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.

We'll see. This incident has had a way of causing people to see how early certainty might be misplaced.

It's still possible this is all a tall tale. But a friend of mine has been told the same thing by someone who lives in the same community. I don't think anyone can say for certain it's false, any more than they can say for certain it's true.

I'm guessing you knew this and are asking hypothetically, but JIC: The US Open was not held 1942-1945. PGA was not held 1943. Masters was not held 1943-1945. So perhaps the question is reduced to - had same person won the PGA and Masters in 1942, wouild that have been a Slam?

An interesting, and different, slant in a recent news item for consideration: Tiger Woods' extramarital affairs could cost you if you hold stock in a company he sponsors or a mutual fund that holds stock in those companies. A new study - not yet published in a journal - finds the market value lost to companies that had the golfer as a sponsor is already as high as $12 billion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/...sinstockmarket But - now a possible market buy opportunity?

I had not heard about Heuer deciding to "stand by" Woods - last I heard, they had decided to suspend marketing relationships in the US, but I guess this was never completely defined. Interesting promo language on the Heuer web site: It is both his character and his achievements that make Tiger Woods unique..... With his personality and his results, he is a perfect example of prestige and performance which are so important to TAG Heuer. http://www.tagheuer.com/the-brand/st...aphy/index.lbl I have to say - a few ago I was in an upscale jeweler's for my annual Christmas penance to my wife when I noticed the Heuer poster featuring Woods looking purposefully into the distance and the line: "What are you made of?" It was a little jarring. This is a store geared to a small niche that is not likely to be following Woods' golf exploits very closely. Next time I go in, I'll ask what they are hearing about the marketing campaign.

Of course there are always some "damn statistics" somewhere to support just about any argument but I'm not sure this is right. A quick search shows that the National Golf Foundation (public records, I don't have access to their materials requiring registration) has reported the annual number of rounds has decreased (example, from 600 million in 2000 to 495 million in 2003, and 2% decrease in 2008 versus 2007); numerous manufacturers have gone out of business the past couple of years; and fewer courses are opening. Here's a different source making basically the same point: http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/i...%20Analysi.pdf Purely from local anecdotal evidence, facilities in my region are seeing fewer players/rounds; some are going out of businss and others are offering severely discounted membership rates. Based on this, my impression is that Woods probably stimulated some interest about 6-7 years ago, but now that interest is more in the form of passive spectators than active players, the number of which is decreasing. Anyone with actual stats feel free to correct.

I don't think it's fair to say that Accenture was shady. While it was a part of AA, the consulting side was always completely separate from the accounting side that had problems with Enron. Within the past year, Motley Fool called their rep "pristine" ( http://www.fool.com/investing/value/...accenture.aspx ) and as far as I know, Accenture is well regarded by the international business commmunity. Its international ad campaigns io airports featuring Woods were very noticeable to travelling business execs, and given the focus on the campaign - integrity, discipline, reliability - in a service industry where repuation is everything, it's not very surprising they concluded that Woods wasn't going to help them. In contrast, Nike has a very different image and target audience, so I can see why they will stick with Woods.

Not yet perhaps, but if they get into a nasty fight over other things, that could change. Not because it's Tiger, but because that's the way it frequently goes. Angry parties in litigation seize whatever leverage they can. It's not very good for the kids, but it happens.

Like everyone else, I would be surprised if Woods used PEDs. My instinct is to doubt it, but I have learned that I cannot tell if anyone uses PEDs just by watching them (well, possibly excepting Bonds). But if the same story were posted about a doctor and track athletes or baseball players, I bet most people would think there could well be something to it and would be suspicious of the doctor's activities: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4746860 : "Galea has a client list that includes former Canadian Olympic gold medal-winning sprinter Donovan Bailey and hurdler Mark McKoy, as well as other prominent American professional athletes. The doctor has in the past acknowledged personally using HGH himself and in the treatment of some patients, though not with any athletes." The history of virtually all pro athletes in this area has been to deny they did anything before being caught. See the whole Balco mess. Moreover, we would be drawn to a story about any doctor who attended to the dominant player in any sport. So, I don't think following this story is piling on Woods. It's a legitimate news item. What remains to be seen is whether any solid evidence develops.

This is an important point. Kids have their own friends, social activities and routine. What they want and need is stability, not just to be dragged along; not usually a good idea to make their lives revolve around a parent's schedule. Besides, going to events will mean spending time to prepare properly and I don't see how this translates to quality time with the kids. I think the folks at Augusta will take a wait and see approach. If things begin to quiet down, I could see him playing the Masters. They are uniquely able to stifle undesired public commentary, including by the TV media at the event. If we are still hearing wild comments, then they might communicate to Woods it would be a good idea for him not to play in 2010. I could easily see him playing a reduced schedule. He can be sincere in his stated intentions, but such competitive people have a very hard time truly giving it up altogether.

