Acushnet, bids please?

Acushnet, a subsidiary of the fortune brands empire, sent out an offer memordum last month confirming that the company was indeed about to confirm rumours of a sale. The Aucushnet brands include; Titliest, Footjoyl, Scotty Cameron, Pinnacle and formally Cobra before they were sold to Puma last march.

This leaves possibly the most famous of all golf brands, Titliest, with a somewhat uncertain future. Strategic bids are expected to come from the other big players in the golf market, Adidas (taylormade) and Nike. What they would do with the Acushnet brands is unclear but would it be unrealistic to expect the pro v1 to be the prize asset they are after. Despite the best efforts of the other big players in the market titliest is the world leader in both brand status and quality when it comes to golf balls. Would this mean the end of the prov1 and the introduction of a Nike ball comprised of titliest patented technology?

Are there scenarios whereby a big firm like Nike would own the titliest brand and keep it with its current branding? I would think the likes of footjoy will remain as footjoy, at least aesthetically, as its more niche golfing product is at the heart of its success.

Another possibility is that Acushnet will be snapped up investors from private equity firms, In which case I would definitely expect all the Acushnet products that survive after the acquisition to remain as they are. For the health of choice available to golfing consumers this has to be the better option. Although, wherever the engineers end up I would hope they are able to continue the great work they currently produce.

Is it a worry for golfers that one of the great brands is up for sale or will this ensure the future of a golfing great?

Wow - that's a big story and raises a lot of good questions if it were to happen.

Personally I couldn't imagine the Titleist brand dying out. It would certainly remain if it was taken over be (for example) Adidas but the Nike question raises interesting possibilities.

Would they kill the brand (which retaining the technologies) just to further their own brand dominance? I'd like to think not - that they'd continue the Titleist brand while reaping the benefits - but with Nike, who knows!

One thing is for sure, if Acushnet falls into the hands of Adidas or Nike then its brands will be there to maximise that firms overall profit. So titliest as we know it would be gone. I do think that using titliest to corner the better players market may be what they would use it for.

If they get bought by a company to expand their sporting interest into golf then it will stay more or less the same.

Cameron will probably branch out alone or get picked up by another big name company as a sub-division based on his reputation... as will footjoy.

If it gets bought out by a private equity company expect the same thing to happen as happened to Lynx and Ram.

Low quality, mass-produced goods, targetting high volume-low price retailers to make as much money raping the company as possible before dumping to the status of selling on the golf channel

London

I have no doubt that a private equity firm will have only return on investment in mind.

So I guess the question is what is more profitable, mass produces low quality or titliest at present?

Are you so sure that the likes of ram make more money than titliest?

Was scotty always part of titliest, if not could we see taylormade or Nike putters with the Scotty name on them?

Would be a great shame if either Nike or Adidas get their claws into Acushnet. Both are good at what they do but neither carry anywhere near the class of Titleist.

I can't really see the point in either buying Acushnet though?! Nike has done exceptionally well in the golf market when you bear in mind that they had virtually zero golf products pre Tiger and are now one of the big brands. Adidas has a big enough brand with Taylor Made so again can't see what they would get from Acushnet. Can see the only reason to gain a larger market share with a few patents thrown in...

Brands like Mizuno and other "niche" Japanese brands could be the real beneficiaries. Nike, Adidas (TM) and Callaway are all good at what they do but they are more club manufacturers than club makers so miss out on the portion of the market that prefer quality clubs. Titleist and Mizuno are then most popular for these players because of their availability and reputation for quality and a poorer quality Titleist will prove to create a stronger Mizuno...

Scotty worked for Mizuno before Titleist Mac.

and Nike not a clubmaker? Look up Tom Stites and the work he did before designing the first round of nike irons.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Scotty worked for Mizuno before Titleist Mac.

and Nike not a clubmaker? Look up Tom Stites and the work he did before designing the first round of nike irons.

I was talking more about the brands than their individual products. A square driver is not club making...

