Golf Brand History

[Jiro]

GolfSpy Barbajo had an interesting post the other day with an article about the demise of MacGregor.  In another thread there was some discussion about Nike's own demise which led to talking about Wilson's struggles recovering from being a former equipment powerhouse.  Actually I just looked back at that thread and Barbajo directed me to a nice article that MGS did covering the Wilson brand and how it fell (Barbajo-you the MGS historian or something?)

 

That got me thinking more about why some brands excel and others struggle to get market share.  On a simplistic level I think the brands that are doing well at some point in their history they had a really good or innovative product that helped build their reputation and have since followed it with good marketing (and R&D of course) to keep them relevant, including a good tour presence--probably the main marketing tool.

 

This got me interested on looking up when the major brands today got their start and what their first golf product was.  I did some "research" (well googling at least) and thought I would share my findings in case anyone else may find some of this interesting.  I tried to list the main brands today as well as a few that are no longer in the game but were once players. Forgive me, and please correct any facts that are inaccurate here--they are only as good as the source I happened to be looking at on the interwebs.

 

What do you guys think it takes to be a leading golf company today and get market share?  

Any surprises below?

 

The List:

 

Mizuno

Founded: 1906  sports equipment, 1933 golf

First Golf Product: Irons

 

Titleist

Founded: 1910 as Acushnet Company-rubber, 1932 golf

First Golf Product: Balls

Other Notes: started making clubs in 1962

 

Callaway

Founded: 1982 bought into existing company Hickory Sticks, 1988 current name

First Golf Product: wedges with shafts made of hickory with a steel core

 

Taylormade

Founded: 1979

First Golf Product: Metalwoods

 

Ping

Founded: 1959

First Golf Product: Putters

 

Srixon

Founded: 1909 as Sumitomo Rubber Industries/Dunlop-rubber, 1930 golf

First Golf Product: Balls

Other notes: started making irons in 1964

 

Cobra

Founded: 1973

First Golf Product: Utility Clubs

 

Wilson Staff

Founded: 1914 sports equipment, 1933 golf

First Golf Product: Wedges

 

Bridgestone

Founded: 1931as a rubber company, 1935 golf

First Golf Product: Balls

Other notes: started making clubs in 1972

 

Cleveland

Founded: 1979

First Golf Product: Made replicas of classic clubs, then wedges

 

PXG

Founded: 2015

First Golf Product: Irons

 

Nike 

Founded: 1964 as Blue Ribbon Sports-shoes, 1998 golf

First Golf Product: Balls

Other notes: yeah Oregon!

 

Adams

Founded: 1991

First Golf Product: Custom fit clubs then fairway woods

 

MacGregor

Founded: 1829 as Dayton Last Company-sports equipment, 1897 golf, 1930s-changed name to MacGregor

First Golf Product: Irons

 

Ben Hogan

Founded: 1953

First Golf Product: Irons

Other notes: latest iteration resurrected the brand in 2014

 

Spalding

Founded: 1876 sports equipment, 1900 golf

First Golf Product: Irons 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

This is a fun topic Jiro.

 

Found some interesting factoids while researching stories on Wilson, Bridgestone, TaylorMade and MacGregor - it's hard to point to just one thing in  each to say "here, THIS! This is why they failed!!" Each case in separate but from where I sit there are common threads.  

 

Take Wilson and MacGregor, for instance. Wilson was riding high for decades and still riding high in 1970, when PepsiCo bought the company. Wilson Staff execs still roll their eyes when anyone brings up Pepsi, or even drinks one.  PepsiCo knew a lot about packaging stuff and selling it - and that was the birth of your Wilson boxed sets. The early 70's was also the time investment casting became acceptable for serious clubs (thank you, PING), and Wilson may have been a little late to the party and when they did show up, the stuff they had was not what you'd call enticing. In the late 80's the company changed hands three times in a little over 18 months, and wound up being bought by Amer Sports around 1988.  Between 70 and 88 the company went through lots of changes in direction and focus, all of which had an affect on the golf division's bottom line.  In the early 90's they were still THE premium forged iron on tour, but the bottom line forced a ton of Tour cutbacks.  By 2000, they were hemorrhaging money and cut back even more, and decided to go with Fat Shaft, Deep Red and focus on the recreational golfer.  That lasted until Tim Clarke took over in 2006, and  Wilson's trajectory has been a slow and steady climb into profitability since and now their products are as good as anyone's.

