Major Winners - do they give sponsorship value?

[PhilWhitUK]

I am relatively new to this site, but I think the obvious love of golf and knowledge from the members is great.

 

All the debate around what the pros use got me thinking about how much the use of an OEM's clubs really influences buying habits. I decided to look at the Major winners for the last ten years and the major OEM with which they were associated at the time of their win. Just to be clear, I chose their main association. So, in the case of Harrington I would categorise him as a Wilson player, even though we all know that he uses drivers and other clubs from other manufacturers.

 

This is what I came up with:

 

 

2013

Adam Scott: Titleist

Justin Rose: Taylormade

Phil Mickleson: Callaway

Jason Duffner: Titleist

 

2012

Bubba Watson: Ping

Webb Simpson: Titleist

Ernie Els: Callaway

Rory McIlroy: Titleist

 

2011

Charl Schwartzel: Nike

Rory McIlroy: Titleist

Darren Clarke: Taylormade

Keegan Bradley: Cleveland

 

2010

Phil Mickelson: Callaway

Graham McDowell: Callaway

Louis Oosthuizen: Ping

Martin Kaymer: Taylormade

 

2009

Angel Cabrera: Ping

Lucas Glover: Nike

Stuart Cink: Nike

Y E Yang: Taylormade

 

2008

Trevor Immelman: Nike

Tiger Woods: Nike

Padraig Harrington: Wilson

Padraig Harrington: Wilson

 

2007

Zack Johnson: Titleist

Angel Cabrera: Ping

Padraig Harrington: Wilson

Tiger Woods: Nike

 

2006

Phil Mickleson: Callaway

Geoff Ogilvy: Cobra

Tiger Woods: Nike

Tiger Woods: Nike

 

2005

Tiger Woods: Nike

Michael Campbell: Callaway

Tiger Woods: Nike

Phil Mickleson: Callaway

 

2004

Phil Mickleson: Callaway

Reteif Goosen: Taylormade

Todd Hamilton: Taylormade

Vijay Singh: Cleveland

 

 

Count:

 

Nike -10

Callaway - 8

Titleist - 6

Taylormade - 6

Ping - 4

Wilson - 3

Cleveland - 2

Cobra - 1

 

 

Now I don't have access to sales figures, but everything I read tells me that Nike is nowhere near the largest sales figures over the last ten year period. I would have thought that the largest two manufacturers are Taylormade and Callaway (accepting Callaway dropped back for a period before their recent recovery). Equally, given the above, why aren't the sales figures and profile of Wilson higher (I cannot remember the last time I played with a Wilson player at my club)?

 

So, the question is, why do we care so much what the pros play given that it doesn't seem to have that much influence? Equally are the sponsorships really worth it?

 

From where I am sitting the best strategy for sponsorship over the last few years seems to be Taylormade. Although they haven't had the most Major success, the visibility of their white drivers has led to sales figures.

 

Interested in the views of others.

[stevopagolf]

I don't purchase clubs based on the player relationship. Let's face it players follow whoever gives them the most money ala Rory, Camillo and others.

These guys are so good they could play anything and play well. To your Wilson point, when is the last time you played with a Nike player at your club? Me, never. Nike's play is about shoes and apparel where the margins are immense.

Sponsorships are, in my opinion, some of which is experienced based, not the most effective means of growing conquest sales.

Your question was about player sponsorships. But as far as tournament sponsorship, every sponsor talks about the charity aspect of what being the sponsor does for the community not an association with golf per se. Tournament sponsorship also gives them the ability to host customers at Pro Am events.

I don't know anyone personally that uses ATT because of their sponsorship or uses Waste Management for garbage because they sponsor golf either.

My humble opinion.

[gvogel]

Two points:

1. I like the way Titleist is trending.

2. What the pros play has no relevance to what is in my bag.

If you have been around equipment and Internet sites for the past 10 years, you realize that if you buy Ping or Titleist, the driver head or iron head that you purchase is playable on tour. That is to say, what i buy is, for all intents, the same as what tour players are using. TaylorMade, maybe not. I don't have enough experience with Callaway.

So, I would expect that Titleist and Ping get their sponsorship value from educated consumers. TM can claim counts, since they will pay anyone to play their drivers. I guess that sells to the general public.

[502 to Right]

The question is where would the OEM be without the player. OEM's don't have to be top 3 to be profitable. And without Tiger Nike might not even be making any golf equipment.

[bscinstnct]

I play mizuno and callaway

Because that's how I roll.

Mizuno! Forged by samurai

Callaway, swing for the fences

Putting, yes, have some putter with an orange grip, Ping, think that's it.

