Nike’s New Tiger Woods Ad: Brilliantly Ill-Timed?

Many are talking about the new Nike commercial featuring Tiger Woods and the ghost-like voice of his father Earl Woods.

In this spot, Tiger stares at us with great sadness while his father says the following: “Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. Did you learn anything?”

See the ad for yourself.

Many say they are revolted after seeing this spot. They feel Nike and Tiger are exploiting Earl Woods.

My view: the spot is brilliant… but also brilliantly ill-timed.

We all knew Tiger and his father were close. Earl Woods was Tiger’s most trusted advisor and mentor. To have his voice as Tiger’s conscience seems fitting.

The problem here lies in the timing and the context.

Tiger has done nothing yet to demonstrate that he’s transformed himself. He hasn’t proven a thing and nor has he done anything to earn back our respect and admiration.

The essence of a brand is found in the doing, not in the telling. Tell me you are remorseful all you want. Suggest to me that you have learned from your mistakes all you want. You won’t convince me.

However, if I can see through your actions that you’re truly in the midst of a transformation… if I can see great work by you on behalf of all those who benefit from your Foundation… if I can see that you are acting true to your message and your drive to live your life with integrity… then, and only then, I will begin to believe that you have learned something.

The words don’t match the message and the reality in this Nike spot.

But with more time, Tiger might indeed match his actions to his father’s powerful words. And then we wouldn’t necessarily need to have a remorseful shot of Tiger Woods staring back at us. Instead, we might see a different Tiger Woods, a humble giant in world of golf, a person just like any one of us who is susceptible to mistakes, who has, to paraphrase his own words, started to show that he has learned how to help himself so he can help other people.

Perhaps Nike has a grand plan behind this spot? Perhaps this spot is going to set the tone for follow-up spots? That would make more sense. But in today’s context, where Tiger has yet to do anything substantial to earn back our respect and trust, this spot is difficult to embrace wholeheartedly.

What do you think? Do you find this spot reprehensible or genius? Does it touch you or disgust you? Would Nike have been better advised to hold off on a spot like this until Tiger has had a chance to walk his talk?

Should Nike Drop Tiger?

To drop him or not to drop him? That is the question sponsors like Nike are facing in the ongoing drama of the Tiger Woods scandal.

I was disappointed to hear about Tiger Woods’ transgressions. His behavior didn’t match with my image of him, of what I had come to expect from him.

And without a doubt, I’m not the only one who feels let down! Tiger has disappointed hundreds of thousands of fans, supporter and partners. He’s promised to redeem himself, but certainly those efforts will take time.

Accenture has chosen to drop Tiger.

Nike, seemingly, is preparing to stand by him. Indeed, the chairman and co-founder of Nike, Phil Knight, claims Tiger’s infidelity won’t irreparably harm the golfer’s career. He says the scandal surrounding Tiger will ultimately be seen as “a minor blip” in his storied career.

I think Peter Himler’s comments provide insight into why Accenture and Nike have taken different paths. In essence, Accenture was far too wrapped up in Tiger. He was their one guy. Nike, on the other hand, has a whole stable of athletes tied to their brand. They can afford, Himler says, to take a wait-and-see approach.

At the same time, Nike golf = Tiger! Nike’s built their golf franchise around him and through him. So no doubt the franchise has a lot riding on how this story develops from where we are today.

What do you think? Should Nike drop Tiger or wait and see if the Tiger brand can withstand and recover from its self-inflicted tarnishing?

What Would You Have Done in Adidas’ Shoes?

Put yourself in Adidas’ shoes for a moment.

You’ve invested millions as a sponsor of the University of Central Florida’s men’s basketball program. And then, one of its players, who happens to be Michael Jordan’s son Marcus, refuses to wear Adidas basketball shoes in an exhibition game.

Why? Because he wants to wear a pair of Nike Air Jordans in honor of his father… understandable, right?

Reasonable though? Smart for Adidas? Umm… I’m thinking NOT.

Adidas didn’t like it… and that’s why they’ve pulled their sponsorship, costing the university up to $3 million.

Early media and public reaction has been harsh towards Marcus. “He’s a spoiled brat,” most have said.

As it turns out though, the root of the problem may lie in miscommunication between the university and Adidas and careless assumptions that the Nike exception for Jordan would be okay. Reportedly, Marcus made it clear to the university early on that he would only wear Nike shoes. The university assured him, based on the word of some middle manager at Adidas, that this wouldn’t be a problem.

But Adidas’ higher-ups had a big problem once they became aware of the situation. And I understand why they’re annoyed, don’t you? You’re using a high profile sponsorship opportunity to, ultimately, benefit your brand. You’re paying millions of dollars. Nike isn’t paying a penny. But Nike gets significant exposure because one of those players, who happens to be the son of a legend, is wearing their shoes, not yours. Talk about counter productive.

I wonder if the Adidas middle manager that gave the initial thumbs up to the university still has a job right now because I’m almost 100 percent sure no higher-up would have given an outright approval on a Nike exception for Marcus.

Clearly, the process broke down here between the university and Adidas. Both parties messed up. They should have nailed this whole thing down much more firmly.

The online conversation on this topic that I’m seeing is going in two different directions right now.

On the one hand, people are placing the blame squarely on Marcus, as noted. To many, he went way over the line here, should have backed down for the team and the university and worn Adidas. Based on what we’re learning though, Marcus is likely not the one to blame for this situation. This is a breakdown in communication between the university and Adidas.

Now, on the other hand, I’m seeing a lot of talk about Adidas’ poor handling of the situation. The thought here from some observers is that Adidas should understand Marcus’ reasons and allow him to wear the Nike Air Jordan brand without pulling any sponsorship dollars.

For Adidas, this whole situation has put them in a tough spot and potentially caused some consumer backlash. How much backlash, I’m not so sure. But it’s certainly not ideal for Adidas to have this kind of attention. And Nike is simply standing on the sidelines. For them, this is golden coverage. And they may yet go from the sidelines to the playing surface, stepping in for Adidas as the university’s sponsor. Yes, that would translate into another round of favorable attention for Nike.

Could Adidas have handled this situation differently? Did they make the best move here? Should they have allowed Marcus to wear the Nike brand as an exception? Could they have possibly won any brand points by doing so, or would that have been foolish? What’s your view?