Nike's Tiger Woods Ad - Bad Play Or Hole In One?
Whether Nike's use of Tiger Woods' deceased father in its first Tiger Woods commercial post-scandal was brilliant, dramatic creative or exploitative and crass, one thing is for sure - it definitely got people talking.
Is that all that matters? I personally was puzzled to see Nike, who had stuck by Woods through his scandal namely because he's a sport icon, address his troubled personal life in this way. As someone in our office asked, what does this ad have to do with selling sports equipment, or even selling Tiger as an endorser?
Brannon Cashion, senior vice president of brand agency Addison Whitney Inc. in Charlotte, N.C., says the ad was a way for Nike to make Tiger Woods seem human so that consumers can better relate to him as an endorser. "This is a way to make him more acceptable in the eyes of the mainstream public," he suggests. "America loves a winner. When he starts winning golf tournaments, it will be easy to transition back [to the old Nike/Tiger Woods marketing strategy]."
But I wonder if given the volume of commentary out there about this commercial, so much of it negative, if Nike may have taken a hard hit on this one. A survey released by HCD Research Inc. in Flemington, N.J. indicates that favorability for the Nike brand declined from 92% prior to viewing the commercial to 79% after viewing it. Approximately 44% of viewers felt the ad was confusing, and 37% felt skepticism from the spot. Is this an indication of consumer sentiment toward Tiger Woods as an endorser? Will such negative reactions have long term ramifications for Nike? Will that not matter if he excels at golf? And what do you think of the ad? Was it strong creative? A big mistake? Do you think it will cause any significant brand damage?
As always, we'd love your comments. Post your thoughts below. And check out the April 15 edition of our e-newsletter Marketing News Exclusives for more perspectiive on the controversy surrounding the spot.