But the idea behind it with increased moi and stability is clubmaking.

just because it's not traditional it isn't any less clubmaking.

(not that I like the square drivers personally)

incidentally... it's always funny when people consider Mizuno not a giant in sports industries.

they are a major player in baseball and running... just that they rarely occupy space as a result of those sports.

I am not disputing that Nike has made some good products but on the whole they make mass produced clubs for the mass market. Nothing wrong with this and it is remarkable that they are at least as good as similar brands like Taylor Made and Callaway in such a short period of time.

In my opinion, they do not generally make quality clubs and certainly have all the class of a sportswear company - bright colours and logos everywhere (original blades a big exception). To me this means that they will compete more with Callaway and TM for market share than Titleist and Mizuno.

LondonJonnyO wrote:incidentally... it's always funny when people consider Mizuno not a giant in sports industries.

they are a major player in baseball and running... just that they rarely occupy space as a result of those sports.

They reflect Japanese business and culture - high quality without marketing to death...

This has probably happened at the wrong time (But maybe the right time) because many club manufacturers of quality irons, and all the boutique manufacturers will now struggle due to the Japanese catastrophy. We already know many of the big mass production boys have moved to taiwan/China etc. So expect to see many other cost saving initiatives, or in other words lower quality products

I think the worrying thing here is the thought that we are loosing one of the manufactures who bridged a gap between the usual mass production products and the higher quality niche brands.

I tend to think that taylormade, callaway, nike and ping (irons only) are not of the quality of titliest and mizuno these days.

I hope that in five years time or so we are left with the choice of gimmicky low quality products or super expensive brands like Muira.

Mac. Why are Nike, Callaway, ping and Taylormade of lesser quality in terms of irons?

LondonJonnyO wrote:Mac. Why are Nike, Callaway, ping and Taylormade of lesser quality in terms of irons?

No idea, you would have to ask them. i guess they are aiming at the beer drinking cart riding once a fortnight golfer who needs some shiny and loud gear.

whats loud about these?

http://www.2ndgolf.com/board/files/nike_forged_blade_07_157.jpg

or these

http://www.productwiki.com/upload/images/taylormade_tp_mb_smoke.jpg

this one?

http://www.thegolfpeople.net/admin/pages/upload/products/Zoom-callaway-x-prototype-irons-a.jpg

maybe the pings then?

http://www.118golf.co.uk/@@content/pub/rtc/image/prodimages/PingS59irons.jpg

nope. They all look pretty serious irons to me.

Possibly it's the other end that are loud. Let's look

http://img.timeinc.net/golf/i/equipment/2009/03/Mizuno-MX200-Irons_600.jpg

Thats a nasty blue panel there.

http://www.titleist.co.uk/golf-clubs/irons/AP1.aspx

nasty red bits in that one.



the fact is that every company has its colourful products which are around game improvement.

but they also have some very serious equipment in most cases. I think that the mini-cavity thing on the back of the mizuno blades is a bit of a gimmick. And just ruins them. But then everyone loves mizuno irons so I can't say that... as they are for serious golfers.

LJ

I played a KO match against a guy that had those TP MB pro's in the smoke finish. They are truly gorgeous, I WANT THEM!!!!!

But they are flashy, loud and for the beer drinking once a fortnight golfer D4S!

yeah cant deny that those TP mb smokes practically gave me a semi.

Mac. It's as I say... it's all relative. Those are pretty top end with no colours, graphics or anything else. Much like the other irons I picked up.

Besides... as a player of the TM300's you should be aware that TaylorMade aren't exactly covered in bright yellow and shiny blue.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Mac. It's as I say... it's all relative. Those are pretty top end with no colours, graphics or anything else. Much like the other irons I picked up.

Besides... as a player of the TM300's you should be aware that TaylorMade aren't exactly covered in bright yellow and shiny blue.

True LJ, but i do worry where golf club design is going in the next few years.

