Source: youtube.com/nikegolf
Now that the frenzy over the Masters is winding down, let’s take a look at the Tiger ad from Nike. Smart move by Nike, or not? More importantly for the Wide Angle readership, are there lessons here for marketers more generally? (Beyond be careful which superstars you get in bed w—sorry, bad choice of words)
If you look at numbers released Monday after the tournament, it certainly doesn’t look good for Nike. Confusion, skepticism and other negative emotions reign.
|
Emotion |
Percentage |
| Confusion |
44 |
| Skepticism |
37 |
| Sadness |
26 |
| Disturbing |
25 |
| Embarrassment |
13 |
| Anger |
10 |
| Inspiration |
9 |
| Pride |
3 |
| Happiness |
1 |
Source: HCD Research, as presented on MediaPost
However, I’d argue running this ad was a clever start by Nike, having made the decision to stay with Tiger. That is an important caveat—I don’t believe Nike should have stayed with Tiger. Given that it did, Nike is clearly playing a long game to reshape how we view Tiger, simply because there is no winning short game in this situation.
So, how could this possibly be a clever move given the numbers above?
Nike seems to be aiming at a large swath of its target audience (i.e., golfers and athletes more generally) that is in a hazy middle ground of conflicted-ness about Tiger. These are folks who loved watching and pulling for Tiger in the pre-crisis days, but who are shocked and dismayed at the revelations about Tiger’s behavior. The question in the back of their mind: Is it okay to root for him again?
What Nike has done with this ad is spark a public catharsis that can help the conflicted middle start to become un-conflicted. And it did so by running an ad that focuses on introspection and reflection. That’s smart. That’s what Nike wants the middle ground to do right now. This isn’t about getting consumers to go out and buy golf shoes and equipment. Not now. Not yet.
It gets discussion going—in chat rooms, around water coolers, with significant others. Discussion that will help work through the conflict. Ultimately, some will choose not to root for Tiger, and will view Nike’s association with Tiger negatively. Others may find the catharsis and ensuing reflection help them sort through the conflict, and land in a spot where it’s okay to root for Tiger again. How the story plays out for Nike depends very much on Tiger’s actions from here–trying to predict that would be a fool’s errand. But, given the decision to stick with Tiger, Nike is off to a smart start.
Luckily, most of us aren’t managing brands in the same tricky, high-stakes circumstances. In my next post, I’ll pull away from the specifics of the Tiger situation to examine the general lessons for other brands. In the meantime, share your comments and tell the Wide Angle marketing community what you think of Nike’s decision to run this ad, or to stay with Tiger at all.
Related posts:
on 16 April 10
Respond
Too much money invested to walk away from? True concerns from an empathetic sponsor? Probably the former rather than the latter. Regardless of the motive, I can’t help thinking if Nike is trying to dismantle the ivory tower where they place Tiger for all these years – a Superman extraordinaire. Now with this ad it seems they try to savour their investment by trying to picture this whole mess as “accidents happen no matter what, it is what you learn from them that counts”. That seems not only unlikely to succeed, but also very artifical. If your consumer is the average man/woman buying Nike gear, the impact on their purchase behavior should be limited as I sincerely doubt anyone wearing the Nike emblem to be branded as a marriage offender. Then it the question remains, what is the underlying strategy from Nike – really?
on 19 April 10
Respond
I think in a world where people use the terms ‘hero’, ‘brave’ and ‘inspiring’ to describe Magic Johnson – who admitted to sleeping with countless women, contracting HIV and putting his wife and unborn child at risk – it’s obvious why it was a no-brainer for Nike to stick with Tiger. As we’ve seen the expected cycle of admittance, tears, rehab and talk show circuit for celebraties in crisis communications mode, it’s obvious that the public is either extremely forgiving, forgetful or complacent when it comes to destructive behaviour. I think it was good business for Nike to stick with the most dominant athlete of our time. Soon, this will be a scandal of the past and Tiger will be back as a tremendous endorser with just a few scars that weren’t there before.