[Frankie Lob Wedge]

[quote name='stevopagolf' timestamp='1377222778' post='7729018']
I don't purchase clubs based on the player relationship. Let's face it players follow whoever gives them the most money ala Rory, Camillo and others.

These guys are so good they could play anything and play well. To your Wilson point, when is the last time you played with a Nike player at your club? Me, never. Nike's play is about shoes and apparel where the margins are immense.

Sponsorships are, in my opinion, some of which is experienced based, not the most effective means of growing conquest sales.

Your question was about player sponsorships. But as far as tournament sponsorship, every sponsor talks about the charity aspect of what being the sponsor does for the community not an association with golf per se. Tournament sponsorship also gives them the ability to host customers at Pro Am events.

I don't know anyone personally that uses ATT because of their sponsorship or uses Waste Management for garbage because they sponsor golf either.

My humble opinion.
[/quote]

[i]To your Wilson point, when is the last time you played with a Nike player at your club? Me, never.[/i]

LOL! Well you have good taste as shown by your avatar. Have you played with any Wilson guys? I play Wilson irons and love them. Wilson was a big name in the 1960s and 1970s but companies like Cally ate into their market. Wilson sells better overseas.

Some people do not realize that TMAG is Adidas so like you said, it is about the big margins on shoes and clothes. The golf suppliers big goal is to make that jump but it is really hard to impossible. Callaway made the jump. I lost track of what the conglomerate that owned Titleist and FootJoy was called. I am not sure if they are all together still.

Ping tried to make that jump but they just got some clothing as did Adams and maybe Mizuno.

I think guys play great with Titleist gear as it seems like a purists line. The big boys come by with a big check like Rory's deal. It seems like Adam Scott will stay there forever and I wonder if Duff will stick with them.

[Ajlepisto]

Acushnet owns Titleist and FJ.

Do this comparison with balls, and you have your "TM pays everyone to play it" argument all over with a different name attached to it.

[mikes919]

[quote name='Ajlepisto' timestamp='1377244916' post='7730204']
Acushnet owns Titleist and FJ.

Do this comparison with balls, and you have your "TM pays everyone to play it" argument all over with a different name attached to it.
[/quote]

And Fila owns Acushnet. Where is the Fila tour representation? Lol.

[stevopagolf]

[quote name='Frankie Lob Wedge' timestamp='1377235592' post='7729990']
[quote name='stevopagolf' timestamp='1377222778' post='7729018']
I don't purchase clubs based on the player relationship. Let's face it players follow whoever gives them the most money ala Rory, Camillo and others.

These guys are so good they could play anything and play well. To your Wilson point, when is the last time you played with a Nike player at your club? Me, never. Nike's play is about shoes and apparel where the margins are immense.

Sponsorships are, in my opinion, some of which is experienced based, not the most effective means of growing conquest sales.

Your question was about player sponsorships. But as far as tournament sponsorship, every sponsor talks about the charity aspect of what being the sponsor does for the community not an association with golf per se. Tournament sponsorship also gives them the ability to host customers at Pro Am events.

I don't know anyone personally that uses ATT because of their sponsorship or uses Waste Management for garbage because they sponsor golf either.

My humble opinion.
[/quote]

[i]To your Wilson point, when is the last time you played with a Nike player at your club? Me, never.[/i]

LOL! Well you have good taste as shown by your avatar. Have you played with any Wilson guys? I play Wilson irons and love them. Wilson was a big name in the 1960s and 1970s but companies like Cally ate into their market. Wilson sells better overseas.

Some people do not realize that TMAG is Adidas so like you said, it is about the big margins on shoes and clothes. The golf suppliers big goal is to make that jump but it is really hard to impossible. Callaway made the jump. I lost track of what the conglomerate that owned Titleist and FootJoy was called. I am not sure if they are all together still.

Ping tried to make that jump but they just got some clothing as did Adams and maybe Mizuno.

I think guys play great with Titleist gear as it seems like a purists line. The big boys come by with a big check like Rory's deal. It seems like Adam Scott will stay there forever and I wonder if Duff will stick with them.
[/quote]

Wilson Seriously , nope never, played with anyone with their clubs in the bag either. I think Wilson suffers from some shelf space issues around here, as I don't see them around. I think Duf stays with titleist.

Personally, I think we see more consolidation among the big OEM's.

[Ajlepisto]

[quote name='mikes919' timestamp='1377257654' post='7730454']
[quote name='Ajlepisto' timestamp='1377244916' post='7730204']
Acushnet owns Titleist and FJ.

Do this comparison with balls, and you have your "TM pays everyone to play it" argument all over with a different name attached to it.
[/quote]

And Fila owns Acushnet. Where is the Fila tour representation? Lol.
[/quote]

I didn't know Fila owned them, but that's pretty interesting. Fila is nearly non-existant in the US now, it seems.