Opinion & Analysis
How TaylorMade’s marketing slayed Callaway and saved golfers money
I’m going to start this one with a disclaimer. Understand that I have no motive outside presenting an accurate historical accounting.
Back in March of 2012, TaylorMade-adidas purchased Adams Golf. At the time, Adams was a public company and the decision to sell had been made by a sufficient number of shareholders that a positive vote to a good offer was decided in advance. At the time I was a minor shareholder, so my votes had no impact on the decision and I voted with the majority. Further, I had no relationship with TaylorMade and to this day I have never met any executive within their organization.
Now the story.
Back in the early 1980’s, the golf equipment industry was all about Ping. The company had effectively replaced the old guard — Wilson, McGregor, Spalding and Powerbilt — as the hot brand. Ping’s EYE-2 irons became the best-selling iron in the industry and the introduction of investment in casting and perimeter weighting led the way for thinking about designs far advanced of blade irons and persimmon woods.
In the mid 1980’s, a marketer with a passion for golf by the name of Ely Callaway acquired a company called Hickory Sticks, which in 1988 became Callaway Golf. He attracted investors, brought out irons with no hosels and eventually released an oversize titanium driver called the “Big Bertha” after the famous German howitzer.
Here’s a bit of insider history. When tested, the first Berthas didn’t perform as well as hoped. They tended to go low and right (not unlike the infamous oversized Bridgestone “J” driver designed for Jumbo Ozaki) when folks finally got them. The Callaway folks noticed that their 11-degree driver worked fine; it was the 9-degree model that was giving golfers problems. The fix? When the clubs made it into production, the 9-degree driver actually had about 11 degrees of loft and the 11 degree had about 13 degrees of loft. Aided by strong marketing, the clubs were a huge success spawning line extensions that went on for years.
Here’s another digression: The reason the 9-degree Big Bertha driver (and the J driver) didn’t perform very well was that its center of gravity (CG) was too close to the face. That made it very low spinning compared to what golfers were used to and also very hard for average golfers to square the face. Does the low-spin, high-loft story sound familiar in today’s marketplace?
I started in the golf equipment business in 1987 and registered somewhere below obscurity until a club called “Tight Lies” became popular in the late 1990’s. Along the way, I got to know Ely Callaway. In fact, we had an informal exchange of phone calls on Friday afternoons.
Ely told me that when he entered the golf industry he was not impressed with the marketing he saw. Further, he discerned that more distance was the great elixir to the public and that a combination of a strong tour staff, creative marketing and innovative product would allow his company to dominate. And boy did it ever. All respect to Ping (one of my all-time favorite companies), it became an also-ran with everyone else as Callaway set new standards for sales volume at previously unheard of high retail prices, generating margins held in envy. Cleveland and Cobra had some good numbers, but nothing close to Callaway.
Now ask yourself a question. You have just been given the CEO job at a competing company. Your dream comes true. You face this 400-pound gorilla called Callaway that has more money, huge market momentum and unheard of market acceptance. How do you compete? Do not say that you’ll make great product and sell it cheaper. The product can’t be just cheaper. It will have to be much cheaper — like half — and you’ll have to spend a ton of marketing money to convince the public that it’s as good. That’s not exactly a thrilling message. This is a recipe for going broke, as history teaches.
That CEO’s name was Mark King. He was the vice president of golf ball sales for Callaway and he got recruited to TaylorMade as CEO. He had Adidas money behind him and a seemingly impossible challenge. He came up with a unique strategy — speeding up the new product release cycle — and figured that Callaway couldn’t react to his speed, or at least by the time Callaway did TaylorMade would have already shifted momentum. He got Addidas to underwrite a huge presence on Tour because without it, no strategy would have worked. It takes big money as it becomes a bidding process for faces on television.
The strategy succeeded beyond most people’s dreams, maybe even King’s. He not only disrupted Callaway; he disrupted all the companies. The low-price market disappeared, and consumers could now buy discounted product that was only a few months old. This was highly preferable to buying products from low-price brands. TaylorMade became the volume and innovative leader and along the way attracted millions of loyal customers. You see, without this strategy everything would probably still be full retail price like it was before.
The problem is that the strategy can’t endure forever. Every year, the market inventories increased and along came the storm. We have to realize that since 2000 golf has lost some 40 percent of the folks who pay 71 percent of all expenses including equipment. Retailers sniffed the impending adjustment and dumped inventories, cut back personnel and reduced buys. Some decided golf equipment was a lousy business and looked to other products.
Momentum shifted, business magazines wrote stories about the fall of the golf industry and nobody was optimistic. They still aren’t.
And you, Mark King, took heat as TaylorMade’s sales dropped significantly and got “promoted” upstairs. Members of the golf community including consumers and internet readers made you out to be a bad guy. The truth? One can argue that the speeded up cycle had to crash that there was no other way to stop it. Maybe, maybe not, but King did a great job fighting the Callaway juggernaut and saving consumers money along the way.
For those who complain about equipment prices, here’s a bit more history. In 1995, three woods and nine irons from Callaway retailed for $2325! Now assume that King hadn’t been successful with his strategy, factor in normal price increases and consider what golf equipment retail would be like today. The long-term strategy may have been flawed and the drop in play hurt, but over the years Mark King saved consumers a lot of money.
As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!
Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.
Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.
One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?
Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.
Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.
Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”
For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…
Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.
Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…
That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.
Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.
@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic
Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!
Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.
View this post on Instagram
“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”
Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.
That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.
As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.
I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.
One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.
The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.
If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.
Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.
As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.
It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.
David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.
In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:
“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”
Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”
Eventually, though, something shifts.
We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.
Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.
Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.
Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.
So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.
I see someone evolving.
He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.
It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.
