This post in 140 characters or less: Tiger Woods should make brands more comfortable with social media (via @joemarchese)
http://bit.ly/5PPZbVI own a
Tiger Woods golf hat, with his trademark "TW" front and center. I can't wear the hat out these days. I have never experienced anything like it with brand apparel. I wore the hat out once since the
fateful day everything hit the fan for Tiger, and the awkward conversations it started were almost comical, especially with my wife. I mean they could have been taping an episode of "Curb Your
Enthusiasm." Most conversations ended with "yeah, I know. I don't have any other golf hats. It's sunny out." Needless to say, I now have a new hat.
I own plenty of Nike golf gear. I
have absolutely no issue wearing my Nike gear, nor does it start uncomfortable conversations, even though Nike is one of, if not the top sponsor of Tiger Woods. This is because Nike is its own brand
and even though Nike is not dropping its sponsorship of Tiger, no one seems to think that Nike is endorsing Tiger Woods' personal behavior. Let me be clear: By "no one" I am referring to the majority
of consumers. It seems only in world of advertising are people worried that consumers might switch their phone service because a paid spokesperson has personal issues, unrelated to the reason a phone
carrier selected said spokesperson.
advertisement
advertisement
Now that's not to say if there was a Tiger Woods-branded phone, that such a product wouldn't have major issues selling right now. Just look at the
difference between public reactions to a Tiger Woods hat versus wearing a Nike hat that has been worn by Tiger Woods countless times.
What does this have to do with social media? One of the
most common fears any brand has when getting involved in social media is who it will be associating itself with. I think there are some interesting lessons brands can learn from the Tiger Woods
fallout, or in some cases, lack of fallout, the most important being that most people are rational about what a brand should be held responsible for, especially in social media (this may not seem to
be the case, due to an especially vocal minority, but believe me it is true). If a person I know on Facebook or Twitter with extremely conservative or liberal views endorses a product or service, I
don't assume that product or service is endorsing that person's political views. That is similar to how few people will hold Nike responsible for Tiger's personal transgressions, although continued
sponsorship could be seen as such down the line, depending on how Tiger goes forward to rebuild his image.
Michael Phelps appears to have smoked pot. The Sham Wow spokesperson has legal
issues allegedly involving a prostitute. The list goes on, and will grow as people get more and more insight into celebrities' personal lives through social media. Brands are making an active decision
to sponsor these individuals; the question is where will consumers draw the line of responsibility?
So should I just throw out my Tiger Woods hat, or will there be a day I can wear it
again? Vote in the comments or send me an @ on Twitter http://twitter.com/joemarchese