 

For MacGregor, the Rickey piece is an excellent read on the company's history through 1979. He goes into pretty significant detail on how things changed at MacGregor when Brunswick bought the company in the late 50's, and how the new managing director wanted MacGregor to become an all-sports company like Wilson.  Management changed some of the approaches that made the company so successful in the first place - particularly the emphasis on the relationships with club pros - and  Rickey writes that many club pros stated they didn't even know who MacGregor was anymore and didn't feel as though they were important anymore.  

 

Nicklaus became very involved MacGregor in the 60's and 70's, acquiring a significant portion of the company. He sold a portion of it off to -- are you ready for this -- Amer Sports in 1986. After becoming increasingly frustrated with the quality and performance of the company he sold the rest of it to Amer in 1992.  Amer pretty much drove MacGregor into the ground and dumped it by 1998 to a San Francisco investor - he wanted to transform MacGregor back into the forged darling of golf and decided to dump a lot of his distribution and dump virtually all of the lower-priced, mass-market products and focus on high end, custom built forged clubs.  

 

This big mistakes MacGregor made here are in the area of metal woods, where they completely missed the boat and when they did eventually come up with something, it didn't wow anyone.  They never did get metal woods right, ultimately bringing the MacTec line over from Japan, where it had been highly successful. There were no real changes made to the product when they brought it here, and it ultimately failed miserably.  Norman tried to rescue MacGregor when he took over, but as one former investor said, they badly underestimated the power the mainstream brands had built up by that point. 

 

Both companies were on top of the world for a long, long time, but the business lesson is that times change and technology changes along with it. And in any business management should have an annual meeting of the minds and thoroughly discuss one simple question: what business are we in?  Too often, successful companies find themselves in the business of doing what they've always done and getting away with it, with the idea being that if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  The problem with that line of thinking is you leave the door open for other companies who aren't complacent and who will constantly challenge themselves to be innovative or creative. It usually isn't just one product that moves the dial - but more likely a series of products that get attention and gather momentum.  As Will Rogers once said, even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just stand there. 

 

 

 

Anyway, this is a great discussion - and I hope other people jump in.  

[revkev]

This is a very interesting topic - it's very easy to see the common thread between Wilson and MacGregor - they whiffed on changing technology - but what about Nike? 

 

Was it simply a market correction and they were the odd man out?  Was it too much of a reliance on Tiger and once he went so did they?  Were they too trendy? 

 

I think the latest Hogan crash and burn is easy enough to see - for the Monday morning QB - no tour presence, very little opportunity to test, poor advertising, poor price point (lower or higher but not in between as they did) plus we've all read how they spent too much money having a start of the art facility.

 

I'll be curious to watch this one develop.

[jaskanski]

Interesting that quite a number of golf manufacturers started out amidst the booming rubber products industry. A few other to add to the list would be Dunlop, Ben Sayers and John Letters. The oldest product in continuous production (that I can think of) is probably Slazenger. They also hold the title for the longest continuous sponsorship association (Wimbledon tennis).

[tony@CIC]

One other to add is slazenger - not sure if they make their own golf balls or just relabel.

 

I do think that while technology is important, marketing is the trump card. Getting your name on the golf hats of the top PGA and LPGA drives brand recognition. It'd be interesting to find out how much of the product price - balls, clubs, etc goes into the price of the product (as a percentage of retail price).

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

I think Hogan was doomed from the get go.  When Terry Koehler decided to bring the brand back, there were a lot of people hoping he'd succeed (me among them!). I think his big mistake was trying to recreate the Ben Hogan Company from 1993 (the last time he worked there) and try to pick up where they left off as if it were 1994.  He stated several times he wanted to create a classy, first rate golf club company - but what he built was a house of cards. He built the facade of a successful, classy company with all the trimmings and window dressing, and he expected the sales to just roll in afterwards.  In retrospect that was fairly foolhardy.

 

I think they started with just the right product mix with the TK 15 wedges and FT Worth 15 irons - but I think Rev is correct - they were in kind of a no man's land price-wise. Going lower would not have been a good idea - it's crowded and with lower margins you'd have to have a huge market share to simply make ends meet. That's a recipe for disaster. Better to have gone higher, kind of like PXG, and offered the full experience.  Sadly, they didn't have the capital to do that. 