‘Why would anybody want to change that swing?’ – Brandel Chamblee says PGA Tour star was wrong to change his swing
‘The stupidest freaking thing I’ve ever heard’ – Billy Horschel slams Open idea suggested by Padraig Harrington
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Golfer proudly posts photo of ball mark on iron, receives immediate roasting
WITB Time Machine: Matthew Wolff’s winning WITB, 2019 3M Open
Oakmont Country Club bans Wyndham Clark over locker incident; Reveals specific conditions to earn reinstatement
Adam Scott puts Callaway blades in the bag at Wyndham Championship
Report: LIV star fires caddie and coach in shock shake up
Rickie Fowler makes equipment change to ‘something that’s a little easier on the body’
The championship formula: How 3 key stats separate winners from the field
Peter Malnati WITB 2025 (August)
Peter Malnati what’s in the bag accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. More photos from the event here. Driver: Titleist...
Cameron Young’s winning WITB: 2025 Wyndham Championship
Driver: Titleist GT2 (9 degrees, A1 SureFit setting) Buy here. Shaft: Mitsubishi Tensei 1K Pro Orange 70 TX 3-wood: Titleist...
Camilo Villegas WITB 2025 (July)
Camilo Villegas WITB accurate as of the Wyndham Championship. Villegas was undecided on a 3-wood when we shot his bag. ...
WITB Time Machine: Brandt Snedeker’s winning WITB, 2018 Wyndham Championship
Brandt Snedeker fired a final-round 65 at the 2018 Wyndham Championship to outlast Webb Simpson and C.T. Pan. His 5-under...
Pingback: Culture Is King: Three Ways Adidas Is Striving to Build a Culture of Extraordinary « Malaysia Daily News
JEFF
Jan 9, 2015 at 1:33 pm
Wow, how NOT interesting!
George
Apr 22, 2015 at 12:09 am
Barney is right, and you Jeff, are a clown!
Pingback: Mark King- Consumer Killer Or Savior? - The Golf Shop Online Blog
Jeff
Oct 25, 2014 at 2:03 pm
Mr. Adams, might I suggest throwing some quotation marks around the word SAVED in article title?
Carl Paul
Oct 23, 2014 at 10:33 pm
Barney, your comment about the ineffectiveness of the Bertha 9 degree is only half right. With the cg close to the face, the club head has less effective loft at impact. the farther the cg from the face (everything else being equal to avoid mixing variables) the greater the effective loft and thus the higher launch angle and yes, greater backspin. With the cg close to the face, there is less effective loft and less spin (as you correctly said).
barney adams
Oct 24, 2014 at 11:37 am
Carl, please send me an email on the Gmail address listed. Without attempting to get into an intricate design debate, Callaway was concerned about face caving on their very first drivers so the faces were thicker that the springs of today. couple that with them being much deeper than anything else and you had a 9 deg driver that didn’t spin enough hence the “quiet ” switch to 11 deg.I find that ironic given some of today’s new technology of lower spin and higher lofts.
Doc Adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 9:37 pm
Mr. Adams, I must disagree with some of your article.
1. Adidas had more money and global resources than Callaway, so money was not a barrier King faced.
2. 2003 was the year TMaG started growing rapidly. 2002 was also the year Mark King became President and CEO of TMaG. King states in published articles that TMaG operated autonomous from Adidas (something Adidas is regretting currently). My point is King designed a business model that was not sustainable. Acushnet is a sustainable business model. So is Ping. Great companies build sustainable business models. TMaG’s model was a high speed train that has derailed in 2014.
3. TMaG under Mark King has the highest turnover of management of any company in the golf industry.
4. King stated in 2013 that TMaG would do 2 billion in 2015. He made that statement full well knowing the context of the current and past golf participation levels.
5.Consumers are best served when they receive value for their spend. TMaG frequent product cycles devalued earlier models rapidly. Where is the consumer value in paying $300 for a TMaG driver that is selling for $99 in six months or less.
If Mark King ever did anything for the consumer, it was an accidental by product of cramming a size 14 foot in a size 10 industry.
barney adams
Oct 24, 2014 at 11:40 am
Doc ( maybe you are a long lost relative ?? ) TM was frustrated with their sales vs Callaway hence the hiring of King. My story was about the industry , what happened and what might have been. I have tons of opportunities to get into personalities and choose not to .
golfiend
Oct 23, 2014 at 5:58 pm
Mass chinese production and increased supply is what brought down prices for the recreational golfers. It’s simple supply and demand economics backed by smart marketing. Get your brand name recognition, then make as much as you can, and sell the excess inventory at a discount to take market share from smaller competition. It’s been wonderful for all the club hoes out there. It’s American and it’s Capitalism.
Rex
Oct 23, 2014 at 3:54 pm
This POV is just that… It is also a gross historical distortion.
I believe you do a disservice to the thousands of supply side employee’s and shop owners who have lost their passion and livelihood as a direct result of the decisions made at TM.
Barney Adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Read my comment under Dave. The industry needs to look within.
Rex
Oct 23, 2014 at 6:58 pm
Simple math and simple excuses… Too often the NGF’s data has been used to tell half truths. Especially this year. So by your reckoning, golf equipment and soft-good sales should be down in excess of 40%…heavily compounded by TM’s price cascading business model (i.e., a blended decline in avg. retail price). Not even close. Furthermore, you choose to ignore any impact (perhaps conception) of depleted pent up demand as a function of relentless innovation in a conforming constrained category. I could go on and on… but you get a pass today.
Patrick
Jan 3, 2015 at 5:34 pm
Dumb it down for us golfers…what’re you trying to say? lol Once again, a comment that has been chosen to be one that is not responded too. In this case, using too many business words that make you sounded like gargamel from the smurfs. Sorry, but we should not demean what he says, it is just an opinion article. Remember, Mr. Adams did it…we have not.
