Nike to Pull out of Golf Equipment Market

Though deserved a thread of its own

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36971507

No clubs, balls and bags anymore but continuing to make apparel.


Some thoughts so far;

SmithersJones wrote:Excuse the golf talk but Nike have announced they're pulling out of the golf equipment business. Wonder if Rory will be playing his old Titleist clubs and more pertinently his old Scotty next time out?

GPB wrote:Nike getting out the Golf Equipment business.  Will still manufacture clothing including shoes.

sirbenson wrote:The Tiger Woods affect....Charl Schwartzel's mid season move of brand makes sense now, apparently Mcilroy was practicing last week with a Scotty Cameron putter

With Nike and Adidas leaving the golf market what does it say about the game?  

Will the Nike players be loving that they can use different equipment now?

How many majors would Tiger have won if he could have used the proV1?    :whistle:  

I doubt a Scotty will help Rory too much.


Steiny on Tiger

Steiny wrote:"Clearly he and I need to be thinking about a change on the hard goods side," Steinberg told GolfChannel.com via phone. "He and I have discussed at length the plan for that, and feel comfortable with what we're going to do going forward. But clearly, there's likely to be a change."

"He's been a longtime icon of Nike Golf and that's not going to change one ounce. He'll remain a loyal and enthusiastic icon of Nike."

Mizuno golf touting for business

‏@Golf_Mizuno wrote:@TigerWoods @McIlroyRory @BKoepka @Kevin_Chappell @JhonattanVegas @russhenleygolf @themichellewie --Team Mizuno now holding open tryouts

Does anyone really believe that the clubs the players use at the highest level are really that different? If one set was so much better then everyone would use them surely?

Maybe this is just the start of a handful of players not signing with any big companies, and just using whatever clubs they fancy, then getting other sponsors names on their bags.

Beninho wrote:Does anyone really believe that the clubs the players use at the highest level are really that different?

Not sure really. Based on reviews of clubs - which don't really conform to scientific rigor - we are led to believe some clubs are better than others or that they offer different characteristics, for example more forgiving or more accurate.

We also don't see much trend in the rankings based on equipment used, like you do in f1 for example.

I also don't believe that the players use other clubs, eg Muira stamped with their own sponsors logo. That has never been confirmed and I consider it a rumor at best, conspiracy theory at worst.

Might conceivably have happened in the early days of sponsored players but there are so many WITB features with close-up photos these days that they'd never get away with it. Besides, these people are playing amateur golf off +4 and +5, having steadily improved. Are we to suppose they only got there because they were using Miura blades all along? Clearly not, and it's not as if when you get down to scratch someone secretly approaches you and says 'would you like to play with professional clubs now, and get 5 shots better instantly?'

When did Tiger ditch his Scotty in favour of the Nike Method(?). I vaguely recall him saying something about changing due to the pace of the greens <somewhere> and almost from that point (in my mind) he seemed to lose that invincibility on the greens.

To be fair to the balls - the RZN Platinums this year are extremely nice. As good as the Pro V1x I usually use(lose).

Not liked the clubs they've had out for a few years now.

Good news for Titleist/Mizuno/other more golf focussed OEM or bad news that the market is tanking to the extent that the biggest sports companies in the world are pulling out?

Does the exit of Nike and Adidas, and the emergence of PXG, suggest golf is becoming even less affordable and appealing to the public in general?

Despite starting the game due to seeing Nike clad Tiger rampage to the 97 masters victory I never thought of Nike as one of the quality club manufacturers.

I always though of Mizuno, ping, titleist, TM and callaway being the top tier and then the likes of Nike, wilson, cobra etc being a notch below. If the marketing of Nike couldn't sway a vulnerable Tiger superfan like me then who could they persuade?


Must be pretty exciting for Rory who is currently struggling a bit to be able to choose whatever set of clubs he wants now. The obvious choice for him (and probably the other nike guys) is to go back to titleist.

Although I wonder if PXG are readying a few tasty deals to really get the brand going?