To get the discussion back on track I have a question. Does anyone know where golf manufactures make the most profit? Is it from balls, where most people go through quite a few or drivers where the price is high and it is a club people are more willing to change? I don't see it being irons as people tend not to change them very often.


Going back to a previous point do people think there is more profit to be had keeping titliest as it is or changing to lower cost mass production products?

LJ, obviously the links that you posted show that the likes of TM, Callaway, Nike and Ping can make nicer looking clubs as much as Mizuno and Titleist can make loud and cheap looking clubs. However, I think that all of your examples are anomalies for those brands.

For example, Ping, TM, Callaway and Nike will on a given year release 2-3 ugly game improvement irons and one set of nice looking traditional irons and this represents the market that they target whilst also offering their sponsored touring pro's an option that they can endorse. On the other hand, Mizuno will release 2-3 nice looking sets of forged irons and a set of ugly game improvement irons. This is the reason that they are labelled, respectively, as such.

Titleist are the more recently trying to play all markets with their ugly AP range complementing their nice looking CB or MB range. This may be due to the game improvement side of their business being generally very poor so they are overly reliant on better players. However, Titleist re-enforce their brand with classic ranges of wedges, fairway woods and drivers, not to mention Scotty putters. Their brand is so strong, and much stronger than their competitors, that I am amazed they could be subject to a takeover!?!

On a side one, semi agree with you about the mini cavity on Mizuno irons. Was fine a couple of seasons ago when they were just a mini cavity but now they seem to be leaning towards making them look cheaper with different colours and different materials being used in the cavities on their irons. Can't imagine their newer irons being as popular and can only hope they go back to making simple irons for good ball strikers again soon.

Dunno why you're that worried.

Look at the Nike Pro Combo.
http://www.sandbox8.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/VR_Pro_Combo.jpg

And the VR Pro
http://www.golfmagic.com/uploads/images/Medium/7539.jpg

can't get more classic than those from a 'flashy' brand.


As for titleist. I'd buy it. Sell off the tour pros and get some cheaper guys in. Break it up into the Cameron brand (after making him do his own manufacturing by buying a chinese sweatshop), and footjoy. License the ProV1 brand and the rest of the balls to a 3rd party and rake in the cash on that. Sack all the clubdesigners and get another sweatshop to turn out cheaper versions of the current stuff whilst working on a cheap and cheerful version that I could sell through JJB Sports for 250 quid a set at a 50 dollar manufacture cost. Run that part of the brand into the ground for a huge profit then disappear and in the meantime sell the ball licenses to another 3rd party (after 5 years of raping it) and keep footjoy as an ongoing specialist shoe maker.

Harrison. I did specifically choose those irons as examples it's true. But look at the current nike offering. They have a serious iron in there (in fact I would say three serious sets) with a similar number of sets through the ability ranges.

Same for Taylormade with their TP series irons.

Ping is a bit different obviously... but still they do cater for everyone.

It was an example more than anything. But one that holds up. Even callaway have some of the best looking irons on the market. The Diablo Forged for example is one. It looks really good at address. And their wedges are exceptionally good looking.

Mac, not sure where they make most of their money. Would have thought that they are quite well balanced as to where their profit comes from as most major brands offer such a diverse range of products that a little bit from each all adds up. My reasoning on this is that Ping have never really dabbled with golf balls or gloves (replaceable items) yet still seem fairly strong.

As for your second question, I think that short and medium term they will make fortunes off the back of the strong Titleist name but long term it would just be another Ram or Lynx. Would be very sad to see but Acushnet need to be very careful if they have an interest in keeping their components strong. A rival will eventually reduce their parts to niche ranges if anything and an investor looking purely at return will mass produce them out to recoup their stake and make a profit and then have little interest in them after that. An ideal buyer would be a company looking to get into the golf industry or increase in size in the golf industry, just like Puma have just done with Cobra. Maybe they'll be ready to get the cheque book out again and buy the rest of the Acushnet companies?

titliest driver and mizuno irons and wedges for me so i am biased. we all have our brands but for me mizuno lead the way with their irons and have done for years and only recently have some of the names mentioned above upped their game in the iron stakes.

i bought my mp 30s when they came out and dont think i will ever change them. but i did find out the other day that titleist will refurb your titleist driver FOC if you send it through a stockist...takes about 5-6 weeks. mikne is now 5 years old so might think about this in the next winter shutdown.


i do like the look of the callaway wedges...but its taken them long enough !