Dan
Oct 26, 2014 at 10:11 pm
I agree
Nick
Oct 23, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Frankly, I have always been a fan of the companies that DIDN’T shorten the release cycle. I don’t disagree it may be better for the company but how bad does it suck to have your shiny new Callaway or TMAG obe old hat a few months later.
I am a Titleist fanboy and sure, you pay a pretty penny. No doubt about it. But my Ap2 712s and 913’s are several years old and still don’t feel like old tech despite the release of a newer line in each category bt Titelist. Meanwhile, your TMAGS are like 6 generations old, and while it probably doesn’t matter, they FEEL older because they have all this fad trendy stuff that’s now passe. I’m sure it means more sales for the company but as a player, I’d rather shell out a big wad once every 7-8 years then buy a new set every 2 that felt old 6 months into ownership. In the end, its less money and I can get fitted for shafts, etc. without knowing I’ll be shelling out again for the custom components in 2 years time.
Dave
Oct 23, 2014 at 11:58 am
Mr. Adams your thinking is really flawed. To say Mark King’s strategy was a positive for consumers is like saying Countrywide (and other lenders) were great for the housing industry. Sure people lost their homes because of greed and an industry tanked but look on the bright side, a lot of folks got some great deals on foreclosures!
Barney Adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 6:35 pm
In 2000 there were 10.3m Avid Golfers who picked up 71% of all golf related expenses ( source; NGF) today the category has 6.4m. Speeding up the supply cycle had nothing to do with the decline. The industry needs to self examine.
Dan Cohen
Oct 24, 2014 at 11:13 am
Barney, I disagree. if we unnaturally grow over the correct and natural growth, we get a temporary growth to 10.3m from the natural 6.4m, This causes the excessive building of extra courses, overproduction by the Callaways and TaylorMades. Losses of companies such as Tommy Armour, Hogan, Maxfli, and Top Flite who can’t keep up with the discounts. Now when the bubble bursts, we think we have lost that 3.9m golfers,when they were probably only there due to the discounts and played the minimum 15 rounds to be considered “avid”…and now we are about to lose Adams golf as well. Speeding up the supply cycle and the discount cycle is the cause of the bubble bursting and one can only hope we are finally at the end of the correction period.
Barney Adams
Oct 27, 2014 at 5:34 pm
The minimum rounds were 24 and picking up 71% of all golf related expenses isn’t minor. I too hope the equipment cycle returns to normalcy. ( definition ? )
Tim Baker
Oct 23, 2014 at 4:23 am
I am a long time admirer of Adams, especially tight lies.
One of the most difficult shots in golf for a mid-high handicapper is the fairway wood off the deck. The original tight lies gave me so much confidence and also the first wood that could be used from the rough.
Ever since I have carried an Adam wood of some description in my bag.
Only gripe is that they are not as readily available in the UK.
JP
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:56 pm
Who cares about product life cycles?? If you like what you bought, does it matter if a new model comes out. My toaster works great, does the job, I don’t care if a new and improved toaster comes on the market. TaylorMade, Ping, Callaway and Titleist are the golf innovators and drive each other to make better products so we can have fun. Sometime they hit a home run with a product and some times they don’t, but at least they keep trying. It’s fun to see product, maybe a little less often with some companies, once a year is perfect. Every 2 years launching clubs, to me is too long.
Companies don’t make you buy their products.
Ebay killed the golf biz anyway.
Stubaka
Jan 9, 2015 at 6:57 pm
Exactly. Ebay and the used club market expanding killed golf. I don’t understand why people are so angry at Tmag for speeding product cycles. They come out with cars, cell phones, tablets, shoes, and clothes every year. You are not required to buy anything you don’t want or can’t afford. Every year product cycle is fine.
China
Oct 22, 2014 at 9:21 pm
Here are your companies using Chinese manufacturing…please give them a round of applause.
Nike
Calloway
TaylorMade
Ping
Titleist
Guy in the business
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:28 pm
Take ping off that list. They’re one of the only ones was with foundries still in the US.
Matt
Oct 23, 2014 at 9:26 am
All cast irons and Titanium woods are produced and polished in China, even Ping. Many of the forged irons in the market are produced elsewhere, but they are then sent to China to be polished. Ping was the last manufacturer to actually cast the clubs in the U.S., but they stopped doing that roughly 8 years ago. There are no heads cast in the U.S.
Scooter McGavin
Oct 23, 2014 at 4:00 pm
This.
Christosterone
Oct 24, 2014 at 4:51 pm
No you are wrong. Ping golf has foundries in Japan and US only.
The Japanese foundry specializes in deflationary protractred recession forging(Ansers for example).
The S56 was the first batch of Ping ever fully cast outside the US and it was in Japan. NOT china.
JP
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:40 pm
How is your USA made cell phone or computer? Who cares where it’s made. It is spelled Callaway.
MHendon
Oct 23, 2014 at 1:58 am
I kind of care where its made. When U.S. companies move manufacturing overseas the only Americans making money are the company owners. Our middle class is almost extinct.
JP
Oct 23, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Most parts for golf clubs are made over seas, but assembled here. We can’t make things here and have the same wholesale cost. Labor is so cheap there we can’t compete, unless you want to pay triple for items made here it’s not going to happen.
So once again, who cares where the parts are made, there are thousands of US people these companies employ. You want to boycott products made over seas you are hurting people here. Call customer service at ANY major golf company, guess what? All here in USA. Call tech support for your home computer, good luck on getting someone here in US.
Please tell me I am wrong.
