Commentary
Can Social Media Tiger Woods Your Brand?
- by Joe Marchese , January 5, 2010
I 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
@joemarchese stop being a pussy and just wear the freaking hat. you're too self involved if this is what you worry about.
Get back to writing about important stuff.
Nice language Dean.
Joe-Ironically, Tiger Woods (Inc) "the brand" not Eldrick Woods has basically "mailed it in". You will notice there has not been a posting to his social media outlet-Facebook-since November 6, 2009! They have over 1.3 million fans on that page and nothing, nada! I find myself to be far more disappointed with the "Tiger Woods brand" than I am of the man.
Keep the hat. It will save you from having to buy a new one when all this blows over. Besides, I think it shows strength for you to still wear it when the public (and your wife) would rather you didn't.
The hypocrisy in the media (and politics, but thats a different issue) has reached an absolutely absurd level. Brit Hume telling Tiger to convert from Buddhism to Christianity so he can be forgiven for his sins should be grounds for immediate termination - except that he works for Fox, where thats cool.
The 24-hour news cycle has created an artificial demand for news, and sensationalism sells. But social media is a fickle and fleeting. What stirs in the social media space today is forgotten tomorrow. But social media discusses the news of the day, and the news of the day is fascinated with Twitter and Facebook. Its a terrible cycle.
Our (the media / advertising industry) infatuation with Tiger and other scandals just plays to our own sense of self importance. We could talk about sex and drugs and celebrities, or we could talk about CPMs and GRPs. Which conversation would you rather have? Besides, what ad industry execs do you know that haven't had any indiscretions of their own? In the 80s, that just went on our expense report under "Misc."
Let me know if you want to borrow my Texas Tech hat.
I think you're absolutely right in calling attention to this -- there's a gem of best-practice here.
In an attention economy, it makes sense for brands to co-locate with (i.e., "stand next to") things and people that get attention. But for this to be low-risk, you need to consider factors of comparative psychic scale and authenticity/relevance of intent.
Nike is a deeply-institutionalized brand across all of sport, so it's arguably "bigger than Tiger" (the scale factor), and sponsored Tiger (as it sponsors countless other athletes) for a simple, authentic reason: his consummate talent as a golfer. Assertion made: We make good sportswear, good athletes wear our stuff.
Result of scandal: arguably zero brand damage. In fact, Nike probably got some useful additional exposure through the Tiger Woods fracas. And as you note -- nobody, of course, is making a pro-Tiger-Woods statement by wearing a swoosh.
Accenture .... ouch. They're a well-known brand, but not a comparably institutionalized one (they don't have 'consumer' customers), so they're "smaller than Tiger," and their advertising made a deep, and fundamentally inauthentic investment in mysterious aspects of Tiger's character. Assertion made: We're great international management consultants, and ... what? We try harder, like Tiger? We can chip out of a sand-trap, like Tiger? Inauthentic hand-waving. So they're pretty-well screwed.
The best-practice seems pretty simple: be bigger than what you endorse, endorse for real reasons, and there's very low risk from the association.
stick some black duct tape over the logo ala ms palin. then you can keep and draw attention to the tw brand...
Perhaps someone should just sell transparent stickers with a red circle and a slash for generic overposting on TW branded gear...
Keep your hat. He will Britney Spears this whole thing, if he's smart.
Meaning, that he will lay low for a few years, since he will be old news in like...3 minutes, come back in 2-3 years and do the "Repentant Tour" on Ellen (since Oprah will be off the air), we will all feel bad for him (as we are trying to remember what he did), then in another year or so, he will make a comeback by playing better than ever and all will be good (like Britney, but all she needed was long hair, killer body and a hot video), because when you are on top (no pun intended) the public adores you.
That is the old and reliable "Bad Celebrity PR Cycle" that we Americans know and love.
PS. Being from Vermont, wanted to give a shout out to Howard Dean, since he was one of the original "victims of social media" rise and fall...and a hell of a shout it was.
If your brand is only defined by a sports figure or a celebrities, then you have much big problems to deal with like the quality of your product.
As a manufacturer of athletic gear, Nike sponsors top-of-their-field athletes and will continue to do so, as long as their performance on the field, the course or the court, stays above par and their personal behavior not too terribly heinous, but companies like AT & T who only capitalize on "star power" and personality will drop spokespeople on a whim if their persona no longer reflects that of the company's own brand image. The Tiger Wood brand is still alive and kicking...it has just morphed into something a little less wholesome and anyone affiliated with it will be seen that way too. There are PLENTY of companies out there willing to sponsor TW, but credibility will still be an issue...so will TW be willing o make the shift and embrace his new image with enough confidence to sell product? And if so, are his current fans willing to move in a new direction with him, or does he have broad enough appeal to support a new market segment?
If Tiger didn't want to be held responsible for his off the course actions, then he should not have agreed and signed the contracts that mandated he keep a nice, pronounced image. His profound lies upon lies is what is dogging him, too. His wife will divorce young, lovely and very well. So keep the hat preserved, just in case someone will need it later. Maybe Brit since he has and still gulping the Kool Aid big time.
Nice observation. But a lot of people believe that that doesn't matter. <a href="http://www.stephensonandcompany.com/etc.html">Collections Etc.</a>
@dean doubting you're married, this is the important stuff ;-)
@everyone else great comments. thought I would share one of the best links on the subject sent in by one of my readers:
http://nysportsjournalism.squarespace.com/year-of-the-tiger-10510