Written By: Tony Covey
There’s a new clubhouse leader in the competition for the Most Misleading Ad of 2014. And here’s the real shocker; it’s not TaylorMade.
It’s PING.
I’m kidding. It’s Callaway.
At least that’s my opinion.
It’s definitely not the opinion of Callaway Golf, and it’s possible that once you sort through the facts as I understand them, it may not be yours either.
We’re allowed to think differently.
In case you missed it (and we’ll concede you probably did), last week members of Callaway Golf’s Zoo Crew (that’s the marketing team for those of you who don’t keep up with the haps on Twitter) posted an ad of sorts on their social media channels that basically claims that Callaway’s Big Bertha was the Number One Selling Driver Brand in February.
The claim was later repeated in Callaway’s weekly ICYMI video segment.
3 Different Ways to Declare Yourself the Winner
Before we dig deeper into the situation, let’s step back and look at the types of claims golf companies make. With very few exceptions, claims (often explained in the fine print) fall neatly into 3 categories.
Tour Claims – Arguably the two most well-known are Titleist’s #1 Ball on Tour and TaylorMade’s #1 Driver on Tour. The basis for these claims is almost always the Darrell Survey; a company whose business is counting the make and model of every club in play on the PGA (and other tours) each and every week. He who has the most toys in play wins.
Retail Claims – These claims generally reflect retail market share conditions, and generally end with the “the #1 Selling whatever in Golf”. Golf companies use information from Golf Datatech; a company that collects retail sales data from both off-course and green grass shops, as the foundation for these claims. Datatech survey information was sighted as the source for the Callaway claim I’ll be discussing today.
Performance Claims – OH MY GOD! 10 MORE YARDS! The most dubious of all claims, performance claims are almost always based on tests performed by the manufacturer making the claim. There are no hard and fast rules that govern the tests leveraged to make these claims. Each manufacturer tests on its own terms.
There are really only two things that bind the various types of claims golf companies make. They all come with some sort of supporting information (the fine print), and none of them get the green light without first clearing the legal department.
Callaway’s claim is your classic retail claim with a subtle little twist.
Here’s the image that Callaway’s Zoo Crew volleyed around Twitter:
While the overlapping image of Big Bertha and Big Bertha Alpha more or less conveyed the origins of Callaway’s conclusion, our fine print police were more than a little perturbed by the basis for that claim.
Check out the fine print:
So which is it? Is Callaway the #1 selling brand or do they simply have the #1 selling driver model?
It’s actually neither – which probably explains why Callaway decided to play fast and loose with semantics and label Big Bertha as a singular Brand.
It’s not.
Callaway is Brand. Big Bertha is a Model, at least that’s how Golf Datatech, the company whose data Callaway used as the basis of their claim, classifies Big Bertha.
It should also be pointed out that Golf Datatech also classifies Big Bertha Alpha as a model; an entirely separate model from Big Bertha.
And let’s be real here, that’s an absolutely legitimate distinction to make.
Callaway fan, fanboy, hater, or somewhere in the middle; wherever you fall on that particular spectrum, I think we can all agree that other than the fortuitous coincidence that happens to be the Big Bertha (model) name, Big Bertha, and Big Bertha Alpha don’t have all that much in common – at least not enough to be considered the same.
A Loophole in the System
One of the problems with the current state of Golf Datatech is that manufacturers choose how their products are listed. The SLDR Mini Driver that we talked about yesterday; it will be TaylorMade’s choice whether that’s considered as a driver or a fairway wood for the purpose of Datatech reporting, so you can bet it’s going to be a driver.
It was also TaylorMade’s choice to list SLDR 460 and SLDR 430 as a single line item.
Red flag? Not really.
The coupling of Tour/Pro models with standard models is fairly common practice within the Datatech system. In fact, it was Callaway’s choice to list X2 Hot and X2 Hot Pro as a single model, just as it was Callaway’s choice to list Big Bertha and Big Bertha Alpha separately.
Some additional consistency, dare I say concrete rules, would probably help keep this sort of thing from happening again. If it’s too easy to manipulate the numbers, a good bit of the responsibility should fall on Golf Datatech.
Differentiation Can Be Inconvenient
We absolutely do need to give Callaway some credit here. Since the Chip Brewer era began Callaway has been exceptionally good at differentiating their metalwood products. TaylorMade…umm not so much. Arguably not even a little.
At one point in time Bertha Alpha might have been the “Pro” companion to Big Bertha, but Callaway chose to give it the Alpha name because they wanted to segment the market based on the unique performance characteristics of each driver.
The point is that Callaway wanted their pair of Bertha-labeled drivers to be seen as distinctly separate by the consumer, but now that it’s more beneficial for them to have their drivers be seen as the same, Callaway is more than happy to combine the two for the purposes of making what is, in my opinion anyway, a dubious claim.
The Facts as Told By Golf Datatech
As I said at the onset, Callaway and I are of differing opinions as to the validity of the claim. What isn’t being disputed are the numbers themselves.
Here’s what those numbers say:
:: The TaylorMade SLDR is the #1 selling driver at retail (on and off course dollar market share).
:: Callaway’s Big Bertha is the #2 selling driver at retail.
:: Callaway’s Big Bertha Alpha ranks #6 behind Callaway’s own X2 Hot (#5), and TaylorMade’s R1 (crazy right – which occupies the #3 spot).
And for those inclined to look at the big picture, based on the February data, if you take everything that Callaway sold and put it next to everything that TaylorMade sold, TaylorMade has the bigger number.
So here’s my question, if you don’t have the #1 selling individual driver model, and somebody else sells more total drivers than you do, how can you reasonably claim to have the Number One Selling Driver Brand?
While Callaway is fond of saying You Can’t Argue with Physics, apparently they’re more than willing to pick a fight with rudimentary addition.
2+6 = (We’re Number) 1.
I kid, I kid. Callaway’s actual math involves adding market share percentages from two distinct line items together to make a number that’s bigger than TaylorMade’s single line item.
The letter of what Callaway is claiming is this: Big Bertha combined with Big Bertha Alpha accounted for more sales than TaylorMade’s SLDR.
By that letter it’s absolutely true, but is two against one really a legitimate basis on which to stake a claim on the #1 spot?
Callaway’s Defense
Now in Callaway’s defense, there is a reasonable argument to be made to justify their position. While SLDR 430 accounts for a very small percentage of SLDR sales , I’m told that removing it from the equation would be enough to legitimately call Big Bertha the #1 Selling Driver in February.
That’s absolutely a fair point, but isn’t that the same as saying:
1Sales of TaylorMade SLDR 430 excluded
There are very few who wouldn’t find that sort of claim suspect, and so Callaway (despite previously choosing to have Golf Datatec classify the two separately) decided to re-couple Bertha and Bertha Alpha explicitly for the purposes of making their claim.
Of course, if TaylorMade had simply named JetSpeed the SLDR JetSpeed then well, we’re right back to where the Datatech numbers say we actually are.
What’s being disputed the significance of product names, not sales.
Callaway representatives counter that their claim was cleared by both their own legal department (EVERY claim goes through legal, and dubious, even sketchy, is not mutually exclusive from legal by the letter, so take that for what it’s worth) and Golf Datatech.
At the end of the day what I can’t get past is that it was Callaway’s choice to list the two drivers separately, and now that it has found an advantage in bundling them together it’s almost pretending otherwise.
Why Any of This Matters
Those of you have haven’t stopped reading already may be wondering why any of this matters. It’s actually quite simple. Performance isn’t the differentiator in the golf market place, it’s perception.
Each of us identifies with the brands we do, not because of performance, but because of the identity each of those brands has created both for itself, and the golfers that play the product.
There’s no arguing that Titleist’s ProV1 is a very good golf ball, but is it so unquestionably better than the next best thing on the shelf? It might be a little better, but not better-enough to justify the ridiculous percentage of the market it owns. As I’m fond of saying, the Titleist ProV1 is the #1 Ball in Golf because it’s the #1 Ball in Golf.
TaylorMade rarely misses (from a performance standpoint with the driver), but in any given year, they don’t always have the absolute best performing driver in golf. They’ve stayed #1 for so long because they’re the most played driver on Tour, and that – coupled with the claims it allows for, consistently leads to higher sales than everyone else.
Simply put, TaylorMade has the #1 Driver in Golf because they have the #1 Driver in Golf.
The Callaway guys aren’t stupid – not even a little. They know if they can somehow associate their driver with #1, it will bring them that much closer to actually being #1.
My problem with all of this is that Callaway has decided to make a claim it hasn’t come by honestly.
If the day comes that Callaway does have the actual #1 Selling Driver in Golf, it won’t need to clear it with Datatech, and the fine print won’t require nearly as much ink.
Callaway Goes With Revision B
Last night (well after this story should have been completed…dammit) Callaway’s Harry Arnett posted a revised version of the ad on Twitter. Curiously, while the image is the same, Callaway removed “BIG BERTHA IS” from the copy, and changed the word “BRAND” to “FAMILY”.
Without spending hours on it, I can think of three possible reasons for the change:
1. Maybe somebody’s (presumably TaylorMade’s) legal department sent Callaway’s legal department a letter expressing displeasure with the wording of the original. Golf company legal departments justify a substantial part of their existence simply through the act of sending letters back and forth, so this wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
2. It’s possible that in hindsight Callaway may have come to the conclusion that the original ad was as misleading as I believe it was.
3. Callaway wanted to use a bigger font to make its #1 claim, and really, doesn’t the word FAMILY make us all feel warm and fuzzy?
Whatever you think of the ad to this point, do you believe the change was arbitrary? I don’t…not for a second. Something was wrong with the first, and Callaway fixed it…sort of.
Here’s the thing, while I’m one who believes a “Driver Family” is little more than a clever Callaway creation used to support a claim that would be bogus without its invention, I also must confess that the 2nd attempt rings more genuine than the first. Maybe I’m a sucker for a good family story. I can’t tell you exactly why, but I have less of a problem with the newest version.
Predicting the Future
Look, I applaud Callaway. What Chip Brewer, Harry Arnett, and the rest of the Callaway team has done to overhaul and revitalize the brand over the last 2 years (give or take) is nothing short of phenomenal. Callaway’s future is exceptionally and unquestionably bright.
Callaway is a serious player in the industry; a clear and gaining number two, and that’s unquestionably good for both golf and the consumer.
With X2 Hot it already has the #1 Selling Hybrid on the market right now. Of course, Callaway doesn’t talk about what the numbers look like if you exclude X2 Hot Pro.
They’re dangerously close to having the best-selling fairway wood on the market, and I suspect by the time the March numbers are final it will have a legitimate claim on the #1 spot. My guess is Callaway once again won’t make an issue out of those numbers including X2 Hot Pro, or the Deep Series either.
As for the driver…the gap has narrowed substantially, and it’s not out of the realm of possibility that Big Bertha could find itself in the top spot by itself and without the need to leverage Alpha’s sales numbers.
If that happens you could easily argue that it’s the biggest equipment story of the last decade. That’s how I’ll write it.
But it hasn’t happened…yet. The #1 Driver in Golf, that’s not Callaway’s reality right now. It might be in another month, and if it is, by all means announce it to the world (I’ll help). It would be the most amazing (well 2nd most amazing…overtaking Titleist for the golf ball is #1) accomplishment in the golf equipment game.
But the accomplishment, the distinction…The #1 Selling Driver in Golf, it’s not Callaway’s. Not yet.
It can’t be claimed until it’s earned.
Have Your Say
Since the day Callaway reinvented itself the company line is that they want to hear from consumers. Good, bad, or otherwise, let’s have the conversation.
I barely qualify as a consumer, but I’m interested, and I think Callaway is probably interested in what you think as well. Now’s your chance to tell us.
Corey
10 years ago
I don’t see an ad that claims Big Bertha is the number one selling driver. I see an ad that says that Big Bertha is the number one selling driver “Brand” in February. Looks like you’ve started with an incorrect assumption of what the ad was going to try to say, even though it never says it or tries to say that (ie, that Big Bertha is the number one selling driver model, which this one doesnt say). So what’s the problem?
I guess they’re trying to change the thinking and possibly the auto-piloted behavior of the consumer. The fact that you looked at it through an autopiloted lens tells me they were probably right to attempt to change it.