John McClain
Oct 25, 2014 at 11:00 am
I care where stuff I buy is made. I would pay a little extra to be made in the USA. I want jobs back in the USA. On a side note companies that have clubs built and assembled in China are spending a lot of money to stop counterfeit products. Acushnet has an entire department with teams that hunt down counterfeiters.
barney adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 10:53 am
who isn’t
Billy Crenshaw
Oct 22, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Mr. Adams,
Prior to presenting a story like this, I think it would be wise to present all the facts.
Your story makes Mark King out to be a super marketing strategist that could look in a crystal ball, develop a plan to take down Callaway Golf or anyone else, WHEN HE IS NOT!
What was going on at Callaway Golf was this:
1. Ely was in the process of retiring.
2. Callaway Golf was introducing a new golf ball and as Ely had always done, he doing it in a first class manor. He over spent!
3. He hired Chuck Yash (Spalding) and Mark King (from TaylorMade) to run the golf ball side of the business. The golf ball company hired it’s on sales force.
4. Callaway Golf had released Bruce Parker as Vice President of Sales and hired Mick McCormick from Nike Golf to run the sales side of Callaway Golf. Mick’s strategy was to align Callaway Golf with major retailers like, Edwin Watts or Golf Galaxy which was the new retail leader in the golf business out of Minnesota.
5. Callaway Golf hired Ian Rowden from Coca Cola to support its new marketing strategy.
6. Mike Galeski and the tour department were going to loose most of their budget to support the management pay of Mick & Ian and their marketing plans. Needless to say, Mike Galeski and the tour department were not happy!
With all the above said, Mark King knew Ely’s & Callaway Golf’s plan, so he did what anyone would do that had inside information. Similar to having inside information on stock! With inside information, Mark King invested highly in the tour and bringing out new products, which is what anyone, would do with a minor in business.
Mark King did nothing more than use inside information to his advantage and Callaway Golf. Callaway Golf could not respond because it had already invested everything into bringing and new golf ball to market, high priced management and a new marketing strategy!
And if I am correct, you and your group (Adams) were in business at that time and if you knew what Mark King knew would have done the same……
barney adams
Oct 22, 2014 at 8:10 pm
I thought you might have some merit until you said Adams could have done the same. Except for being 100m or so short in marketing money we might have done something but it wouldn’t have been to speed up the product release cycle.
Andrew
Oct 23, 2014 at 9:39 am
Good come back Barney!
Brett
Oct 22, 2014 at 10:35 pm
The lesson here was that Taylormade gave us too many options and their equipment worked. You can’t follow up Rocketballz with Jet Speed and SLDR.
The next great equipment move in golf will be adjustable loft / lie irons.
barney adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 10:56 am
I cut my comment short; you may not be a King fan but the truth is he went to TM, shortened the production cycle and the rest is history.
Jeffrey Yoder
Oct 22, 2014 at 7:39 pm
Great article. Callaway seems to be following in TMAG’s footsteps. Thanks for taking the time!
Jeff
Oct 25, 2014 at 1:49 pm
Wondering when someone would say that. Does anyone think Callaway is in for a great 2015 and 16? Because this article lays bare the gains and eventual losses of the sped up product cycle. Anyone want a set of Apex Pros w/ C tapers? I wanna try the MP-15s anyway, ha.
wendell
Oct 22, 2014 at 6:29 pm
I find it funny that you start your post with a disclaimer stating that you were not responsible for the sale to Taylormade and that you voted with the majority. From my point of view you were the face of Adams golf and if you had made it clear to other shareholders that you didn’t want the company sold then maybe the outcome would have been different… and maybe Adams would have survived instead the brand being cheapened by Taylormade before being destroyed. Mr Adams it is sad that you allowed your company to die by selling out. For that reason you have no credibility with your rants about equipment pricing from other companies. What was really important was lining your pockets with cash… the consumer was the last thing on your mind.
Jack
Oct 23, 2014 at 3:25 am
Whatever. Mr. Adams has industry knowledge as a high level executive. You? How often does someone like that share his knowledge to the public? However tainted you think those views are, they’re still more unique. Not to mention easier to write than a reporter having to dig all this history up.
barney adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 10:59 am
Wendell. I appreciate your assessment of my power, unfortunately it’s completely innacurate.
barney adams
Oct 23, 2014 at 11:02 am
inaccurate ! before the spelling police arrive.
Wendell
Oct 23, 2014 at 8:31 pm
Voting against it just seems like a better move regardless of the end result. It looked like you were trying to make a move to get aligned with Taylormade. Voting against it would have caused some waves for sure. Again it’s all about perspective… How it looks from the outside… How that move looked to lack integrity… From a man who I understand was well respected in the industry… I am shocked that you didn’t vote to not sell to Taylormade. Ask anyone what they remember from Adams golf… Most will say you and I would bet a few bucks on that. I can’t imagine that you walked away without a fight… Without at least a vote to say … No
nikkyd
Oct 22, 2014 at 5:57 pm
I love lamp
Jeremy
Oct 22, 2014 at 7:54 pm
I love how my legit, coherent comments always have to await moderation, but this…
Matthew Bacon
Oct 22, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Two main things Mr. Adams failed to address. TaylorMade’s Pittsburgh Persimmon and Burner series metalwoods were just as popular and were more groundbreaking than the S2H2, so they weren’t the little engine that could. The internet and EBAY! Online stores and auctions created a secondary market that facilitated the re-sale or discounting of golf products. If they didn’t exist and individuals could only buy products at ProShops and big box stores the club industry would be a graveyard.
Dpavs
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm
This grows a bit tiresome. If you look at the actual statistics regarding equipment sales according to the National Sporting Good Association, in the past 10 years golf equipment sales bottomed out around 2009 coincidentally with the housing and market crashes. Go figure! Since 2009 sales have continued to steadily increase since then and 2014 sales will be very close to what they were in 2007. References to market state over 10 years ago hardly seems relevant given the changes in equipment prices and marketing strategies. It’s great history but not much more at that point. Oh we could look at those peaks back in the 90’s but that’s another subject as to why, when and how they occurred and how the market re-stabilized after some abnormal fad growth spurts.
plusfore
Oct 22, 2014 at 5:47 pm
Tm’s “rapid release strategy” did not seem to effect Titleist’s marketing strategy at all, perhaps Calloway was weak and vulnerable from the start.
