Stealth, the future, and marketing

[DriverBreaker]

So I’ve been thinking about Driver technology, marketing, and the future of golf equipment lately.  With all of the hype and subsequent pushback on the new Stealth driver line, here are some thoughts.

1) USGA sets the limits on how hot a driver can be (see cool video on the process here):

2) Any additional gains in ball speed would come from longer and lighter shafts or anything that results in swinging the club faster.  Remember the TaylorMade Burner Superfast 2.0 drivers with the long and light shafts?  46.5” long and only 45 grams!  I had one and man that thing could hit missiles (whenever I could actually feel where it was in the backswing that is…). 
 

3) I think that as more and more golf influencers and content creators start admitting that year to year driver differences are minimal at best (if they exist at all), consumers are starting to be more critical of marketing claims.  For sure there have always been those who question the claims, but I think it feels like more consumers are catching on. 
 

4) Would OEMs be better served using their marketing dollars advertising things like forgiveness?  For example, maybe forgiveness is the new frontier that is focused on?  The USGA limit on MOI is 6,000g-cm^2.  Should OEMs say, “This year’s driver averages only 3mph of ball speed loss on toe/heel strikes compared to center strikes.”  Or, “We’ve already made the fastest face on a driver possible, now we’re giving you the most forgiveness so you can be aggressive off the tee and hit bombs with confidence.”  To me, personally, that is a much bigger selling point and tech I’d be interested in vs “This year’s driver is 10yds longer than last year’s.”

For an interesting read on CoG and MOI in drivers, MGS had an article a few years back:  https://mygolfspy.com/2019-driver-center-of-gravity-and-moi-report/

It is cool to know that moving weight low and back or forward realistically only happens within the space of a Micro SD card. 

What say you fellow spies?  What type of marketing do you think OEMs are best positioned to use?  Obviously distance promises sell, and the OEMs know this and have done their research, but perhaps there is a new frontier approach to it that could be pursued?

[Shapotomous]

A very interesting topic to me.  I like the direction of your thought process, but......

Given the target audience for their advertising I don't think they will change their strategy very much.  The masses are looking for distance and probably are missing the sweet spot and most don't care for the details of why their mishit driver goes further.  

However, they probably should add advertising include your ideas on what I'll call mishit distance so a more informed customer might take note. 

If they would be so kind as to include which type mishits they excel at I would be interested to know about the high toe side miss as that is my tendency.  For now I experiment a bit and usually end up with a heavier head weight in the toe slot.  Lots of other golfers might want to know about low heel side strikes or low center strikes.  It would be info overload for most but useful for a small % of us.  I bet they already have the data.

My preference in the next gen driver is to offer weight slots not only in toe, mid and heel positions as a few do now but also rear and forward weight positions to further effect performance.  Just think of the marketing hype for something like that! 

[DriverBreaker]

16 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

A very interesting topic to me.  I like the direction of your thought process, but......

Given the target audience for their advertising I don't think they will change their strategy very much.  The masses are looking for distance and probably are missing the sweet spot and most don't care for the details of why their mishit driver goes further.  

However, they probably should add advertising include your ideas on what I'll call mishit distance so a more informed customer might take note. 

If they would be so kind as to include which type mishits they excel at I would be interested to know about the high toe side miss as that is my tendency.  For now I experiment a bit and usually end up with a heavier head weight in the toe slot.  Lots of other golfers might want to know about low heel side strikes or low center strikes.  It would be info overload for most but useful for a small % of us.  I bet they already have the data.

My preference in the next gen driver is to offer weight slots not only in toe, mid and heel positions as a few do now but also rear and forward weight positions to further effect performance.  Just think of the marketing hype for something like that! 

Oh for sure.  They know what sells, thus why they continue pushing the same marketing narrative.  I’m mainly thinking of more ethical marketing (if that’s even a thing). 
 

And as per weight ports in toe, middle, heel but also front to back, you mean like this?

