During the last couple of weeks we have read whatever you want regarding the Tiger Woods -TW, Affair… A man who behaved as a depredator tiger, visiting an excesive number of woods 🙂
Instead that I do not believe in the “conditional perfect tense” (it’s an ontological issue) the question is:
- What would with Exxon have been happened if they had used TW in their old advertising?
- Could TW have been or will be a reference for certain brand extensions? (e.g.: Burberry’s)
- What if TW had been the CEO of one of the sponsoring companies?
Are they serious about…
In certain way, all this affair looks bizarre…
- Some sponsors are saying goodbye to TW… Questions:
- TW had a car accident… And due to this accident we all discovered that he has a good number of lovers… LOL! (up today, I did not understand the correlation)
- TW’s wife behaved as a naif person who didn’t realize that his husband had several (not one!) lovers… And in Xmas thanked him because of his US$ 300m present… LOL again!… This is unbelievable in the US, Spain, Congo or China… For God sake!
It wouldn’t be strange that in few week we hear that TW is going to go to the same clinic that Michael Douglas went….
And the basics?
Possibly, the main issue here is that in certain point somebody forgot a simple branding rule (I don’t know if inmutable…. I don’t think so!)… Try to avoid the relation of your brand with a person… I remeber that we were discussing about this issue some months ago in an Executive Program at UTDT… Here is the answer!
In the case of Accenture, the situation is a good evidence to learn about this issue… They had a great advertising campaign, however, they generated the confusion using the same person (TW) during several years… Did Accenture dilute its identity on behalf of TW ones?
Advertising has the objective of producing incomes in the short term, while branding has the objective of generating longlasting value in the long term… Understand?
The vertical line should have and arrow at its bottom 🙂
BTW… Where were or how should corporate responsibility be understood in this case?