MHendon
Oct 26, 2014 at 11:57 am
Didn’t effect Titleist because titleist has a lock on the Holy Grail of the golf equipment business, the golf ball market.
Golfraven
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:03 pm
The Q2 2014 http://www.adidas-group.com/media/filer_public/2014/08/11/ap_q2_2014_internet_final.pdf reports says that TMaG had lower margins (down 5% vs ~1% for Adidas group) and sales. Shareholders don’t care how many great woods and metals TM introduced, they care about profits which are generated by consumers who rightly walk away feeling ripped of. TMaG will pay for the greedy way of doing business and shortened release cycles and righly so. Times are tough and people don’t have the cash to burn – except thise idiots who don’t care about worlds economy.
Jack
Oct 23, 2014 at 3:29 am
If you paid attention, Adams actually is saying that Mark King screwed Taylormade. They thought they were winning when the rapid release cycle was actually cheapening their product and making the sales bin more relevant. Maybe that was their plan all along too though. To allow people who wanted to always get the latest products get them, and also for cheapos like me get used/slightly dated equipment for mucho cheaper.
teddy nucks
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:55 pm
SLDR TP – $400
SLDR TP Fwr – x2 = $600
SLDR irons (only 8 irons)= $1000
Total = $2000
Dave
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:59 pm
And, the $2k you mention is not time adjusted, the prices given in the article are historical prices.
teddy nucks
Oct 22, 2014 at 6:14 pm
ah yes inflation! still underwhelmed
jcorbran
Oct 23, 2014 at 10:29 am
Jetspeed driver $200
Jetspeed fairway x 2 $360
Rocketbladez irons $400
Total $960
Less than half price in 9 months.
Ed
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Interesting read.
To Correct. The Original Big Bertha as noted was not Titanium, But cast stainless.
Taylor Made didn’t save anyone anything. if anything, they destroyed the Golf Course Pro shop. Especially the smaller ones. No Pro Shop these days is going to take a flyer on 50 new drivers OF ANY BRAND When there will be an endless supply online a few days after release, new and used.
Saves Golfers Money? Maybe. Destroyed a sector of the business for many who had been in it for years. Indeed.
RG
Oct 22, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Uhh, I guess you don’t know sarcasm when u read it. Mr. Adams point is that TM flooding of the market has destroyed the market.
Duffing
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:42 pm
It’s funny now that people who bashed TaylorMade’s RSI irons now agree with Adams’ words.
sweetcity
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:26 pm
I enjoyed the post. In all honesty the thing that no one talks about is demo programs. In the late 90’s and early 2000’s demos were an afterthought. No companies like Titleist, Callaway, TaylorMade etc all expect green grass shops to take demo packages. At year end these packages get sent back and then sold through secondary channels like 3balls, global golf, and 2nd swing. What this has done is saturate the market. Now instead of buying a 915 Titleist driver, there will be 10,000 913 demos floating around in 2015.
Demos are what have killed the industry
drew r
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:46 pm
Wow you just described how my entire bag. Even after customization its still cheaper to modify demo irons and buy adjustable woods.
Regis
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Spot on Mr. Adams. Spot on. I’ve been an avid golfer for 50 years. I bristle when “newbie” golfers blame TMAG for the demise of the golf business. Up until the 70’s all golfers played Wilson Staff or Mac Gregor. There were no Golfsmiths, Dicks, or Golf Galaxy’s. Even when Ping introduced their irons which were game changers, they were only available in Pro shops and there was a 2 month backlog between order and delivery. The Spalding Executive was a market changer. But what really revolutionized the game and lead to the explosion which brought in new golfers was when Taylor Made introduced the metal wood in 1979. Then graphite shafts, It took a while for it to gain acceptability but the industry never looked back. Then they introduced the “hybrid” or as they called it the Rescue which replaced the long irons which were unhittable for all but single digit players, then adjustable hosels. TMAG bashers are either disingenuous or lack historical perspective. Taylor Made made the game easier to learn and play and more affordable. Now they bash TMAG as the company that single handedly is responsible for the demise of the sport. Ridiculous.
James
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:07 pm
In essence, TM did to Callaway what Callaway did to Ping.
Bert
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:59 pm
I believe “Price Fixing” has and continues to be a problem that is hurting the consumer. Companies set their prices and will not allow the seller to compete. Those companies really do compete with each other, but not really. The buyer should be able to purchase from a seller that can adjust prices. Nothing turns me away from a purchase than “certain company”requires us to set this price and we cannot provide any incentives; not even free shipping. Of course the buyer is starting to wise up; they have stopped buying the products as they did and now wait for the inevitable price reduction after another new product hits the market. However they most likely purchase at the price the product should have sold for originally.
Jason
Oct 22, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Ummm……yeah a $400 driver costs on average $300 maybe you can get it down to 280 or $270…..maybe. I used to own a golf shop where we could almost do $900,000 in total sales. The real problem for the “little guys” is if we have 20 drivers we can’t sell then the “company” drops the price to $299 and I get 6 or 8 “free” drivers to make up my net down now I have 28 or 30 drivers I still can’t sell so then you expect me to drop the price on those? So it’s just an endless stream of clubs that I can’t sell or that I’m just discounting so I can break even……not many businesses stay in business by breaking even.
Jack
Oct 23, 2014 at 3:33 am
Interesting that they give you free product to bring the average cost down.