LondonJonnyO wrote:Harrison. I did specifically choose those irons as examples it's true. But look at the current nike offering. They have a serious iron in there (in fact I would say three serious sets) with a similar number of sets through the ability ranges.

Same for Taylormade with their TP series irons.

Ping is a bit different obviously... but still they do cater for everyone.

It was an example more than anything. But one that holds up. Even callaway have some of the best looking irons on the market. The Diablo Forged for example is one. It looks really good at address. And their wedges are exceptionally good looking.

I agree that these brands all make good irons but the core of their business is from cheap and tacky game improvement irons and this is their brand. There is nothing wrong with that and a quick glance around most golf clubs now would suggest that cheap and tacky is very much a part of the game.

However, my point was that a manufacturer like TM make a really lovely iron like the TP series and then release 2-3 gaudy game improvement irons so as nice as the TP irons are, it is difficult to see past Taylor Made's brand of tackiness. There is also probably good reason for this in that a good golfer will find TM's TP irons without the need for aggressive marketing of them so they are not at the forefront of TM's brand. Likewise, a poor golfer will be more persuaded by their newest bestest offering so this is where most of their marketing lies. As an example, the R series of drivers (R7/R9/R11) are advertised to death yet you rarely see an advert for their superfast or TP drivers which are great clubs. This is what causes the tacky perception of them.

I would be very sorry to see the Titleist brand name disappear. For some reason I've always liked their gear more than other brands, and always seem to end up with their clubs. I even made a point of trying to not buy Titleist when buying my current driver, but the launch monitor made the decision for me.

They do have a reputation of being more for the serious golfer, but I can't help thinking that they've rested on the laurels of that reputation while TM and Nike built their brands and accrued comparable respect through high profile player contracts with the likes of Garcia and Woods, to name but 2. Those companies are presumably making more money from golf now than Acushnet, otherwise why are Fortune Brands selling?

If either of those, or Callaway, buys Acushnet, I believe they'll keep the ball brand but the clubs will disappear over the next few years. If my assumption that Acushnet is less profitable is correct, then I really don't see that they'll represent a worthy investment for anyone outside the industry. Maybe a smaller/less high profile company such as Wilson might see them as complementing their existing range, which is mainly lower end.

The specialist wings such as Vokey, Scotty and Footjoy would be successful in their own rights, but if they were sold off then the remaining company would be even less viable even with the ball.

I think that's a bit cynical.

Most of the R&D cash will be into the standard offerings. And most golfers will be looking at those offerings.

I'd target 90% of my marketing at the average golfer. Those shooting 90+ everytime they play. And I wouldn't be likely to sell them a TP MB Smoke iron. And nor would I want to as they would never come to me again as my clubs are 'too tough to hit'

Smithers. Titleist had Woods... you have to wonder why they lost him. They also had Garcia I believe... and a lot of others.

They are good sticks it's true... but I also think something is lacking. There is no real innovation there anymore. They are constantly trailing the other companies now.

LondonJonnyO wrote:I think that's a bit cynical.

Most of the R&D cash will be into the standard offerings. And most golfers will be looking at those offerings.

I'd target 90% of my marketing at the average golfer. Those shooting 90+ everytime they play. And I wouldn't be likely to sell them a TP MB Smoke iron. And nor would I want to as they would never come to me again as my clubs are 'too tough to hit'

Hence the reason the TP MB smoke is probably unheard of to the average golfer. However, the average golfer will know that Mizuno manufacture clubs aimed at better ball strikers - brand perception.