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

marketing will never change. I’m sure at some point that will change and like you made a point in line 4 maybe there will be a different marketing point down the road but right now speed is king and until they aren’t making the bucks it will continue.

[Shapotomous]

22 minutes ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

Oh for sure.  They know what sells, thus why they continue pushing the same marketing narrative.  I’m mainly thinking of more ethical marketing (if that’s even a thing). 
 

And as per weight ports in toe, middle, heel but also front to back, you mean like this?

Close....get rid of the center face to back slot, add a second fade to draw slot in the back for is own weight like a G410, make a variety of slider weights available for me to experiment with like Sub70 and then ya got something!!  

[PMookie]

I think it was said well the other day in a post: the majority of golfers looking at a new driver have a driver that is 5-10 years old, so the distance gains being advertised are typically realized in a fitting, therefore distance is still king. Would additional benefits of “forgiveness/consistency” help sell to those of us who switch each year? I agree, and we’re seeing that. Look at Mizuno’s advertising for the two new drivers. Look at Ping’s advertising about Spinsistency. Look at Callaway mentioning consistency and forgiveness. I think it’s all being incorporated, but distance is what MOST buyers in the market are looking for, so that has to be in the message somewhere.

[GolfSpy MPR]

26 minutes ago, Lacassem said:

marketing will never change. I’m sure at some point that will change and like you made a point in line 4 maybe there will be a different marketing point down the road but right now speed is king and until they aren’t making the bucks it will continue.

Marketing will change when human nature changes.

And I have reasons to be skeptical that we'll see that happen.

[cnosil]

2 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Marketing will change when human nature changes.

And I have reasons to be skeptical that we'll see that happen.

Is this a professional opinion?  

[GolfSpy_SHARK]

4 minutes ago, GolfSpy MPR said:

Marketing will change when human nature changes.

And I have reasons to be skeptical that we'll see that happen.

Exactly. We all know golf *can be* expensive and in regions where consumerism is king just creates insane annual spend. Which then creates marketing Schemes to stir that spend. 
not a bad thing perse but circles back to our nature.

[DriverBreaker]

4 minutes ago, PMookie said:

I think it was said well the other day in a post: the majority of golfers looking at a new driver have a driver that is 5-10 years old, so the distance gains being advertised are typically realized in a fitting, therefore distance is still king. Would additional benefits of “forgiveness/consistency” help sell to those of us who switch each year? I agree, and we’re seeing that. Look at Mizuno’s advertising for the two new drivers. Look at Ping’s advertising about Spinsistency. Look at Callaway mentioning consistency and forgiveness. I think it’s all being incorporated, but distance is what MOST buyers in the market are looking for, so that has to be in the message somewhere.

For me, the distance part is a non-issue.  I have good ball speed.  So I’m very interested in more forgiving drivers.  I currently game a Ping G400 LST with a low spin shaft, yet when I miss hit it, it spins like mad, killing distance.  
 

I’ve not followed the marketing for the 2022 driver line aside from the unavoidable Stealth talk, so I’ll check out those drivers and campaigns you mentioned!  I’m going to PGA show next week, so hopefully I’ll hit some of the new items .

[Shankster]

I was a marketing student back in the day.  The only thing that will change is the delivery.  People will ALWAYS buy the new shiny toy.  Even if the new shiny toy is the same as the one that was new last year.

I just read an article about something fun similar.  I’ll summarize: a person visiting from a different country that noticed the CEO of an American company and the entry level worker both have the same truck. In his country the CEO drives a Benz and the entry level worker drives a used sedan… 

Is it just an American marketing thing that we must have the newest/best/shiniest new thing?  Might be for a while different topic.

Me personally… I don’t think I will see enough difference in the new driver to warrant the expense, because it is just a hobby.

[PMookie]

Distance AND forgiveness has been a message for a number of years now, it’s not new this year. Cases in-point below.

[GolfSpy_APH]

@GolfSpy_CS I'm glad you brought this to the forum. 

