Tsk Tsk Tiger

There's been much talk about Nike’s new Tiger Woods spot, to which its proponents point as prima facie proof of its value. It's also beautifully shot in an edgy what's-about-to-happen documercial style: Tiger's vacant stare is an amazing dare to the viewer to contemplate his father's VO. The brand that inspired a generation to "Just Do It" has chosen to berate its spokeslothario with "Why'd You Do It?" and you can find many experts who'll declare the spot full of cultural meaning and import. 

Sorry, it's meaningless, and it's just another example of how disconnected and lost branding can get from the reality of consumer experience for at least three reasons:

First, it's a lie. We know that his dad is talking about Tiger's mom in the recording, not Tiger, and his exhortations of "I want to know what you're feeling" fly in the face of, well, Tiger's emotionless expression and the fact that we never did, nor ever will, know what he thinks. He remains an enigma buried in an endorsement wrapped in a commercial that suggests the real question is "who cares what he thinks?" 

Second, it's too schmarty-pants. Consumers are regularly reminded that brilliantly creative marketers can gin up compelling content but what does it say about brands (other than that they can hire brilliantly creative marketers to hatch the stuff)? We can talk all day about Nike meaning this or that but this spot tells us nothing about the company. There's no connection to running shoes or golf. It's glorious form over substantive function.

Third, there's no purpose. The commercial is a lie crafted by smart marketers that's intended to get people talking about the lies crafted by smart marketers, and that's not branding (it's certainly not marketing). Rather, it's the corporate corollary of a Facebook video in which a teenager stares into the camera and says absolutely nothing other than "umm" and "yeah" while contemplating herself. Branding needs to be about something other than branding.

The bigger point here is that advertising -- whether commercial speech in general, or TV spots in particular -- isn't supposed to be about "content," and we're fools to analyze it as if we were reviewing movies, deconstructing poetry, or engaging in a dialectic on popular culture. Ads should get people to do things, which was why the "Just Do It" campaign was so utterly brilliant; it forever linked Nike with consumer aspirations to take control of their lives and improve themselves, and made the brand a mechanism for that actualization.

I know the Tiger spot is just a spot, but I say consumers know too much to fall for whatever it presumes to tell them, and we marketers should demand more of our work. I think that every effort companies make to contribute to the ongoing conversation with consumers should have some relevance, meaning, and utility. We can work overtime to convince ourselves that not doing so has some higher, abstract purpose, but that usually means we're really talking to ourselves, and not with consumers at all.

This Nike commercial is a fine example for any company considering equally untrue, blatantly invented, and utterly purposeless communications.

Just Don't Do It.

Comments

[ilan]

My 2 cents:
The ad was to promote a loser of a human dimension, and try and make people feel he's human.
O.K.....it failed.
Looking back after last week tournament, the ad was trying to promote a golfer who lost badly in a competition...it failed again.
In my book, it is a lose/lose score.

[Adam]

Jonathan:

You and I can say what we want but it doesn't matter. What matters is whether Tiger's attachment to Nike will influence consumers to buy Nike products. I have a feeling that Elin is not feeling very motivated to buy Nike right now. So the question really is whether there are enough Americans who, like Elin, feel disgusted by Tiger and don't want anything to do with him.

Well guess what? I am one of those Americans. Nike now disgusts me because it is trying to make money off of this clearly disgusting wretch of a man called Tiger.

You are incorrect in your second paragraph. Tiger's ability to sell Nike products is dependant not (only) on golf but on his ability to create the warm and fizzies in people. Mostly he will do that through golf. But if his horrible lack of ethics is more salient then his golf skill will recede in the minds of the purchasing public.

Your idea in the last para is quite smart and might work. Either way, he must blunt the effect of his bad behavior and get people back to thinking that he is just a golf player.

[Jonathan]

Adam, these are more thoughtful comments from you, so thank you for them. But I'm not sure that I buy into the 'long-term view' approach to analyzing branding or marketing, as the variable of when something should either 1) make sense or 2) pay off seems to be so fungible and forever in the future.

I say Tiger's ability to sell Nike stuff is utterly and completely dependent on his ability to play golf. This morality stuff, whether good or bad, muddies those waters and blunts his point (how do you like those mixed metaphors?).

So who needs humility? Who wants to dwell on Tiger's morals, or lack thereof? Your throwaway thought about having Tiger appear hawking Nike stuff is actually pretty smart...perhaps he should have looked at the camera and said something like "Hey, I screwed up, but I'm a golfer and I want to get back to the game." Didn't Charles Barkeley do something similar years ago?

[Adam Schorr]

Jonathan:

I agree with you about the ad. I thought it was too clever by a half.

But I think you are not taking enough of a long-term view. This ad was not about selling shoes. So yeah, it probably won't sell shoes. This ad was about Nike's investment in Tiger Woods and his ability - over the long -term - to sell Nike stuff.

They need to resurrect and polish the Tiger Woods persona. Hiding out for months creates scarcity and you can maintain relevance this way for a brief period. But at some point you've got to reappear in the public eye. So they needed to do something with him. But what could they do? Would you have had Tiger appear on TV hawking Nike stuff? If I was the brand manager the last thing I would want is for that scumbag to hawk my products. First I need to make him not be a scumbag anymore (in the eyes of the consuming public).

I'm not a creative. So I'm not going to judge whether this ad was the best way to do it. But having Tiger say nothing was probably a good idea. They need him to look humble. And there has got to be some transition between his exile and his return to slick polished Nike product hawking.

[Jonathan]

Paul, you raise really insightful and valid points. I am far more curmudgeonly in my judgments, tho: what the hell does it have to do with selling gym shoes? I sometimes think that Nike, and its fellow expert brand manipulators, are just too smart for their own good...

[Paul Copcutt]

Jonathan you make some fair points and the disconnect between who is talking to who is a strong argument for "Not Doing It" due to inauthenticity.

I have immediately noticed that this ad has created more conversations with colleagues, friends and family than the actual Tiger scandal - so does that mean as far as marketing goes it's worked in creating buzz, even beyond their initial target market?

My initial reaction is that it was classic Nike branding - they are never ones to shy away from controversy, standing by contoversial figures, having that edgy image that appeals to many of their target audience. It stirred emotion - good and bad in many people I spoke with - branding is about emotional connections - but I think the emotions were more aimed at Tiger's personal brand than Nikes corporate one.

On the other hand I do not think you would ever have seen Lance Armstong defending drug allegations using this format or approach. So the question is how much was determined by Tiger's management handlers and how much by Nike?

As for timing Nike has been very consistent with their handling of the whole event. Not getting involved at all while Tiger was away from the golf course, but as soon as he is back they step up to market. Perhaps good timing for Nike, but for Tiger, probably better to let his golf speak for the time being.

Just my toonies worth!