Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5207 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Everyone seems to being looking at this very negatively - I think people's view of TM as such an aggressive marketing machine is coloring their perspective.   But I'd offer a counter opinion that looks more objectively at the financial and business implications, and I feel this could be good for both companies and for golf.     For reasons I'll outline below, I fully expect TM to keep the Adams brand and I think we'll see that brand grow further in the market.

First, Adams is a very small player in this market.   With $96M in annual revenues, they were very limited in developing new products.  Their R&D; budget for last year was just under $3M, which works about to be about a dozen engineers at fully burdened labor rates.   But that assumes unrealistically they have no other R&D-related; costs, so in reality they probably only have 7-8 development engineers.        Contrast that with Callaway, who's R&D; budget for the year was about $130M.       Taylormades' is no doubt higher than Callaway as well, so Adams was going to be severely limited in their ability to compete at a technology level.

Related to the R&D; is the ability to protect one's developments through patent protection, and again Adam's is severely disadvantaged going forward.    A quick search of the USPTO's data bases shows literally hundreds of patents by Callaway and Taylormade, against perhaps a few dozen for Adams.    The cost of prosecuting patents is significant, probably upwards of $15-20k each, and if Adams was to grow its IP portfolio at a competitive pace they would probably be spending upwards of $1M per year just in patent costs.

Also related to patents has been the argument that TM bought Adams because of patent threats.    I doubt that is correct, as Taylormade already controls many of the key patents related to manufacturing metal woods.    All of the golf companies are constantly involved in cross licensing of their respective patents - the different companies have all staked out claims in certain categories of products, and essentially none of them would be in business without all the cross license agreements (an example - did you know the adjustable sole plate on the R11 is actually a Callaway patented concept?).     If Adams was trying to assert patent rights on the velocity slot idea (which by the way I could not find in the patent database except for on the crown of the clubhead), then TM could easily bury Adams with cross claims on all the metal wood manufacturing patents.

This acquisition is good for Adams because they simply didn't have the resources going forward to effectively compete for all the above.   At this point in time they are profitable, but as a small niche player they were likely going to find themselves squeezed out of the market in the next 3-5 years.   Selling now is good timing as the brand is currently strong and they are profitable, allowing them to extract a higher sales price for the company.

Financially, this also makes good sense for TM.    When a company reaches a large size, it becomes very, very difficult to keep up a growth rate through organic growth, i.e. creating and selling more internally.    It is pretty easy for a $10M company to find a $1M opportunity to grow an additional 10%, but it is very difficult to find 10% growth opportunities when you're a $1B company - those $100M opportunities just don't come along very often.     But shareholders are not satisfied with a quiescent company with stagnant sales - they demand continual growth.   Hence, companies like TM will seek to maintain growth with acquisitions.     In TM's case here, they've found a profitable company with a good brand, and one that helps fill out the different market niches where TM is not very strong.    Financially, this acquisition will be accretive - it adds directly to TM's revenues and earnings.     TM can also consolidate a lot of the SG&A; costs both companies face as well as R&D;, further helping earnings.

Another thing that makes this good for both companies is that much of retail is a battle for shelf space.    An example is the shampoo business - those hundreds or different shampoos cluttering a grocery store's shelves are made by a small number of companies, but they create different versions to gain more shelf space - the more space they control the more leverage they have in the retail channel.    A retailer won't give up its precious shelf space for just more of the same - the need differentiation to draw in the customers and create greater choice.    TM could come up with even more lines of clubs on their own, but the retailers would balk giving TM more space directly, but with Adams they have what appears to be a completely separate product line.    Why this is good for TM and Adams is they can now use their combined leverage to secure better promotion and pricing from the retailers.    This is good for consumer as well, as it can result in better pricing and special offers for both brands.

TM has a lot of market power in the industry which Adams has never had and would never achieve.    Adams is a good brand name and plays well with various market segments, and with TM behind it they now have the power to get that brand into retail and distribution channels that would otherwise not happen.

Because of all this, I see this as a good move for both companies and one that offers potential benefits to the golf consumer as well - the Adams brand will continue to survive but will have better resources behind it to grow beyond what it could do by itself.    That's a very good thing.

  • Upvote 4

Posted


Originally Posted by Clambake

Everyone seems to being looking at this very negatively - I think people's view of TM as such an aggressive marketing machine is coloring their perspective.   But I'd offer a counter opinion that looks more objectively at the financial and business implications, and I feel this could be good for both companies and for golf.

Whats good for business and whats good for golf dont go hand in hand though.  Less competition is never a good thing for the consumer.

Whats in my :sunmountain: C-130 cart bag?

