Regardless of how you might feel about a man "transgressing" on his wife, Tiger Woods' admission is legitimate front page marketing news.
A mega superstar athlete with what was a squeaky clean image, he broke new ground by attracting tens of millions of dollars in endorsement and licensing deals. Some of the biggest names in corporate America have relied on Tiger to bolster their brand images and increase sales. What will companies such as Nike, Gillette, Accenture, AT&T, PepsiCo (Gatorade) and Tag Heuer do with the revelation? More importantly, how will their respective target audiences react? A host of variables define consumers (e.g., gender, geography, socio-economic factors, culture, etc.) and determine how the audience will react to any given situation. The sponsors' perception of their consumers' (and, in some cases, key retailers') reactions to Tiger's transgressions will determine the fate of his endorsements.
Celebrity sponsorship contracts usually include what is commonly known as an "ethics and mortality clause", giving corporations the power to cancel a contract if the celebrity acts in a manner that might taint the product or service he/she has been paid to represent. It's not a clause that is widely used, however. In the case of Kobe Bryant, for example, major sponsors must have thought that canceling his contracts at the time of his arrest for rape would have done more harm than good. Rather than fire him and risk consumer backlash, they immediately stopped using Kobe in advertising (obviously not wanting the association), paid out his contracts and didn't renew when they expired.
As arguably the best player to ever play the game of golf, the first African American to run the table in the historically rich white man's country club sport, the well-educated Stanford grad with an engaging personality and boyish good looks, Tiger had more than the entire package marketers dream of finding. It's no surprise that he was considered the ideal (albeit extremely pricey) spokesperson for a host of products and services. Even so, seasoned marketers knew that he (like anyone else) possessed the human potential for at best misstep or at worst disaster.
"You want a star who won't get in trouble?" I was advised decades ago by a mentor, "Find a famous dead guy or sign a cartoon character."
Signing any living human to an endorsement deal comes with risk. We do it because the benefits outweigh the potential for failure. If it is the right product with the right celebrity at the right time and you have the right idea, the relationship can move the brand forward in ways other tactics simply can't. Gatorade is testament to this notion, successfully leveraging a myriad of athletes to solidify the passionate heart of its brand in the minds of target consumers. Similarly, NASCAR drivers deliver a sturdy platform for packaged goods and services companies that want to capture the attention of a rabid, committed fan base. Certainly, the right endorsement can lift a brand.
What affect will transgressions have on the Tiger brand? It's hard to say without knowing what additional negative information may be revealed, but we can hazard to take some guesses. Do we think men will stop using Gillette razors because Tiger had affairs? Probably not, and most certainly not in droves. And, chances are, guy gamers will still buy his EA video game and Accenture won't see a dip in client acquisition or retention as a result of the association. AT&T might want to remove its sponsorship, in part out of concern that its female consumers would be more upset than males by news of the transgressions. If any of the corporations feel that their target audiences will be angry enough at Tiger to change their product/service behaviors, their relationships will be amended or canceled.
There's not a bigger question mark out there today than the one surrounding the Gatorade Tiger Focus partnership. As a licensing deal, it's rumored to be worth upwards of $100 million for Tiger, with the creation, distribution, advertising and promotion a substantial investment for PepsiCo. Certainly, the brand Gatorade is the drink of sports stars, but Tiger Focus is the only one in the brand that carries an actual person's name. Susie Shopper is the one who most often puts sports beverages in the cart for her family. How will she react to Tiger's namesake product?
Depending on what types of programming (sports in particular) she and her family enjoy, there's a chance that the average shopper might not really know who Tiger is, or that the product was made for him. Unlike the outstanding "Be Like Mike" Gatorade campaign that celebrated the kids who wanted to be like Michael Jordon, Susie Shopper's kids might not be nagging her for the drink that would make them more like their golf hero. (Kids tend to want to be like a sports hero that shares their sport, not simply one who is successful in another sport).
Research tells us that women make the vast majority of packaged goods purchase decisions in the household, even if they aren't the requesters or the consumers. And, as family gatekeepers, Susie Shoppers hold a great deal of power. Gatorade Tiger Focus' future is in the hands of these women. If the shopping cart controllers a) don't really know who he is b) don't really care what he does even if they do or c) don't equate him with Gatorade Tiger Focus, the bullet might be dodged. If the purchasers hold his transgressions against the product or worse yet the entire brand, however, a financially painful decision will need to be made. By making a product specifically around one individual, Gatorade bet "all in" with Tiger. Subsequently, there's not another Tiger that Gatorade can put in his place, unless they choose the real animal and opt for an eye-catching safari print label.
Not to be overlooked, key retailers will also play a critical role in the future of Tiger endorsements. If Wal-Mart felt that Gatorade Tiger Focus might offend the Wal-Mart customer, the product line would be in serious jeopardy. All relevant voices will need to be heard as sponsors consider their options.
Consumer and trade research married with leadership's educated guesses and gut instincts will determine the fate of the Tiger's licensing and sponsorship deals. Whatever the outcome, one truth remains: humans make human errors. In sponsorship marketing, we make educated guesses and take calculated risks. Tiger's news was certainly an unexpected shank. How sponsors decide to play the lie will determine the size of his wallet and their brands' marketing strategies moving forward.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
OEsheepdog
Lisa Kern
Stephanie Phillips
Caruso Wegie
AmyTuteurMD
Leigh Bailey
Salon.com
Comments
It's only when things like this happen that we can see, ex post facto, whether the loss of status affects the performance of the brand.
Personally, I've never purchased a product on the basis of a celebrity endorsement, and I don't personally know anyone who ever has. I've made that statement before, only to be told by marketing gurus that I have been subliminally affected by their campaigns and I don't even realize that I have purchased such and such a product because of their campaigns.
When you go to purchase a Tag Heuer watch, you're not thinking about Tiger Woods, unless your stupid enough to believe that there's some special magic in the Tag Heuer that will improve your golf game. Anyone that stupid deserves what they get.
It's nonsense. Of course, almost everything I buy is generic. Oh, right. I have a Citizen watch. Who endorses them?