Official Tiger Car Crash/Infidelity Thread

[Trav]

I don't think the sponsors can all be lumped into one group or marketing philosophy.

Accenture wanted to emphasize commitment to professionalism. http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...nture_CA0.html (And the unfortunate tag line: "We know what it takes to be a tiger.")

IMO Heuer did want to trade off an image that encompassed more than golf: "It is both his character and his achievements that make Tiger Woods unique" http://www.tagheuer.com/the-brand/st...aphy/index.lbl

Gillette used a "champions" theme. On the other hand, it's part of Proctor and Gamble which traditionally cultivates a wholesome "family-friendly" image.

AT&T; didn't have a Woods "theme" but used his photo image and let viewers draw their own association.

Nike - well, they have always embraced the "hipness" factor.

If Woods returns, plays well, and presents a "reformed" image, I have no doubt he will secure more endorsements, whether from the same or different sponsors.

[iacas]

I don't think the sponsors can all be lumped into one group or marketing philosophy.

I do. They hired Tiger because he's a good athlete and they wanted to use him to market primarily or solely to men.

Professionalism = golf. Character = as a competitor... determination, willpower, etc.... which helps him win at golf. The whole rest of that page talks about golf. There's Accenture and Tag Heuer. Neither of those talk about anything but Tiger as an athlete, with a single mention of "character" which is clearly something that allows Tiger to succeed at golf. Nobody knows anything about Tiger's character off the golf course, so it makes no sense that Tag (which hasn't dropped Tiger Woods, btw) would try to cash in on something nobody even knew about. The continued use of "character" two months after the cheating became public knowledge further support the idea that it's about his character as a competitor.

Gillette used a "champions" theme. On the other hand, it's part of Proctor and Gamble which traditionally cultivates a wholesome "family-friendly" image.

Who cares about the role all of P&G; normally takes? AT&T; too. Nike too. Nike has a huge women's division that dwarfs probably 99% of the companies in the world - that doesn't mean they've ever seen Tiger as a great way to sell to women or used him to market to women.

Tiger's ads have always been intended for men and have played off his image as a great athlete. That's it.

If Woods returns, plays well, and presents a "reformed" image, I have no doubt he will secure more endorsements, whether from the same or different sponsors.

Blah. Seriously, does anyone care what products Tiger endorses? Do any of you buy things because someone you've never met endorses them? Who cares how Tiger made money, particularly if you never contributed to it by buying a product because he endorsed it? Why are people acting like they were personally injured by Tiger Woods?

I couldn't care less about his past endorsements or his future ones, but I don't particularly care to see common sense so thoroughly abused, either.

[golfdad]

Peyton is a great example of a guy being paid as an athlete and nothing more. .

therefore, peyton is not a fitting candidate to compare with tiger. tiger is a global brand. peyton is an american icon. the fact that peyton is doing well off field despite whatever rumors and tiger is in hiding is self explanatory in that their situations have never been remotely similar.

[iacas]

therefore, peyton is not a fitting candidate to compare with tiger. tiger is a global brand. peyton is an american icon.

That doesn't even make sense. Both are paid well because they're good athletes.

Football isn't quite the global sport - nor is Peyton "Cablinasian" - like Tiger, but the fact remains that both are paid REALLY well to endorse products because they're good athletes.

the fact that peyton is doing well off field despite whatever rumors and tiger is in hiding is self explanatory in that their situations have never been remotely similar.

No it's not. The Peyton rumors are still a quiet mumbling. If it blows up like it did for Tiger we may see a similar situation. You're comparing two unlike situations and suggesting that because they're unlike each other, they always have been. The only thing that really makes them "unlike" is that Tiger's crap is no longer rumor.

P.S. golfdad's in the penalty box so he can calm down. I deleted one of his posts in this thread because neither I nor several other people could make any sense of it. Why not? Because golfdad didn't use the quote functionality properly and his words were mixed up with ERC7.5's in a way that made the entire post confusing. golfdad was free to re-post it after properly quoting so it made sense, but chose instead to behave inappropriately.

[Chas]

Uh, no. He made a fortune because he was/is arguably the best athlete in the world.

No he did not. He made the great majority of his fortune through payments by various companies, some of whom would not have given him a dime if they knew what sort of a person he was - not as a golfer, but in his private life. Nike might be an exception, it's impossible to know of course but they have chosen to stay on board for the time being so at least it's a possibility. That is my opinion, you can differ with it of course and that's fine. But if you maintain that Accenture had no interest in his private life, why did they dump him like a hot potato as soon as the truth became apparent?

I rest my case.

[Chas]

Also, the companies he's represented aren't exactly "family brands." They're male brands that utilize Tiger as a kick-ass golfer. The people who chose to endorse Tiger did so because he was a dominant athlete. That's it.

