great driver - I'm kinda meh on the EZ fw - and the JPX 900 series looks good. I

Really like that FW And hybrid.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[chemclub]

Interesting points. From a branding standpoint - Mizuno is branded as an irons company and they do nicely. Their overall market share, from what I've read, is well below the Big 5 of TM, Cally, PING, Titleist and Cobra.

 

Had an interesting conversation with Michael Vrska of Wilson Staff on this very subject a while ago (yep, I just dropped a name ). Even in its heyday Wilson was an irons focused company. He said a strong driver is like a halo product - if your driver is hot, all of a sudden your irons taste better, and people start looking at your wedges and hybrids, and maybe a matching fairway wood.

 

Mizuno is definitely getting metal woods serious. The JPX EZ is a great driver - I'm kinda meh on the EZ fw - and the JPX 900 series looks good. I

Really like that FW And hybrid.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

 

A lot of folks in the main comments section have pointed out Mizuno as the exception. But I think their market share points to the fact that they have a very deep, committed following among a small group of golfers. Their survival/success is also likely the result of not carrying numerous expensive pro contracts. Because they don't have the massive marketing campaigns the other big OEMs do, then they can afford to not do the volume. Plus, I think Mizuno tapped into the fact that they can generate enough buzz among their committed fans through social media and blogs. All Mizuno has to do is fart and it gets immediate covered by blogs like MGS -- and I will count myself among the group that reads the blog post twice to decide if I like the smell.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

A lot of folks in the main comments section have pointed out Mizuno as the exception. But I think their market share points to the fact that they have a very deep, committed following among a small group of golfers. Their survival/success is also likely the result of not carrying numerous expensive pro contracts. Because they don't have the massive marketing campaigns the other big OEMs do, then they can afford to not do the volume. Plus, I think Mizuno tapped into the fact that they can generate enough buzz among their committed fans through social media and blogs. All Mizuno has to do is fart and it gets immediate covered by blogs like MGS -- and I will count myself among the group that reads the blog post twice to decide if I like the smell.

You do have a way with words!!

 

I think you're right about the small but dedicated following (Mizunistas?). Market share I believe is in high single digits overall, but they're obviously trying to grow.

 

Other, smaller companies have told me two things - the company they'd most like to emulate in Ping, and the niche they'd most like to occupy is Mizuno's.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[chemclub]

Other, smaller companies have told me two things - the company they'd most like to emulate in Ping, and the niche they'd most like to occupy is Mizuno's.

 

That's really interesting. Can you elaborate on what about PING those companies specifically would like to emulate? 

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

That's really interesting. Can you elaborate on what about PING those companies specifically would like to emulate? 

 

It was interesting that the PING references came up while discussing what each company wants to be.  All three referenced the Solheim's stewardship of the brand -- PING protects its brand, how and where it's sold and its retail pricing better than most. They also referenced R&D and how PING rarely follows trends - they tend to go their own way when it comes to product - they also don't play the yearly product cycle game (it's 18 months to 2 years with PING) and they admired PING's Tour strategy. PING has, for the most part, a very loyal tour staff that represents the brand well and PING is pretty responsible with their tour spending.

 

And, in the big picture, all three felt that PING is almost always profitable - although that's hard to prove since it's a private company. The impression among the folks that I spoke with is that PING is financially very sound.

 

When Tony and I visited PING last December, we were sitting in a room with some of their product people -- out of the 6 PING people in the room, 3 were PhD's. 

[chemclub]

It was interesting that the PING references came up while discussing what each company wants to be.  All three referenced the Solheim's stewardship of the brand -- PING protects its brand, how and where it's sold and its retail pricing better than most. They also referenced R&D and how PING rarely follows trends - they tend to go their own way when it comes to product - they also don't play the yearly product cycle game (it's 18 months to 2 years with PING) and they admired PING's Tour strategy. PING has, for the most part, a very loyal tour staff that represents the brand well and PING is pretty responsible with their tour spending.

 

And, in the big picture, all three felt that PING is almost always profitable - although that's hard to prove since it's a private company. The impression among the folks that I spoke with is that PING is financially very sound.

 

When Tony and I visited PING last December, we were sitting in a room with some of their product people -- out of the 6 PING people in the room, 3 were PhD's. 

 

 

I think being privately owned is the key to being innovative and having your own voice. Going public brings in a bunch of money, but it also makes you beholden to share holders. These share holders then expect returns and fiduciary responsibility suddenly governs the company. I'm really not a business guy so speaking out of my ass a little here, but being product-lead pushes performance boundaries more than being profit-lead. I think Solheim wanted to build something truly great and making tons of money came second (you could say the same for Steve Jobs while he was alive)

[chemclub]

Other, smaller companies have told me two things - the company they'd most like to emulate in Ping, and the niche they'd most like to occupy is Mizuno's.