I know we had some back and forth in slack, but great to hear others thoughts on it. From reading a few responses I think there are a few other questions to add with this. If drivers from 5-10 years ago are still seeing significant gains (So Epic OG to Rogue ST) at what point is that turnover irrelevant. Meaning where may be the oldest peak driver which has consistently been close to the max? Is the G400 Max a potential benchmark to be surpassed? 

I think distance will always be king. I haven't dove too much into the marketing claims this year and even if they are still claiming consistency and forgiveness the main focal point is still ball speed and therefore distance. It is interesting that most OEM's have moved on from the this crown feature will help you move the club faster (I know sim had that on the bottom). Ping seems to be the only ones featuring this. 

So I would love to see a shift as I don't know how much more we would see in distance gains that would be a drastic difference. However as a amateur I would benefit from greater forgiveness overall. This has also been touched on, but maybe I'm in a small group that is looking for this and the masses are still looking for bigger gains and that is why distance gains are still king in marketing? 

[GolfSpy_APH]

5 minutes ago, PMookie said:

Distance AND forgiveness has been a message for a number of years now, it’s not new this year. Cases in-point below.

I don't disagree that forgiveness has been a story, but I will say typically distance is the headliner and the one that is focused on more. Is that because distance is more measurable then forgiveness to the masses?

[DriverBreaker]

I just looked into the Spinsistency tech.  Basically taking standard roll on a wood/driver and lower the lift further at the lower portion of the face.  Makes sense.  
 

https://ping.com/en-us/blogs/proving-grounds/thin-to-win

Kind of like SIK putter tech, but in woods.

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

Any additional gains in ball speed would come from longer and lighter shafts or anything that results in swinging the club faster.

To an extent but they also come via launch and spin. Which is what we tend to see in some of the yt videos on new releases. Movement of weight, reduction of weight in one spot to add it elsewhere.

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

I think that as more and more golf influencers and content creators start admitting that year to year driver differences are minimal at best (if they exist at all), consumers are starting to be more critical of marketing claims.  For sure there have always been those who question the claims, but I think it feels like more consumers are catching on. 

But there’s a large market of consumers who don’t buy year to year or even every 2 years. They can potentially gain distance especially if not properly fit for their current driver.

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_CS said:

Would OEMs be better served using their marketing dollars advertising things like forgiveness?  For example, maybe forgiveness is the new frontier that is focused on?  The USGA limit on MOI is 6,000g-cm^2.  Should OEMs say, “This year’s driver averages only 3mph of ball speed loss on toe/heel strikes compared to center strikes.”  Or, “We’ve already made the fastest face on a driver possible, now we’re giving you the most forgiveness so you can be aggressive off the tee and hit bombs with confidence.”

While moi is associated with forgiveness that’s not the only measurement. Optimized launch characteristics will provide better forgiveness. Some people benefit from something like the max head from Ping but others even high handicaps don’t always. 
 

You can’t really market the amount of loss on miss hits because it’s going to be different for each person due to how the contact is made and with what type of swing. 
 

 

[cnosil]

Distance has always been the main point of golf advertising.  Search google for vintage golf advertising and you will see ads in the 50s claimed more distance.    Golf analytics has shown that more distance is a key to lower scores.   Everything being sold makes claims;  it is your responsibility to validate the claims. 

[DriverBreaker]

11 minutes ago, RickyBobby_PR said:

To an extent but they also come via launch and spin. Which is what we tend to see in some of the yt videos on new releases. Movement of weight, reduction of weight in one spot to add it elsewhere.

But there’s a large market of consumers who don’t buy year to year or even every 2 years. They can potentially gain distance especially if not properly fit for their current driver.

While moi is associated with forgiveness that’s not the only measurement. Optimized launch characteristics will provide better forgiveness. Some people benefit from something like the max head from Ping but others even high handicaps don’t always. 
 

