The Good Good controversy has grown from a backlash over a controversial golf advertisement into a major crisis involving Good Good, Callaway Golf and several other organizations across the golf industry.
The Good Good controversy erupted after Good Good published a driver advertisement featuring co-founder Garrett Clark and fellow creator Alexis Miestowski. The video showed Clark shoving Miestowski to the ground, prompting an immediate wave of criticism across social media.
Users on X, Facebook, TikTok and Reddit questioned how the advertisement had been conceived, produced, approved and ultimately published. Critics described the video as insensitive, tasteless and inappropriate, while others argued that the advertisement was intended as a parody and should not have generated such a strong reaction.
The response, however, was swift and widespread. As the video continued circulating online, Good Good removed the content and issued an apology.
“We posted a video to our channels that ultimately depicted actions that are not aligned with our values as a brand,” Good Good said in its initial statement. The company also reaffirmed its commitment to making golf more inclusive.
Good Good Controversy Sparks Wider Golf Industry Fallout
The initial response did little to calm the situation. Crisis-communications experts later criticized the statement for being too vague and failing to directly address why the advertisement had upset so many people.
Julie Parker, a crisis-communications specialist, said Good Good appeared to have responded under pressure with a passive and nonspecific statement. In her view, the company needed to show clearer ownership of the mistake rather than relying on corporate language.
Callaway faced its own questions because the company had approved the advertisement before it was published. Although Good Good produced the video, Callaway’s approval placed additional responsibility on the golf equipment manufacturer.
Callaway initially said it was disappointed by the content and appreciated Good Good for addressing the situation. The company also said it wanted to work toward creating a more inclusive environment in golf.
That response failed to end the criticism. By Monday, Callaway had removed the driver listing from its website. On Tuesday, CEO Chip Brewer issued a more direct apology and acknowledged that Callaway had approved the video.
“While the video was produced by Good Good, it was approved by Callaway prior to posting,” Brewer said. He added that the approval should never have happened and that the company was taking the matter seriously.
The fallout quickly moved beyond the two companies.
Good Good’s position as a PGA Tour title sponsor came under scrutiny after PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp described the company’s status as “fluid.” The Good Good Championship, scheduled for November in Austin, was therefore placed under uncertainty.
The situation also affected television plans. Golf Channel postponed the debut of its revival of “The Big Break” featuring Good Good after a reported sponsor, Golf Galaxy, sought to withdraw. Golf Galaxy is owned by Dick’s Sporting Goods, which, along with other major retailers, removed Good Good merchandise from its stores.
The Good Good controversy also created an opening for competitors. PXG and Takomo released advertisements that appeared to poke fun at the incident, turning the controversy into a marketing opportunity for rival golf brands.
Good Good controversy subsequently attempted to repair the damage with a second apology from CEO Matt Kendrick. This time, the company took a more direct approach.
Kendrick said he “owned the mistake” and explained that the advertisement was intended as a parody of a scene from the 2026 horror film “Obsession.” However, he acknowledged that the execution had failed and that viewers had legitimate reasons to find the content insensitive.
He also made clear that neither he nor Good Good condoned violence and accepted responsibility for what the company had put into the world.
Garrett Clark later released his own apology, addressing his participation in the advertisement and explaining how the concept had developed.
For crisis-management professionals, the episode demonstrates why companies need to respond to controversy with empathy and accountability. Melissa Agnes, a crisis-communication expert and author of “Crisis Ready,” argued that organizations cannot simply attempt to move past public anger without addressing it directly.
She also highlighted the broader sensitivity surrounding women’s experiences in golf. Rather than treating the advertisement as an isolated creative mistake, Agnes suggested that Good Good and Callaway needed to recognize why the imagery could reinforce concerns about whether women are taken seriously within the sport.
That emotional dimension became one of the central lessons of the crisis.
The Good Good controversy ultimately demonstrates how quickly a single piece of branded content can become a much larger corporate problem. What began as a short driver advertisement resulted in public apologies, retail consequences, questions over a PGA Tour partnership, a postponed television program and growing pressure on both companies.
Crisis-management experts said the fallout could perhaps have been mitigated if Good Good and Callaway had responded more directly from the beginning. A clear acknowledgment of the mistake, combined with genuine empathy and specific corrective action, could have helped prevent the initial backlash from escalating.
Instead, the companies needed multiple statements before their senior executives publicly accepted responsibility.
The situation reached another major turning point Thursday when Callaway announced that it had ended its Good Good partnership, effective immediately.
The Good Good controversy now stands as a cautionary example for brands working in an environment where social media can transform a creative decision into a global reputational crisis within hours. The episode also highlights a fundamental principle of crisis communication: when audiences are angry, avoiding the emotion rarely makes the problem disappear. Addressing it honestly may be uncomfortable, but it can be essential to rebuilding trust.
