Pat, Makes perfect sense. Thanks, DaveT
At 11:12 AM 1/28/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
A point on the long drive competitors - these guys ARE in the game for distance only, and their equipment MUST be designed for that alone. It's not uncommon for a long drive competitor to break/collapse 3 or 4 drivers in one event - durability is not an issue there. Tour players are MUCH, MUCH more interested in hitting fairways and keeping a well performing driver in thier bag as long as possible. Basically, the two uses of the driver have very little in common, and the 'disposable' nature of the long driver's equipment 'might' be a better fit product wise for the component industry as the OEMs distain public knowledge of their equipment breaking (notice I'm not saying their equipment doesn't break).
The OEMs also don't gain a lot of market exposure from the long drive arena, so I'll offer that the economics of both production and endorsement in this arena don't pass muster. Titleist tried this market by sponsoring Zubec for a year, but they couldn't justify a special production run for 1 player (I'd bet he probably used as many heads in 1 year as their entire tour stable). They supplied 975D heads with a very low loft to him. He found that this head was both not as long as the Zeider he previously played, and much less durable - not suprising since this head was not designed for his type of use. Titleist supposedly went off the deep end when one of the big Golf mags did an article on Zubec that reported him collapsing the faces of their drivers.....
On the other hand, a component company with smaller market and production probably has both a better opportunity to gain some golf market exposure in the long drive arena, and incurrs less expense than an OEM would in supplying these competitors.
As an aside, finances dictate that they typically MUST offer the identical long drive clubheads to the commercial market, so the consumer actually can get the identical head that's used in competition.
Make sense??
Pat K.
>
> From: Dave Tutelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2003/01/28 Tue AM 10:38:04 EST
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Re: ShopTalk: brands under wraps
>
> Pat,
> We're in nearly complete agreement. I have been shown around the Taylor
> Made "pro shop", so I know that the tour pros play special equipment not
> generally available. That makes it even worse than my note said -- which
> was your point.
>
> On a slightly off-point almost-disagreement, you wrote:
> >IMO, the tour pros will with few exceptions always use
> >clubs made by OEMs since the tour specific products they
> >provide are without a doubt significantly better for their games.
>
> I'm not equally convinced of that, but you may be right. The big-name
> long-drive players use components, not OEM heads, so there is a
> counterexample. I think the major reason the tour pros will always use OEM
> heads is the endorsement money. A secondary reason is that the OEMs will
> make the few-off heads that you describe as tour-only equipment --
> significantly, not very useful to the handicap golfer. If the specs really
> need to be that different, then you're right that they're stuck with an
> OEM, because it's worth the money to the OEM (that's the basis of their
> marketing, so it IS worth the money) to do such small-run production.
>
> Cheers!
> DaveT
>
> At 10:03 AM 1/28/03 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Dave,
> >I agree with your points, but need to add a couple of points to your case.....
> >
> >In Vijay's specific situation (and as an aside for basically every tour
> >golfer -not sure if this applies to tennis or other sports), the driver he
> >uses is one that's not available to any 'common' player via their retail
> >golf supplier. He plays a tour only prototype TM driver (of course fitted
> >to him with respect to loft, lie, face angle, and shaft) that will never
> >by sold to the public. So, the deception goes even further in that the
> >typical player cannot even obtain the equipment he uses, irrespective of
> >the name stamped on it. In fact, the typical player can only get the
> >closest match to his driver by seeing an excellent clubfitter that builds
> >or modifies a driver to fit that player specifically - the brand stamp on
> >the sole is not a revelant part of this equation (obviously the brand
> >isn't the big issue with the tour player either)unless the clubhead itself
> >is garbage. It's really funny to see the 'what's in the bag' sections in
> >Golf Digest where the picture of the pl!
> > ayer's bag is included - they only show players that use clubs that are
> > either commercially available or ones that look similar enough to those
> > commercially available to decieve the reader.
