Bryan Banbury

@bryanbb

Man City, Leicester Tigers, Leicestershire CCC supporter, retired Insurance broker, married father of two. Used to be a good golfer too!

ÜT: 52.562872,-1.19181

Joined May 2009

754 Following

229 Followers

2.4K Posts

bryanbb retweeted

JCAGOLFReport

@JCAGOLFReport

3 days ago

Calling Good Good "a group of influencers" is just not serious and kind of a low blow. Yes, the group started and continue to be social media influencers but the reality is that Good Good has become a full fledge golf industry company with a good financial valuation (in 2025 they raised $45M in private equity funding) and they are bigger than a lot of the legacy golf media outlets and PGA Tour partners that have been struggling for many years. Good Good is a golf company that offers golf apparel for men and women, golf equipment in partnership with Callaway (until this week), other golf related accessories, has a big media arm that includes Good Good Girls targeting the female golfers market, and TV programs and events shown on Golf Channel (until this week). Good Good is more than "a group of influencers" or "bro influencers" filming YouTube videos. In the article Gabby Herzig writes: "Callaway, the manufacturer that signed off on the since-deleted advertisement..." but three paragraphs later she also wrote: "Is there a way to partner with influencers but refrain from giving them unchecked power over your business’s reputation?" If any brand has final say and approval of the content and ad like it was in this case and Callaway publicly admitted to it, then how come that could be described as "unchecked power"? Further down in the article she also wrote: "At the same time, it also became somewhat of an unbridled content powerhouse — a herd of wild, iPhone-clad horses running free." Again, why she continues to say that no one was checking them or have any final say when Callaway actually had final say? Why the exaggeration and continued insistence on the matter when it simply isn't true? Why is Callaway been given a free pass? They approved it! But that's not all, she included in the article what "a person directly familiar with the manufacturer’s brand strategy" told her: "They [Callaway] decided, collectively, to let the Gen-Z experts do their thing. Callaway received and viewed the controversial advertisement from the Good Good team for the first time approximately 24 hours before it was set to be posted on social media, according to the source." Again, her source may have said that but the reality is the same, Callaway had 24 hours to decide if the content was publishable, more than enough time for anyone at Callaway to review a 60 second ad and in the end they still approve it. So much so that they reposted the content and ad in their own Callaway social media channels. Why are we pushing the bigger brunt of the blame on the content creators of that Callaway ad when the brand had final say over that content? If they had final say then they should receive the biggest blame in all of this. Callaway is basically getting out of this scot-free with the help of some in the legacy golf media defending them and trying to clear their company name. Their only financial pain so far is the charitable tax write-off donation they have pledged, something that's now very "In vogue" in the current golf ecosystem as a sort of "punishment." That's nothing in comparison to what Good Good is currently going through. While the article refers to Good Good as a group of influencers, bro influencers, or a herd of wild, iPhone-clad horses running free, where was the adult in the room at Callaway that approved and saw no problem with the posting of this ad? We are not going to mention (once again) the hypocrisy from the golf ecosystem in reaction to this ad. We have already made a few posts about it. But for those that haven't seen those posts may want to remind you of the lack of interest or willingness to cancel of that same golf ecosystem when it comes to Tiger Woods many indiscretions, addictions, DUI's, or passing a Tampon to Justin Thomas when he outdrove him at a tournament. Nope no cancellation there, in fact he actually controls all the PGA Tour boards. There was also no movement to cancel the Golf Channel when the "boys club" environment at the Golf Channel resulted in accusations of harassment and discrimination against women who worked there, or the PGA Tour getting back into the fold a convicted domestic abuse felon, or their active protection of a PGA Tour player accused of abusing a woman. No one was cancelled because of anything mentioned above when those things are vastly more serious than an ad that was meant to spoof a film. So, is all this really an act of indignation, or a calculated take-down of a company whose growing power didn't sit well with the golf ecosystem?

268

84K

Bryan Banbury

@bryanbb

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users