 

Not sure a Tour presence would have been necessary for them to stay solvent, if they had a smarter start up plan.  

 

They could have succeeded with the price structure they had, but it really should have been a crawl-walk-run strategy. Unfortunate, and sadly I don't think Hogan will get a third opportunity.

[Jiro]

Also with Ben Hogan, having to keep inventory on each loft had to be inefficient and cause more overhead.

Talking with a club maker who I got my hogan wedges from--he was one of the few that actually carried demos in store--he was saying they were really late in realizing that having demos at golf shops was a good thing. Last summer they were trying to get more shops to carry them--this was probably around the time Terry stepped down.

They relied a lot on golfers trying the clubs out via mail and then having to send them back if they didn't like them. I never really liked that model. That is why I never pulled the trigger on the Scor wedges, but Terry went with the same approach for BH. The reason I ended up with Hogans has because there happened to be a shop near me that had demos.

 

I am bummed because I think they have a good product, but clearly that is only one part of the equation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Jiro]

I do think that while technology is important, marketing is the trump card. Getting your name on the golf hats of the top PGA and LPGA drives brand

Agree. That is why I think it is so hard to break in right now if you are not one on the big dogs that has momentum. Nike spent money on tour presence and even had Tiger but I wonder if golfers just always viewed them outsiders. They had good products and tour presence but could never get the masses to buy their clubs. If you can't do it with Tiger and deep pockets...is there hope for the upstart?

On the other hand it is really easy to fall--look at Wilson and McGregor.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Jiro]

Interesting that quite a number of golf manufacturers started out amidst the booming rubber products industry. A few other to add to the list would be Dunlop, Ben Sayers and John Letters. The oldest product in continuous production (that I can think of) is probably Slazenger. They also hold the title for the longest continuous sponsorship association (Wimbledon tennis).

I was a bit surprised by all the rubber companies too but it makes sense. My biggest surprise was that Nike's first golf product (besides apparel) was golf balls--they are the only non rubber company to start with balls. Though I think I read somewhere that Bridgestone helped them out at first.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Jiro]

Also moral of the story--don't sell to Amer Sports.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Kenny B]

Also with Ben Hogan, having to keep inventory on each loft had to be inefficient and cause more overhead.

Talking with a club maker who I got my hogan wedges from--he was one of the few that actually carried demos in store--he was saying they were really late in realizing that having demos at golf shops was a good thing. Last summer they were trying to get more shops to carry them--this was probably around the time Terry stepped down.

They relied a lot on golfers trying the clubs out via mail and then having to send them back if they didn't like them. I never really liked that model. That is why I never pulled the trigger on the Scor wedges, but Terry went with the same approach for BH. The reason I ended up with Hogans has because there happened to be a shop near me that had demos.

 

I am bummed because I think they have a good product, but clearly that is only one part of the equation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

I pulled the trigger on the SCORs after reading about them here on MGS, and because I could demo them.  My club had a demo set in a box that had never been used.  I asked Terry Koehler where I could look at them and demo and he pointed me to MY club!!  I asked about them one day, and the pro went into the storage room and pulled out this box that had 6 wedges, I think... not sure on the number.  But the set had steel, Genius 7, and Genius 9 graphite shafts.  The heavier graphite was for me.  

[Severtheties]

I still think Nike's exit had more to do with profitability. I'm not sure if they were bleeding money as some tend to think. I think they struggled with putting additional capital into R&D in a part of their company that wasn't making money hand over fist like the rest of it. I think they knew that that portion of their business was never going to become as profitable as the rest which is what they were looking for I'd imagine so an exit from equipment and keeping the soft lines (their bread and butter if you will) made the most sense.

[Jiro]

I still think Nike's exit had more to do with profitability. I'm not sure if they were bleeding money as some tend to think. I think they struggled with putting additional capital into R&D in a part of their company that wasn't making money hand over fist like the rest of it. I think they knew that that portion of their business was never going to become as profitable as the rest which is what they were looking for I'd imagine so an exit from equipment and keeping the soft lines (their bread and butter if you will) made the most sense.

