Dustin Johnson taking a leave of absence from tour, Suspended for cocaine use

[FarawayFairways]

There's a lot of consumers (millions of them) who try and make ethical choices. They obviously need information to inform them. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't see the billions spent by coprporations trying to present themselves as ethical traders. I think it's dangerous ground to dismiss them as being stupid and therefore deserving of what they get (being misled). The question to my mind is more a case of where the boundary lies

Dustin Johnson has made no secret of his religious convictions, and indeed traded off them. If you're a christian minded golfer and decided to buy something endorsed by Dustin ahead of something endorsed by Tiger because you approved of Dustin's lifestyle and not Tigers, are you quite so sure that this person doesn't deserve a bit of protection and to at least be informed that Dustin ain't what he presents himself as, and under the circumstances perhaps you'd rather buy Bubba?

I think it's a slippery slope to say that "dumb" people don't deserve protection and by extension, are fair game. I can think of certain industries where deceitful selling and misrepresentation is endemic (financial servcies). Is everyone who has been sold a duff product 'dumb' too.

Health warning on tobacco products is another related area of course

If I can see a difference, it's that Dustin Johnson has said words to the effect of "I'm a Champion golfer and I use this equipment, it helps me play better golf".... that's clearly different to "I'm a good all round person of upstanding virtue, and I use this equipment, it helps me be an even better person"

[zipazoid]

If I buy a club endorsed by DJ, this latest news about him wouldn't bother me. Cuz I based my purchase on the endorsement of a guy who hits a golf ball very well, not based on his off-course behavior.

If others buy cuz they think the guy is a high-character individual, fine. But I don't look at golf pros as my role models. I am impressed by their skill at playing golf & that's about it.

[iacas]

There's a lot of consumers (millions of them) who try and make ethical choices. They obviously need information to inform them. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't see the billions spent by coprporations trying to present themselves as ethical traders. I think it's dangerous ground to dismiss them as being stupid and therefore deserving of what they get (being misled). The question to my mind is more a case of where the boundary lies

How is someone being misled?

Does anyone play a TaylorMade golf ball because they think Dustin Johnson is a fine example of a human being?

Golfers endorse golf equipment because of how they use it in playing golf. Not when they're sitting at home or partying or "lifting jet skis" or whatever.

Dustin Johnson has made no secret of his religious convictions, and indeed traded off them. If you're a christian minded golfer and decided to buy something endorsed by Dustin ahead of something endorsed by Tiger because you approved of Dustin's lifestyle and not Tigers, are you quite so sure that this person doesn't deserve a bit of protection and to at least be informed that Dustin ain't what he presents himself as, and under the circumstances perhaps you'd rather buy Bubba?

Again, I would call that person a moron. There's no other word for it.

"Hmmmm, I like product A, but a guy paid to say good things about it has a different religion than I do, so even though religion is not even remotely related to this product, I'm going to get product B because another dude paid to say good things about it believes in the same completely unrelated things as I do! I'm an informed consumer!!!"

Please.

[FarawayFairways]

How is someone being misled?

Does anyone play a TaylorMade golf ball because they think Dustin Johnson is a fine example of a human being?

Oh I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that had happened. And this is why

I think there's a grey area which the simplistic separation of golf and person isn't legislating for

proposition A: "I'm Dustin Johnson. I'm a great golfer and I endorse this golf product"

proposition B: "I'm Dustin Johnson I'm a great person of impeachable character and I endorse this golf product"

proposition C: "I'm Dustin Johnson, I'm a great golfer, but I'm also, a great person of impeachable character and I endorse this golf product"

People are invited to buy into the package, so I'm not entirely sure you shoukd view it as black and white

Clearly Dustin's non golfing status is an issue. If it wasn't, TaylorMade wouldn't have air brushed him. They've clearly taken a most visible decision to say that his ability to sell their products has been compromised, and they no longer want the association. What's changed? Clearly he can strike a golf ball as well today as he did last week, so they can't say he's lost form and no longer represents the success they want to associate their products with.

He's clearly considered to be damaged goods now, but here's the other rub of course. TaylorMade must have known about his jet ski injury. They'll have enough tentacles out there to pick up tour talk. So they've adopted the approach of so long as no one knows, we'll continue to use him. Their own approach in terms of ethics looks highly questionable too. Why didn't they drop then if they're so affronted by his behaviour now? Well the answer to that is that it wasn't in the public domain. Might have been nice to let another golfer get a run at a lucrative endorsement though

[iacas]

Oh I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that had happened.

To be clear, I'm not debating whether morons exist or not.

TaylorMade paying him - and removing him - both speak to that fact.

[newtogolf]

There's a lot of consumers (millions of them) who try and make ethical choices. They obviously need information to inform them. If this wasn't the case, you wouldn't see the billions spent by coprporations trying to present themselves as ethical traders. I think it's dangerous ground to dismiss them as being stupid and therefore deserving of what they get (being misled). The question to my mind is more a case of where the boundary lies

Dustin Johnson has made no secret of his religious convictions, and indeed traded off them. If you're a christian minded golfer and decided to buy something endorsed by Dustin ahead of something endorsed by Tiger because you approved of Dustin's lifestyle and not Tigers, are you quite so sure that this person doesn't deserve a bit of protection and to at least be informed that Dustin ain't what he presents himself as, and under the circumstances perhaps you'd rather buy Bubba?

Public relations is a game, the goal of the game is to make sure that nothing negative is said and if something does leak, it gets spun or squashed before it can do any real damage to their reputation and impact endorsements.  Dustin may have religious convictions but he has made some questionable choices that would indicate that while he's religious, he has some personal demons as well.   Let's not forget it was recently revealed that the catholic church has paid over $1B in hush money to families of children that were molested by priests.  Having religious conviction doesn't mean they live life without fault.

