Remorseful Tiger Woods?
Nike ran its first commercial with shamed golfer, Tiger Woods, and perhaps not surprisingly opted to continue commercially with the rehabilitation track Woods started on for his own personal sake. If you didn’t click on the TV spot link above, do so now and watch the 30 second ad. It’s the only way to appreciate this pivotal moment in the resurrection of Tiger Woods celebrity star. And just so you know, the voice is Tiger Woods’ deceased father.
I think the Tiger Woods/Earl Woods ad has the potential to be genuinely moving. Sure, Woods was probably instructed by the director to look sorrowful, but it was well done and appears honest. It is a valid and valiant attempt at contrite introspection … if you were a normal chap. Unfortunately, … this attempt falls flat for me (and maybe for many consumers), precisely because belief in the authenticity of this remorse is undermined by the simple fact that this is a paid endorsement; a commercial transaction. The concept is clever and I applaud the excellent Wieden + Kennedy ad agency. But it’s business dressed up as shared personal soul searching.
One would expect sincere people, exorcising their demons, to do so in an intimate withdrawn environment. Not on TV for global commercial brands. Then again, maybe they’re right and I have misjudged the national zeitgeist, which adores the goldfish bowl mentality of celebrity, reality shows, fame as a meritorious state in itself and the superficiality of modern culture.
Worse, perhaps, is that someone like Tiger Woods can only live these introspective, remorseful moments under the watchful eye of the media, commercial partners and hungry public.
I just can’t get rid of the feeling of disrespect.
Written by Stuart
David Day | Associates
About the Author: Stuart is constantly curious and believes conversation matters, for business, people and community. Feel free to join in...
April 8th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
From a brand management and brand protection standpoint, this spot is freakin’ brilliant. Nike just inoculated their brand by outing the issue early, and in a provocative manner. From this point forward the association between Nike and “the issue” is behind them. Imagine a typical spot featuring the “reborn Tiger” smacking a drive at The 2010 Masters. Can you say “denial”? By ignoring issues that plague a brand’s representatives or symbols, the brand owner can essentially allow an infection to spread directly to their brand’s value and their customer’s loyalty. Not a good idea these days. I think it’s a bold but good move by both Nike and its agency.