My other thought is that they saw Under Armor try and come in with shoes and apparel and then we hear Adidas want out of equipment so they can focus on shoes and apparel. Maybe they did not want to get left behind. Once they got out of equipment they can now sign golfers to shoe and apparel deals that they couldn't before because the players other club deals wouldn't allow it. Take Jason Day for example. Helps them focus on the side of business that was making more money for them.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Here's another tidbit for y'all to chew on -- PXG, with very limited distribution and demo opportunities, has the just eclipsed 10% in market share in terms of dollars spent.  Sure, part of that is the fact they're irons are way more expensive than others - but still, 10% is a pretty substantial number in just a couple of years in business, with limited distribution and demo opportunities...

 

I'm sure Tour presence helps them, but it seems they've found a substantial, and profitable, niche.  They've passed Mizuno in market share.

[Severtheties]

Here's another tidbit for y'all to chew on -- PXG, with very limited distribution and demo opportunities, has the just eclipsed 10% in market share in terms of dollars spent.  Sure, part of that is the fact they're irons are way more expensive than others - but still, 10% is a pretty substantial number in just a couple of years in business, with limited distribution and demo opportunities...

 

I'm sure Tour presence helps them, but it seems they've found a substantial, and profitable, niche.  They've passed Mizuno in market share.

While there are still a lot of people that I know that have never heard of PXG, I believe the tour presence has substantially helped the visibility of the brand. At least enough to get people to the website.

 

I've also talked to a bunch of guys with more than enough money to spend on whatever they want basically, and PXG has become the brand that they all need to at least try once. Not taking away that they make a quality product as well. I equate it for these guys as the need to own a Porsche. While some buy the Porsche because they're an enthusiast of some type, a lot buy because of what it means for status and such. The ability to say "Hey want a ride in my brand new Porsche?"

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

I've also talked to a bunch of guys with more than enough money to spend on whatever they want basically, and PXG has become the brand that they all need to at least try once. Not taking away that they make a quality product as well. I equate it for these guys as the need to own a Porsche. While some buy the Porsche because they're an enthusiast of some type, a lot buy because of what it means for status and such. The ability to say "Hey want a ride in my brand new Porsche?"

 

It's important to remember that, believe it or not, the 1%'ers may very well be the most underserved demographic in golf.  Folks with money who want what they want, who are happy to pay for the experience of being custom fit and treated like royalty and who want a certain level of exclusivity - there are an awful lot of people who fit that mold, and they don't give a damn about what anyone else things, or some ridiculous dollars per yard formula.  

 

I love reading the comments when we write about any premier brand - "this is for idiots who think these clubs will make them a better golfer..."  Idiots? At least they're not the ones wasting time trolling blogs!     

 

And they have money to spend on anything they want. Tim Clarke at Wilson calls it "Male Jewelry," and I think he's right - lots of people buy stuff because it's pretty and makes them happy.  

 

On the other side, it's also a damn profitable business model. I think Bridgestone is sensing this and that's why their new Tour B series is going to be limited and exclusive. They've spent years fighting the mainstream brands and have been losing badly, even though their equipment has been top notch. Why try to win the race to the bottom?  With Tour B their market share will more than likley go down,  (if such a thing is possible), but I'd be willing to bet they'll be profitable.

 

On a related note -it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see Bridgestone pull out of the retail equipment game altogether.  

 

And didn't someone say something about Mizuno rumors?

[Severtheties]

It's important to remember that, believe it or not, the 1%'ers may very well be the most underserved demographic in golf.  Folks with money who want what they want, who are happy to pay for the experience of being custom fit and treated like royalty and who want a certain level of exclusivity - there are an awful lot of people who fit that mold, and they don't give a damn about what anyone else things, or some ridiculous dollars per yard formula.  

 

I love reading the comments when we write about any premier brand - "this is for idiots who think these clubs will make them a better golfer..."  Idiots? At least they're not the ones wasting time trolling blogs!     

 

And they have money to spend on anything they want. Tim Clarke at Wilson calls it "Male Jewelry," and I think he's right - lots of people buy stuff because it's pretty and makes them happy.  

 

On the other side, it's also a damn profitable business model. I think Bridgestone is sensing this and that's why their new Tour B series is going to be limited and exclusive. They've spent years fighting the mainstream brands and have been losing badly, even though their equipment has been top notch. Why try to win the race to the bottom?  With Tour B their market share will more than likley go down,  (if such a thing is possible), but I'd be willing to bet they'll be profitable.