SmithersJones wrote:Does the exit of Nike and Adidas, and the emergence of PXG, suggest golf is becoming even less affordable and appealing to the public in general?

Great point. If good quality clubs become a niche product then they will be unaffordable for most players. It would be a sad day if you had to pay £1000 to even begin to think about getting a decent set of irons.

Nike golf has always seemed like a second rate company to me.

Nike are always a bit of a conundrum for me. I don't have any Nike clubs but have plenty of their clothing.
A lot of their stuff (driver, hybrids, bags) looks great and therefore I'm drawn to it. But I've tried plenty of their clubs and haven't liked a single one of them feel/performance wise.
The only thing they made that doesn't look cool is their irons

I had some Nike clubs, they were ok, though I much prefer my current Cleveland Irons.. I now have a Nike hybrid Vapor. Its fine, though I'm not really good enough to tell the difference.

I do think its strange that people of general standard make such snap decisions due to the make of the club.

They're pulling out? Best news for an age. Hate their gear and always hated their attitude. Good riddance.

What did you hate about their attitude? How did it impact you so much you hated it? And what was really wrong with the clubs they produced?

I hate their 'edgy' attitude (the 'Oven' ) & the fact they sign up and stay with self-confessed dirtbags.
I dislike their business approach to golf and their view that they simply wave a huge wad at any perceived golfing talent out there and they'll come running. To be fair, it's a business approach that seems to have worked OK but, for me, it makes me grind my teeth.
I don't like their garish gear and of the clubs I've tried, I didn't like any of them.
Some of the balls have been decent enough I guess.

Had (still have in the garage) a set of pro combo forged irons. Looked great, felt great. Only changed as they have regular shafts (1st set after coming back to the game) and as I went on I realised I needed stiff.

Ignite driver was also very good back in the day. Started to go a bit blurgh with the Sasquatch with yellow trim (although I do have a 3 wood somewhere) and the square fad. Their recent stuff has looked awful (to me) but think their technical R&D was/is pretty good. Never had a problem with their clothing before (unlike soops), but this year's range (again, to me personally) looks effing awful.

I do wonder where Rory will go for bats (and what will happen to the poor little soul in terms of his $150m contract).

I think their "attitude" is just perhaps a bit "American" which isn't meant to be derogatory, it's just different. More forthcoming (read "in your face" to Brits) less subtle (read "reserved" or "stiff assed" to Yanks).

As I haven't read anything other than on here, are Nike just pulling out and shutting their golf "arm" or are they selling it?

That said - I agree on the name of "the oven" Navy.

pfft

They certainly were/are a brash company, but I have a bag full of their clubs almost by accident. The pro-combos just happened to fit what I wanted at the time, bladed short irons and a bit more forgiveness in the longer irons and I tried them and liked them a lot. So much so that I started looking on ebay for 6 and 7 irons in the blades, and in the process stumbled across a driver I got for £30 which has a shaft worth twice that. I liked that so much I bought a matching 3-wood which is probably even better, so replace 2 Titleist woods with 2 Nikes. Having got that far it was logical to try the hybrid, which I also really like. I'd always played Titleist through the bag before, and probably will again now but I really like my Nike clubs. Can't stand the latest range mind you, which I think is a fairly universal sentiment and probably the root cause of this announcement.

SmithersJones wrote:I'd always played Titleist through the bag before, and probably will again now but I really like my Nike clubs.

Are you planning on changing so soon? Or just because they've pulled out? I'm sure you don't really mean that but it does read a little strange.....

Careful smithers, you are coming across as one of macs hackers...

I wonder if certain golfers apathy towards the Olympics had a bearing on this.

Their golf division hasn't being doing great so maybe they were hoping for a big boost via the Olympics.

The Olympics is huge for Nike so to be able to add a golf gold medalist to their stable would have been very beneficial to their marketing.

wiretapper wrote:I wonder if certain golfers apathy towards the Olympics had a bearing on this.