 

 

Thanks for the response about PING Barba. What exactly is so attractive about the iron niche that Mizuno occupies? Is it a margin thing? Is it the desire to be highly regarded among "real golfers" -- "I don't always hit irons. But when I do, I prefer Mizuno"

Thanks again

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Thanks for the response about PING Barba. What exactly is so attractive about the iron niche that Mizuno occupies? Is it a margin thing? Is it the desire to be highly regarded among "real golfers" -- "I don't always hit irons. But when I do, I prefer Mizuno"

Thanks again

Lemme throw it back to you - what words come to mind when you think of Mizuno?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Miboy62]

Was a good read, a lot of interesting information.

I wonder how long they would of hung in there if Tiger was playing good this year?

Hard goods are one thing, but I think soft goods sell better when that company is

On TV all weekend.

[chemclub]

Lemme throw it back to you - what words come to mind when you think of Mizuno?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

fair enough. To me, I suppose Mizuno has a reputation of being a premium/elite brand. They make quality gear. If someone has a bag of mizuno MPs you think this persons has been around golf for a while and knows a thing or two. 

 

It's obvious why a company would want that reputation. I was just curious if there was anything specific that came up when they mentioned it.

 

 If I see a guy with a bag of ultra-premium Miuras/Honmas I think this guy could be a rich ******* with too much money and no clue. He could also be an incredible player.

[chemclub]

Lemme throw it back to you - what words come to mind when you think of Mizuno?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

Alright, I thought about this a little more and I think it also has to do with that fact that Mizuno has always made classic looking irons. People don't associate colorful plastic badging with Mizuno. The older JPX EZ was a departure from that and many people felt it didn't look like a Mizuno. What company wouldn't want to be thought of as making "serious" golf equipment for "real" players. New Hogan got a ton of buzz there because they launched their bladed irons. People love classics and a company immediately looks attractive if they launch a set of clubs that no one can hit 

 

I will say that I think Srixon is another company that tapped into that sentiment in a big way. Srixon has an MP line that I and others on the forum drool over. Their GM JPXy line also looks understated and classic. All business in the woods as well.

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Alright, I thought about this a little more and I think it also has to do with that fact that Mizuno has always made classic looking irons. People don't associate colorful plastic badging with Mizuno. The older JPX EZ was a departure from that and many people felt it didn't look like a Mizuno. What company wouldn't want to be thought of as making "serious" golf equipment for "real" players. New Hogan got a ton of buzz there because they launched their bladed irons. People love classics and a company immediately looks attractive if they launch a set of clubs that no one can hit 

 

I will say that I think Srixon is another company that tapped into that sentiment in a big way. Srixon has an MP line that I and others on the forum drool over. Their GM JPXy line also looks understated and classic. All business in the woods as well.

 

I think you nailed it -- my thought is those companies envy Mizuno's brand position as a maker of serious irons for serious players. It also seems like a brand position that has some room.  Companies like Bridgestone, Srixon, Hogan and Wilson Staff do have some attributes that could help them gain some of that niche market, which could help fuel a little growth. It's admittedly a small part of the market, but it's an influential one.  

 

Also, when it comes to shear size - it's probably easier to try to take some market share from a smaller golf entity like Mizuno than it would be to outspend and out market the Big 5. 

[chemclub]

I think you nailed it -- my thought is those companies envy Mizuno's brand position as a maker of serious irons for serious players. It also seems like a brand position that has some room.  Companies like Bridgestone, Srixon, Hogan and Wilson Staff do have some attributes that could help them gain some of that niche market, which could help fuel a little growth. It's admittedly a small part of the market, but it's an influential one.  

 

Also, when it comes to shear size - it's probably easier to try to take some market share from a smaller golf entity like Mizuno than it would be to outspend and out market the Big 5. 

 

Thanks for the reply Barba. I also think that a company like Wilson has a different trajectory into that space than a company like Srixon. Wilson has typically made really player-friendly GM irons, so for them to come into that space with a serious iron for a serious player is tough because folks think that wilson doesn't make serious/classic irons (I have hit a few Wilsons and been extremely impressed so that is not my opinion). Srixon is different because they have always had a minimal classic look so maybe stand a better chance of stealing the attention of Mizuno die hards. Bridgestone is, well, Bridgestone. They make some great looking players irons but I haven't ever demoed them because I haven't seen them in a local shop. Bridgestone is obviously committed to the long, slow-growth game. Thanks again.