 

On a related note -it wouldn't be terribly surprising to see Bridgestone pull out of the retail equipment game altogether.  

 

And didn't someone say something about Mizuno rumors?

Couldn't agree more. The whole "market share" thing has always been funny to me. While I suppose it shouldn't be completely ignored, I think a lot of brands (like a Bridgestone) are starting to see these big companies with "tons" of market share go under or out one by one. Obviously the question begs, is it REALLY worth chasing that number?

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Couldn't agree more. The whole "market share" thing has always been funny to me. While I suppose it shouldn't be completely ignored, I think a lot of brands (like a Bridgestone) are starting to see these big companies with "tons" of market share go under or out one by one. Obviously the question begs, is it REALLY worth chasing that number?

A very smart sales trainer once told me "never sacrifice margin for market share - because business is a game of margin, not volume."

 

Would you rather have a half billion dollar company losing 15-25% annually, or a $120 million dollar company making 5 to 10% annually?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Severtheties]

A very smart sales trainer once told me "never sacrifice margin for market share - because business is a game of margin, not volume."

 

Would you rather have a half billion dollar company losing 15-25% annually, or a $120 million dollar company making 5 to 10% annually?

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Very well put. I'll taking making money, no matter how little, any day.

[stage1350]

Also with Ben Hogan, having to keep inventory on each loft had to be inefficient and cause more overhead.

Talking with a club maker who I got my hogan wedges from--he was one of the few that actually carried demos in store--he was saying they were really late in realizing that having demos at golf shops was a good thing. Last summer they were trying to get more shops to carry them--this was probably around the time Terry stepped down.

They relied a lot on golfers trying the clubs out via mail and then having to send them back if they didn't like them. I never really liked that model. That is why I never pulled the trigger on the Scor wedges, but Terry went with the same approach for BH. The reason I ended up with Hogans has because there happened to be a shop near me that had demos.

 

I am bummed because I think they have a good product, but clearly that is only one part of the equation.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

That method of marketing didn't work for Columbia House with CDs either.

 

You can see the ball companies living for a long time.  Balls and soft goods have huge margins.  There are a lot of people that will pay the extra nut to play ProV1 and wear certain articles of clothing.  You also see clothing manufacturers (Adidas, Nike) shedding their equipment because there isn't any money to be made there.  

 

The other issue is that your "average" golfer isn't going to pay for quality.  Hence, the demise of low-mid level forgings and welted shoes.  Our throwaway society doesn't want items built to last.  We rather have new even if it's cheaper.  

 

The other moral is when most companies go public, the quality goes down and everything is done to increase profit.  Think AMF/Ben Hogan, MacGregor, etc.

[MDGolfHacker]

...And didn't someone say something about Mizuno rumors?

Ugh, hope then don't get out of the US market! One of my favorite brands. I've had two sets of their irons and was looking to potentially add a third set...

 

MDGolfHacker

[jrmull]

Great thread and discussion! Several of these brands that have failed, went through a reset, or pulled out of the equipment industry, had periods when their product was inferior or at least perceived to be so. Think Wilson in the PepsiCo/Amer years, McGregor during the Amer years, even Nike clubs in the early years. Once a company has the stigma of having an inferior product, coming back has to be extremely difficult. Barbajo and MyGolfSpy did a great job showing that in the article(s) on Wilson (sorry, don't have the links at the moment) as they rebuild their reputation, which it seems, they are doing a good job of. However, recently I was visiting with the local club fitter that I have been working with, and he just dropped Wilson as one of his offerings because, in his words, "nobody bought it". So, no wilson demo clubs at his shop anymore, and I don't think they will be at his demo day either this year. When the general public has a perception of something, whether accurate or not, it can be almost impossible to overcome. Hopefully this is just an exception and Wilson's recovery continues.

[chisag]

... Bridgestone is a great example of the difficulties of challenging the market. Many forum golfers thought the J33 cb's were one of the best cb's ever produced. Subtle look better players love, some forgiveness around the perimeter and some density behind center contact and looked just about perfect at address. Yet, golf stores didn't stock them because they had "no shelf appeal". Bridgestone told me they looked too plain for most golf stores according to their potential retailers. So they concentrated on cosmetics for the J36 lineup putting some silver sparkle paint in the cavity with back and blue splash color and a B epoxied decal in the middle of the club. They got torched on golf forums for abandoning their clean look while retailers said they still were not flashy enough. Yet many knowledgable forum enthusiasts would probably list Bridgestone as one of the best irons ever made. 

