Why do Titleist let so many top guys go?

[RichF]

Tiger Woods, David Duval, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Sergio Garcia, Paul Casey and now Martin Kaymer

[Range King]

Tiger Woods, David Duval, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Sergio Garcia, Paul Casey

I guess they give the players a decent contract, when they are new and relatively cheap. Later when they become better, they dont compete with what Nike, TM and Callaway pay.

If I did not forget someone, I'd say Robert Karlsson is the highest ranked player having Titleist on his hat. (16th)

[RichF]

I guess they give the players a decent contract, when they are new and relatively cheap. Later when they become better, they dont compete with what Nike, TM and Callaway pay.

Yeah, right now this leaves Titleist with:

Karlsson, Scott, Stricker, Watney, McIlroy, Johnson, Curtis

[mdvaldosta]

I'd venture to say they're not after the folks who get tricked into marketing gimmicks, you know. I don't think the "good and aspiring golfer" is gonna play a brand name just because some PGA touring player does (well maybe sometimes), I think those types of players are gonna play what's best for their game.

[deronsizemore]

Titleist may just not offer as much money as some of the other companies do? Maybe Titleist sets the limit on what they pay and at that point they want players playing their equipment because of the equipment, not because of how much money they're getting to do so. Could be smart... or dumb on Titleist's part. On one hand it's good that they're not getting into a money fight with other companies to out bid contacts for players, but on the other hand it may hurt them slightly as a lot of new golfers seeing more of the Nike, Callaway and Taylor Made since more golfers shown on TV seem to play them. Golfers newer to the game (and some experienced) like to play what the pros play rather than what may be best for their game.

This is of course all speculation as I really have no idea.

There's still some pretty big names playing their equipment though: http://www.titleist.com/players/

[pjsnyc]

Because the name speaks (and sells) for itself. They don't need the best golfers to endorse their products to get more sales.

[Range King]

Because the name speaks (and sells) for itself. They don't need the best golfers to endorse their products to get more sales.

I fully agree.

Until last june, I was totally not interested in golf. Never had a club in my hand. I only knew Titleist, and that's what I bought after I got hooked. But I am old (33 ), and not sure if the young folks tick like this. It would surely not hurt Titleist to have a player in the Top 5.

[iacas]

Tiger Woods, David Duval, Phil Mickelson, Ernie Els, Sergio Garcia, Paul Casey and now Martin Kaymer

I think a lot of the players are over-rated.

Two belong in the "got too expensive" category: Tiger, Phil Several belong in the "have sucked since leaving Titleist" category: Duval, Els, Sergio (still no majors - only except is the "big event" PLAYERS win) The rest you listed don't really rate with U.S. viewers: Casey, Kaymer I'll second what others have said: Titleist doesn't need a bunch of big names to get the recognition. They seem to pay more for ball contracts so they can tout "#1 ball in golf" and pros seem to choose to play Vokeys and Scotty Camerons enough that they do okay in those categories, too.

[Amused]

The Titleist way has always been brand first, player second. I find it somewhat refreshing for a company to not sell out to an individual and stick to its guns. Obviously, an athlete like a Jordan under contract can elevate your brand and sales to a new level, something Tiger's still striving for, but these kind of athletes are so rare that a company can't just invest too broadly. Titleist has done a great job in establishing itself as the premier clubmaker without an iconic pitchman.

[timwalsh300]

Because the name speaks (and sells) for itself. They don't need the best golfers to endorse their products to get more sales.

Agreed. Whatever their marketing strategy is, I think it has worked.

Whether or not it is true I guess I subconsciously think of the ProV1 as the premier ball - played by virtually everyone at the highest levels of golf - the only choice for a serious golfer. I know that Tiger plays with Nike stuff but for whatever reason I still don't think of Nike as a brand for truly serious golfers. I actually think it's a matter of quantity over quality. I see Tiger playing Nike, but I don't see anyone else playing with their stuff. So I say to myself, "well, it's obviously just because they pay him a lot, besides he could win with anything." Then I see 80% of the rest of the guys on Tour playing Titleist and I say to myself, "that many guys can't be wrong." Tim

[RichF]

Agreed. Whatever their marketing strategy is, I think it has worked.

