allaway has ended the partnership, while Good Good has withdrawn as title sponsor of a PGA Tour event. Callaway also committed $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women and support survivors. However, the separation subsequently turned acrimonious when Good Good CEO Matt Kendrick accused Callaway of approving the ad, asking Good Good to “take the fall” and then dropping the company in a “coordinated media blitz.” The offending video showed Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoulder-charging Good Good employee and content creator Alexis Miestowski, knocking her to the ground before standing over her and saying, “Do not touch my new driver.”  Although Good Good and Callaway quickly deleted the ad from their social media platforms, it still circulates online. The repercussions have also spread beyond social media, with Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary Golf Galaxy removing Good Good merchandise from their physical and online stores. Golf Channel has also canceled the current season of Big Break x Good Good.  For marketing and crisis-management experts, the controversy reflects a broader problem facing brands in the attention economy. The pressure to produce provocative content at speed can come at the expense of proper scrutiny – and once that failure becomes public, removing the material is only the beginning of the response. “In today’s attention economy, staying relevant on social and digital media is essential. To compete, brands are producing more content than ever before – and they are doing so at breakneck speed,” crisis management expert Megan Paquin said. “Unfortunately, as a result, we see situations like this where, if we give the benefit of the doubt, there clearly wasn’t a thoughtful or thorough review that could have resulted in a more respectful and, ultimately, more effective video.” What brand strategists say about Good Good and Callaway’s PR nightmare Echoing Paquin, Frankie Margotta, strategy director at consulting firm Triptk, said “discernment matters more” as content becomes easier and quicker to create and share. Brands must look beyond whether an ad works creatively, he argued, and consider the cultural dynamics at play and when an idea crosses a line. In this case, Margotta saw no overlooked nuance or subtle cultural code. “It was blatant, in my opinion, and the feedback is warranted.” He also questioned the brands’ claims that the content did not reflect their values. If that were true, he said, those values must have been compromised somewhere within both companies, either knowingly or unknowingly. Without a clear explanation of what went wrong – or a commitment to investigate it – consumers could doubt whether the brands have the judgment, integrity and systems to prevent a repeat. “It also lowers confidence that it won’t happen again,” Margotta said. Retail brand strategist and marketing consultant Bethany Paris Ramsay said the initial apologies “relied way too heavily on vague language” about the content conflicting with the brands’ values. When the harm was so specific, she argued, the acknowledgment needed to be equally clear. Consumers should not have to interpret “Actions that are not aligned with our values” as an admission that the companies approved an advertisement depicting violence against a woman. “Calling it inappropriate is not the same as demonstrating an understanding of why it was harmful,” Ramsay said. How can Callaway and Good Good rebuild trust?  Margotta added that the brands are “under a microscope now” and will face greater scrutiny as they try to recover lost sales and regain public favor. Although Callaway and Good Good will now pursue separate paths, Margotta’s broader point was that both companies would be judged on the substance of their response. “The actions need to be meaningful and significant enough to demonstrate actual effort and consequence,” Margotta said.  Rebuilding trust would ultimately take time, he added. The critical question was whether each company would use that time to accept responsibility, learn from the controversy and make meaningful changes, or simply wait for the criticism to subside. “The latter might help them keep selling products. The former is what can rebuild loyalty and love for the brands over the long term.” Meanwhile, Deliana Baker, founder of 1930Fore, a digital media platform and community dedicated to women’s golf culture, said the controversy had given both companies an opportunity to prove their commitment to supporting female golfers.  Speaking before Callaway ended the partnership, Baker said, “From where I sit in the world of women’s golf, I’d really like to see Callaway and Good Good use this as an opportunity to build a direct line to the women who are already out here growing the game. Bring them into the conversations around future campaigns, partnerships and community initiatives, and not just right now because something went wrong. Make them an ongoing part of the process.” Baker said female consumers have a strong instinct for distinguishing genuine inclusion from attempts to generate positive PR. Rather than creating a one-off event or social media campaign that quickly fades from public attention, Callaway and Good Good could each give women an enduring role in the conversation and chart a more positive path forward.  “To me, that’s how you turn this from something you’re trying to put behind you into something you actually learned from,” Baker said.