SuzViews

NIKE worse than Tiger?

The recent NIKE ad featuring Tiger Woods has already caused an uproar in the media, unfortunately providing even more exposure and profile to both the company and the spokesperson.  I’m sure that’s not by accident. At the risk of adding to the bulk of free advertising, I feel compelled to make a few comments myself – not because I have anything new to say but just to get it off my mind. 

This ad concept is wrong on so many levels that it’s difficult to know where to begin.  It’s hard to imagine how a marketing unit would think that pairing a fallen role model with a dead parent’s commentary to promote a sports product could possibly be accepted by the general public. Do marketers think that the public is so gullible?  Are they that oblivious to public opinion?  No, I don’t think so.  Good marketers, more than any other business sector, are intimately aware of every nuance of a market demographic – from physical characteristics, social demographics, psychological disposition or geographic distribution – and NIKE would be using not just good, but the best, marketing and ad resources. I’m sure that every aspect of this campaign has been projected including the negative response we are currently witnessing, and I’m sure that the impacts on the Tiger brand and the NIKE brand have been carefully calculated in both social and financial terms.  The business decisions have been made and time will tell how accurate they are…but even if this campaign ‘works’ and is, in business terms, ‘successful’  – does that make it acceptable?  Does business success alone make this ‘right’?

As for the ad itself:  it almost seems more obscene and disrespectful than Tiger’s original transgressions. Don’t misunderstand me though – what Tiger did was unacceptable, deceptive and misleading as well as immoral (for those of us who still believe there is morality in personal decisions).  The only  redeeming factor in that situation lies in the personal nature of the actions – these were bad choices made by an individual who should have known better, but for some reason didn’t realize what the consequences of these decisions would be. Even though the consequences do not disappear, the person has the potential to change, to learn and, ultimately, to earn back the broken trust. 

The ad campaign is also unacceptable, deceptive and misleading – using out of context words from someone who cannot object and who (according to those who know) was equally guilty of the same errors in judgement and behaviour is bad enough.  Perhaps this could even work if it were just about Tiger, but by deliberately using images and text out of context solely for the purposes of financial gain, this ad crosses the ethics boundary. There is nothing honest, transparent or authentic about this ad, despite the design to be just that.  Successful or not, this ad is still false, manipulative and contrived and should not have been considered, let alone condoned. 

I realize that just talking about this plays into the hands of the marketing team, but a low-volume personal blog is unlikely to tip any balance of public opinion, so I’m not overly concerned.  I sure feel better though!