Woods: :mizuno: JPX 850 9.5*, :mizuno: JPX 850 15*, :mizuno: JPX-850 19*, :mizuno: JPX Fli-Hi #4, :mizuno: JPX 800 Pro 5-PW, :mizuno: MP T-4 50-06, 54-09 58-10, :cleveland: Smart Square Blade and :bridgestone: B330-S


  • Moderator
Posted

Shelf space is an excellent point as well.  Luckily Golf manufacturers don't have to deal with Walmart.

Scott

Titleist, Edel, Scotty Cameron Putter, Snell - AimPoint - Evolvr - MirrorVision

My Swing Thread

boogielicious - Adjective describing the perfect surf wave

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
I read that TM sees itself as being for 0-4 HI players and markets for the top of the pyramid and that the purchase of Adams was for the game improvement/senior players. This is a joke...right? What arrogance. Adams (IMO) make far superior "player" irons than TM (MB2 and CB3s better quality and way better looking than TM tour preferred). I see TM as a company targeting the masses with big plastic/neon graphics. Adams is an innovative company that thinks of the golfer first--why they seem to have 7-9 different iron sets at the same time--it would make more money if your advertising led consumers to believe that RBZ clubs are for everyone, but Adams has a more custom/tailored approach to business.

HiBore XLS Tour 9.5*
Adams Fast10 15* 3W
A2OS 3H-7iron 60* LW
8iron Precept Tour Premium cb
9iron and 45* PW 50* GW 56* SW m565 and 455 VfoilPutter Anser Belly Putter Ball in order of preference TPblack e5 V2  AD333


Posted


Originally Posted by uttexas

I read that TM sees itself as being for 0-4 HI players and markets for the top of the pyramid and that the purchase of Adams was for the game improvement/senior players. This is a joke...right? What arrogance. Adams (IMO) make far superior "player" irons than TM (MB2 and CB3s better quality and way better looking than TM tour preferred). I see TM as a company targeting the masses with big plastic/neon graphics. Adams is an innovative company that thinks of the golfer first--why they seem to have 7-9 different iron sets at the same time--it would make more money if your advertising led consumers to believe that RBZ clubs are for everyone, but Adams has a more custom/tailored approach to business.



Yeah because we all know the RBZ irons were designed for pros, right?

Whats in my :sunmountain: C-130 cart bag?

Woods: :mizuno: JPX 850 9.5*, :mizuno: JPX 850 15*, :mizuno: JPX-850 19*, :mizuno: JPX Fli-Hi #4, :mizuno: JPX 800 Pro 5-PW, :mizuno: MP T-4 50-06, 54-09 58-10, :cleveland: Smart Square Blade and :bridgestone: B330-S


  • Moderator
Posted

The guy that is the most happy right now is Chip Brewer who was the Adam's president and CEO since 2002 and helped get Adams Golf to where it is today.  He was recently named Callaway Golf CEO but I'm assuming he kept his Adams stock, says 175,000 shares Here

Mike McLoughlin

Check out my friends on Evolvr!
Follow The Sand Trap on Twitter!  and on Facebook
Golf Terminology -  Analyzr  -  My FacebookTwitter and Instagram 

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted


Originally Posted by uttexas

I read that TM sees itself as being for 0-4 HI players and markets for the top of the pyramid and that the purchase of Adams was for the game improvement/senior players. This is a joke...right? What arrogance. Adams (IMO) make far superior "player" irons than TM (MB2 and CB3s better quality and way better looking than TM tour preferred). I see TM as a company targeting the masses with big plastic/neon graphics. Adams is an innovative company that thinks of the golfer first--why they seem to have 7-9 different iron sets at the same time--it would make more money if your advertising led consumers to believe that RBZ clubs are for everyone, but Adams has a more custom/tailored approach to business.


While I'm sure that's true in reality, the market perception is probably otherwise. Other than tour quality hybrids and LD drivers, does the average consumer associate Adams with anything other than beginners and/or seniors?

Mizuno MP600 driver, Cleveland '09 Launcher 3-wood, Callaway FTiz 18 degree hybrid, Cleveland TA1 3-9, Scratch SS8620 47, 53, 58, Cleveland Classic 2 mid-mallet, Bridgestone B330S, Sun Mountain four5.


Posted


Originally Posted by sean_miller

While I'm sure that's true in reality, the market perception is probably otherwise. Other than tour quality hybrids and LD drivers, does the average consumer associate Adams with anything other than beginners and/or seniors?



Id say the average person considers Adams to be old man golf clubs.  Which is a shame because Adams makes some quality stuff.

Whats in my :sunmountain: C-130 cart bag?

