Adidas sponsors Paul McBeth

[zj1002]

I simply disagree. I don't think any sponsorship of any disc golfer, by nearly anyone, will increase the presence of the game, nor widen the audience. Seems Adidas does not think so either.

My premise, though likely unpopular and perhaps pessimistic, is that our game is a very niche game.

This is pretty spot even if a little honestly pessimistic. The companies have to put as much energy into marketing their athletes as the athletes and most companies would rather find ambassadors who are already really good at marketing them selves on social media. Disc golf doesn't really have many athletes with a huge non-disc golf pool. They'd be better off sponsoring Brodie Smith who draws in more non-frisbee followers with his stunts.

Plus just like other smaller sports, the most fruitful sponsorship's for $$$ are sport specific items. This is why the tours struggle to attract many non-disc sponsors. It was mind boggling to me that Vibram never put energy into making some sort of disc golf marketed shoe when they were already in the market making discs.

 

[rusch_bag]

Didn't Brady just take a huge signing bonus and small contract the one year because he was suspended for 4 games and allowed him to take home more money?

 

[dehaas]

I think a disc golf specific shoe would be a massive money pit for anybody to take on. Compared to what's already on the market, you're going to spend more trying to "dg proof" the shoe. You're also not going to produce nearly as many in a run, so you're missing the benefit of lowered production cost due to volume. Disc golfers know they're rough on shoes, if you market a shoe as dg specific and it doesn't last you're going to get eaten alive in warranty claims...which means more added cost.

Shoes, like clothes, are a high margin item. Everything you'd do to "dg proof" a shoe zaps any margin there, unless you want your shoes retailing for $250. I'm convinced keeping price point attractive to most disc golfers and maintaining quality just isn't worth it for a lot of manufacturers.

This is pretty spot even if a little honestly pessimistic. The companies have to put as much energy into marketing their athletes as the athletes and most companies would rather find ambassadors who are already really good at marketing them selves on social media. Disc golf doesn't really have many athletes with a huge non-disc golf pool. They'd be better off sponsoring Brodie Smith who draws in more non-frisbee followers with his stunts.

Plus just like other smaller sports, the most fruitful sponsorship's for $$$ are sport specific items. This is why the tours struggle to attract many non-disc sponsors. It was mind boggling to me that Vibram never put energy into making some sort of disc golf marketed shoe when they were already in the market making discs.

 

[zj1002]

I think a disc golf specific shoe would be a massive money pit for anybody to take on. Compared to what's already on the market, you're going to spend more trying to "dg proof" the shoe. You're also not going to produce nearly as many in a run, so you're missing the benefit of lowered production cost due to volume. Disc golfers know they're rough on shoes, if you market a shoe as dg specific and it doesn't last you're going to get eaten alive in warranty claims...which means more added cost.

Shoes, like clothes, are a high margin item. Everything you'd do to "dg proof" a shoe zaps any margin there, unless you want your shoes retailing for $250. I'm convinced keeping price point attractive to most disc golfers and maintaining quality just isn't worth it for a lot of manufacturers.

Oh I totally agree with you if I didn't make that clear. I just thought Vibram had more of a chance of doing it right and making good margin than anyone else. Disc Golf companies making shoes isn't an ideal situation. A shoe company would have to make discs or other important disc golf specific gear to make shoes profitable long term.

 

[dehaas]

I'd be curious to see how much input Vibram has in the shoe process. Aside from the five fingers they don't 100% produce a shoe do they? Just manufacture soles?

Does the manufacturer come to them with design specs and they simply say hey produce our soles. Or are they an active part of the design process along with the manufacturer?

Oh I totally agree with you if I didn't make that clear. I just thought Vibram had more of a chance of doing it right and making good margin than anyone else. Disc Golf companies making shoes isn't an ideal situation. A shoe company would have to make discs or other important disc golf specific gear to make shoes profitable long term.

 

[DanJon]

In my BMX days and knowing people in the industry, I remember shoe sole mold prototypes running $10,000+.

If true, kind of easy to see why disc golf companies (or other companies for that matter) don't make disc golf specific shoes more often.

 

[dehaas]

Exactly, I'm content keeping my eyes peeled for a $60-80 deal once a year for a pair of high quality shoes that are probably 80% effective for disc golf. Yeah somebody could make a speciality shoe but I don't want to pay twice as much for something that might last a couple months more.

In my BMX days and knowing people in the industry, I remember shoe sole mold prototypes running $10,000+.

If true, kind of easy to see why disc golf companies (or other companies for that matter) don't make disc golf specific shoes more often.

 

[zj1002]

In my BMX days and knowing people in the industry, I remember shoe sole mold prototypes running $10,000+.

If true, kind of easy to see why disc golf companies (or other companies for that matter) don't make disc golf specific shoes more often.

So the cost of a disc golf mold? Its not outside the realm of current costs. Vibram probably had a pretty good idea of how to keep that cost down too or re-use another sole design.