[StrokerAce]

Thanks for the reply Barba. I also think that a company like Wilson has a different trajectory into that space than a company like Srixon. Wilson has typically made really player-friendly GM irons, so for them to come into that space with a serious iron for a serious player is tough because folks think that wilson doesn't make serious/classic irons (I have hit a few Wilsons and been extremely impressed so that is not my opinion). Srixon is different because they have always had a minimal classic look so maybe stand a better chance of stealing the attention of Mizuno die hards. Bridgestone is, well, Bridgestone. They make some great looking players irons but I haven't ever demoed them because I haven't seen them in a local shop. Bridgestone is obviously committed to the long, slow-growth game. Thanks again.

 

FWIW ... when I first started getting "serious" about golf - meaning I don't go to costco to buy my clubs - HA! - and began doing some research all that I seemed to read was something along the lines of 

"oooo Mizuno's.... it's like a knife through butter..."  

Of course I had no clue what that meant and then I tried a couple and thought, wow, they kinda do feel different.

Sooo... I bought the JPX EZ, you know, the dark ones with orange highlights.  Ooooops!  Needless to say they didn't last very long.  Not sure why Mizuno went in that direction but it wasn't what I was hoping for.

I do have to say though, their irons can sometimes get confusing. mp this and mp that!  

However, some of the "better" players I play with have older sets of MP something and they have those little brown spots right in the middle!  

 

This conversation has got me thinking though.... I wonder if MGS was able to get the top 5 ball strikers, hand them 10 different sets of 4,5,6 irons with no logos, badges, or identifying marks whatsoever and ask them to rate them and try to guess who the manufacturer was, how well they would do.  Kind of like a blind taste test.  Every iron would have the exact same shaft and grip.  Of course their sponsors would never let them do that but it would be interesting to know how much the name stamped on the end of the club plays in to things.  Does the fact that the iron says "Mizuno" somewhere engender more confidence and thus better results??

 

Hey @GolfSpyBarba - get on that, will ya??!?  

[chemclub]

This conversation has got me thinking though.... I wonder if MGS was able to get the top 5 ball strikers, hand them 10 different sets of 4,5,6 irons with no logos, badges, or identifying marks whatsoever and ask them to rate them and try to guess who the manufacturer was, how well they would do.  Kind of like a blind taste test.  Every iron would have the exact same shaft and grip.  Of course their sponsors would never let them do that but it would be interesting to know how much the name stamped on the end of the club plays in to things.  Does the fact that the iron says "Mizuno" somewhere engender more confidence and thus better results??

 

Hey @GolfSpyBarba - get on that, will ya??!?  

 

I really think the performance numbers would be about the same. Good players can play well with any club (assuming it is reasonable fit, but even then they can likely get by if not). I think the real innovation in club design is for off-center forgiveness and launch help. If you hit the center most of the time then any club will perform. An example of this is that muscle back blade irons haven't really changed in decades. Everyone knows how to make a club that performs when hit on the center of gravity. Tinkering with off center forgiveness strategies is where all the movement is.

[SethO]

I wish I could see what their 2017 line would have looked like.

[chemclub]

I wish I could see what their 2017 line would have looked like.

 

Apparently the driver was very good and a departure from what they had done in the past.

[SethO]

Apparently the driver was very good and a departure from what they had done in the past.

I have heard the same

[StrokerAce]

I really think the performance numbers would be about the same. Good players can play well with any club (assuming it is reasonable fit, but even then they can likely get by if not). I think the real innovation in club design is for off-center forgiveness and launch help. If you hit the center most of the time then any club will perform. An example of this is that muscle back blade irons haven't really changed in decades. Everyone knows how to make a club that performs when hit on the center of gravity. Tinkering with off center forgiveness strategies is where all the movement is.

 

Aha!  Just the answer I was looking for.... but it seems that some people "buy the clubs the pros use".  So, for example, Jason Day plays an M1 driver (I think) and hits the ball a LONNNNG way with it.  They market it that way, people see it that way and think, YES!  I'll spend 400 dollars on a new driver OTR and ... wait, what.... why isn't it going a LONNNNG way?... wth?

 

I suppose my point is that sometimes it's easy to lose track of the fact that these pros playing these clubs are pros for a reason.  as you said - they can (more than likely) play any club and do very well.  So we as a golfing community shouldn't be chasing dreams but be more realistic.  It's not a knock if you show up to a ritzy country club with a set of Wilson irons... or even - dare I say - a set of speedblades..... however, it is really easy to get caught up in the hype and I suppose we are all probably guilty of it in some way. 

 

WARRIOR GOLF !!! 

[chemclub]

I am playing in an annual Hickory tournament this weekend (hickory shafts, persimmon heads, mashie niblicks and all). I actually  hit the persimmon pretty well. It isn't that much shorter than my TM R11 if you hit it on the center. There is almost no off-center forgiveness with the persimmon though.