Shallowface
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:52 pm
TaylorMade saved me a lot of money by making stuff that was so ugly I wouldn’t have it in my bag. A lot of their clubs looked like they were designed by Mattel. And unfortunately, much of the industry followed suit.
The newest TaylorMade product looks a lot better. Hopefully the industry follows suit once again.
Regis
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm
So I guess you are still playing Persimmon?
Shallowface
Oct 23, 2014 at 2:47 pm
Not always, but I do play a good number of rounds with persimmon.
Cally
Oct 22, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Lol clueless
Shallowface
Oct 23, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Maybe, but I retired at 46, play over 100 rounds a year, and have zero debt.
Clueless is spending so much money on the latest and greatest that there’s nothing left for green fees, purchasing all of it on credit, and having to kowtow to the boss because without that job it’s the soup line.
Contentment is wonderful.
Double Mocha Man
Oct 22, 2014 at 9:24 pm
I hope you’re not ragging on the 2010 Taylormade Superfast Burner TP driver. That is one ugly beast and I’m still playing it and still outdriving all my golf friends.
Jim
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:24 pm
Thank you very much Mr. Adams. I enjoyed your article and history lesson very much. I still have my 10-degree Big Bertha as well as the persimmon-headed MacGregor M 65 W Eye-O-Matic that it replaced. But today, as Danny mentioned above, I play a Ping G25 driver, 5-wood, 20 and 23-degree hybrids. I also play Titleist AP1 irons and Vokey SM5 wedges. I play those two brands because I believe they are both high quality products that fit my game well.
Previously, I had played Mizuno irons (MX-20 and MP-32) for over 10 years as I loved forged heads and believed they were the premier iron company. But age has stolen strength and swing speed as well as some eye-hand coordination. Going back to the Ping and Titleist brands after a few years, has been a great fit for me as I believe they offer superior products. I did play a TaylorMade R7 driver for a season but never felt that it offered the consistency of the Titleist 905 or Ping TiSi that it replaced. When initially considering going back to Ping metals, I did try the TaylorMade SLDR for a month after it was first introduced, but it was too light and simply didn’t work for my swing.
I am slightly biased against TaylorMade as I believe they are too much of a marketing machine and overhype what their products will do. However, that may simply be a generational thing as my son, age 24, loves TaylorMade and won’t consider anything else. He views Ping and Titleist brands as clubs for old farts, like his old man, and never understood why anyone but a Pro would want to play blades. He’s on his second set of TaylorMade irons and probably third or fourth TaylorMade Driver, and even plays TaylorMade balls!
So maybe the younger generation will continue buying TaylorMade and Callaway clubs with their claims of extra distance as they jack down their lofts, while brands such as Ping, Titleist and Mizuno continue offering more conventional clubs, relatively speaking. Regardless, the economy has to improve for the game to begin attracting a broader base of players, in my humble opinion. Thank you again Mr. Adams, for everything you have done to help the game of golf.
Alex
Oct 22, 2014 at 6:19 pm
Such a common misinformed point of view.
Check the lofts on those “traditional” companies. Then compare them with others. You’d be surprised.
E
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Nice article. But internet/eBAY HAS made and broke the golf business.
Jafar
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Not exactly. Ebay might be sustaining golf. If someone paid $1000 for golf equipment and could not use it, it would just sit in their garage. Instead they sell it, buy other equipment and continue playing, while someone on ebay gets a discount and either starts playing golf or continues to play golf.
Maverick
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:06 pm
I see just the opposite. Taylormade puts out so many different versions on each new model they crashed the market buy flooding the market with drivers, FW wood and irons. Also the gimmicks, racing stripes, movable weights, quick change shafts, and a continuing change in head size has had a hand in ruining golf.
Barney Adams has had some weird ideas about trying to increase the hole size, drastic equipment changes all of which create another game which is not golf.
Shallowface
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Those ideas (increasing the size of the hole, etc.) of which you write belong to Mark King, not Barney Adams.
barney adams
Oct 22, 2014 at 8:00 pm
excuse me!! Barney Adams has ideas about hole size and other weird changes. Someone is spiking your Ovaltine.
Shallowface
Oct 23, 2014 at 3:07 pm
Sorry Barney. I thought you were opposed to such nonsense. My mistake.
Jafar
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Cool story.
Explains everything.
Ty Webb
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm
eBay killed the golf biz not Mark King…….although he played a small role IMO.
Busterpar
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm
I’ve said for years after my first stint on the retail side of the biz that if the Nicklaus or Palmer golf companies had had access to Callaway’s marketing dollars at the time – there wouldn’t be a Callaway company now. They made such superior equipment with good shafts in comparison to the crap shafts Ely used. But the general public ate it up and wondered why they couldn’t hit the ball straight.
MHendon
Oct 26, 2014 at 12:20 pm
I don’t know maybe you or someone else can answer this for me. How did Callaway as a new start up have more marketing capital than already established brands as Nicklaus and Palmer. I took up the game around the time Callaway was getting big and their products seemed better to me than anything Nicklaus and Palmer where putting out. I know my dad who had been playing since he was 12 had at the time Ping eye 2’s in the bag and Callaway woods, S2H2’s.
dan360
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Mr. Adams, your insight is priceless. I thoroughly enjoy your articles about the “inside” of the golf equipment industry and look forward to much, much more.
Thank you, again, for taking your valuable time to share with us. Dan C.
JertyBirdWatcher
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:09 pm
Barney – thanks for a gutsy, “tell-it-like-it-is” take. At one time, TMag boasted they employed 37 full-time R&D guys. Now we know what they were all doing; they had a Wheel of Fortune-type spinner with the terms, “speed” “blade” “rocket” and “balls”on it. ‘Nuff said…
Kevin
Oct 22, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Loved this article. TMaG ruined themselves by flooding the market through Dick’s and Golf Galaxy. Those big box retailers bought in huge bulk and had product they could make more money on and sell cheaper than the green grass guys could. Green grass couldn’t stock TMaG clubs and expect to compete. TMaG turned themselves into a big box brand. Will be interesting to see how they try to get back into the pro shops.