With regard to some of the legal and other strategies discussed above, the WSJ now has an op-ed: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

It was supposedly with a Hollywood madam - $60K for 6 dates in 2006 and 2007: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...I4e1IEA9ODtbpI

You might be right with your first para, obviously I don't know about the history of the purchase, but on the second - we don't know what the pre-nup (original or amended) says in all relevant parts. Typically such agreements have clauses in which each party makes representations to the other about certain underlying facts that the parties rely upon in agreeing to the terms. It's possible the terms she accepted (original or amended) are conditioned on specific stated facts, or other conditions, which she might now claim are false and thus void her consent. Or, there may not be any such clauses in the agreement. These can be very gray issues. What isn't so gray is the likely effect all this has on kids.

FWIW, on a radio talkshow last night, someone called in who said he owned a grocery store and had received a notice of product discontinuance well before this news broke. Woods still has some (deserved, IMO) lumps to take, and he'd better have a thick skin next season because the jokes will continue for a while, but the overwhelming history in the US is that "moral" transgressors can and usually do overcome such faults in the general public's eye. I'm sure there will be a percentage of people who will not forgive him, but how many are golf fans who attend an event? Plus, Woods is nothing if not well-managed, and you know he will have the best PR talent money can buy advising him on a comprehensive strategy (IMO, for example, he would be well advised to tone down the attitude issues on course, and his foundation will undertake more activity, as part of such a strategy - there are already op-ed pieces calling for just that). His sponsors have invested too much to let their investment go to waste. I'll be surprised if Nike isn't eventually in the forefront of "rehabilitating" Woods through a new ad campaign.

Yes, really. I guess this also means that since females are "genetically programmed" to go with the male who can best take care of them, no husband should mind when their wife decides she (or she and the kids) have a better deal this week down the street. Sorry hubbys, go find someone weaker you can take from.

The way these things usually go, that's not really a surprise, unfortunately. I'm afraid this is going to lead to whole new series of jokes - leader in the clubhouse, posting a final number in the red, etc. Will Letterman, with what he just went through, let this go? In really surprising news, it's reported that Elin is re-doing their pre-nup. No - not surprising that this would happen - but that the reported amount of the first one was so small. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34243626...inment-gossip/

"Tips Obama Can Take From Tiger": Looks like Michelle will have her staff scour the WH to remove any copies of this particular issue.

While I don't read the Sun and didn't see the second page (sounds like I should go back and check), I would agree if they were alone - but they're not the only source reporting this. http://news.bostonherald.com/track/c...icleid=1215837 Point is, stonewalling can make it easier for these stories to get traction when they would otherwise be dismissed.

I agree - if that's where his head was. Do we know? Was he knocked across into the passenger side, such that the driver's window wasn't near his head? It's not clear to me that everyone is talking about the same thing. If you mean the rear window behind the driver, then I think your suggestion is plausible. But I thought Feinstein (and others) have been talking about the back window (as in, the tailgate window) - if so, it would be impossible to reach in and unlock the driver's door. Feinstein, and others (like PR consultants), are suggesting he could defuse speculation with some well-timed disclosures as a strategic measure. Anyone who has worked in DC knows that the more you fight disclosure, the more the media wants to go after you. There's a long, long history of experience behind this strategy. But now that window of opportunity may be closing. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ger-Woods.html

As you are free to do. But I find Feinstein's logic (and that of the bloggers who agree with him) more compelling. And he's not some sports media neophyte rushing to the scene of the train wreck for a TV show blitz, but a thoughtful person who has spent a lot of time specifically covering golf and the personalities, plus other sports where stars have encountered similar media situations.

Here is why he should talk: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...113003170.html "Right now Tiger Woods has lost control of his public persona. There's only one person who can get it back. The sooner Woods understands that, the better off he will be."

John Edwards feels the same way. But - we shouldn't forget the impact this kind of speculation has on their kids. We'll find out soon enough.

I believe OP's point was made in sarcasm - the company would not release a chart unless it touted the new products over the old ones, in order to promote sales. I have long used the 905 and been happy with it. But it's been a few years; maybe I should look at the 909s.

My wife and I are planning to play. Course should be empty, but unlike CA, here in the East the weather is hit or miss this time of year. If we get a sunny day, we'll feel like we got away with one. THEN the turkey. Great day if it works.