Have you seen the new Nike ad with Tiger Woods featuring the voice of his deceased father? It looks like Tiger may have added some new brand attributes to his already tarnished image including, creepy, odd, and opportunistic. And I’m wondering if Nike and Tiger would have been better off just leaving the scandal alone and letting time heal some of the wounds.
But beyond that, the ad prompted me to revisit a conversation I started when the Tiger Woods scandal was first leaked. Should Tiger’s career be judged based on his indiscretions or based on his contribution to the sport of golf?
I get all the theories of branding and the importance of creating and living a brand that is authentic and integral to who that person is as a human being. But do I really need to be concerned about all aspect of a person’s lifestyle or do I only need to pay attention to those brand attributes that impact me? If my accountant commits tax fraud, that is integral to his professional brand and cause for concern. If my doctor is practicing medicine without a license, I will take issue with that. But does what these professionals do in their personal life affect their ability to deliver a quality service to me? Not really.
And what about me? Would you want to know about all my personal mistakes or indiscretions before hiring me to write your resume? If I had done something that you don’t agree with morally, would that mean that I was any less skilled at my craft?
And where do we draw the line on what’s right and wrong? Who ultimately gets to decide? If Tiger had been a heroin addict, or had been caught shoplifting, or was someone who was trying to climb the corporate ladder and was caught lying on his resume, would we treat him differently?
I’m certainly not condoning the actions of Tiger Woods. I just think that “celebrity-dom” creates brands that are impossible to maintain and forces famous figures to take on responsibilities that they never asked for when they first chose to pursue their passion.
At the end of the day, shouldn’t Tiger ultimately be judged on his contribution to his sport? And shouldn’t Nike be promoting his impact and influence on that sport rather than abandoning the essence of the Tiger Woods career brand? What do you think?
No, the “squeaky clean shine” on Woods can’t ever be recovered. He can be a force in golf. He can sell stuff. He can even become a nice guy. But he’s lost the “image”. His clay feet have cost him dearly. People, the great unwashed like me, don’t like frauds. You can be as nasty an SOB as you like, but don’t claim (or allow to be claimed for you) sainthood. Celebrities like Jane Fonda, Rosie O’Donnell, and Tiger have defrauded the pblic by claiming to be one thing and acting privately like another. People remember the adage: “fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on be me.” With celebrities, it seems the Sheeple are doomed to be disappointed. And, people wonder why we’ve become cynical?
You make good points and I am sure many others feel the same. Thanks for reading.
There is an interesting blog post by Jonathan Salem-Baskin on the whole branding take regarding Nike and the video http://www.dimbulb.net/my_weblog/2010/04/tsk-tsk-tiger.html
As far as Tigers brand, the fact is that Tiger (and his Dad for that matter) used mass media from an early stage of his development to gain attention, notoriety, fame and fortune. It was a planned campaign – but getting caught in a sex scandal was not, but does that mean the media – programmed to report all that is Tiger, should ignore that piece?
Ultimately Tigers brand success will be measured by his golf, whether he surpasses Nicklaus’ 18 major titles and sets other records along the way. There will always be that tarnish now to the brand, but Bill Clinton is still viewed as one of the better US presidents and continues to command huge following and speaking fees whereever he goes and it did not stop Hilary making it almost to the White House too.
The vast majority of people will forgive and forget as long as Tiger gets back on the winning track, most of all the PGA.
Just my toonies worth.
In regards to Tiger Woods, I feel as though his image will be restored. Its the life of an athlete in the public eye. This scandal provided a FIELD DAY for media outlets (including this blog) which I really enjoyed reading btw, but in regards to his image being restored, I respectfully disagree with reinkefj (not trying to pick a fight, I think your points are very valid).
Unfortunately, with instances like this, soon enough, there will be another story in the news involving a celebrity, or Tiger will win a major in the near future, and all will be forgotten. Will his image be restored by those of us who were around when this happened? Probably not, BUT, for future generations, this scandal will mean nothing to them.
Look at the Kobe Bryant alleged rape case in Denver, the Michael Vick dog fighting, the Ray Lewis murder accusation. I know that each case has its own points, but my point is that with the way that the media jumps all over anything that potentially has a story, this story will fade out just as fast as the next one will come and go.
And yes, Tiger Woods is a role model and is in the public eye, but his ONLY job as a golfer is to provide the public with entertainment that they feel is worth the price of their ticket. If he wants to hurt his family, that’s his decision.
And for those people who say “well he’s a role model and if young children see that they get the wrong message”. Sorry, but if Tiger Woods has that much of an impact on an 11 year old child, what does that say about the parents? In addition, at 11 or 12 years old, sex wasn’t exactly the first thing on my mind…it was not being picked last in floor hockey (the only sport I really suck at).
Soon enough, something else will happen in Hollywood and the celebrity world, Tiger will win a tournament, and most will forgive and forget.
Paul,
Thanks for the link…very interesting read. You make great points…Tiger’s branding campaign was crafted a long time ago so he has to take the good with the bad. As always, I appreciate your “toonies worth.”
Neil,
I really like the point you make about role models. Ultimately, should famous figures be given this role? Parents and those people in the child’s immediate world still need to be the main influencers. Thanks for reading!