Once upon a time, golf’s golden boy Tiger Woods‘ endorsement deals brought him hundreds of millions of dollars. Then there were the repeated reports of Woods’ numerous affairs and like scorned fairy tale suitors, AT&T, Gillette, Tag Heuer & Accenture all dumped the tarnished golf hero.
Long time Tiger sponsor Nike stuck around throughout the abbreviated scandal and redemption period, only to emerge this week (the eve of the Masters), with a TV commercial that acts as something of a belated public pillorying of Woods.
The spot depicts a silent and seemingly contrite Woods being gently chastised by an undated voice-over of his deceased father. Right before the black and white spot flashes to the Nike swoosh though, the voice of Earl Woods (in a very Mike Brady moment) is heard asking his son “Did you learn anything?” Because the man who masterminded Woods’ career from the age of two through international super-stardom would surely have been that calm and accepting of potential career fall-out from Tiger’s skanky tales.
- Image by Ioan Sameli via Flickr
If you haven’t seen the spot yet, which aired exclusively on ESPN & The Golf Channel, I’ll try to provide appropriate pop culture analogies. Think Psycho’s Norman Bates fighting off the voice of his dead yet still hectoring mother+a side order of Big Love‘s Alby Grant’s dearly departed dad disapproving of him from beyond the grave, with the Natalie Cole and Nat King Cole duet from the hereafter as the soundtrack, and you’ll have a better idea of just how creepy this sales spot is. More than creepy though, it’s inappropriate and the timing is off.
I’m sure Nike’s marketing department had a very good reason for giving Woods a public spanking. Perhaps they wanted to appease their investors with an acknowledgment of the fact that they too had been wronged by Woods’ “transgressions” but loved him (and sales generated) still. Perhaps they felt that portraying Woods as a loving son gone wild after the passing of his father would generate further sympathy & sales. Or perhaps they just wanted to see how far they could push Woods in his pursuit of continued percentage off the sales of his (golf) balls and (sports) equipment. That last one might have been something of a low blow, but racy puns aside for the most part people don’t much care about Woods’ private life anymore, they just want to see the finest golf player in the world doing what he does best.
So Tiger, in the words of your most loyal sponsor “Just do it” and move on- the sports world has.
Rachel, who secretly wonders about the new term$ of Elin Woods’ continued spousal endorsement
Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? E me at rachelblogs@gmail.com
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=51c816af-c818-4a65-af2c-751a41087f8a)
Filed under: Manners, Marketing | Tagged: Add new tag, Big Love, Earl Woods, ESPN, Golf, Golf Channel, Nat King Cole, Natalie Cole, Nike, Norman Bates, Tiger Woods | 4 Comments »
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=baf4a319-4e83-401c-a230-58d660bafdd5)
Moderation Please
The internet is great and glorious beast in that it provides a mass medium for geniuses and crackpots alike to share ideas, share a laugh and regularly and very publicly share their collective frustrations. This is a good thing indeed.
What’s not such a good thing though, is the fact that since the dawn of time or at least since the dawn of the internet, there’s been a battle raging between those that inform and those that inflame vying to get their points of view to the forefront.
Read any public blog or news outlet and your sure to encounter a steady stream of commentators eager to make their voices heard. Some comment threads are incredibly helpful and move the conversation forward allowing ideas to grow and expand. Some on the other hand, have a disturbing way of becoming a forum for fomenting hatred, or a place for those with incredibly twisted world views to present their ideas with some semblance of the stamp of approval of the website or outlet in question.
Over a decade has passed since the internet has become a household word and there has been no real change in the way that comments are gathered or presented. One suspects that so eager are outlets ranging from Gawker to CNet to the New York Times to keep people coming back and interacting, that they still refuse to moderate the comments that do or do not appear after their sanctioned articles. Worse still, are popular applications like Twitter and Facebook which seem to regularly turn a blind eye to hate groups, allowing their numbers to grow and expand.
Let’s make this clear for once and for all, moderating is not censorship. Journalists and editors work in tandem to create features that inform yet don’t always express the popular points of view. Printed letters to the editor are chosen from hundreds if not thousands submitted and again, don’t always express the popular or safe point of view.
Popular online applications and publications on the other hand, seem to edit only internally. By turning a blind eye to the input of others, they’re allowing their very pricey pixelated real estate to become a battleground controlled not by those who want to create a dialogue, but also those who hold hostage the notion of free speech in an effort to publicize their ignorant attitudes, spew hate or vent their collective spleen.
With so many people seeking employment, it would seem a no-brainer for the major online publishers to finally and incredibly belatedly hire full time moderators to at least create a sense of balance on their forums and comments.
Rachel, who grows weary of trying to navigate the minefields that online forums sometimes become
Like what you’ve read? Need a marketing expert, opinion column, pop culture comment, fun speaker or snappy sound bite? rachelblogs@gmail.com
Filed under: Manners, Marketing, Ms. Biz Manners | Tagged: facebook, Mass media, moderated comments, New York Times, Online Communities, Social Networking, twitter | 2 Comments »