In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past few days, Tiger Woods is playing in his first golf tournament since falling “victim” to an overzealous press corps that uncovered his multiple extra-marital affairs. Yep, the same Tiger Woods whose highly-polished image helped make Nike a major player in the golf equipment and apparel business a decade ago.
[tweetmeme source="admavericks"]
So, what does Nike do? They roll out the Tammy Wynette “Stand By Your Man” tune and run a tv spot that paints Tiger as a shamed victim being lectured by the voice of his deceased father. Is that really what you want your brand associated with? If you haven’t seen it, here it is:
What were you thinking Nike? You use the voice of Earl Woods’ voice to dress down his son, then present a sad and shamed Tiger like he’s some clueless little child who just got caught with his hand in the candy jar at the local soda shop. Oh, and make sure people see the logo!
Poor Tiger … WAIT! He’s a 32 year-old billionaire with an army of aides and PR handlers who have carefully shaped his pristine persona as the world’s perfect role model for more than a decade – only to see it fall apart when Tiger is caught with his pants down (literally and figuratively).
Puhlease!!! Give us all a break, Nike, from this ridiculous melodrama … from the “bad guy as victim” mentality … from the advertising and PR shills out there claiming this is the most brilliant, creative ad in modern advertising. Are you kidding? This isn’t even the best ad Nike has done.
Hey Nike, it’s not your job to rehabilitate Tiger’s image! It’s his job to create an image that you want associated with yours! An image of champion. Of the ultimate competitor. Of integrity. Not one of shame and victimhood. That’s how endorsement marketing works.
There are so many better and more inspiring people and heros you could have used to represent your brand right now. And, by not using Tiger in your ad, you’d have been making an even bigger statement to your customers and fans – without insulting and abandoning half of your audience – women – who you’re basically telling “guys will be guys … you’ve just gotta learn to deal with it.” (Not to say that there aren’t a lot of guys who feel insulted by the trivialization as well).
Was this spot risky. Yes. Was this spot brilliant? Far from it. It got a lot of people talking (again) about an arrogant, selfish athlete who broke what should be the most important relationship he should have in his life. And you want to associate that with your brand?
Congrats Nike … you’re our worst of the week!
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
A standing ovation is in order. Many defenders or “fans” will say it was a slick move by Nike to roll that ad out on the night of the start of the Masters.
It got everyone’s attention, which was what they wanted. Using his late dad’s voice and words was uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable.
It’s amusing that Nike will go to great lengths to sell their product and their star athletes. Phil Knight would be wise to spend most of his time trying to figure out why no one wants to take the Oregon men’s basketball job, even when he’s shilling out $4-5 million a year to grab a big name coach.
I’m so glad you feel this way.
All they really had to do to get back in our wallets was remind us of how good of a golfer he is. Such terrible taste.
Either way, I’m not buying.
The words were taken out of context and the voice ripped from a 2004 documentary about Tiger. His dad wasn’t even talking to him but about the differences between him and Tiger’s mother.
The commercial itself is brilliant until the logo pops up at the end and then the whole piece is cheapened.
It’d be interesting to pan out and see all the people around coaching him and involved in the production.
It is not Nike’s job to rehibilitate Tigers image, but every step they take to assist means more $$ in their pockets just the same.
Why wouldn’t they want to invest in an attempt to improve the image of their cash cow?
You know the next commercial is going to be of Tiger reacting to the questions…or answering them.
Totally agree. Tiger invented lame and Nike is echoing it.
I have no idea why anyone would think the commercial is “brilliant”. The Master’s was perfect opportunity to change the conversation to GOLF but bad, creepy commercial keeps the focus on the affairs.
Agree with you, Chris. “Brilliant” is the wrong word here. “Interesting” or “Clever” might have been better. The idea of using Earl Wood’s probably seemed great on paper – where it should have stayed.
Here’s some interesting research on people’s response to the spot. At least upon initial review, this doesn’t look good for Nike (copy and paste if link doesn’t click through):
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=125830