Tiger Smash: Trash Talking of the Brands

It is nice once in awhile to step outside my usual role in the technology field and consider the larger world around me. As a sports enthusiast, I was fascinated to watch Tiger Woods’ reentry into golf leading up to and during the Masters last week.  As a marketer and PR guy, I found it hard to do this without considering the interplay of brands, advertising and media coverage surrounding the event.

Like many people, I have been tracking Tiger’s efforts at image rehabilitation. The Masters was another step on his road back. Regardless of what people think about Tiger as a person, perhaps the event would the change the subject and get people talking about what he does best again. Could Tiger rally and prove he still has game?

It was interesting to note the reactions of people who were watching and reporting on the Masters. In my conversations at the local tavern, on the train during my commute, and while tuning in to news coverage, I heard a range of opinions. Some seemed genuinely happy for Tiger when he got off to a good start on the first day. Others clearly wanted him to fail.

One news cast pointed out a plane that circled with a banner that had an anti-Tiger
rant. A commuting friend heard on the news that Tiger audibly swore after a bad shot; something that should not be that remarkable, yet this was supposed to be the new, cleaned up Tiger.

While most were focused on the main story line – who was ahead
– I was more attuned to the imagery and subtext. As Mickelson took the
lead, were the cameras focusing more time than they should on his wife and her reactions, or was it just my imagination? Their obviously strong relationship and her presence stood in contrast to the absence of Woods’ wife (was Elin at Augusta or not? There were some questions about this; if she was there, the cameras did not capture her, at least not while I was watching).

Leading up to the Masters, I wondered how soon the brands that were so quick to abandon Tiger would be back. It makes you wonder about the conversations that must take place in conference rooms at companies and in ad agencies – the high stakes brinksmanship the people behind the campaigns and brands must go through as they watch each others’ moves, play “what if” games, and then place their bets.

Nike pulled off a bold gambit by being the first to jump back on board with Tiger. They got a lot of attention for their ad, but was this a shrewd move or foolish? Many thought the ad was in poor taste. The NY Post reported yesterday that Elin hated the ad, another reason she now apparently wants a divorce.

The question about how much the focus on Mickelson and his wife was incidental and how much a marketing (and possibly PR) campaign was answered for me by Tuesday’s full page NY Times ad that shows Mickelson kissing his wife’s head, and included the words:

Congratulations to Phil Mickelson and his family on his victory… With his 3rd Masters win, Phil demonstrates why he is a great ambassador and role model for the game of golf, he personifies the game’s values of integrity, focus and precision, which are at the core of how we at Barclays [Capital] are committed to earning success every day for our clients

For those who think golf is a genteel sport, there was nothing subtle or genteel about this ad. Nothing subliminal about it at all, left me almost feeling sorry for Tiger, gave me a better understanding of the trash talking of brands, and left me wondering about the intersection of family values and golf.