cab559 said:

---

I can see GG suing Callaway due to the fallout. Especially if they helped with or approved the ad. At least some sort of settlement to make it go away.

---

Certainly a possibility. Depends on how well Good Goods legal counsel arranged the agreement and how good they are litigating against Callaway. I would bet on Callaway

Culture matters. Passively allowing a malignant minority to dictate to society is not a society you should be satisfied with. You empower those people with the kind of attitude you have. "Well, people are upset they should lose their sponsorships."

You should assess whether or not they should be upset, and if no justification of the upset exists then the sponsors should not use it as an excuse to exit a contract they agreed to.

Absent the faux upset Callaway would persist in their contracts and provide them the opportunity to smooth the transition. Instead they now have to rapidly resolve their circumstances based upon a ridiculous mob using a flimsy justification that you have decided to defend while every other brand is now disincentivized from working with them due to Callaway, PGA and Golf Channels delayed validation of the reaction. You are validating a mob.


Instead of calling people stupid and doing some sideline analysis of what is happening ask whether or not it should be happening at all. We went through a decade of this non-sense and it finally started to end and now it is resurgent again. It was and is outrageously destructive beyond just some sponsorship deals.

NColoradoAG said:

---

cab559 said:

---

I can see GG suing Callaway due to the fallout. Especially if they helped with or approved the ad. At least some sort of settlement to make it go away.

---

Certainly a possibility. Depends on how well Good Goods legal counsel arranged the agreement and how good they are litigating against Callaway. I would bet on Callaway

---

I would bet on good good, as long as anyone from Calloway approved it, which it seems they did.

ETA: a big time plaintiff's attorney will pick this case up. So good good don't have to worry about attorneys' fees. They should pick their lawyer carefully but I imagine they will have their pick of the litter given the notoriety.

They will likely end up settling for less than what they are owed, which I guess means Calloway made a good move in terminating them. But if they go to trial, I'd definitely take good good's side based on what we know today.

Is Good Good an Ad. Agency?

I understand your position. I'm saying you don't understand the implications of it. You are shallowly accepting that people are upset and that the appropriate response to the upset is for business consequences. Your input is bland. Sterile. Obvious. I'm saying you should be slightly more high minded about what you're defending, whether or not it should be normal, and the consequences of it if it is allowed to be the norm. You instead are deciding to punt on that and treat it as if it's a triviality. That anyone that actually pays attention to it must be stupid.

Should a rational, reasonable person perceive that video as advocating for violence against women? No.
Should a rational, reasonable person believe that it results in violence against women? No.
Should a rational, reasonable person be as upset as the discourse around it? No.
Should they lose their sponsorships, because irrational and unreasonable people are pretending to be upset? Also no.

What does is it result in when they do? Irrational, unreasonable individuals possessing the power to influence society in an outsized way (not just golf sponsorships), because passive people like you decide it should go accepted, unanalyzed and unchallenged. If you don't want to involve yourself in it that's more than reasonable, but you did when you decided to defend it. I'm asking you to actually defend it rather than just say it is how things work.


My bet is that the net effect of their decision is that they lose money. That Callaway not cancelling their sponsorship and saying "The intent was not to advocate for violence against women. Obviously. That Good Good does not advocate for violence against women. Obviously. That their greatest crime was bad acting by non-actors and bad writing by non-writers. That we don't believe in abandoning our partnerships over something that was never intended." Would, for a brand that is overwhelmingly targeting male customers, result in male customers appreciating a spine and integrity. Instead it is wildly off-putting.

Callaway is going to end up looking much worse in my opinion. Those who don't know, Matt Kendrick is the ceo of good good.

I don't see how Callaway thought making a mountain out of this mole hill would be good for them. They make golf products… golf isn't some liberal infested area of society. They swung and missed big time on this. I hope their sales get absolutely crushed.

Streisand Effect. If Callaway just shut up and quietly pulled the ad, no one knows or cares.

Wow lots to unpack here. I think all that khaos is saying here is right, wrong, or indifferent if you do something something as tone deaf as this in today's society there will be a price to pay and they are paying it, that is it nothing else. I think his statement is being taken out of context. Yes there have been adds before but those were then, this is now, it was tone deaf in the here and present , they dropped the ball and they paid the price.

I recognize not equivalent but sort of like Romo, with his issues, did he hurt his audience driving tipsy, nope, was it tone deaf on his part given his profile, yep it probably was. He is paying the price, whether you agree or not isn't the point, in todays world he was tone deaf for doing what he did.

I can see the firestorm coming so I will just sit back and read responses but I get where khaos is coming from and agree.

He shouldn't be discussing it publicly. No benefit from that. He has to convince a court. All he's doing is telling future sponsors he lacks self control and they're already going to have trouble replacing what were likely millions in brand deals.

waiting on snickers being canceled

People can think the price is stupid.

Again, it was a poorly thought out play on a movie. A dumb joke that didn't land. Full cancellation, removing their products from shelves, and all of this nonsense seems like an idiotic overreaction.

It's not 2000 anymore, but it's also not 2020 either. We were starting to find some common sense and moderation in the cancel world. Not so much here.

hph6203 said:

---

He shouldn't be discussing it publicly. No benefit from that. He has to convince a court. All he's doing is telling future sponsors he lacks self control and they're already going to have trouble replacing what were likely millions in brand deals.

---

Yeah. Going public like a scorned lover is not going to help their chances going forward. But I'm also not sure where they go from here. The golf ecosystem is pretty small and they just got dumped by Callaway, the pga tour, and the golf channel. That's a trifecta that may be impossible to come back from.

Enrico Pallazzo said:

---

People can think the price is stupid.