Then why did Accenture dump him as they did, and others show their profound displeasure by distancing themselves as they did? - we all know what has happened. The data are NOT consistent with your thesis, other than perhaps to some extent for Nike and one or two narrow-interest companies (e.g. games software). Obviously, those companies can make a business case for staying with him - that's all it is. Others won't touch him with the proverbial barge pole any more.

To the mainstream, TW is toast. Radioactive. He's still a great golfer and he will prolly still get a certain amount of money from a few companies willing to associate nothwithstanding. That's business, it's a free country and that's OK. But let's not pretend it was ALL about him being a great golfer. Yes, that's a big part of it, but (as he has learned the hard way), it isn't enough for mainstream business interests. Nice post trav, way back when. At least someone is applying some sensible analysis of the philosophy behind corporate endorsements here. It's apparent that many posters don't have a clue what Accenture was about - or just what "consulting" actually means. If someone thinks that Consulting is purely, or even largely, a "man's world" - well, it just goes to show does it not.

[ERC7.5]

No he did not. He made the great majority of his fortune through payments by various companies, some of whom would not have given him a dime if they knew what sort of a person he was - not as a golfer, but in his private life. Nike might be an exception, it's impossible to know of course but they have chosen to stay on board for the time being so at least it's a possibility. That is my opinion, you can differ with it of course and that's fine. But if you maintain that Accenture had no interest in his private life, why did they dump him like a hot potato as soon as the truth became apparent?

Sure....they may not have. But that's the case in any situation such as this. They didn't pay him solely based on who he is as a person. They dumped him because of his private life yes....didn't hire him because of that.

[iacas]

No he did not.

Yes, he did.

I did not say and would never say that the bulk of Tiger's income is directly due to tournament winnings. But without Tiger's tournament performance, he wouldn't have earned his "fortune." This is not a difficult concept. Tiger is famous because he wins golf tournaments. Take that away and he doesn't earn a fortune endorsing things targeted at guys who know Tiger as a guy who wins a lot of golf tournaments. It's pretty basic stuff here Charles.

He made the great majority of his fortune through payments by various companies

... who hired him because he's awesome at golf.

some of whom would not have given him a dime if they knew what sort of a person he was - not as a golfer, but in his private life.

That's pure speculation. And so what?

But if you maintain that Accenture had no interest in his private life, why did they dump him like a hot potato as soon as the truth became apparent?

I already answered that.

When people think "Tiger" now they think "cheater." That's not what Accenture was paying him for. They were paying him because when people thought of Tiger before they thought "great athlete." Accenture was not paying Tiger before because people thought "good family man with awesome moral values."

I rest my case.

Promise?

[Phil McGleno]

Why are people acting like they were personally injured by Tiger Woods?

I could say I was personally injured by Tiger Woods, but among other things I'm an instructor, and if less people take lessons because less people play golf, that hurts my income.

Then again, more people took lessons because of Tiger before Thanksgiving 2009, so apparently Tiger giveth and Tiger taketh away. The only people actually "injured" here are Elin and Tiger's kids. And his mom. His foundation and maybe even the kids it helps. And so on. Not me, not you, not anyone else.

[Chas]

Erik,
Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase, "necessary, but not sufficient". It is critical in the present context.

Many people are expressing their views here (and thanks for allowing the discussion to continue, it's relevant), NOT because they have in fact been materially injured personally, obviously - not many of us are in the golfing business like our previous poster who has my sympathy - but because they are disgusted by what they have learned about the man and because of his gross misrepresentation of himself to his wife, family and business associates, including those who have made him very rich. You may not believe that or like hearing it, but IMHO that is what we are seeing. It is true of me, it is true of the author of that Vanity Fair piece (not very illuminating btw but worth reading anyway), and it's true of many people not infatuated with Eldridge.

You don't have to have a strong personal stake to have a valid opinion, for pity's sake. Heck, it's only a forum thread, not a court of law.

[iacas]

Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase, "necessary, but not sufficient". It is critical in the present context.

Are you familiar with the phrase "unnecessarily condescending"?

Many people are expressing their views here ... because they are disgusted by what they have learned about the man and because of his gross misrepresentation of himself to his wife, family and business associates, including those who have made him very rich.

I've repeated myself in responding to this kind of statement from you many, many times. Hey, what's one more try?

You're completely guessing in how he "misrepresented" himself to all of those people. The only person you can reasonably know how he represented himself to is you, and your opinion - like mine - matters very, very little here. Not one company has said that Tiger "misrepresented" himself. Tiger was paid a lot of money because he's an incredible athlete, not because he "misrepresented" anything. You've yet to counter that statement with anything resembling a cogent, valid argument.

It is true of me, it is true of the author of that Vanity Fair piece (not very illuminating btw but worth reading anyway), and it's true of many people not infatuated with Eldridge.

