Scotty Cameron moving to Nike.... ???

[alf174]

  Ruckus said:

I don't think that Scotty has any allegiances to Titleist, but he might go independent.

Top of the list for any prospective buyer of the brand would be a non-compete clause on Scotty (110% sure he's under one now, albeit for quite a hefty sum) - without it, the value of the brand would be quite a bit lower.

[delav]

Am I the only one who sees a big disconnect between the target market and brand positioning of Nike Golf and Scotty Cameron Putters?

Scotty Cameron name fit very well within the Acushnet family, and product offerings were consistent with the target market. I don't care how many VR logos Nike can throw at their products, I'm still impartial to the brand as a players club company.

[Shorty]

  delav said:

I'm still impartial to the brand as a players club company.

Sounds as if you are extremely partial, not impartial. Anyway, the best "player" in the world uses Nike clubs and the Method putter is no less or more exotic than an SC off the rack putter. They are both excellent quality putters which are mass produced in huge numbers. I think that a lot of people who have purchased an OTR Cameron and think they have something special (even though it is as common, if not more common as any other "name brand" putter) somehow feel that an association with Nike somehow devalues what they have. The implication is that those in the know have SC putters and that Nike is for other people. It's as if the SC name will be tarnished by this association and they will lose part of their sense of cachet. It's only a putter. It is immature snobbery. Did I read the word "elite", a couple of posts back? The custom and " boutique" and SC putters have virtually nothing in common with the OTR putters that isn't shared by a Dozen other manufacturers. SC OTR are the antithesis of "boutique" products. They are ubiquitous once you get beyond the beginner level. There are millions of them. Yet people persist in thinking there is someting special about them. If Cameron is to be sold/moving/whatever, I would be very surprised if it goes under the Nike name, I'm sure he will continue, only without the Titleist name, and some sycophantic Japanese fan with billions of spare Yen will buy the company and simply let Scotty Cameron do what he is doing now, unfettered.

[Ruckus]

Delav, the thing is, Scotty Cameron doesn't necessarily appeal to the "players" demographic. Sure, people respect SC as a brand, but I think the primary appeal is more to collectors and rich (but not necessarily skilled) golfers. I know it's almost blasphemy to say this, but there is nothing particularly novel about SC putters, at least not enought to justify spending $300 for an off-the-rack product. When I was first getting serious about golf (about 8 years ago), I bought a Scotty because it had the reputation for being the best, and it cost the most, so it had to be the best, right? In my mind, this fits perfectly with image of Nike golf.

[Stretch]

  Shorty said:

It is immature snobbery.

It is brand identity and, as you say, cachet. Carefully (and expensively) cultivated. Often frustratingly ephemeral. One of the big bets Nike would be taking, if this rumor is true, is whether the "aura" transfers along with the man (or the name, or whatever chunk of the Cameron mystique it is that they may actually be buying.)

[delav]

  Shorty said:

Sounds as if you are extremely partial, not impartial.

I am not attempting to open the SC debate again here. We've read it in dozens of other pages.

[Shorty]

  Ruckus said:

In my mind, this fits perfectly with image of Nike golf.

I think this is a very good point.

People new to golf know the brand, Nike, and possibly assume them to be the best. Especially as Tiger Woods uses them. In the same way that people who've been playing a while learn a bit more and somehow think that SC putters are exotic. It's the same sort of naiivety. I still don't see a Nike-SC joint naming deal.

[enis750]

money talks

Cameron has been around a long time...retirement awaits
if Nike puts up some big $$ to sign him (which they will) with the Aschunet sale...it will happen

no one is in this industry to not make money

[delav]

  Shorty said:

People new to golf know the brand, Nike, and possibly assume them to be the best.

This is where I disagree and see the disconnect. Nike is a marketing company. They know how to sell and how to endorse, they know how to push goods at consumers. Name an industry where Nike produces the best product, or where top amateurs freely use their good? Certainly not in running.

SC, whether you like them or hate them, markets products entirely differently. It's a totally different value proposition, and I don't see it as a fit.

[Ruckus]

  delav said:

This is where I disagree and see the disconnect. Nike is a marketing company. They know how to sell and how to endorse, they know how to push goods at consumers. Name an industry where Nike produces the best product, or where top amateurs freely use their good? Certainly not in running.

I agree with your assessment of Nike, but I think that aligns with the mass market segment of SC. You don't think pushing putter headcovers for obscene prices is "pushing products aggressively"?

[Stretch]

Fortune Brands -- who own Acushnet -- are mainly into booze, kitchen/bathroom fittings and golf. Two of these sectors have not exactly been kicking ass during the downturn. My WAG is that, long-term, Titleist management would do almost anything to keep Cameron. But right now they're on the block themselves, money is tight, and there's no way to counter a huge Nike offer other than giving him a chunk of equity big enough to be unacceptable to the suits at the holding company level. Maybe they even offered him that and he just preferred fat cash in hand plus the security of an even larger and more stable parent. We'll unofficially hear all about it later on anyway as everyone involved tries to grab credit/cover ass. Yay corporate life.

[delav]

  Ruckus said:

I agree with your assessment of Nike, but I think that aligns with the mass market segment of SC. You don't think pushing putter headcovers for obscene prices is "pushing products aggressively"?

As retarded as it is to pay thousands of dollars for a tour headcover on ebay, this isn't 'pushing' products at the consumer. SC isn't creating ads telling people to go buy them... it's the opposite. They are rare, and some people are really into this trend. I don't get it either. This creates a pull for a limited product.

[CassinoNorth]

  delav said:

As retarded as it is to pay thousands of dollars for a tour headcover on ebay, this isn't 'pushing' products at the consumer. SC isn't creating ads telling people to go buy them... it's the opposite. They are rare, and some people are really into this trend. I don't get it either. This creates a pull for a limited product.

Golf is a game of status. People need something their friends don't have.

A 25 handicapper with a titleist blades, vokey wedges and a scotty is more impressive than a 5 handicapper playing some old tommy armors.

[Shorty]

  delav said:

Name an industry where Nike produces the best product, or where top amateurs freely use their good?

There are none. You are right.

But the average 15 year old thinks that Nike is "the best". When that person takes up golf, at 23, he might still have that false perception. The golf brands mean nothing to him.

[hartattack52]

  Shorty said:

There are none. You are right.

Basketball? Nike owns the basketball industry. They sponsor the best players and have the best equipment. Not to mention the fact that they own Jordan.

[delav]

  hartattack52 said:

They sponsor the best players

Marketing

  hartattack52 said:

and have the best equipment.

Marketing

  hartattack52 said:

Not to mention the fact that they own Jordan.

More Marketing!

Looks like it was money well spent, too.

[Pensfan79]

Just to echo what other people have said. I can't see Nike and SC being a match. Nike, with the exception of Air Jordans shoes, likes to be Nike. I'm not sure SC presented by Nike really fits with what they are doing. That is, I don't know how a subsidiary like SC is going to strengthen the Nike brand. I know they tried something similar in hockey with Nike Bauer and ended that experiment. Out of curiosity does anyone know what the biggest profit maker is for golf manufacturers? Balls?
As for SC, I see them in the market as the designer label, sort of your Louis Vuitton of putters. You wouldn't see that sold at Target, it would hurt the brand, and I think Nike would hurt the SC image in many golfers' minds. Rightly or wrongly, SCs are viewed by some as a status thing.

[CassinoNorth]

The most famous golfer in the world plays Nike...