Bill
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Kevin, they are already in the pro shops. There marketing presence has made it almost impossible for on course buyers not to stock the product. If a shop doesn’t carry it, they risk that their member goes to golf galaxy or Dicks to get what they want.
Rudders
Oct 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm
Self-serving would be a simple answer. I don’t see any golf company that issues new clubs just about every 6 months, and tell you the last release is passe, is saving anyone.
Chip Hunt
Oct 22, 2014 at 12:01 pm
It’s seems through all the turmoil Ping has remained true to their business model and have maintained a healthy company and brand. I have no idea what their bottom line is or how they have performed on a year to year basis, but I can’t recall ever hearing that Ping was in financial turmoil like Taylormade and Callaway have experienced. It’s as if Ping just lets Taylormade and Callaway fight it out and they keep doing what they are doing. And nothing made golf clubs cheaper over the long run than high quality cast clubs, which were first introduced on the mass market by Ping. Oh and there is that putter design called the Anser. How much money does Titleist/Cameron and other manufacturers make off that design? Don’t get me wrong I love my Cameron putters and my cavity back AP2s…just sayin.
HackerDav31
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:26 pm
You’re exactly right. The big difference? Ping is privately held. TMaG and Callaway are both publicly traded entities, and that means growth and profits have to be driven every single year, or else that year is a failure…
Bill
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Hacker, you hit the nail right on the head. Back before Callaway and TM were the big boys on the block, the vast majority of clubs were bought at on course golf shops. The golf professional, who probably owned the shop, made huge margins. As soon as companies became public, the pressures you mentioned kicked in. The off course market grew and the on course shop could no longer afford to stock product that they had to sell for slim margins.
Gwillis7
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:10 pm
Perfectly said. That’s why I love Ping…they stick to what they do and don’t care, some people call their products ugly or ‘old tech’, but they just work. Period.
duffer888
Oct 22, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Another spot on article by Barney.
AllParz
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:58 am
How does this explain the Golf Ball business?
Titleist sells ProV1’s for $48/dz — they sell more of these than anything else they make (or anyone else) – they should be the cheapest to manufacture due to the volume and costing no more than a Noodle. Srixon/Callaway/Taylormade make competing balls with very similar performance that sell for the same amount. I don’t believe the materials are more expensive, even if they were the volumes would take of the premium.
Shouldn’t an upstart be able to price a premium Tour Quality ball for less and take market share from Titleist? Is this just collusion among the manufacturers?
or is it that golfers are sheep and require themselves to pay $48/dz for what is considered “Tour Performance”?
larrybud
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:51 pm
Prices aren’t determine by cost, at least, not for the long run. They are determined by demand. Titleist charges $48/dozen because they *can*, and people will buy them.
Dave
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:53 pm
Remember when Titleist’s premium balls (Professionals and Tour Balatas) were $50 per dozen in the late 90’s, adjusted for CPI that’s ~$68/dzn. Not sure why the prices came down (on a real basis), I think there is a lot more competition in the urethane covered balls, but manufacturing could have come down too. I’m sure glad “premium” balls are not that price anymore and they are a lot more durable now.
Kevin PGA
Oct 23, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Titleist doesn’t charge the $48 for the dozen Pro V-1’s, the retailer sets that shop’s price. And the shop is making about $10/dozen on the sale.
Bill
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:19 pm
There are balls on the market for much less than the Pro V1 that perform just as well. For some reason people associate quality with price. Titleist, Callaway, Srixon, etc make HUGE margins on golf balls. Back in the 80’s Spalding came out with the Tour Edition golf ball. It was in a very fancy gold and navy blue box. The box cost more to mfg than the dozen balls inside!!
Bill
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:53 pm
You answered your own question. Do you think that all the people who play Pro V actually need to use Pro V1’s?
Jack
Oct 23, 2014 at 3:39 am
Yes, I do. Those distance balls make me look amateurish. LOL. Kidding aside, I mostly play used balls. People tend to lose them quite early in their life cycle.
Larry
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:51 am
Firsr article I ever read over the internet some years ago was by Ely Callaway…..he said the first big Bertha driver cost $15 to make and had a retail price of $199. He also said that they knew the shaft was in question and they fully exspected as much as 50% returns on the first runs. He said it took time to get a shaft tip strong enough for the hoselest head and they needed to release the product. He stated what Mr. Adams did about spending all his profits on tour players and advertising.
Dave
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:45 pm
I thought the Big Bertha woods were not titanium until the “Great” and “Biggest” Big Berth lines of woods came out?
Matt
Oct 23, 2014 at 9:16 am
You are correct. The Big Bertha was stainless steel. The Great Big Bertha and the Biggest Big Bertha were Titanium.
Dan Cohen
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:51 am
Wow. I am surprised. As someone who’s legacy is about to be destroyed by Giant. Someone who’s company is about to be turned into history the way of Powerbilt by that Giant, you would write an article with such veiled truth. Not sure if inferior products at lower prices count as saving consumers money. The products are lower priced, but they also hold no value. Of all the people in Golf, one would have guessed you would be the most upset at TaylorMade for their destruction of the golf business. This false bubble and the current correction we are in is the fault of TaylorMade and Mark King. Your namesake, and all the employees of you company losing their jobs is the fault of Mark King and TaylorMade. I am not even sure long-term, money has been saved by the consumer, unless one holds on to the set.
