Acushnet’s house of brands
How Acushnet has staked their territory across golf
Acushnet’s mission is to “enrich the experience of dedicated golfers through products and services of superior performance, quality and innovation.” This mission has been executed upon, resulting in a $2.4 billion+ business, and is widely viewed as the leader of a variety of product categories.
With the exception of earnings calls and other financial reporting, you don’t hear a ton about Acushnet. Rather, Acushnet’s products are marketed under several different names–Titleist, FootJoy, KJUS, and Pinnacle–each with their own brands, identity systems, messaging, audiences, and reputations. This is, of course, by design and allows for Acushnet to own more of the golf market.
House of brands vs. branded house
Although there can be hybrid examples, companies with multiple products/solutions take one of two approaches to business and brand strategy: The house of brands or the branded house.
A house of brands (P&G, Marriott, Coca-Cola) is a strategy in which a company has multiple distinct brands to reach various audiences and segments. A branded house (Apple, Google, Samsung) has the core brand at the center with similar look and feel applied to products, creating a singular brand reputation in the consumer’s eyes.
Acushnet falls in the house of brands categories.
Acushnet’s portfolio
Acushnet boasts two of the most trusted brands in golf: Titleist and FootJoy. They also own Pinnacle, the budget-friendly golf ball with your club’s logo printed on it in the pro shop, and KJUS, the premium Swiss ski and golf apparel brand, which was acquired in 2019. Lastly, there’s the now-dormant Union Green brand, an ill-fated attempt at direct-to-consumer (DTC.)
Interestingly, there are sub-brands within Titleist named after the designers–Scotty Cameron Putters and Vokey Design Wedges. This is noticeable across the industry, with other leading OEM’s having “signature” product lines. For example, Callaway owns the very expensive Toulon line in addition to the popular Odyssey.
These four primary brands–Titleist, FootJoy, Pinnacle, and KJUS–cover the main golf product types.
Why have multiple brands?
The first reason for this is that these brands were not started together, have individually penetrated markets, built their own reputations, and have subsequently been acquired by Acushnet over time. FootJoy was founded in 1857!
The other benefit of splitting into multiple brands is that each one can have unique messaging, visuals, etc. that speak to distinct audiences. Multiple brands means that you don’t need to be everything to everyone.
There is also the question of price and not wanting to set unrealistic expectations and/or devalue one brand. For example, if you stayed at a hotel with Courtyard amenities, had a Courtyard experience, and paid Courtyard rates–but the hotel was branded as a Ritz-Carlton–you’d be annoyed; the Ritz-Carlton brand has become synonymous with luxury and a high level of service, and you would expect to receive that even if you didn’t necessarily pay for it.
Although Titleist has a variety of golf balls ranging from $25 to $55, Acushnet has made the conscious decision to market their golf balls at a lower price point (about $20 per dozen) under Pinnacle. Pinnacle balls are made in the same ball plants as other Titleist balls. So why not just call that product line the “Titleist Pinnacle” and go from there? Ultimately, Acushnet has determined that the product performs at a level that is below the standards of a Titleist product. Then, going back to how they message and market, Titleist can live in performance and Pinnacle can live in affordability.
Differentiating and avoiding cannibalization
Looking at the table above, there is some–but not significant–overlap between the various Acushnet brands. Some of this overlap is simply golf-specific and it makes sense to have slightly different duffels and backpacks with different colorways for order add-ons and gifts.
Overall, Acushnet has followed a tried and true path to the house of brands, grounding brand differentiation in the actual product instead of the audience. Clubs=Titleist, Shoes=FootJoy. KJUS, perhaps, will be geared more to European markets where there is already more penetration.
Their one true wild card (and an unequivocal failure) was with the defunct Union Green brand. As a quick overview, Union Green was developed as an approachable, unintimidating, budget-friendly brand catered to the not-golfer golfer, with golf balls as the primary product and a secondary focus on apparel and accessories. Their earned media mentions upon launch raved about the models used in marketing visuals with long hair, backwards hats, and tube socks. So relatable to the youths!
As GolfWRX put it: “Union Green is not Titleist Light or a Pinnacle replacement, it’s a totally new upstart to fill the void for golfers serious about having fun while playing golf—those who don’t relate to the stuffy atmosphere that is often associated with the sport.”
In addition to differentiating on price, audiences, etc., the entire model was different, and Acushnet’s first foray into true DTC. Assuming a company has the required vertical integration and logistics capabilities within the supply chain, DTC can be highly profitable because there is no wholesaling or middleman. At the time of Union Green’s launch in 2020, most Acushnet products had to be bought through retailers, and KJUS had just been acquired.
What Union Green also did, however, was force Acushnet to build a brand that was the complete opposite of what has been so successful for them: Quietly confident, premium-priced, tour-proven products. Based on their messaging throughout launch, one could argue this brand was antithetical to Acushnet’s aforementioned mission. This is not to say there isn’t room for a brand of this kind to reach the intended audience; it’s just not the space Acushnet typically operates in. Could you see Union Green sponsoring The Golfer’s Journal or No Laying Up? Not likely, which shows the stark disconnect between it and other Acushnet brands.
In terms of adoption, DTC cost-per-acquisition (CPA)–especially on social media, a critical channel for their audience–was skyrocketing when they launched, a result of evolving consumer privacy preferences, tracking restrictions, and more. With high barriers to entry combined with cliche millennial-oriented messaging and inability to lean on the strong reputations of other Acushnet brands, it is no surprise that Union Green struggled to break through despite their marketing agency’s claim they “electrified a stagnant sport.”
Building a foundational brand
Titleist, on the other hand, is an impressive, consistent brand despite having a huge amount of SKUs. With balls as the primary engine–they generate almost a third of Acushnet’s revenue–the company has effectively built an entire ecosystem for Titleist, all connected by the script wordmark and primary red, black, and white color scheme.
One thing that always strikes me in Titleist’s marketing is that they’re comfortable with including players not fully on their payroll, i.e., Viktor Hovland, a PING staffer.
Although PING doesn’t make golf balls (the focus of the video) they are giving free advertising for PING’s clubs and J. Lindeberg’s apparel by featuring Hovland. This is an impressive amount of confidence, and it is clear they make the assumption that all ships rise with the tide because golfers tend to have brand loyalty. They also feel confident that, when it comes down to the purchase decision for clubs–which is different (and more expensive) than buying a dozen balls–their drivers, irons, wedges, and putters will outperform PING’s products in a club fitting environment.
A review of Titleist’s social ads plays on a number of emotions through their proclamation of being #1. Recurring messaging includes complete confidence, a new level of performance, played by the best, and the choice of a champion. These themes extend to FootJoy’s and KJUS’s ad copy.
But, it ultimately has to be backed up by the product’s performance. Especially in our world of social media, influencers, and reviewers, products would be torn to shreds online if not. Acushnet’s market performance–and Titleist’s role in that specifically–shows that there is truth to what they say and has resulted in strong reputations and loyalty for their money-making brands.
Have any feedback or think I should write about a certain topic? Connect with me at @dailylogoball on Instagram or by email at kj.vernimb@gmail.com.