You like to throw about these things as if they're fact when they're anything but, Charles. I'm not "infatuated" with "Eldridge." Hell, I don't even know who "Eldridge" is.

I'm also not "infatuated" with Tiger Woods. I do care - probably a bit too much - about common sense and about keeping this thread on-topic. The over-arching topic of all threads in this sub-forum is golf. I don't care about Tiger as a person except how it affects golf. I've said that several times. Perhaps it will sink in one of these times. Or perhaps you'll respond to the counter-arguments instead of changing the subject and making subtle personal attacks that imply that the other person is taking the topic far too seriously or doesn't understand some basic phrase.

You don't have to have a strong personal stake to have a valid opinion, for pity's sake. Heck, it's only a forum thread, not a court of law.

No, but you do have to have the proper foundation or understanding to have a valid opinion. And you, Charles, don't seem to have that foundation if you don't "get" that Tiger was paid as an athlete first, last, and only, and that he can be fired for a reason completely different than the one for which he was hired.

I've never tried to convince you not to be disgusted. That's an opinion the foundation of which I can't question - it's too personal for me to have any clue why you're disgusted. But your opinions on Tiger "misrepresenting" himself are unfounded at best. You have no clue how Tiger represented himself and your opinions run counter to common sense and basic history - they lack a foundation.

[Chas]

That Tiger was (and is) a great athlete was necessary, but not sufficient for his getting paid large amounts of money by Accenture. That is my opinion, fully supported by the fact that they dumped him post haste upon the revelation, but I do not state it as a fact as if I had been at Accenture meetings where their rationale was explicated. I would bet you $1000 at 10:1 odds though .... You are correct, neither you nor I nor anyone else on this thread is doing more than offering an opinion based on the facts as they know them. We are speculating to some extent - so be it. Can't have a useful discussion without doing that. I understand that you disagree with my interpretation of the data, that's fine and I respect that.

I admit that the phrase "infatuated with Tiger" was strong, and note that I DID NOT IMPLICATE ANY INDIVIDUAL in that statement, including yourself. But would you not agree that there are some people, even some in this forum, for whom the phrase is entirely apt? Of course there are. This does not invalidate the views of others in that camp such as yourself, who are making an eloquent case in opposition.

Respectfully yours etc etc,
Chas.

p.s. I apologize if I came across as "unnecessarily condescending" and it's a fair point of yours. I understand why you would respond that way, like the politicians always say - "Oh but I mis-spoke, I was quoted out of context, I was .... [enter suitable weasel words here ...] "

[iacas]

That Tiger was (and is) a great athlete was necessary, but not sufficient for his getting paid large amounts of money by Accenture.

And again, I think you have no real foundation for that. Complete guessing.

That is my opinion, fully supported by the fact that they dumped him post haste upon the revelation

That's not supported (let alone "fully") by the fact that they dumped him. They hired Tiger for different reasons than they fired him. ERC already said it eloquently. His cheating was why they fired him. It's not why they hired him.

Your opinion's based on guesswork. Guesswork that's unfounded.

Can't have a useful discussion without doing that.

Without speculating? Yes, you can.

I admit that the phrase "infatuated with Tiger" was strong, and note that I DID NOT IMPLICATE ANY INDIVIDUAL in that statement, including yourself.

Oh come on. Not only have you accused me of that and similar in the past (both here and in PMs IIRC, but definitely the latter) but your post began "Erik,".

But would you not agree that there are some people, even some in this forum, for whom the phrase is entirely apt? Of course there are.

I would. But first on my list would be you.

[Chas]

I would. But first on my list would be you.

Now THAT is funny. Touchee .....

Now Erik Sir, if you and I both transferred all the energy wasted on this thread into additional golf practice, you'd be down to 0.5 and I'd be seriously threatening the big eight .... zero. "They hired Tiger for different reasons than they fired him. ERC already said it eloquently. His cheating was why they fired him. It's not why they hired him." Of course it wasn't, how could it have been - since they didn't know it yet. That is what is known as "trivially true". If they had known about Tiger what they knew about him when they fired him, they would never have hired him. THAT Sir is my point. I can't compete with your sheer dogged persistence though Erik. I'll just have to concede this round - but we haven't gotten to the weekend yet. Trust me, I'm not gonna miss the cut.

[iacas]

Now Erik Sir, if you and I both transferred all the energy wasted on this thread into additional golf practice, you'd be down to 0.5 and I'd be seriously threatening the big eight .... zero.

If you find this thread a "waste" of energy, might I suggest a few thousand others to which your energy might be better applied?

If they had known about Tiger what they knew about him when they fired him, they would never have hired him.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. You don't know. I don't know - but I'd agree with you if we want to guess that they probably didn't know. However, that's largely irrelevant. It doesn't mean he misrepresented himself. They hired him as a great athlete, and he hasn't misrepresented anything in that arena.