Their golf division hasn't being doing great so maybe they were hoping for a big boost via the Olympics.

The Olympics is huge for Nike so to be able to add a golf gold medalist to their stable would have been very beneficial to their marketing.

Good point Wire but I personally think it's probably more to do with the demise of Woods. Regardless of what people think of him he was a marketing dream for Nike during his ascendency. Although his slide had started (but may not have been obvious to them) by the point they signed Rory they must have thought they had the best pairing in all of golf. Hasn't really turned out that way which must have got them thinking "this golf Poopie is too complicated and unpredictable for us, let's get out"

Are Nike's produce at the top of any sport really? Certainly they spend millions in sponsorship, but do they really make the best of anything or do they just shell out loads of cash to promote their average gear? I can't think of any sport they are involved in in which they are better than anyone.

Wiretapper

I wonder what pressure Nike would have applied to Rory to get him to compete in the Olympics? Or do a sponsor and a player not have that sort of relationship?

I guess Nike (or any sponsor) would need to get some sort of clause to play in the Olympics inserted into the players deal.

Sorry, I meant next time I buy clubs. Certainly happy with my 5 year old Nikes for the moment.

The thing with Nike is they don't make equipment for any other sport, so golf was always a bit of a departure for them. I agree that Woods is probably the main reason their sales have diminished, and I'd even suggest he was the main/only reason they started making them in the first place.

Super

Nike trainers are pretty good. Look a lot better than some of the more niche running company ones.

Looks are not what it's about Mac, which is probably why they failed in golf.

ASICS are the leading company for running by a million miles and they don't even have to sponsor to the laughable levels of Nike to get there.
Nike aren't even top 5 in running.

Woods was the only reason Nike started making golf clubs. They predicted (correctly) that he would generate a boom in golf and bring in new customers. They also correctly predicted his decline and brought Rory in as a neat bit of succession planning.

However, globally the golf market is declining. Mature market in the US / Japan / UK, with ageing customer base. Nike (and Cobra/Puma) have been trying to make it cool, but it's a sensible decision for Nike to stick to clothing and footwear because it's really expensive to make clubs due to R&D costs and constant new products / innovation.

Maybe one of the other OEMs will buy up Nike's team and design facilities, but more likely everything will be broken up and the talented ones will find themselves at Titleist, Ping etc.

super_realist wrote:Looks are not what it's about Mac, which is probably why they failed in golf.

ASICS are the leading company for running by a million miles and they don't even have to sponsor to the laughable levels of Nike to get there.
Nike aren't even top 5 in running.

Super you can't really compare golf (technical equipment based sport) with running (putting one foot in front of the other).

Nike have always made pretty good track spikes, don't know about today. When it comes to trainers, Nike has always been about mass market rather than niche. I would never get a pair of Asics trainers they look awful, people who wear them look like right geeks, but then I don't run marathons so wouldn't appreciate the difference.

Ray, I was responding to Mac's statement that Nike made good looking trainers, well so what. It's about what works best, and Nike started as a running shoe company, but to my knowledge have never enjoyed the market share that ASICS have so in the market they know best they still aren't very good.

You are right though, they are made to appeal to mass market people, rather than people who are serious about sport, bit like a Ford Focus is for people who don't like cars and One Direction is for people who don't like music.

Does anyone buy running shoes to buy casually anyway? You wouldn't find any running shoe which looks good with casual clothing, so what does it matter what they look like, they're for running in, not wearing with jeans.

If you are buying a Nike running shoe over an ASICS one because you think they look better to wear casually then you're already a lost cause.

super_realist wrote:If you are buying a Nike running shoe over an ASICS one because you think they look better to wear casually then you're already a lost cause.

I am a lost cause.

Not a bad strategy I think. If (if!!) you don't make the best stuff, get (arguably) the best people (at the time) to wear it so the mass market associate you with the best and buy your stuff.

