The Tiger Woods Apology: Great, Bad or Ugly?

Let me start this out by stating that I have always been a “Tiger guy” (as opposed to a “Phil guy”). I am amazed at what he can do with a golf club. But what I have admired even more is his incredible work ethic. One of my favorite quotes is from Samuel Goldwyn, who said “The harder I work, the luckier I get.” I have heard Tiger say the same thing.

So while I don’t think athletes should be role models (that is what parents are for), I always thought Tiger’s work ethic was a character trait that could serve as a great example.

A few months ago, in the infancy of the Tiger Woods developments (notice I did not say “affair”), I was at a marketing presentation. At the time, the only “facts” that were out were that Tiger had crashed his car, that Elin broke the window of the car with a golf club, and that there were rumors of affairs with one or two women.

Marketers being marketers, the discussion evolved to: “What should Tiger do?” “What would happen to his endorsements?” we also wondered. “What happens to the Tiger brand?”

A lot of people opined that Tiger needed to just come out, tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Tackle the issue head on and get it over with, because in 15 minutes we would be engrossed in some other tawdry development. The situations were much different, but the precedent cited was how Johnson & Johnson handled the Tylenol deaths back in 1982,

The sponsorship debate sparked some diverse thoughts. At the time we thought that a lot depended on the target audience. For example, how marketers at a general consumer product like Gatorade might react could be different from how marketers at Accenture might react.

My thought at the time, frankly, was all the conversation was great in theory, but it was really too early to speculate because all the facts were not out.

Fast forward not quite three months. Many facts (we will never know if all of them) have come out. Obviously, this Tiger tale (sorry about that) exploded far beyond what any of us could have imagined. And Friday, Tiger spoke publicly for the first time. A lot of people have analyzed and overanalyzed what he had to say, and what will likely happen next.

My thoughts on how Tiger handled his “apology” for his deplorable actions.

1. I think what Tiger said was right on target. He accepted responsibility for his actions. He expressed remorse. He did not make excuses; he did not minimize his transgressions.
2. There are those who question his sincerity. My opinion is he came across as sincere.
3. Compare what Tiger said to how others have handled crises. Check out some of the remarks of Pete Rose, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Michael Vick, Mark McGwire, Mark Sanford and even Bill Clinton. I think of that group, Tiger is the only one who got it right.
4. Now compare what Tiger said to how Alex Rodriguez handled the disclosure of his steroid use. Alex responded immediately. He was honest and apologetic. He did not blame others. And as a result, his image did not take the hit that Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or Mark McGwire suffered.
5. There are those who said: “Well, he was scripted.” Of course he was. That is what crisis management and PR are all about. I am sure there were discussions about the overall message, of the specific words, and the tone. One of the reasons Tiger has enjoyed success from a business standpoint is that he has surrounded himself with smart people. This includes people who can take his thoughts and then craft the right words. Perhaps if some of the people mentioned above had similar counsel, they would have handled things better.
6. The matter of limiting who can attend and that no questions could be asked. As a former reporter, the issue of journalistic access is important to me. In this situation, however, I understand what Team Tiger did. It was critical that the key messages be delivered, and that delivery was not sidetracked by endless questions that would probably be voyeuristic and frankly, private. Having said this, I understand why reporters boycotted the session.

What’s next?

1. As Tiger’s buddy Michael said, “never say never.” But I think the Tiger brand has been irreparably damaged. I would be very surprised if Tiger becomes the commercial icon he once was.
2. I am sure Tiger will return to the golf course at some point. But I doubt I will be the Tiger fan I once was.

Political marketing - ugly or not really?

I better write this one now because the elections are today. So today everybody hates political ads, but tomorrow they will all be forgotten. So here are my thoughts.

1. I think political ads in general are terrible. They fall into one of two categories.

a. Attack the opposition. The worst I saw this year was an ad from Andy McKenna, a Republican seeking the nod to run for Governor of Illinois. I had the "pleasure" of seeing one of his ads today about six times while on the elliptical. All the ad did was blast one of his opponents for being a "backer" of Barack Obama. Not one constructive thought. This, by the way, does not necessarily reflect my political leanings. Just my marketing leanings.

b. Utter platitudes, like "cut spending" or "no new taxes" or "clean up government." Please - what do you take us for? Idiots?

2. To answer that last question, I think politicians do take us for idiots (or, at best, apathetic). And maybe they are right. My sense is, at least for higher offices, politicians do their research and understand what messages will resonate with voters. They believe that what attracts voters are simplicity, feel-good buzzwords and knocking the opposition. Rational arguments and facts just are not relevant.

So maybe the ads are not bad marketing. Maybe the problem is not the politician/brand, it is the target market. And as long as we as the customers of the brand are willing to accept the messages we are being fed, the brands have no reason to change the messaging.

So here are my thoughts on how to change this. And, yes, I realize there is no chance of this happening.

1. Ban political ads and direct mail.

2. Really put the onus on the media to educate on the issues, not just report on the latest bashing.

3. As part of the reporting process, report on how the candidates do on focusing on issues, as opposed to criticizing their opponents.

The problem with this, of course, is that it will only work if the public really will embrace this. People say they are disgusted with politicians and the political process, and they want change. But do they really?

What do you think?

Great Marketing? Porter

Yesterday (Jan. 31), I booked a flight online with Porter Airlines. The offer allowed me to save 20% if I booked by Feb. 1 Today (Feb. 1), I was looking up an article on a Website and was served an ad for Porter, telling me I could take 20% off if I booked a flight by Feb. 1 (same offer I used the day before).

My thought process:

1. Great marketing because, knowing my behavior, they are serving up an ad that may be of interest to me with a very compelling offer.
2. Maybe not so great. I just booked a flight yesterday; why are they hitting me again so fast?
3. Yeah, it is great. The "book today" offer creates urgency. And since they know I use Porter, the urgency can prompt some action.

I know there are people out there that think it is "creepy" that "they" can monitor our Internet behavior. Frankly, we should be past that by now. I would rather have "them" send me compelling offers I am interested in than waste my time on something I am not interested in.

Thoughts?