I think it's a slippery slope to say that "dumb" people don't deserve protection and by extension, are fair game. I can think of certain industries where deceitful selling and misrepresentation is endemic (financial servcies). Is everyone who has been sold a duff product 'dumb' too.

Health warning on tobacco products is another related area of course

If I can see a difference, it's that Dustin Johnson has said words to the effect of "I'm a Champion golfer and I use this equipment, it helps me play better golf".... that's clearly different to "I'm a good all round person of upstanding virtue, and I use this equipment, it helps me be an even better person"

Dustin and other pro golfers are compensated for playing the equipment they do, if a different company offered them more money, they would likely switch.  The equipment they play is built from scratch to fit them perfectly, so it barely resembles what you're buying off the shelf.  Both Tiger and Rory have demonstrated that they can be equally successful playing Titleist and Nike.  As most people say, it's the Indian, not the arrow, even more importantly the ethics of the Indian has no influence over the quality or capability of the arrow.

[mvmac]

Still on TaylorMade's website

http://thesandtrap.com/t/76186/has-golfs-demise-been-greatly-exaggerated

Whether they drop him or not depends on what his contract says, what the morality clause says. Officially he's still just taking a leave of absence and it doesn't seem like that is going to change.

[Cool Breeze]

You don't?

Guess what... I'm not watching you do you "paralegal" work on TV.

Believe it or not, people like to know what's going on with  famous celebrities/athletes.

How many millions a year do you earn in endorsements?

It's called public interest or sticky beaking, take your pick, but don't add yourself into the equation.

I never claimed my job was as interesting or that people wanted to know about it.

It certainly is boring for the most part and would make for terrible television.

My point is that people are not more "entitled" to know about his as they are mine.  Sure they want to know more about his.  But they don't have the right to any more than they do for mine or yours.

[Cool Breeze]

Where did I write that I thought we were entitled to it? I don't think we are.

But  you have to admit that the public is more interested in knowing that a highly paid athlete is a drug addict than they are in reading about a paralegal's car troubles.

Well, it sounds like we agree.

[Cool Breeze]

If people have bought into the Dustin Johnson brand, his endorsements, and his products, because of his clean image (some of which looks incredibly hypocritical incidentally - needs to reread Leviticus me thinkz) are they not in effect victims of deceit, even fraud?

No.

They would be the victim of deceit or fraud if the products he endorsed didn't perform as advertised.

They're not paying for his reputation.

When I buy a piece of golf equipment the only thing I care about is, does it perform on the course as advertised.

People that buy equipment for their game just because they have a certain amount of hero worship for someone who gets paid to use it seriously make me laugh.

I'm a huge Tiger fan.  Guess what?  There's not a single Nike club in my bag.  I do have a TW towel on my bag.  It seems to wipe off my clubs just fine, but he did screw around on his wife.  Maybe I'm the victim of fraud and just don't know it.

[RJH999]

Multiquote sir, multiquote.

[Cool Breeze]

Sorry.

I'm getting used to a forum in this format.

I'm a member of a couple of others, but this one is a little different.

And it won't let me edit my previous ones to clean it up.

[turtleback]

I can respect, while disagreeing with, people who take the addiction is a disease position.

I can respect people who take the personal responsibility position and refuse to cut DJ any slack on addiction.

What I cannot respect is the (fortunately few) people here who choose this occasion to exercise their "comedy" skills, and even mores those who seem to take positive delight in DJ's problem.  I have never been a fan at all of DJ.  Still am not.  But he hasn't fallen as far in my respect level as some of the posters in this thread.  The certainly have their right to have their opinion and make their comments.  But I also have the right to judge them accordingly.

[Ernest Jones]

I can respect, while disagreeing with, people who take the addiction is a disease position. I can respect people who take the personal responsibility position and refuse to cut DJ any slack on addiction. What I cannot respect is the (fortunately few) people here who choose this occasion to exercise their "comedy" skills, and even mores those who seem to take positive delight in DJ's problem.  I have never been a fan at all of DJ.  Still am not.  But he hasn't fallen as far in my respect level as some of the posters in this thread.  The certainly have their right to have their opinion and make their comments.  But I also have the right to judge them accordingly.

Surely you're not referring to my comedy skills.

[RonTheSavage]

I can respect, while disagreeing with, people who take the addiction is a disease position. I can respect people who take the personal responsibility position and refuse to cut DJ any slack on addiction. What I cannot respect is the (fortunately few) people here who choose this occasion to exercise their "comedy" skills, and even mores those who seem to take positive delight in DJ's problem.  I have never been a fan at all of DJ.  Still am not.  But he hasn't fallen as far in my respect level as some of the posters in this thread.  The certainly have their right to have their opinion and make their comments.  But I also have the right to judge them accordingly.

Count me as one of the personal responsibility people that refuse to cut this guy any slack. No sympathy here and if he never swings a club on Tour again thats his bad.

[Bananarama]

Im not sure who is cooler now, tiger or DJ.

[Golfingdad]

Count me as one of the personal responsibility people that refuse to cut this guy any slack. No sympathy here and if he never swings a club on Tour again thats his bad.

I realize that they're not your words and you're just parrotting the choice given, but I would just like to point out that it's possible to believe in personal responsibility and acknowledge that he made a lot of bad choices, yet at the same time still have some sympathy for the guy and his family and root for him to recover.

[14ledo81]

I realize that they're not your words and you're just parrotting the choice given, but I would just like to point out that it's possible to believe in personal responsibility and acknowledge that he made a lot of bad choices, yet at the same time still have some sympathy for the guy and his family and root for him to recover.

I agree with this here.

As @Ernest Jones said earlier in this thread (or the other one), "but for the grace of God, there go I"....