... Bridgestone is not completely innocent either. The J33R was one of the best drivers ever made imo. A modern 460cc 510tp that was low spin, mid low launch and absolutely neutral should have been a staple in their line up, but they went away from what was successful and have never regained their momentum. Hard enough to stay inn the game with established brands but making in roads with an unknown brand for most is almost impossible.  
 

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

... Bridgestone is a great example of the difficulties of challenging the market. Many forum golfers thought the J33 cb's were one of the best cb's ever produced. Subtle look better players love, some forgiveness around the perimeter and some density behind center contact and looked just about perfect at address. Yet, golf stores didn't stock them because they had "no shelf appeal". Bridgestone told me they looked too plain for most golf stores according to their potential retailers. So they concentrated on cosmetics for the J36 lineup putting some silver sparkle paint in the cavity with back and blue splash color and a B epoxied decal in the middle of the club. They got torched on golf forums for abandoning their clean look while retailers said they still were not flashy enough. Yet many knowledgable forum enthusiasts would probably list Bridgestone as one of the best irons ever made. 

 

... Bridgestone is not completely innocent either. The J33R was one of the best drivers ever made imo. A modern 460cc 510tp that was low spin, mid low launch and absolutely neutral should have been a staple in their line up, but they went away from what was successful and have never regained their momentum. Hard enough to stay inn the game with established brands but making in roads with an unknown brand for most is almost impossible.  

 

 

Excellent points -- retail is hard for challenger brands like Wilson, Bridgestone and others. The J15 lineup was by and large awesome, but confusing and nothing stood out appearance wise.  So what do you do? Do you go lower priced or higher priced?  Bridgestone did both -- I like what they did with the JGR Hybrid irons - those things are awesome for that particular market, and they're priced to move.  I don't know how well they're going to do, but they're not trying to be TM, Cally or anyone else - they're just trying to sell a few clubs. It's hard to make money in the lower end of the market - it VERY crowded.  

 

The Tour B series is a step in the right direction, I think. Rather than trying to win the race for the bottom they've gone higher end, with metal woods, at least.  The irons aren't at PXG levels - in fact, they're in line price wise with the new Srixons and others, but they're through fitters only.  Their better player irons market share will no doubt go down (if that's possible!), but I'll bet they'll be profitable.  

[stage1350]

I love Bridgestone and agree with Chisag's comments about the J33 line.  I still have the woods and would have the irons too if not for the stupid USGA groove rule.  The J15B irons are close with little offset, not too thick of a topline, etc.  And I felt the J715 B5 driver was excellent.

 

In my opinion, making the Tour B through fitters only is a mistake.  You have to have equipment in the stores for people to try and demo.  You can only see so much from photos and if you can't touch and feel the product, many will not purchase.  

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

 

In my opinion, making the Tour B through fitters only is a mistake.  You have to have equipment in the stores for people to try and demo.  You can only see so much from photos and if you can't touch and feel the product, many will not purchase.  

 

They've tried the retail approach and it just ain't happening for them. They're taking a page out of the PXG playbook, I believe - people who go to the types of fitters they're targeting are not your every day golf consumer. These are golfers who know their game and are open to getting fit into something that isn't exactly mainstream. They're targeting the kind of cat that is highly unlikely to buy clubs at Golf Galaxy or the PGA Super Store.

 

The standard retail model, for a challenger brand like Bridgestone, is a no-win situation. They can spend a ton of money, time and effort trying to get into more retail channels and won't sell appreciably more product. And lowering the price? That's just a race to the bottom - if you have so-so margins to begin with, and then you invest in getting more product on the shelves (which is a big investment in sales, shipping, marketing, inventory, production, etc), and then drop the price?  That's a race to the bottom that you don't want to win.   

 

I honestly don't believe Bridgestone is planning on selling more B series irons than they did J15 series -- I believe it's just the opposite.This was a measured an conscious decision in Bridgestone's part.  My take is they know their market share - such as it is - will go down and even fewer people will be playing the premium Bridgestone irons, but they'll make money, which is way better than having a ton of market share but losing money.  