I agree that Titleist's problem is their lack of innovation but really clubs have not really changed that much for a good while now and it must be tough to keep rebranding what is essentially the same clubs this year as last year. It must be a bit like the annual Gillette board meeting - "this year we're going to revolutionise shaving by adding another blade..."

LondonJonnyO wrote:I'd target 90% of my marketing at the average golfer. Those shooting 90+ everytime they play. And I wouldn't be likely to sell them a TP MB Smoke iron. And nor would I want to as they would never come to me again as my clubs are 'too tough to hit'

As one of ths players, i have cobra game improvement clubs, and as i LJO says i would rather be sold level appropriate clubs than fancy clubs that mean i dont enjoy playing, at the end of the day it is a sport and past time and for most of us enjoyment is the key.

I am much more likely to go back to the person who sold me these clubs, and if i have improved enough buy a more expensive set. Thats a minimum of 2 sets of irons i have bought from them instead of just one. Repeat custom is where the money is.

sharrison01 wrote:

LondonJonnyO wrote:I think that's a bit cynical.

Most of the R&D cash will be into the standard offerings. And most golfers will be looking at those offerings.

I'd target 90% of my marketing at the average golfer. Those shooting 90+ everytime they play. And I wouldn't be likely to sell them a TP MB Smoke iron. And nor would I want to as they would never come to me again as my clubs are 'too tough to hit'

Hence the reason the TP MB smoke is probably unheard of to the average golfer. However, the average golfer will know that Mizuno manufacture clubs aimed at better ball strikers - brand perception.

I agree that Titleist's problem is their lack of innovation but really clubs have not really changed that much for a good while now and it must be tough to keep rebranding what is essentially the same clubs this year as last year. It must be a bit like the annual Gillette board meeting - "this year we're going to revolutionise shaving by adding another blade..."

Hence why Mizuno are actually spending more money on their research and marketing in the average golfer bracket from what I can see.

As for Gillette. I think that soon the bladehead will be so big I can shave one cheek in a half inch movement.

LondonJonnyO wrote:Smithers. Titleist had Woods... you have to wonder why they lost him. They also had Garcia I believe... and a lot of others.

They are good sticks it's true... but I also think something is lacking. There is no real innovation there anymore. They are constantly trailing the other companies now.

Yes, they did have Woods but I think Nike, through their non-golfing business simply had too much money and wouldn't take no for an answer. I seem to remember they paid him something like $10m a year fairly early in his career and Titleist refused to match it. They clearly thought Nike weren't serious competition, and at the time they were probably right - Woods continued to use Titleist clubs for quite a while after. However, having sent out the message that they wouldn't be held to ransom by a player, they allowed all their top players to be lured away - Garcia to TM, Els to Callaway etc.

There's no innnovation in the irons, I'll agree, but the woods are still good, and continue to improve year on year, and Vokey and Scotty have been the mainstay of the company's club production for a few years now, with fairly regular releases.

There's only so much you can do with a wedge. And scotty is more or less a separate brand. He could pick up and stick anyone's brand on his stuff with no real trouble. I think that nike could do with a good putter maker to be honest. although he would have to conform to some of their groove pattern stuff I would think.

And maybe that refusal to be held to ransom started their downfall. There are way too many people who want to play what Tiger plays.

And their woods are nice. I still have my 906F. Although it's not exactly standard!

All the top manufacturers whether they be titleist, mizuno, TM, Cobra, Nike, Ping, Callaway make some fantastic irons aimed at all types of players. Problem with Titleist was they assumed being one of the big boys and top manufacturers they took for granted that they always would be. Nike, TM and other brands have stepped up to the plate when it comes to better player clubs these days and Mizuno go from strength to strength in the classic irons and are now producing some great improvement clubs without sacrificing too much in the ways of style.