Again, it was a poorly thought out play on a movie. A dumb joke that didn't land. Full cancellation, removing their products from shelves, and all of this nonsense seems like an idiotic overreaction.

---

That's my thought too. It's perfectly fine for Callaway to conclude that they're not a good match and choose to go there separate ways. But the tour, the golf channel, dick's sporting goods, etc. disassociating from them over this makes no sense.

I guess I'm not surprised Dick's would resort to that because they've become one of the most pansy-ass companies out there.

I think a lot of this is also hate for youtube golf in general and jealousy towards GG. The fact a group of 20-somethings can make silly videos and make lots of money off it makes many in the traditional golf space mad. Now's the chance to pile on.

No one wanted to have any association with Good Good given the backlash from the ad.

HeyAbbott said:

---

No one wanted to have any association with Good Good given the backlash from the ad.

---

I mean, I understand what's happened. But they didn't actually do anything wrong other than make an ad that fell flat. For people to say, "we can't associate with you because you made an ad where you were possessed by a driver" is the dumbest thing imaginable.

Just because we are tired of things being called the cancel culture movement doesn't mean this doesn't fit right in with it. If it walks like a duck…

We've been finding our way again on commensurate repercussions for commensurate idiocy. That doesn't seem to be the case here.

Callaway effectively ended Good Good for the time being, they will try to recover something from arbitration but they are toast. Best thing Good Good can do is go super antiwoke and try to attract the Rogan crowd who has a big crossover with golf. Taking them to task on social is good and I do think some of this is jealousy + golf institutions like Callaway hating new golf even though they are profiting

watty said:

---

My goodness this is the gayest controversy I ever seen. They did nothing wrong. NOTHING. Our society is just so freaking gay and obsessed with virtual signaling the most ridiculous, insane, performative nonsense. I don't watch their YouTube channel but I sympathize with them. Doing nothing wrong and then losing untold fortunes of money and opportunity all because a bunch of weak minded wannabe woke virtue signaling homos can't man up and say no when someone tells them they should be outraged is really sad.

---

Wow. You're squarely in GG's demographic.

I think what's happening is an overreaction, but some adults should have had second thoughts about that ad. Read the room. Being edgy doesn't always work these days, right or wrong.

I saw your post. Shouldn't do something is not the same as can't or shouldn't be allowed to. No one has said Callaway doesn't have the power to cancel their sponsorship. It is that they shouldn't. No one is denying that people are upset. They're saying it's not justified. Certainly not to this level.

You say it's tacky. How? Why? What makes something tacky? Think higher level. Don't just exist. Generally speaking society views actions negatively, because they have negative consequences. That's why things do and should upset people. Are there actual negative consequences of a deleted advertisement? No. The only reason why it continues to circulate is because people claiming to be upset continue to post it, suggesting they know it's nothing more than just an ineffective ad, in which case this response is from a bunch of deranged morons. I don't expect a brand to have a backbone, but I think they should and am disappointed when they don't.

You are essentially the person who is told a stupid rule and then abides by it for the rest of your life. When someone comes along and says "This rule is stupid, why the hell does it exist?" You respond with "It's the rule. Don't you know you're supposed to follow the rules? Do you need me to explain to you what the rule is?"

The ad is not edgy. The purpose was not to be edgy. It was to be culturally referential. To piggyback off of the recognition of an existing property. They executed it poorly and the movie sucks enough that enough people haven't seen it that they didn't recognize the reference.

hph6203 said:

---

The ad is not edgy. The purpose was not to be edgy. It was to be culturally referential. To piggyback off of the recognition of an existing property. They executed it poorly and the movie sucks enough that enough people haven't seen it that they didn't recognize the reference.

---

I honestly had never heard of the movie before this discussion. No idea what this references in the movie. And I feel like I'm at least a little culturally knowledgeable, even of stuff that doesn't interest me. The ad probably wasn't meant for this old guy in that case.

Make them purple and sell them with a portion of the proceeds going to domestic violence survivors.

You're doing it right now. You don't realize you are. You probably never do.

I agree pushing a girl is tacky, because it harms the girl. Did they push a girl? No? They pretended to. Why is pretending to push a girl tacky? What is the underlying justification of offense to a fake act with no direct harm? Does it cause external harm by being an example of behavior? No? If it is because it's an example then what if being an example wasn't the intent? What if they removed the video when they realized the potential harm after becoming aware? Should we persist in being upset after the potential for harm is removed?

You say the commercial of a woman being tackled was acceptable. So pretending to tackle a woman is acceptable, because doing it is funny? Is tackling a woman in reality funny? Or is pretend not real and shouldn't be held to the same standard as a real act.

When you analyze your explanations the core of it is that one was well written, acted and executed and the other was not. Is bad execution of an Ad worthy of outrage? If they had executed with better acting, writing and camerawork with the same premise would it be acceptable?


You're under the impression that I'm falling in line with a movement. I'm not. I have never in my life been accused of trying to be part of a crowd. I have however been constantly accused of being difficult because I question rules, norms or behavior and not abiding by them just because they exist. I admit it's annoying, but I'm okay with being annoying because I don't care about being part of the crowd. Especially when the crowd is being stupid.


I ask again. Why is pretending to push a girl tacky? "Because it is"
Is following a rule because it's the rule. Explain why.

If it was better made and funnier, no one would have a problem. The Betty White comparison is on point. Instead, it was bad acting and cringe, mostly due to referencing pop culture that people don't know. So one gets a laugh and one gets previous "partners" trying to destroy their brand to score PR points.

Didn't bother me but I can't believe someone at GG or Calloway didn't say hold on this is going to be a problem in the current environment.