In the latest social media crisis to engulf the internet, Good Good Golf and Callaway Golf Company both got what they paid for.
Sadly, neither company seems to have considered what else came with the purchase.
(Note: My analysis explores the inclusion of domestic violence imagery within a commercial golf campaign. It is important to clarify that no actual physical assault occurred; the incident was entirely scripted. The central issue here lies in the corporate judgment that led two major brands to conceptualize, greenlight, and distribute such a controversial piece of content.)
Callaway sought to reach Good Good’s large and active social audience of younger golfers (predominantly male and heavily concentrated in the 18-24 age group). Unfortunately for Callaway, no one at one of golf’s largest equipment companies thought through what it might mean to “buy” access with content that has a very specific appeal that some have likened to the “Barstool Sports” approach to humor, including in the treatment of women.
So when Good Good and Callaway released a co-branded ad that showed a man pushing a woman to the ground for touching his “driver,” the backlash in the broader community that Callaway brought to the partnership was fierce, and in my experience, predictable.
The ad was scraped from the internet (but not before it was captured by others; you can see the full ad and a good analysis of the reactions from Jennifer Sey at this link). Multiple apologies ensued. Angry social media posts were made. A Golf Channel TV series was cancelled, as were PGA sponsorships. Good Good merchandise was pulled from retailers. As part of its mea culpa, Callaway made a $1 million donation to domestic violence charities.
Many crisis experts have opined on all of this already; I highly recommend what crisis communications expert Molly McPherson posted on Substack for her insights and excellent chronology.
I’m more interested in what happened long before the ad became public.
Here’s the biggest question of all: Did anyone consider the intended and unintended consequences of the ad?
Good Good has built its success on developing engagement in a highly specific audience. And while the company has been seeking to reach broader audiences, in part backed by $45 million in new investments, the Callaway co-branded ad is classic Good Good content that speaks to its usual audience, not a broader audience.
Callaway’s core audience is much broader, including a larger audience of women.
Did either company put that cognitive dissonance together and consider the collision that might happen? Apparently not, judging by what both companies (and several other organizations) have said since the crisis erupted.
This whole incident illustrates why having a crisis communication plan is about far more than saying the right thing when something goes wrong. It’s about thinking through what might go wrong long before it does, so that you can ensure that the right thing happens.
This is what we at Vendilli call “sunny day planning.” One common use of that phrase comes from hurricane planning in the Southeast. After all, when’s the best time to plan for a hurricane – two hours before landfall when the hardware store is out of plywood, or on a calm day when the sun is shining?
Even if an ad campaign seems innocuous on its face, it’s well worth considering, even before the concepting is complete: Who could see this ad differently? What happens if they do? And does that view support the story we want to communicate, or contradict it?
Callaway bought access to content designed to engage a very specific audience, and the downsides that came with it. Good Good bought access to a broader golf ecosystem, and the broader expectations that came with it.
This crisis illustrates that the best crisis response is still the crisis you saw coming and avoided.
Good Good is still paying, and will be for some time. Was it worth it?