There are many connotations as to what would happen to titleist or who would buy them and strip them down etc but one company being overlooked here that could reap huge rewards and benefits from the purchase of Acushnet is ADAMS Golf, they are seriously up and coming in the better club range, they always have done well in the improvement area, but now are producing the CB and CB1 Black ranges that are aimed at the better player end of market and are a great looking set and feel great, so by adding the titleist branding they could get there good player clubs the draw they require to sell more, they are also producing some great wedges thanks to Tom Watsons design inputs so would benefit the Vokey Range. They would also be adding a great Driver and Putter range to their brand as well as the games most played ball and worn shoes.

Its brands like Adams and Even Wilson that could really do well with the purchase of Acushnet by adding things to their brands they currently lack.

That said its more likely we'll see another, Lynx/Ram scenario in 5 or so years and see them propping up racks in JJB sports and reminisce of times when their was a big brand called Titleist

Brands like Titleist, Footjoy, Cameron and Pinnacle are very well known. That's really the value that any purchaser of Acushnet will get.

Those brands won't disappear - they'll continue to be there and promoted, it's just that your money ends up at a different company that's all.

George1507 wrote:Brands like Titleist, Footjoy, Cameron and Pinnacle are very well known. That's really the value that any purchaser of Acushnet will get.

Those brands won't disappear - they'll continue to be there and promoted, it's just that your money ends up at a different company that's all.

The big question is will they remain in their current form or will a different company affect their product lines? In which case, will our money end up anywhere near the current Acushnet brands at all?

There'd be product development, just like there is now, but the new parent company would want to retain the brand and the good will (or brand values) because customers know that they'll get good quality stuff.

Any changes to brands are done slowly and as far as the customer is concerned, imperceptibly.

George1507 wrote:
Any changes to brands are done slowly and as far as the customer is concerned, imperceptibly.

Don't know if I agree with you old chap......how about Skoda for example?

Used to be a pile of dog kack now a VW with a czech badge.

Thats a fair point.

You could pretty much take an octavia, passat and A4 and apart from the quality of the finish and the plastics on the interior they may as well be the same thing.

I quite liked my passat when I had a company car. But although it's time for a change I'm in the market for a Jag.

every new octavia i've been in, in the last 5 years still feels exactly like my folks '93 vauxhall cavalier in terms of quality of plastics and upholstery... vw is still in a different league.

i'm thinking about new irons at the end of this year and titleist / mizuno will likely be my 1st and only ports of call.

am i the only one who thinks those taylormade tp mb's look horrible?!!

BB. They aren't my favourite looking iron by a long way. But they are a good example of a high end product from a company which is considered more brash than most. And they are also a very long running iron considering TaylorMade release a new model so frequently.

I much prefer the Nike blade. It's sexy.

My two-penneth . . .

A friend has a set of Nike VR TWs. I know they weren't cheap and they look absolutely fabulous. Possibly, the best looking clubs I've ever seen.

The reason why Skoda et al improved, was because the leading production player in this triumbrate had the biggest input. It also allowed them to look for synergies and reduce cost to the production, due to increasing production lines that were already running. A lot of supplers and factories closed all over the place and people out of work. But they end up with a well made product, but produced much cheaper. - It's business.

One would hope that whoever steps in is either better than Teitlist and will enhgance what they've already got, or use the Tietlist production lines to keep the quality.

Remains to be seen

Nevermind, who owns Titleist, we need to start a concerted campaign to get people to pronounce it properly.

The number of people who refer to them as "Boobie Least" is amazing.

EDIT The forum changed it to 'Boobie'

good point lj. merc, i've just had a look at those nike's, they're definitely heading in the right direction. that said, i'd still take the current titleist mb blades every time. less is more!

must be balanced and point out that titleists last blade offering were nothing short of a ridiculous taylormade fashionista release. the 'z muscle' must be one of the worst looking irons i've ever seen.

Mmm, i do enjoy playing with a titty after after discoving one while routing around in a bush....

what is the correct one merc?!!

i've always used the good old scottish 'tight list'