[Miboy62]

They've tried the retail approach and it just ain't happening for them. They're taking a page out of the PXG playbook, I believe - people who go to the types of fitters they're targeting are not your every day golf consumer. These are golfers who know their game and are open to getting fit into something that isn't exactly mainstream. They're targeting the kind of cat that is highly unlikely to buy clubs at Golf Galaxy or the PGA Super Store.

 

The standard retail model, for a challenger brand like Bridgestone, is a no-win situation. They can spend a ton of money, time and effort trying to get into more retail channels and won't sell appreciably more product. And lowering the price? That's just a race to the bottom - if you have so-so margins to begin with, and then you invest in getting more product on the shelves (which is a big investment in sales, shipping, marketing, inventory, production, etc), and then drop the price?  That's a race to the bottom that you don't want to win.   

 

I honestly don't believe Bridgestone is planning on selling more B series irons than they did J15 series -- I believe it's just the opposite.This was a measured an conscious decision in Bridgestone's part.  My take is they know their market share - such as it is - will go down and even fewer people will be playing the premium Bridgestone irons, but they'll make money, which is way better than having a ton of market share but losing money.

 

Great post, could not agree more on a the "race to the bottom ".

[Jiro]

They've tried the retail approach and it just ain't happening for them. They're taking a page out of the PXG playbook, I believe - people who go to the types of fitters they're targeting are not your every day golf consumer. These are golfers who know their game and are open to getting fit into something that isn't exactly mainstream. They're targeting the kind of cat that is highly unlikely to buy clubs at Golf Galaxy or the PGA Super Store.

 

The standard retail model, for a challenger brand like Bridgestone, is a no-win situation. They can spend a ton of money, time and effort trying to get into more retail channels and won't sell appreciably more product. And lowering the price? That's just a race to the bottom - if you have so-so margins to begin with, and then you invest in getting more product on the shelves (which is a big investment in sales, shipping, marketing, inventory, production, etc), and then drop the price? That's a race to the bottom that you don't want to win.

 

I honestly don't believe Bridgestone is planning on selling more B series irons than they did J15 series -- I believe it's just the opposite.This was a measured an conscious decision in Bridgestone's part. My take is they know their market share - such as it is - will go down and even fewer people will be playing the premium Bridgestone irons, but they'll make money, which is way better than having a ton of market share but losing money.

Good thoughts, I think you are right and Bridgestone had assessed that fitters is the way to go over mainstream retail as a challenger brand. The type of golfers who are going to buy their stuff would be gearheads that are going to go to fitters. I have several friends that like golf but have no real knowledge of any manufacturers outside of the big four, nor would they ever buy anything outside of the big four. If you told them that Bridgestone the tire company makes golf clubs, they would just look at you funny. I was talking with a friend last week that has a full bag of Callaways. Outside of my Ping driver, he had never heard of anything else I had in my bag. He was surprised I had so much off brand stuff for someone who likes golf so much

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[J.B. TexasEx]

If money is no object, I'd probably get fitted for a new set of PXG or Edel Golf clubs.

 

I regret never hitting the Ben Hogan Ft. Worth 15 irons before they went bankrupt (again). I guess the Hogan name doesn't carry enough weight with the new generation of golfers. But, he and the brand had one helluva run! Callaway still uses the Hogan brands in their clubs; Apex, Sure Out, etc.

 

I noticed that PXG plagiarized Mr. Hogan's famous tagline, "No one makes a golf club like we do."

[Jiro]

If money is no object, I'd probably get fitted for a new set of PXG or Edel Golf clubs.

 

I regret never hitting the Ben Hogan Ft. Worth 15 irons before they went bankrupt (again). I guess the Hogan name doesn't carry enough weight with the new generation of golfers. But, he and the brand had one helluva run! Callaway still uses the Hogan brands in their clubs; Apex, Sure Out, etc.

 

I noticed that PXG plagiarized Mr. Hogan's famous tagline, "No one makes a golf club like we do."

I think one of Ben Hogans mistakes in the last iteration was not getting their product into the fitter's shops. They were relying on customers trying to self fit and order online without being able to try them out first which is a tough sell. Late last summer they made an effort to get into more fitter's shops but by then it was already too late. I was fortunate to have a fitter near me that carried them so I was able to demo their wedges. I ended up buying three of them because I liked them so much but don't know if I would have pulled the trigger if I was buying them online without being able to try them out first and get properly fitted.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy