TaylorMade – Declines to Participate in MyGolfSpy’s 2011 Review Series

 

This is in response to our latest survey and the many emails I receive about lack of Taylormade golf club reviews.

MGS Will Not Be Testing Taylormade Gear For 2011

In a recent survey we conducted on MyGolfSpy, a substantial majority of you told us that you wanted to see more club reviews on MyGolfSpy. We’re taking what you told us to heart. We’ve got several clubs currently undergoing testing, and we’re reaching out to our contacts throughout the industry and asking for more. We’re working with the big names, and some smaller companies whose offerings we think you’ll find interesting.

We’ve also refined our scoring procedures, and will be implementing radius-based testing protocols for irons and wedges. In short, we plan on cranking out more reviews than ever before, and of course, we’re going to do it without compromising our objectivity, or the amount of data and the level of detail you’ve come to expect from us.

Although we’ve already received product from names like Callaway, Titleist, PING, and Mizuno, and hope to receive product soon from Adams, Cobra, and Nike (among others), unfortunately I have to report that MyGolfSpy will not be testing anything from TaylorMade’s 2011 line up.

MyGolfSpy’s current issues with TaylorMade date back to our publication of photos of the R11 driver last November. If you take a moment to re-read that post you’ll get a sense of some of the things that went on behind the scenes shortly after it was published. As a result we knew we probably wouldn’t be getting a Christmas card from TaylorMade.

Fast foward to early February when Callaway issued a press release claiming that their testing proves their new RAZR Hawk driver is 6 yards longer than the TaylorMade R11. Smelling an opportunity for one of the best head to head, mano a mano (or clubo a clubo as the case may be) driver test imagineable, we reached out to our contacts at both companies. Callaway for their part immediately responded and agreed to provide us with multiple samples of the RAZR Hawk for testing.

After numerous attempts to contact TaylorMade we received a message from TaylorMade which stated that they had nothing for us to review at this time. We could speculate that TaylorMade knows Callaway’s claims are true and that the company is afraid that the type of objective reviews we do here at MyGolfSpy might reveal that their new driver is, in fact, inferior to Callaway’s latest offering. In reality, I supsect TaylorMade believes their driver is every bit a match for the RAZR and that any decision not to participate in any MyGolfSpy tests was based solely on what I’ve taken to calling “The R11 Incident“.

Still being relatively new to MyGolfSpy, I took TaylorMade’s pass as an opportunity to introduce myself to our contact, and at a minimum address the proverbial pink elephant in the room. While I’ll review the specifics below, sufficed to say that I was well aware that TaylorMade was less than pleased with MyGolfSpy after we chose to publish the pictures in question well before they wanted the world to see their new white driver.

Taylormade’s Statement To MyGolfSpy:

I explained that I wasn’t ignorant of the current state of relations between MyGolfSpy and TaylorMade, but that I was hopeful they would reconsider their position on providing equipment for testing. Failing that, I asked if they’d be kind enough to provide an on the record explanation of why TaylorMade has chosen, for the time being, not to work with MyGolfSpy. Here is that official response:

We appreciate your interest in reviewing TaylorMade Golf’s newest products. That said, taken into consideration the circumstances of our company’s relationship with MyGolfSpy in recent months, we do not feel it is in our best interest to participate in any editorial coverage at this time.

As you are aware, your site’s insistence on publishing copyrighted images of the R11 before the embargo date caused TaylorMade and in particular, the public relations team, serious headaches and the overall sentiment is to distance ourselves from your site for the time being. All of the “media” we work with have and continue to respect our embargo dates. We wish you the best of luck with your current editorial coverage and hope you understand our decision.

Of course, I do understand and respect TaylorMade’s decision, and I’m genuinely appreciative that they were willing to provide the MyGolfSpy readership with an explanation. Having said that, just like any other good story, this one has two sides.

Yes. We did in fact publish what we now believe were copyrighted photos of the R11 driver. When TaylorMade’s legal representatives contacted us and made the copyright claim, we immediately complied with their request to remove the pictures. Shortly thereafter, we received additional photos of the R11 driver. Once again TaylorMade’s legal representatives asked that we remove the pictures. This time, however; they were unable to provide any supporting documentation of copyright (almost certainly because the photos weren’t theirs), and so despite threats of litigation, we elected to continue to make the photos available to our readers. To this day, TaylorMade has yet to offer proof of ownership.

Regarding our unwillingness to respect TaylorMade’s embargo dates, I suspect TaylorMade and other OEMS have grown accustomed to having their way with other media outlets either because those outlets fear the repercussions of crossing an industry giant (not receiving product, or worse, getting cut off from tens of thousands of annual advertising dollars), or the guys that run those outlets lack the fundamental understanding of what an embargo date actually is.

Difference Between Embargo Dates & Public Record

A PR or press embargo date is a request by a source that the information or news provided by that source not be published until a certain date or certain conditions have been met. In the case of the R11, TaylorMade was not the source of our information, and therefore we believe, we had no journalistic obligation to comply with what amounts to a demand on their part to control content on MyGolfSpy. Of course, we have the luxury of taking this position because unlike those other guys, and you know who they are, we don’t line our pockets with big OEM advertising dollars at the expense of our objectivity, and ultimately at the expense of our readers.

As it happens, when true embargo situations apply, for instance when we receive products or information directly from the manufacturer in advance of specified dates, we honor those embargoes. We don’t post photos, or share any information that isn’t marked for immediate release. I would suggest (somewhat tongue and cheek, of course) to TaylorMade and other OEMs, if they would like to ensure we don’t post photos of their product in advance of when it’s desirable for us to do so, then they should probably get the equipment to us faster, because, as I said, we do, and will continue to honor true embargo restrictions.

It is indeed unfortunate that we won’t be able to test what, from end to end, appears to be the most complete lineup of clubs TaylorMade has released in some time. I’m not one to try and sugar coat things, and the reality is that the absence of TaylorMade in our 2011 Review Series is an omission I regrettably have to ask our readers to overlook. While MyGolfSpy and TaylorMade are clearly of diverging minds as it relates to the publication of 3rd party photos in advance of embargo dates, we’re optimistic there will be opportunities for our two businesses to work together in the future.

Why We Won’t Test Equipment from Other Sources

(Updated 3/24/11 at 3:00 PM Eastern Time by GolfSpy T)

It’s been asked numerous times, and answered almost as many in the comments, however, we understand not everybody reads every comment.  So for those of you asking why we don’t purchase TaylorMade equipment for testing, or simply borrow it from another source, there are a number of issues at play which I will address here.

First, there are logistical issues. Some of the discussion implies that some people think we have unlimited resources. As a one off we could do it, but a one-off these days means getting drivers of different lofts and flexes (so it quickly becomes a three or four off). So borrowing or buying clubs, while not impossible, isn’t as simple as it sounds. The bigger issue with borrowing equipment is that we cannot guarantee with any certainty that the clubs won’t get damaged during the testing process. Scratches, and dings are common occurrences, and dents on the crown have happened on a few occasions as well. If I asked to borrow you driver, but told you that numerous golfers, some of whom aren’t very good, were going to hit it, and the probability that it would be returned worse for wear was fairly high, would you loan it to me?

A 2nd issue relates to our decision to have this discussion publicly. If we reviewed the R11 now, and it finished below the Titleist 910D, PING K15, Callaway RAZR or other drivers in the review pipeline, the integrity of our process would be called into question as some would no doubt suggest we’re trying to stick it to TaylorMade anyway we can. Conversely, if it were to finish ahead of the other drivers, we risk the suggestion that we fudged the numbers to try and get back in TaylorMade’s good graces. With the two possible scenarios in play, we felt the best decision for MyGolfSpy was to refrain from testing TaylorMade products.

Finally, we’re not a big operation. Though we don’t accept big OEM advertising dollars, our current model does rely on some support from those OEMs by way of the equipment they provide us for review. In this respect we’re no different from Golf Digest, Golf Magazine, and the other larger media outlets that provide golf equipment reviews. All of us receive our products directly from the OEMs. The only real difference there is that we treat all the OEMs we deal with (regardless of size and advertising expenditures) exactly the same way.

By procuring product outside of normal channels, we’d essentially invalidate that previous statement, and we feel that our model only works when the same rules apply to everyone.  If TaylorMade doesn’t have to contribute to be part of the process, then why should Titleist, Nike, Callaway, Adams and others? We feel like we need to stand firm on this and abstain from testing and reviewing TaylorMade products until such time as we can once again work as partners.

On a related note, TaylorMade’s position is essentially that MyGolfSpy violated the rules they hold all media outlets to when we published photos in advance of their embargo date. We understand that aspect of things, which is why we’re not suggesting we’re being treated unfairly or being bullied. This is more about making sure our readers understand what the current situation is. As stated in the article, TaylorMade and MyGolfSpy are of divergent minds as it relates to the publication of 3rd party product photos in advance of OEM embargo dates. We think the source should matter, they don’t. We do accept and understand that we broke their rules, and the decision to do so has consequences, but we’re also not going to break our own rules either and procure and review TaylorMade equipment based on a different standard than we have for every other OEM.