You mean in the opposite way that a lot of folks suggest that there are too many

TaylorMade money 'clones' on the tour?

[pjsnyc]

...I know that Tiger plays with Nike stuff but for whatever reason I still don't think of Nike as a brand for truly serious golfers.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Nike isn't for truly serious golfers. Plus they got a whole lot of other golfers donning the swoosh (Stewart Cink, Justin Leaonard, KJ, AK, etc).

Sure they got Tiger to beef up their image. With that came a whole lot more money for Nike to spend on R&D.; Consequently, I think they have pretty good equipment now and its only getting better. I love their new drivers (still not a fan of the square models though) and I'm actually starting to warm up to their golf balls too

[enis750]

Agreed. Whatever their marketing strategy is, I think it has worked.

seriuosly? you dont see anyone else using their stuff?

dude, ever watch a tournamenet lately, Nike is starting to dominate both the PGA and LPGA Nike Athletes - if the link doesnt bring you to the page, click "athletes" on the top of the page i would say their are some pretty major names carrying Nike in their bag

[ControlJunkie]

I know that Tiger plays with Nike stuff but for whatever reason I still don't think of Nike as a brand for truly serious golfers.

To quote Mr. John McEnroe, you cannot be serious. I'm honestly not saying this because I play Nike equipment. FWIW, I also play a Titleist wedge, and plan on gettig another. The U.S. Open champion isnt a truly serious golfer? Neither is Cink, Ames, Kim, etc.?

I understand having brand loyalty, I really do, but dont let that brainwash you into thinking that all of the big manufacturers dont put out good equipment. I've read quite a few very positive reviews on the Dymo Str8 Fit, the VR irons, and the VR wedges. I guess the guys writing these reviews arent serious golfers either. My point is this - having your loyalty is fine, but that belief is totally unfounded. Looking the top 10 payers in the world, it looks to me like the big manufacturers are pretty evenly distributed with Nike, TM, Callaway, Titleist. Though I dont see a Ping player in the top 10 (top 20 for that matter), I certainly dont think that they're not a brand for serious golfers. I have a serious question for you, and I'm not trying to be snarky or anything like that, but have you ever tried any of Nike's equipment?

[timwalsh300]

To quote Mr. John McEnroe, you cannot be serious. I'm honestly not saying this because I play Nike equipment. FWIW, I also play a Titleist wedge, and plan on gettig another. The U.S. Open champion isnt a truly serious golfer? Neither is Cink, Ames, Kim, etc.?

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

I think you guys misunderstood what I was saying. I did not mean to imply that I think Nike equipment is bad or that players who use Nike equipment are not serious golfers. I'm talking specifically about Nike vs. Titleist marketing and the effect it has had on my subconscious. Nike has not yet gotten through to my subconscious. Titleist has. I actually use Nike Slingshot irons, though I didn't buy them for myself. I was given them as a gift. They work just fine for me. But I also don't consider myself a "serious" player. I only shoot bogey-golf on my best days, and not because of inferior equipment. I just always assumed (again, because of the effect of marketing ) that if I were a scratch golfer I would probably buy ProV1 balls and consider playing another brand of clubs like Titleists or Mizunos. As far as the other players using Nike, I guess I've just never noticed because Tiger so overshadows all of them (as would be the case no matter who sponsored him). When I think Nike, I think Tiger. EDIT: This, by the way, is brilliant marketing... http://www.pgatour.com/r/stats/info/wm1.html?103 Tim

[ControlJunkie]

Whoa, whoa, whoa...

I think I got what you're saying now.... And for that link you posted, you're talking about the next to each name, right? I had noticed that before and thought that was a pretty good way of marketing as well. I always wondered what was the criteria for that though. Is it if they play any piece of Titleist equipment, as in anything from the ball to a putter to a driver, or is it just people that have contracts with Titleist? The reason I ask that is because Kenny Perry has it next to his name, but he's a TM guy. But then, if that label goes to anyone using any piece of Titleist equipment, shouldnt Tiger have it next to his name becase he uses a Scotty?

[enis750]

I think I got what you're saying now....

i think it's the ball they use?

[Iowa Hawkeye]

Don't forget about Johnson, as well as Ogilvy and Villegas with Cobra.