If we imagine a Thanksgiving 2009 that didn't involve the National Enquirer or a car wreck, but instead involved a private investigator sending mail to all of Tiger's sponsors with proof of his infidelity and whatnot, that they wouldn't have done anything except to ask Tiger that he make sure it never becomes a negative story. In other words, the sponsors that have dropped Tiger have not done so because of his infidelity. They've done so because of the scandal. Those are very, very different things.

[Chas]

If you find this thread a "waste" of energy, might I suggest a few thousand others to which your energy might be better applied?

LOL.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. You don't know. I don't know - but I'd agree with you if we want to guess that they probably didn't know.

I would assign a p value of

However, that's largely irrelevant. It doesn't mean he misrepresented himself. They hired him as a great athlete, and he hasn't misrepresented anything in that arena.

Are there any lawyers in the house? I wonder what the exact terms of his multi-million dollar contracts were. we'll never know most likely but it's an interesting question. I refer to any so-called "morality clauses", which typically stipulate causes for immediate termination based on unacceptable behavior. At any rate, TW must have strongly suspected that if Accenture and others found out about his "transgressions", he would be toast. I'm not saying TW is a fool, only that he has misrepresented himself to various parties - and not just to his wife. No wonder he was so obsession with "privacy" - he had every reason to be, as we now know. Wives take note ....

If we imagine a Thanksgiving 2009 that didn't involve the National Enquirer or a car wreck, but instead involved a private investigator sending mail to all of Tiger's sponsors with proof of his infidelity and whatnot, that they wouldn't have done anything except to ask Tiger that he make sure it never becomes a negative story.

That is enormously speculative (OK by me, but you seem to object to such .....), but I'm strongly inclined to disagree. It seems clear to me (you will probably differ), that if Accenture knew the full story they would have realized that their

financial exposure to the risk of public scandal was far too great, and would have bailed on our philanderer. I speculate, but you are also speculating Erik. That's the nature of this discussion.

In other words, the sponsors that have dropped Tiger have not done so because of his infidelity. They've done so because of the scandal. Those are very, very different things.

Since the scandal resulted from his serial and chronic infidelities, they dumped him because of both his infidelities and the scandal that ensued.

If A = B = C, A = C. I just shot a 67 so I'm back in the game ....

[iacas]

Are there any lawyers in the house? I wonder what the exact terms of his multi-million dollar contracts were.

Now

that's a waste of energy.

At any rate, TW must have strongly suspected

More guessing.

Only that he has misrepresented himself to various parties

And all of that is based on your

guess that he even had a bunch of strict morality clauses. Everything you seem to think is just a guess based on your earlier guesses.

That is enormously speculative (OK by me, but you seem to object to such .....)

Of course I object. What's the point of speculating? Do you feel better about yourself? I don't get it. Particularly since you're not speculating ABOUT GOLF.

Since the scandal resulted from his serial and chronic infidelities, they dumped him because of both his infidelities and the scandal that ensued. If A = B = C, A = C.

Charles, nope, it doesn't work that way. It's quite possible that Tiger could have cheated and, if it hadn't blown up the way it did, Accenture and AT&T; wouldn't have dumped him.

Phil "supposedly" had a gambling problem and was a swinger, but it never blew up and created a scandal. Everyone knows John Daly's a lousy drunk (or was) with gambling problems, but he's only lost sponsors when he's turned that common knowledge into spectacles or scandals. Michael Jordan was a gambler and a womanizer, but he kept sponsors until people associated "joke" with him (his baseball years) rather than "dominant athlete." If you can't keep this relevant to golf, I'm moving the thread. And unless you can come up with something new to talk about (related to golf), don't post. You keep saying the same thing over and over as if repetition will change your guesses into reality. I'm done responding to you Charles. You're disgusted with Tiger (not "Eldridge") and you have your guesses about things you really have no clue about (nor I), so stop wasting your energy and contribute to threads that are relevant and not negative. It's not like TW is "getting away with" anything and you're the lone voice crying out for justice or something. This conversation's been enjoyable at times and downright annoying at other times, but I think even you realize how repetitive it's gotten and how little it has to do with golf.

[pittpanther]

My uncle is a corporate lawyer and he said corporations give a flying rat's ass about the morality of their endorsers. The only reason he said morality clauses exist is to give the company an "out" if a scandal erupts because of a "morality" issue. It's the scandal that they don't like - they couldn't care less about the actual morality.

I think what Tiger did was wrong and he deserves whatever beating he's taken, but I still hope he comes back and plays golf soon. I love my wife but if she ever said "no golfing" she'd regret it, not because I'd purposefully take something out on her but because I'd just get grumpy. Maybe Tiger can re-focus his competitive nature and determination into being "best husband" but I doubt it, and maybe he can do that while still trying to beat people at golf too.

I'm wanting Tiger on Tour sooner instead of later.