You can’t really market the amount of loss on miss hits because it’s going to be different for each person due to how the contact is made and with what type of swing. 
 

 

Gains in total & carry due to optimized spin and launch angle, yes.  I was talking about ball speed claims.  Optimized launch/spin seems more related to fitting and finding the optimal head/shaft combo for each golfer.
 

Yes, for the large market that doesn’t buy every year to two years, fitting is where best gains could be made.  I’m not talking about that.  I’m talking marketing claims/strategy.

For marketing loss of distance on off center hits and then not being able to do it because it relates to each individual golfer, don’t they already do that with distance claims?  Not everyone gains distance with each new driver, but for years we’ve seen claims that divers are longer than the prior year’s model, even if not for all. 

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Second article I ever wrote for MyGolfSpy - this distance thing isn't a new phenomenon. It's been that way forevah!

Back to the Future: It has ALWAYS Been About Distance! | MyGolfSpy

 

[DriverBreaker]

13 minutes ago, GolfSpy Barbajo said:

Second article I ever wrote for MyGolfSpy - this distance thing isn't a new phenomenon. It's been that way forevah!

Back to the Future: It has ALWAYS Been About Distance! | MyGolfSpy

 

Thanks for sharing.  Those old ads are great finds!  I know that, at least for the foreseeable future, distance will be the go to.  The companies know exactly what buttons to push and how it all works out to more $$$.

For those who don’t buy it though, what other strategies can/should they use?  And, back to my original point, will the hill ever be crested where the majority of consumers say enough is enough and they have to change their marketing strategies?

[PMookie]

1 hour ago, GolfSpy_APH said:

I don't disagree that forgiveness has been a story, but I will say typically distance is the headliner and the one that is focused on more. Is that because distance is more measurable then forgiveness to the masses?

Yes, as has been stated recently, and I note in my first post, most golfers looking at drivers have drivers that are a number of years old, so they WILL see distance gains, so distance is the smart way to go for marketing. If most shopping “need”, and would see, distance gains, it’s the smart way to go.

[Middler]

1 hour ago, cnosil said:

Distance has always been the main point of golf advertising.  Search google for vintage golf advertising and you will see ads in the 50s claimed more distance.    Golf analytics has shown that more distance is a key to lower scores.   Everything being sold makes claims;  it is your responsibility to validate the claims. 

While that's all true, I think it's way more primal than that for 90%+ of players. They care way more about out driving their buddies than "analytics." All of the 41 guys I play with regularly, including some very good players, don't know or care about golf tech. None of them are even aware of MGS (and I don't recruit because data is noise to them). They go on brand, looks, feel, marketing hype and what someone else (local pro or buddies) tell them.

I am way more interested in hitting more fairways, more distance is way down my list. But I know distance is still king to most. If a driver came out that allowed me to undeniably hit more fairways, I'd buy it at almost any price. But I also know my misses are operator error, not the equipment, so I've never chased the latest club(s).

It's been a long time since OEM marketing made claims on distance only. They've been touting MOI, forgiveness, etc. for quite a while - they want to claim the "new, improved" clubs will do everything better!

[Shapotomous]

10 minutes ago, Middler said:

While that's all true, I think it's way more primal than that for 90%+ of players. They care way more about out driving their buddies than "analytics" -.......

Obviously this is not a scientific conclusion but to support your 90% number of non analytical to analytical type golfers - A certain you tube reviewer has ~2M subscribers.....TXG has ~175k.  I go both ways, I enjoy Rick's videos as entertainment and I also enjoy dissecting the data TXG videos provide.

[russtopherb]

No matter how clubs are marketed, people will buy the newest and greatest and then immediately complain about said marketing because they still suck and their new club(s) didn’t immediately make them Tiger Woods. 

[RickyBobby_PR]

1 hour ago, Middler said:

While that's all true, I think it's way more primal than that for 90%+ of players. They care way more about out driving their buddies than "analytics." All of the 41 guys I play with regularly, including some very good players, don't know or care about golf tech. None of them are even aware of MGS (and I don't recruit because data is noise to them). They go on brand, looks, feel, marketing hype and what someone else (local pro or buddies) tell them.

