191 replies to this topic

[WilburnLong]

Rory in a way has already made me buy Nike clubs.  I was playing G15's and was looking to try a more traditional iron with S300 shafts and so I decided to pick up a set of Victory Red Split Cavity irons from a fellow WRX'r in the BST.  I decided going with Nike 1) because I've heard great things about their forged clubs 2) because of all the hoopla on here surrounding Rory to Nike I figured they must do something right to have the two best players (Tiger and Rory) in the world playing their equipment.  I couldn't be happier with my experience with my clubs so far, great sticks.

[Rustynuts]

^ So on that rational shouldn't you be buying Titleist gear? I mean he may suck with Nike gear

[leftypga]

Rustynuts, on 26 November 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

^ So on that rational shouldn't you be buying Titleist gear? I mean he may suck with Nike gear

No he won't.  He'd Rory F-ing McIlroy!  He wouldn't suck with a US Kids Junior set with floppy graphite shafts.

[Rustynuts]

Yes but if your going out to buy clubs based on Rory's performance then why wouldn't you buy Titleist? I think they have served him pretty well thus far? And he is untested with Nike as of yet

[iBanesto]

No.

I don't like McIlroy or Nike.

[ghalfaire]

In a word, No!  I wonder however if the poll is accurate as I have read in several articles on marketing that an endorsement from someone like Rory is worth a 5-10% bump in sales.

[WilburnLong]

Rustynuts, on 26 November 2012 - 01:19 AM, said:

^ So on that rational shouldn't you be buying Titleist gear? I mean he may suck with Nike gear

I'm not against putting Titleist gear in the bag but I think we all know what to expect with Titleist but with Nike many tend to think it's an inferior product.  If he was switching to Taylormade or hypothetically he was with another company switching to Titleist it wouldn't have produced the same amount of interest from me personally because again I know what to expect from those companies.  For me it's not really about playing what the best play but when I was already considering them it definitely gave me a push to try something new.

[TMBob]

Not a chance

[Volgolfer]

No.

I've never been able to "like" Nike.  They are not a home-grown golf company like Callaway, Titleist, Ping, Taylor Made.  Companies that have served the market for decades and have lived/died by their ability to innovate rather than duplicate.

I've always considered Nike a follower, as company that diworsifies.. Their thing was shoes.  Nothing wrong with diversifying, as along as you stick to your knitting.  

Something slimy about using your name recognition (or someone else's - ie, Rory, Tiger...) instead of your pedigree to win a market.  

Big difference between a golf club and a shoe...

[mukster]

Volgolfer, on 26 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

No.

I've never been able to "like" Nike.  They are not a home-grown golf company like Callaway, Titleist, Ping, Taylor Made.  Companies that have served the market for decades and have lived/died by their ability to innovate rather than duplicate.

I've always considered Nike a follower, as company that diworsifies.. Their thing was shoes.  Nothing wrong with diversifying, as along as you stick to your knitting.  

Something slimy about using your name recognition (or someone else's - ie, Rory, Tiger...) instead of your pedigree to win a market.  

Big difference between a golf club and a shoe...

Mizuno started out making baseballs and gloves. They only started making golf clubs about 25 years later.  They diworsified as well.   Good thing they didn't stick to their knitting!

Using advertising to secure a piece of the market, the humanity!

[SurfDuffer]

I'd buy Nike gear but it has the worst resale value on the planet.  Equipment's not bad but you loose 98% of what you paid for it the minute you walk out of the store.

[Volgolfer]

mukster, on 26 November 2012 - 11:18 AM, said:

Volgolfer, on 26 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

No.

I've never been able to "like" Nike.  They are not a home-grown golf company like Callaway, Titleist, Ping, Taylor Made.  Companies that have served the market for decades and have lived/died by their ability to innovate rather than duplicate.

I've always considered Nike a follower, as company that diworsifies.. Their thing was shoes.  Nothing wrong with diversifying, as along as you stick to your knitting.  

Something slimy about using your name recognition (or someone else's - ie, Rory, Tiger...) instead of your pedigree to win a market.  

Big difference between a golf club and a shoe...

Mizuno started out making baseballs and gloves. They only started making golf clubs about 25 years later.  They diworsified as well.   Good thing they didn't stick to their knitting!

Using advertising to secure a piece of the market, the humanity!

Yah, good points. I struggled with the whole concept of the diworsification argument; I'm a big fan and user of Mizuno products.  Guess I just appreciate understated marketing like Mizuno and others use....