Sponsorship Has Changed Games
I said it. I said it to Steve. The customers aren't buying that multi million pound endorsement anymore. And I was right.
A few weeks ago, we were discussing the merits of PXG and the absence of sweeteners to play their clubs on tour. There are many players that just won't play them, because they don't offer the $100million contracts- like for example Taylormade do, and that was the basis of the conversation- my belief that true endorsement comes through choosing the product first- and not the pay packet.
Then of course Nike went out the market on the hardware- so it left a few top players wondering what to do- an opportunity almost, to choose hardware from different criteria than money. Without the kind of wedge that characterised Nike sponsorships in their back pocket there were a few different strategies for players without clubs. Some carried on regardless with their ageing unsaleable bag. Some signed like for like contracts as soon as the money was agreed- probably by their agents. Others weren't so quick to nail themselves to a contract and tried a few things out themselves.
One of those players turned up for work the other week and he won the US Open. Brooks Koepka played with Mizuno JPX 900 Tours after having been sponsored with Nike for a few years and not really made it happen. Since he'd perhaps been considering his options after being left high and dry with no further Nike irons for his bag- he hadn't got around to signing a contract with anyone. I'd like to think that because the Nike hardware, (known as the Emperors New Clothes) had not yielded the same results, Brooks wanted to take his time with his clubs and find out which was his own winning combination. Because there is nothing better than winning. Nothing. Ask Rory.
So out of all the irons on offer, and there will have been contracts to sign, he picked to play Mizuno, without being paid. He must have liked them the best. The important thing for the manufacturer in this scenario, is that customer is listening. And take it from me, that doesn't get overlooked.
The point is, that everyone loves a genuine endorsement these days. We know people get paid loads of money to wear stuff, or play stuff, or just eat stuff. But those paid endorsements don't make us buy that stuff anymore. If Rory didn't like Marmite, but he was paid to eat it, he'd make like er.. me, and do so. And once you see that logo on his bag, well you know. Rory is paid to eat Marmite, we cannot be sure whether he likes it or not, or indeed if it is any good, and this becomes even more pertinent if he can't win any competitions with his Marmite. Not like Pippa Matthews (nee Middleton) who was sauntering down Kensington High Street in a Peak Performance hoodie. She's not paid by Peak- but that is some great endorsement right there... ("She likes our stuff!") or Brooks Koepka and his winning Mizuno irons. He might be in a better negotiating position to get paid now, but you can't forget his US Open win was made by his own un-monetised choice.
Get your Major winning Mizuno irons fitted @GolfAddictionUK, fill out the form: here
PGA Golf Professional
7 年To touch on the thread topic :) Mizuno has always been the "go to" brand for tour players that were between contracts or simply not impressed with another offering and never seemingly mixed their core values into marketing, therefore have just plodded along getting better and better and stayed reliable as a tour provider. Throwing the amount of cash around Nike has into golf can only seriously be deemed PR, nothing else. ...and on that level, Nike was on the radar fast. What will never happen though, is that cash input reflect in sales. Its not linear or proportionate. Golf companies that have been around literally define the entire market, but in different ways; see Titleist, Callaway and Mizuno, to name a few. ...all being huge companies, especially Mizuno, which eclipses other golf companies in overall sports activity etc. At the end of the day, tour players are using what they think and believe works best for them. What product that ends up being, is irrelevant for the player and that is where the end-user is nowadays being supported better to make informed performance choices with club/ball fitting, launch monitors etc. ...which means that sales success may be limited if equipment under- performs by comparison. Simple logic.
PGA Golf Professional
7 年Playing Titleist on tour is convenience more than anything. Also, Titleist start relationships very early, don't pay as much across the board, but the bonus structure is fair. Overall the infrastructure Titleist provides internationally at tour level is better than any other brand. And you have great people like Bob and Scotty that are really special contributors. ...so its really about much more than a good ball imo and experience, having played multiple tours globally and been contracted to multiple brands. (including Titleist)
Sales Manager Mainland Europe bei Acushnet Company
7 年Probably worth mentioning that the vast majority of Nike staffers , apart from some players that went for the cash, decided to play ProV1 because it outperforms everything else. And look how Nike players are performing since they put ProV1 in play. Fleetwood, Oleson, Koepka, Kyle Stanley, Ross Fisher... I could keep on. Coincidence? For sure not. #1ball in golf. FACT!
Commercial Lines Underwriter at Wholesure
7 年I definitely think that if players could play whatever equipment they wanted, that would be preferable. However, it is extremely difficult to turn down a potential equipment sponsor with all the money being thrown around these days. Companies like Mizuno and Cobra don't have the big bucks to sponsor every player who wants to play their clubs. Although, I feel like Mizuno should spend a little more money and sign Koepka, Ross Fisher, and Paul Casey because these are big names and have been using Mizuno irons for the last seven months or so.