Golf and the tech side was an outlier being equipment (and somewhat geek based market) rather than apparel (and the aesthetic crowd), but was at the time a good call using Tiger. They may only ever have had an attitude of "let's see where we get to on this" and 3 years of back to back declines in revenue/profit might always have been the exit strategy.

The market gain and growth of golf at the time including the burgeoning scene amongst the younger persons in Korea, China, Malaysia etc may well have dictated their policy. Unfortunately whoever took over the golf team at Nike may have mis-read the Youth in Asia policy.



Haiiii Thank you!

Do nike sign people like Tiger and Rory to gain from the golf market or are they like Federer, Lance (before his issues), Serena who are signed to add to the overall image of superiority these athletes give nike. So the brand as a whole is associated with the best players without needing to benefit from the market of a particular sport. Tiger probably sold more shoes and hoodies than he did golf clubs or balls.

McLaren wrote: Tiger probably sold more shoes and hoodies than he did golf clubs or balls.

RACIST!!!!

McLaren wrote:

super_realist wrote:If you are buying a Nike running shoe over an ASICS one because you think they look better to wear casually then you're already a lost cause.

I am a lost cause.

You've no excuse Mac, you're still in your 20's aren't you? Wearing Jeans and Running shoes is a middle aged mans choice.

Super I would argue that if you are still wearing jeans it is you who has the style issues.

Where did I say I was wearing jeans?

Wearing running shoes for anything other than running is a sartorial mistake.

See Anything goes thread.

MontysMerkin wrote:

McLaren wrote: Tiger probably sold more shoes and hoodies than he did golf clubs or balls.

RACIST!!!!

Yeah. That is a weird thing for a self-confessed SJW to come out with. Who'da thought it eh?

How is that racist? I just picked two random items of nike clothing. Insert T-shirt, shorts, socks whatever. I was just pointing out that athletes of Woods caliber are signed to sell nike products in general and not just items specific to their own sport.

Black man - hoodies. Unfortunate. You could indeed have chosen T-shirts, shorts etc...but you didn't. Why not? Guess you're not perfect after all, but live and learn eh?

Oh dear, Mac exposed as a latent racist. Who'd have thought it?

navyblueshorts wrote:Black man - hoodies. Unfortunate. You could indeed have chosen T-shirts, shorts etc...but you didn't. Why not? Guess you're not perfect after all, but live and learn eh?

I see. No doubt this is a wind up (trolling Davie?) but I did not know that black people were particularly associated with hoodies. Must be a generational thing, everyone in my generation wears hoodies regardless of colour, sex, nationality.

You're starting to sound like Sergio now

Now that is trolling.

Your generation Mac? How old do you think we all are?

Super, mostly 40+.


STP suggested that Tiger might get Rob Burbick (One of the Nike golf guys) to build him a custom one off set of clubs. Is this really all that likely or will tiger go mainstream and get a set of Titleists?

Not that it will matter in terms of his pro career and winning events but it would give him a base from which to launch his own equipment brand if he wanted to.

Anyone know the History of Hogan golf, did it really have much to do with the man himself and was it spun out of one of the major manufacturers?

Nickluas (or Golden Bear) clubs were (are?) awful.

How old are you Mac, not a generation away i'll bet from most of us.

As for what clubs 9C will use, does it matter ? He's so bad it might as well be a set of Donnay from Sports Direct.

I do like those Hogan clubs though. I recall that goon Leonard used to use them. The newest ones are very nice.

Hogan is owned by Callaway. That's why they now use the Apex name.

Ray

I think hogan clubs have used the Apex name for many years. Pretty sure there was a set of Apex hogan irons laying about my parents garage from the 80's or early 90's.

McLaren wrote:Ray

I think hogan clubs have used the Apex name for many years.  Pretty sure there was a set of Apex hogan irons laying about my parents garage from the 80's or early 90's.

Probably newer than your clubs Shy......I mean miser.

Ray means that since Callaway own Ben Hogan that is why CALLAWAY use the Apex name on their irons, not why Hogan do.