The corporate response to Good Good’s latest ad was swift and decisive, suggesting there was general agreement that an ad depicting a man shoving a woman to the ground had crossed a line. But a new survey found that only about one-third of consumers rated the ad inappropriate, with women more likely than men to disapprove.

In case you missed it, the controversial ad features professional golfer Alexis Miestowski reaching for Good Good’s new driver when Good Good co-founder Garrett Clark shoves her to the ground. Standing over her, Clark yells, “Do not touch my new driver.”

The fallout was quick and decisive. Callaway, which had partnered with Good Good on the driver, ended its three-year relationship with the company and donated $1 million to organizations fighting violence against women. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Golf Galaxy, Target and the PGA Superstore all pulled Good Good merchandise from their stores and websites. Good Good is no longer the title sponsor of a new PGA Tour event in November as had been planned, and the Golf Channel is passing on the 2026 season of the Big Break x Good Good reality series.

The response suggested that businesses understood why the ad had crossed a line. Even Callaway, which had initially approved the ad, seemed to get it. The company posted on X , “We heard from individuals who shared personal experiences related to violence against women, and their stories were powerful reminders that this issue touches the lives of far too many people. Unequivocally, violence against women is unacceptable and should never be trivialized, normalized, or used as entertainment.”

Callaway added that they have taken “appropriate internal corrective actions to help ensure this does not happen again.”

However, a new survey reveals that the strong corporate response shouldn’t be taken as evidence that everyone saw the ad the same way. Many individuals liked the ad and, as a result, like Callaway more.

The survey of 150 U.S. consumers who shop for sports and outdoor products conducted by consumer research company Zappi found that 53% of men rated the ad as “appropriate,” compared to 35% of women.

Perhaps more surprising, a whopping 63% of men said the ad made them more positive toward Callaway, compared with only 29% of women.By contrast, 37% of women said their opinion of Callaway became more negative, nearly three times the 13% of men who said the same.

“Nearly two-thirds of men actually felt more positively toward Callaway after seeing the ad, even as women reacted far more negatively,” Nataly Kelly, Zappi’s chief marketing officer, told me via e-mail. “That’s particularly striking when women and girls have driven 60% of the growth in on-course golf participation since 2019. Why would you alienate the audience powering the future of your category?”

Why The Ad Crossed A Line

The answer to Kelly’s rhetorical question is that they likely didn’t realize they were alienating women. For those who don’t see why the ad alienated women, it’s worth explaining why an ad that makes light of violence against women is problematic.

First, for women who have experienced violence, and many have, this ad can be particularly difficult. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than one in five women report they have been slapped, pushed, or shoved by their intimate partners. Worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports that one in three women has suffered physical or sexual partner violence or sexual non-partner violence. For many of these women, being reminded of a traumatic experience can trigger memories, fear and physical reactions. Even cues that only vaguely resemble an earlier trauma can provoke distress or a survival response in people with post-traumatic stress disorder.

Physical differences matter as well. Men are, on average, bigger and stronger than women, and research on intimate partner violence finds that men are more likely than women to inflict injury to their partners. Therefore, a man shoving a woman to the ground isn’t necessarily equivalent to a man shoving another man.

There are also potential problems when you turn aggression against women into a joke. Research on sexist humor suggests that jokes about sexism can make prejudice seem more socially acceptable, particularly among people who already hold sexist attitudes. In one experiment , men with more hostile attitudes to women who were exposed to sexist jokes were more likely to recommend larger budget cuts to a women’s organization.

Overall, the concern is that treating aggression toward women as funny can help create an environment where violence and sexism are taken less seriously.

Why Representation Matters

The fact that these concerns apparently weren’t recognized before the ad was released raises questions about who was involved in creating and approving the ad. “The bigger problem is why nobody—and no process—involved in creating and approving this ad saw that risk before it went live,” Kelly said.

We don’t know who was involved in approving the Good Good ad, but the gender divide in Zappi’s findings suggests having different perspectives in the room would have helped. More diverse perspectives don’t guarantee that a brand will avoid a mistake, but they certainly improve the odds.