17602: More Amateurish Clubbing Of Callaway And Good Good Golf.

 

MediaPost published yet another perspective swinging at Callaway and Good Good Golf for their misogynistic marketing.

The author insisted the campaign “needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.”

Um, not really. There’s nothing new about the cultural cluelessness, circumstances, or root causes displayed by Callaway and Good Good Golf. Unfortunately, the concept and execution fortify a major stereotype about golf; ie, the game is dominated by White men.

The author’s recommendation involves four questions that should have been asked before greenlighting the concept.

Um, not really. Questions should have been asked and answered when writing the brief. And the concept should have been screened against the brief.

Contrary to the author’s contention that the scenario says something about creator campaigns, the issue is more basic.

First, experience, discipline, and mastery of craft are critical for success—it has nothing to do with the titles of anyone behind the production. In today’s arena, creator does not translate to creative director.

Second, insular and exclusive minds generate ignorant ideas. Full stop.

What The Good Good-Callaway Fallout Should Teach Brands About Creator Campaigns

By Kari O’Neill, Op-Ed Contributor

Good Good’s Callaway campaign, which features Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark running down and aggressively tackling female professional golfer Alexis Miestowski to stop her from grabbing his new Good Good-Callaway driver, needs to be studied by anyone in the ad industry.  

This is a profound example of a mistake in creative strategy. The allure of content creators is huge, but brands need to remain hyper-aware of what concepts are strategically sound for their brand. 

What Good Good said inspired the campaign. Good Good may defend the ad by saying it was a parody of the movie Obsession, where the main character buys a supernatural toy that grants him his wish to make his crush fall in love with him — to the point of unsettling horror. Good Good probably stood up in front of executives and claimed that’s how good the driver is — that the audience would be obsessed with it.   

Unfortunately, the response has been the exact opposite, with many calling out its use of domestic violence against women for entertainment. Amidst the backlash, even Clark admitted, it was “a super dumb ad concept, terrible ad in general. Not the greatest idea.”  

Here’s what Callaway needed to ask Good Good before green-lighting the concept.   

Is this pop culture reference relevant for the brand?  

One clear blindspot for Good Good was likely assuming what is popular in its own social circles may not be relevant to Callaway’s audience. Asking if Obsession was in the movie zeitgeist or something the masses would relate to should have been the primary question posed of the concept. Would the ad still resonate if the audience didn’t know about Obsession? Given that Obsession was released in May 2026 nationally and in the summer, a key risk is easily seen that the ad’s reference back to the movie likely would not be top of mind. 
 
Does this reinforce or add to a brand’s story?  

Additionally, a parody can be extremely effective, but only if translated conceptually well from the original creative into an exciting, authentic brand story. In Good Good’s concept, would the target audience see themselves in the story of the parody? Do most people see themselves in a horror film? Probably not. That, in and of itself, should have killed the concept. 
 
Is this the right feeling for the brand?  

Is this ominous feeling the right one Callaway wants people to walk away with after being introduced to this new driver? While the sound design itself clearly is inspired by horror films, it’s clear that the music alludes to harm while being played over an image of a woman being tackled to the ground. Don’t let an internally-focused haze mask the inappropriateness of the concept.  

Who has the power in the story?  

Even if this driver is targeted only to a male audience (which it probably isn’t, but let’s pretend), why did the person tackled have to be a woman? Strategically, what’s the advantage in that versus a man? The answer: absolutely nothing and worse. The hovering over her body while threatening her takes it even further from the corner of potentially funny to utterly unacceptable. 

Because cancel culture is always a risk in the world of creators and brands, brands need to be aware of power dynamics, whether its gender, race, or sexual orientation, among many others.   

The fallout certainly is not what anyone intended or wanted. According to Front Office Sports, three people, including Good Good’s vice president of brand marketing, Jeffrey Lefkovits have been fired. Good Good has lost its sponsorships from Callaway, its PGA Tour event title sponsorship, and its Golf Channel show, Big Break x Good Good.   

Dick’s Sporting Goods and Golf Galaxy also pulled Good Good merch off shelves. This is a critical lesson for all brands to take a step back and ensure the right questions are being asked of a creator’s concept. Not enough questioning strategically could be the difference between an exciting launch and a brand nightmare.