I am way more interested in hitting more fairways, more distance is way down my list. But I know distance is still king to most. If a driver came out that allowed me to undeniably hit more fairways, I'd buy it at almost any price. But I also know my misses are operator error, not the equipment, so I've never chased the latest club(s).

It's been a long time since OEM marketing made claims on distance only. They've been touting MOI, forgiveness, etc. for quite a while - they want to claim the "new, improved" clubs will do everything better!

This is pretty much everyone I play with that are either in the long-standing group I know or the random ones I get paired with. Some know wrx more than they know mgs. Other than what clubs pros play they don’t know the difference in the various heads from one manufacturer and definitely not across all manufacturers. Also know idea about “high” vs “low” launch/spin heads/shafts.

all the guys in my longstanding group buy the same brands they play or periodically based on an ad. They still buy same loft they alway played and those who have switched shafts from stiff to regular or sr flex it’s based purely on the old notion of stiff is for fast swings.

The manufacturers know this and that’s who they design for and market too

[PMookie]

50 minutes ago, russtopherb said:

No matter how clubs are marketed, people will buy the newest and greatest and then immediately complain about said marketing because they still suck and their new club(s) didn’t immediately make them Tiger Woods. 

I shake my head when I hear about folks just going and grabbing a new driver off the rack and then complain how it isn’t better than what they’ve been playing even if what they’ve been playing is 5 years old. Most have no clue and think what’s on the rack are all the same.

[RickyBobby_PR]

Just now, PMookie said:

I shake my head when I hear about folks just going and grabbing a new driver off the rack and then complain how it isn’t better than what they’ve been playing even if what they’ve been playing is 5 years old. Most have no clue and think what’s on the rack are all the same.

We see it all the time on here. Buy a shaft based on the description and concept of slower swing needs less flex or softer shaft. Or that a GI is going to make the game easier and ignore design and whether they need help with digging or getting the ball in the air and that spin is their friend. 
 

Even some that have been on here for awhile blind buy and have to keep buying shafts trying to find the magic pill

[Middler]

1 hour ago, Shapotomous said:

Obviously this is not a scientific conclusion but to support your 90% number of non analytical to analytical type golfers - A certain you tube reviewer has ~2M subscribers.....TXG has ~175k.  I go both ways, I enjoy Rick's videos as entertainment and I also enjoy dissecting the data TXG videos provide.

Not disagreeing, but Rick and all the popular YouTube golf review channels provide launch monitor data, sometimes even comparative data. But I suspect most of the viewers don't care or understand the data and they're only looking for what Rick says good or bad - so you may be right in that sense. The irony is none of those guys, Rick included, will say anything bad about any major OEMs products directly - any criticism are disguised or so nuanced most players won't pick up on it. Like others have said, I look/listen to lots of sources, and decide from there. MGS is the most influential source for me, but I don't always follow their recommendations.

[fixyurdivot]

This post renewed my interest in the history of COR vs. CT.  I'm clearly behind on this not so recent change in how driver face "hotness" is measured but now have a good grasp on the reason for the newer CT method and differences.  No. Driver Distance Isn't Maxed Out | MyGolfSpy

Regarding the discussion about marketing, I absolutely see distance as king.  It's golfs equivalent of 0-60 times for sports cars. If anyone can share a golf driver ad whose headline reads "same distance as your old driver, but more accurate", please share it with us.  That said, I do suspect distance is less of an elixir to golfers who are knowledgeable about the market hype.  They know uncontrolled and/or inconsistent distance is a poor trade and keep forgiveness high on the decision tree.  

 

 

[silver & black]

I currently play a TS3. I'm good for another 3-4 years. I'm not a club changer just for the sake of having new stuff. I tend to stick with what I have for 5 years and more. Marketing people hate me.