Square Driver Ad Campaign.

[Hogan Fan]

Did you get your March copy of Golf Magazine yet?
Check out the Nike ad on the first page. This is a great, informative ad. They show the product on the left page and then tell you why you want it and need it on another full page on the right.
They talk about Geometry and the "moment of inertia" and how they switched from the traditional titanium crown to a multi-material composite to maximize the shape without going over the 460cc limit.
They tell you about the powerbow and the resistance to twisting and how your off-center shot will now go down the fairway instead of 350 yards into the woods.
The diagrams in the ad are very nice and figure 2 really shows the advantage of the square design. A very nice ad indeed.

Then turn to pages 14-15 for the Callaway ad. It's a two page ad that just says hey, our club goes straight...buy it.

Nike may not produce the best clubs on the market but they sure kick ass in the marketing department. Give them a little more time and they will own the golf market, clubs, apparel and balls, if they already don't.

[BritBoy]

Although I prefer the Adidas clothing, when I was looking around the pro shop the other day I think they are already playing catch up to Nike.

[iacas]

The diagrams in the ad are very nice and figure 2 really shows the advantage of the square design. A very nice ad indeed.

I'm going to venture a guess that you're not a marketing executive, student, or employee?

Remember "Got Milk?" Was that a massive, in-depth discussion of features, reasons, and benefits? Or was it along the lines of "our club goes straight, buy it?" Different kinds of ads appeal to different kinds of people. You may care for the Nike ad. Others will care for the Callaway ad. Others like Titleist ads, and some prefer the aggressive TaylorMade ad style.

Nike may not produce the best clubs on the market but they sure kick ass in the marketing department. Give them a little more time and they will own the golf market, clubs, apparel and balls, if they already don't.

They clearly don't now and they won't "own" the golf market any time soon. Titleist is far too entrenched (for some good reasons) as the #1 ball by a VAST margin, TM has better drivers of late, both companies make better irons...

[Mr. Sparkle]

I know Nike has put a lot of time and money into their golf division, but for some reason I still have a hard time taking them seriously. I've always seen Nike as a company that does a great job in marketing and advertising, but a really crappy job with quality control. In the past they've always slapped the swoosh on anything they could get their hands on. Then in the 90s they started to get into golf and I just couldn't take them seriously. I'm sure they're much better than I give them credit for.

[Hogan Fan]

I'm going to venture a guess that you're not a marketing executive, student, or employee?

I'm still trying to figure out that multi-qoute thing.

Your right, my line of work is in quality assurance. I know Nike dosen't have the best product on the market, not by a long shot. I just think they have the machine to drive the market. They have the worlds #1 player in Tiger, colorful clubs and tons of money to push their line to a new and young audience entralled with Tiger mania. Milk, I hate milk. there is no competition here, you either drink it or you don't Different kinds of ads appeal to different kinds of people... Your absolutely right here too. People stick with their brand. I'm a huge fan of Hogan products even though they are not the most exciting line but I think their products are great because I respect the legacy of the great Ben Hogan. If your a Nike fan you probably love the ad but if your a Callaway guy you probably skip right over it. Yeah, they don't own the market now... but check back when these 20 somethings are in their 40's and Tiger is holding 25 majors. They'll be on top. Maybe even if their product is not superior. Will I own a set? never. I'll still be playing my old Hogan Radials and telling everyone how great Ben Hogan was. I guess I'm just like the 20 somethings and their #1 player with his Nike clubs. Does anyone have sales figures on the different golf manufacturers? This would be interesting to compare over the next few years.

[Hogan Fan]

I did some research and found this great article by Erik....
http://thesandtrap.com/extras/tap-in..._going_strong/

[iacas]

I did some research and found this great article by Erik....

You may also want to read

this one too .

[Q.Q.Quillume]

I think I just saw the Nike ad referred to. The one I saw was two full pages in the 02.10.07 issue of GolfWeek. My reaction to the ad was very negative. My first thought was why are they showing me pictures of Justin Leonard, K.J. Choi and Stewart Cink? Where in the heck is Tiger? Since Tiger's photo is not here, does that mean (I think it does!) Tiger does not play this club? Then I looked at the text and diagrams and thought, this sounds and looks like marketing gobbledegook to me, just marketing hype! Obviously Nike ads don't work on me since I've never bought a Nike club, a Nike bag, a Nike ball -- I'm not sure I've ever bought anything Nike -- and certainly never any Nike golf equipement.

[stiffiron]

I find the golf market very segmented. None of the big players (Acushnet, Adidas, Nike, Calloway) have found a way to dominate all the golf markets.

For instance, Acushnet is ahead in balls (Titleist). Adidas is probably ahead in drivers, and maybe clubs (Taylormade). Nike has a nice mix of products (balls, clubs, shoes and clothes), as does Calloway (which probably leads in putters).

If I had to choose from only one line, I would probably choose Nike.

But I don't!!

So, I buy Titleist balls. Nike shoes and clothes. Oddysey (Calloway) putters. And Taylormade drivers!

The market is very fragmented. Who will dominate the whole thing down the road?

The consumer!!

[supercow]

http://ar2001.adidas-salomon.com/adi...on2001/m_tmag/
http://ir.callawaygolf.com/phoenix.z...975&highlight;=
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...DD41C7DD479%7D

As you can see, its not as though these golf manufacturers are on the way to the welfare collection lines It makes me wonder sometimes though whether these profit margins are what is actually hurting the game of golf. For instance, would more people would be willing to take up the game if it didn't cost a few hundred dollars for a 'brand-name' driver? By the way, I'm not against companies making a profit. Its just when they deliberately mislead people into believing that buying their equipment will guarantee them an extra thirty yards or increased accuracy without any proof (and at obscene profit margins) that I really get the shites....

[allin]

I'm going to venture a guess that you're not a marketing executive, student, or employee?

As much as it pains me to agree with Eric

, ads are carefully targeted. Show a traditionalist, a top pro endorsement or pictures of clean lines, talk about feel. Passionate and technical, Nike. Grip it and rip it Callaway. Callaway appeals differently when trying to sell to different targets, Compare the Fusion line marketing versus Big Bertha products. I don't have any facts but my sense is Nike has done much better with the young casual player high handicappers and Tiger hero worshipers. Long term players and low handicappers have been slow to come around. With all of the money spent on marketing I would guess any profits are probably coming from soft goods shoes and accessories.

[supercow]

http://ar2001.adidas-salomon.com/adi...on2001/m_tmag/

As much as it pains me to agree with Eric

I don't know.... If you look at the TM's profit report for 2001 you see that a pretty big chunk of their profit margin comes from selling woods/metalwoods.

"Net sales at TaylorMade-adidas Golf grew 24% to € 545 million. On a currency-neutral basis, sales grew 26% with increases coming from nearly all categories. In particular, TaylorMade metalwoods sales were up 50% versus the prior year. This is the industry’s largest and most important category." Moreover, if you look at one of the graphs you'll see that 52% of their sales is comprised of metalwoods with apparel making up only 7% of sales. Nonetheless, I think you may be underestimating Nike's marketing power. I hate to say it but I think that their strategy is slightly akin to that of the tobacco industry. They're targeting a younger demographic which means they may be taking a long term perspective where they're going after long term, sustained profits over larger, short term gains. After all, most people have a tendency to gravitate towards products that they were brought up with. For example, most of the older people I know of tend to listen to music from their time.