> >
> >Right now, all of the TM tour staff uses metals that have a .335 hosel
> >bore. TM does NOT sell a .335 hosel bore driver or fairway metal (retro
> >tour spoon is an exception) to the public. The Titleist players are using
> >a prototype 983E or 983K driver (Els using the 983E I believe) that is
> >also not available - it might be released later this year. And, of
> >course, all are custom fitted to each player. If your wallet is fat
> >enough, there are sources for these real tour clubs - the cost is
> >typically 3-5x higher than the commercially available OEMs. (a Titleist
> >983E is selling for ~$1400 now)
> >
> >The bottom line is that these guys pick a club (usually from a selection
> >only available to them) that visually gives them the most confidence, and
> >have it fitted to their swing - EXACTLY what the custom clubmaker should
> >be doing. Whether the clubmaker uses an OEM or non-OEM clubhead to start
> >the process, the custom fitting part of the equation is where the
> >difference should be marketed to the public. IMO, the tour pros will with
> >few exceptions always use clubs made by OEMs since the tour specific
> >products they provide are without a doubt significantly better for their
> >games. These same clubs would be mediocre to terrible performers for the
> >typical player, but you are very correct in discussing the 'mass appeal to
> >use what the pro's use'. Nike Golf would be long gone without this
> >marketing reality, as their commercially availble clubs are nothing to
> >rave about. Tiger, Duval, etc. ARE the reason that Nike is in the OEM
> >clubmaking business, even though the the ONLY similar!
> > ity between the pro's equipment and the clubs in the store is the swoosh.
> >
> >Anyway, my point is that the deception runs much deeper than you've
> >described since the pro's don't use the clubs these OEMs sell in stores
> >anyway.....
> >
> >Off Rant,
> >Pat K.
> >
> > >
> > > From: Dave Tutelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: 2003/01/28 Tue AM 09:02:01 EST
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: Re: ShopTalk: brands under wraps
> > >
> > > At 09:51 PM 1/27/03 -0500, Ray Pruitt wrote:
> > > > as you know I am busy running a shop and don't usually talk a lot.
> > > > However, running a high quality OEM shop is a big job. I noticed (not
> > for
> > > > the first time) , on national tv coverage , a player using one brand of
> > > > driver, but covering it with a competitors brand of head cover.
> > > > I have seen this at a TOUR event before, and I for one am tired of
> > > > seeing this practice. Anyone else out there have the same opinion, ? and
> > > > what do we the consumer and business people do about it?
> > > > Oh, by the way , the player was Vijay ,and he used a Taylor Made , with
> > > > a Cleveland headcover.
> > > >
> > > >Ray
> > >
> > > Personally, I could not do this myself. Endorsing something you don't
> > > believe in defies integrity. That said...
> > >
> > > I find it hard to work up any indignation specifically in the case of
> > > athletes endorsing one brand while using another. Tennis players have been
> > > doing this for years. And I have no doubt that tour golfers do too. But
> > the
> > > fact that "everybody does it" is not what fails to tick me off. It's that
> > > the whole OEM endorsement-based sales pitch is just so dishonest that I
> > > don't see this as a breach that particularly sticks out.
> > >
> > > The endorsement idea -- the notion of paying a visible celebrity
> > athlete to
> > > use your product -- appeals only to the weakest or most ego-dominated
> > minds
> > > anyway. How could it be logical that because Vijay Singh plays Cleveland
> > > (or Taylor Made, or whatever) and wins, that I can improve my game by
> > > playing that brand. ("Be like Mike." "Gotta be the shoes." "I am Tiger
> > > Woods".) As clubfitters, we all know how ridiculous that is. Yet for some
> > > reason, this notion:
> > > (a) Sells lots of golf clubs.
> > > (b) Raises the cost of those golf clubs, because of endorsement costs.
> > > (c) Raises the price of those golf clubs, because of both increased
> > costs
> > > and [illogically] increased demand.
> > >
> > > So I don't have a lot of sympathy for any consumer that is "fooled" by the
> > > headcover switch. They were fatally fooled by the whole premise before the
> > > switch ever happened.
> > >
> > > Cheers!
> > > DaveT
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