Woods: :mizuno: JPX 850 9.5*, :mizuno: JPX 850 15*, :mizuno: JPX-850 19*, :mizuno: JPX Fli-Hi #4, :mizuno: JPX 800 Pro 5-PW, :mizuno: MP T-4 50-06, 54-09 58-10, :cleveland: Smart Square Blade and :bridgestone: B330-S


Posted

I never considered them old man golf clubs but until I got more serious about golf I never considered them in the top tier, and would often confuse them with Cobra.  They do seem to lack a real identity as they market their SGI iron/hybrid sets heavily but then they have some of the best low handicap level hybrids on the market.  I've never tried their forged irons, but most people that own them seem to think highly of them.

Originally Posted by TitleistWI

Id say the average person considers Adams to be old man golf clubs.  Which is a shame because Adams makes some quality stuff.



Joe Paradiso

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 5207 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • I have been debating getting a launch monitor of some sort, if only so I can re-figure my shot zones (I haven't actually mapped them in years) and also to practice distance wedges at home.  I have to see if this works with either my current setup, or what my setup would be if I move it to the garage.  
    • Day 48, June 23.  After work today, I took 25 minutes in my practice room;  6-iron, same everything as yesterday except the time and count. 
    • Well, this is interesting.  I think we discovered a few months ago that I haven't been following professional golf in a while (my confusion about Scotty's footwork confirmed that), so at least as I aim to follow a bit more I'll get something new to learn with all of you.  My very quick read of Erik's summary makes me think this new Challenger series fits somewhere between Korn Ferry and the Championship (not Champions, but I know I'm going to make that mistake a few times if I'm not careful!).   My recollection is that there were already second-tier events among the PGA Tour;  the Bob Hope didn't have the same quality of field as the event at Riviera (whose current name I forget, although now that I say that, I realize the Palm Springs event hasn't been called the Bob Hope in a few years either).   With the absence of the FedEx (if I'm reading that correctly), does that mean no more FedEx Cup at all? Hopefully I'll have time later in 2026 to sit down and see what we're in for in 2027, where one of my goals already is to follow more professional golf.
    • The highlights as I see them: Championship and Challenger Series The creation of the PGA Tour and the PGB Tour, in the words of Joel Dahmen a few years ago. They're calling them the Championship Series (23-24 events) and the Challenger Series (20+ events). Both run February to August. They feel this will achieve three things: increasing the consistency and quality of fields across the season creating a clear system for players to earn and retain status and delivering a more structured and competitive experience for fans and partners—all in an effort to strengthen meritocracy. Championship Series Structure and Eligibility The 23-24 events includes the Players, majors, season-ending events, and the Presidents Cup and Ryder Cup. These will be 72-hole events with a 36-hole cut to the top 65 and ties and purses of $20M+. 120 players without an alternate list. 90 players (roughly) from the previous year and 20 players promoted from the Challenger Series. Full eligibility will be finalized later this year. Sites (cities) to be finalized soon, but 10 of the 15 courses have already been determined. Postseason: includes retention and relegation and concludes with match play. The Tour Championship will also be played across a rotation of prestigious courses. Challenger Series Structure and Eligibility 20+ events. Running concurrently. Will feature players fighting their way back to the Championship Series or players graduating and on the upswing from the Korn Ferry Tour. Many of these events will be current PGA Tour courses. About 7 of the Challenger Series events will be during off weeks for the Championship Series with elevated purses and visibility. Purses of at least $4M, with cuts similar to the Champ series. 144 player fields. Competitive Fields for Both Series Players will be eligible for only one series at a time: Championship Series Players are not eligible for Challenger Series events. Championship Series members will have a known schedule with all events having the same eligibility. Players and Majors will have their own eligibility criteria. Championship Series players don't have to play all events. This begs the question about, say, the Canadian Open, and other "home-town" events that players might want to play, even if they're Challenger Series events. Will releases be granted? Promotion and Relegation At least 90 players will be retained in the Championship Series, and 20 players will be promoted from the Challenger Series each year. Battlefield promotion for two-time winners from the Challenger Series. Players relegated from the Championship Series will have a "last chance" opportunity to retain status, or will go to the Challenger Series. Criteria will be finalized before the start of the 2027 season. Points System New points system (not FedExCup points). Separate points systems for the Championship and Challenger Series. Elevated points in the Challenger Series for off-weeks on the Championship Series. More details tk. Elevated International Events in the Fall The fall schedule will include a limited series of elevated international events with top players from the Championship Series, with the intent to deliver in partnership with the DP World Tour as part of the Strategic Alliance. Last Chance Series The Tour will develop a “last chance” series of 4-6 events in the fall, with a limited number of spots on the Championship Series available for top finishers. Eligibility will include players relegated from the Championship Series, Challenger Series players, and other categories to be determined. Q-School continues, as do the Korn Ferry Tour and PGA Tour Latinoamerica. Also, Brian Rolapp is the new commissioner as of January 1, 2027.
    • You can download the PDF at this link or see the first page of it above.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.