Yes Individual equipment is less money, but longterm costs of equipment is higher for equipment that is no longer customized to the golfer. To me, it is kind of like saying the 40% less golfers and courses closing is good for golf because greens-fees are lower and reducing services like mowing and taking care of traps is good for golf because with reduced greens-fees that is the only way to keep the doors open.
Gary
Oct 22, 2014 at 5:32 pm
Hi Dan,
Can you give me some specific reasons on how TaylorMade has caused the destruction of the golf business? Thanks
Dan Cohen
Oct 24, 2014 at 10:27 am
It is a bit of an exaggeration, but they have done just what Barney is say by doing the multiple releases and discount process. But what the casual reader doesn’t realize is that TM helps create a situation of oversaturation of product in the market, which then creates a sell at a loss, or hold product until it sells (which, excess doesn’t, until one sells it below cost. At face value this helps the consumer by giving them access to less expensive product. But, long run, experienced qualified fitters and stores leave or go out of business. Leaving only less qualified or box stores to fill the equipment needs of the players. In my opinion (whatever value that has) makes it harder for the consumer and the qualified fitter. In the end, the consumer is buy a less expensive product, that is probably not well suited for his/her game and then ends up trying to buy a game rather than being fitted for proper equipment which will enhance their game. my statement is an opinion based on experience of watching what is happening from an insider’s position in the golf business world. The companies I see caring about the game, are more concerned with proper fitting and quality, rather than dominating the market share reports with discount product. I only see 3 companies doing that in the present market.
Gary
Oct 28, 2014 at 8:40 pm
Thanks for the comments. Very interesting. Most of my bag is Taylormade. It’s always seemed to fit my eye and game. However, there is a little something about buying a club and it already feels outdated after 6 months. It’s almost the same as buying a new car and then they totally change the design in the next model. I think one reason Mercedes/BMW have been successful is that they keep all the design fairly similar. When Taylormade came out with the SLDR irons they had to know they were about to release the RSI line. Aren’t the SLDR and RSI 2 almost exact except for the slots in the face? Seems like it would have been better to just wait and come out with with RSI line.
Merty Huckle
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:48 am
Dang that was an interesting read. Now if we could only get the inside scoop on the rest of the OEMs. Let’s start with Don.
Mark
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:33 am
Cue the wrx flaming on market flooding in 3… 2… 1…
Danny
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:23 am
This article is why I buy Titleist and Ping clubs. Callaway and Taylormade are marketing firms that sell people golf clubs, Titleist and Ping are golf companies that make quality clubs for people to purchase.
HackerDav31
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:44 am
This is business, not a love affair. Titleists’ success isn’t based on clubs, its based on balls. And they market more than Callaway and TMaG COMBINED on their golf balls. Ping isn’t publicly traded and getting a look at their books isn’t possible as a result, but you can be sure both companies are in it to make money. That’s the bottom line.
Bill
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:42 pm
Not sure I would buy or not buy a club because of their product cycle. As Hacker mentioned, Titleist is in for golf ball sales. Their goal is to be the number one ball in golf and they will spend accordingly. The margins on golf balls is through the roof. Not so much on hard goods.
LMB
Oct 22, 2014 at 10:40 pm
Not that I don’t think Ping isn’t a good company, but have you seen the “quality” of delamination on the I20’s and I25’s?? They have great customer service though for returns, but so does every equipment company nowadays. I really don’t think any manufacture at this time (the big name ones) makes junk golf clubs. People like yourself need to stop drinking the Titleist traditionalist cool-aid in that those are clubs for “real players.”
Floor-is
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:11 am
I remember buying a PING driver in 2001 for €700 (about $950 at the time). Now we’re all pointing at the ±$400 driver as being very expensive. I don’t know how to tell you guys: stuff is cheap nowadays. (Also: if you’re looking what should cost most in your bag.. It’s the putter as you use it most!)
bradford
Oct 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm
While I agree about the cost/use–there isn’t nearly as much tech in your putter as there is in a driver, contrary to what the high priced putter companies will have you believe. Scotty and Miura are among the most expensive around, and both are very simple milled face putters. Don’t get me wrong, I carry a Miura–but it’s WAY overpriced for what it is. So while I agree with the notion that it’s the most important, it should even cost what it does in most cases.
Shallowface
Oct 22, 2014 at 2:48 pm
I would bet they sold more putters back when they were $20 and could be characterized as “impulse buys.”
It also hurt a lot less when you spent $20 for a putter and found out that it didn’t read the greens or help you hit it the right speed. Nowadays you drop big money for one, it fails, and oftentimes is butt ugly to boot.
That really hurts.
Jack
Oct 23, 2014 at 4:11 am
Why are you comparing Europe to the US? Different taxes, different prices. Clubs are more expensive in Japan too. You’re not doing apples to apples. BTW, a more expensive putter doesn’t make you a better putter LOL. It is the stick that you hit the ball most times with though, so yeah it should be the most expensive, especially since you’re likely to keep that for longer too.
Tom Bowles
Oct 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
Well Mr. Adams, despite history, you will successfully stir the pot. Hope you have your flame suit on. 🙂
Justin
Oct 22, 2014 at 11:09 am
That’s what I said on Facebook, I can’t wait until the reactions come in…”Buuut the golf shops! They’re going out of business because of TM and Cally!” Adapt or die, it’s what almost every industry has had to go through at one time or another, it’s normal.
Bill
Oct 22, 2014 at 4:45 pm
Look how on course golf shops have change in the past decade. There aren’t too many that stock many sets of clubs. Most carry Drivers, putters and wedges. Most depend on soft good sales (shoes, shirts, etc) for their profits. It’s also why most shops are now owned by the club and not the golf professional.
barney Adams
Oct 22, 2014 at 12:15 pm
I took some pills
Tom Bowles
Oct 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm
Very good. HA!