Fresh Thinking Starts Here

The Case For Dumping Tiger

Let's get this out of the way right from the start - I have no official opinion on the recent headlines surrounding Tiger Woods and his personal life.  In my opinion, his private life ought to be private.  He is a golfer who should be admired for his accomplishments on the golf course.  But off the golf course, he's just another human being.  I don't condone the activities he's being accused of, but I'm neither a friend nor relative of his and he owes me nothing (other than to put on a good show when he's in a golf tournament I've paid to watch).  And it is certainly not my place to judge him - especially when I have no personal knowledge of the real facts.

With that in mind, this post is purely business related - nothing personal here. 

From a purely business and marketing standpoint, though, I think there is a real opportunity for one of Tiger's major sponsors to step up and walk away from their relationship with him.  So far, all the sponsorship news has revolved around the universal support Tiger has received from his business partners.  Whether it be Nike, Gatorade, Accenture, AT&T, NetJets or any of the others, they have all come out to say that they are standing by Tiger in this crazy time in his life.

Makes sense at a macro level.  I mean, regardless of how many 'transgressions' Tiger has, he will always be a huge star.  And, it may be that, as Seth Meyers put it on Saturday Night Live, Woods' sponsors sticking with him is "a gesture that only means one thing -- women don't watch golf."

But, as the bad news keeps piling on and as more and more women come out with their Tiger affair allegations, the time may come where it is going to be harder and harder for the sponsors to stay the course.

That is why there are huge benefits to whichever sponsor decides to cut to the chase, break the party lines, and publicly walk away from Tiger right now.  Think about the press they would get, the gratitude they would get from women and pro-family activists everywhere.  Even if every other sponsor followed them, the first one to break the ranks would derive the vast majority of the benefits of doing so.

As far as I can tell, Tiger has about 11 major sponsors:

- Nike
- Gatorade
- Gillette
- NetJets
- Accenture
- Electronic Arts
- TLC Vision
- AT&T
- TAG Heuer
- Upper Deck
- Golf Digest

Of those, here are my top picks for who would get the most benefit by jumping off the Tiger Train(wreck):

- AT&T: First of all, I didn't even know Tiger was sponsored by them until I saw it on his website.  Plus, phones are not a 'male' thing and AT&T can use all the positive news it can get right now.  And if Verizon gets the iPhone next year, fuhgetaboudit!  Publicly drop Tiger and millions of women may automatically forgive all their AT&T dropped calls...

- TLC Vision: A Laser Eye center?  Really?  They ought to jump all over this (and save millions in unnecessary sponsorship dollars all at the same time!)

- Gillette: The "Best a Man Can Get" campaign is starting to get a bit stale anyways.  And the way it's been set up it is logical to rotate in new sports stars every now and then.  Why do men shave anyways?  To look good for women... And if the women have a preference on what razor we use, we're probably going to listen!  Not to mention the halo effect to P&G...

So, that's it.  Again, nothing personal for or against Tiger.  Just seems like the opportunity is there for someone to step up, do something unexpected, and reap the benefits...

How a Home Run Idea Strikes Out

Was doing some catalog reading last night in anticipation of the holidays and came across the following product in the Brookstone catalog:

Pretty neat idea, I thought, upon first glance.  I definitely know some sports fans (not Red Sox fans, mind you, but I guess they had to choose one for the pic...) who might enjoy this.

After taking a closer look, though, it dawned on me that this might not be the best gift after all...  You see, by placing the Home score on the left and the Visitor score on the right, they have virtually guaranteed that for the majority of the day your team will be losing - and most of the time, losing VERY badly.  Right now in the picture the Red Sox are losing 18-6.  Just think how depressing it would be for the fan who owns this every day when they are getting ready to leave the office at 4:59!  Talk about a design flaw!  Swing and a miss!

On second thought, maybe this would be a good gift for a Red Sox fan! :) (Sorry Tom...)

Question Assumptions. Check Facts. Conclude Responsibly.

Faulty Assumptions + Inertia = Group Think Gone Bad.

While I'm sure that this has always been a problem inherent to human nature, the relatively recent boon of social media has caused it to explode.  Here's a quick synopsis of how it seems to work:

1 - someone of relatively high esteem to a certain subgroup of the marketing community addresses a topic, provides his/her perspective of the relevant facts, and makes a bold and attention grabbing conclusion (usually about how ridiculous the actions of other marketers in a certain situation have been).

2 - the subgroup of folks who hold the high regard for the source then jump on the bandwagon, praise the conclusions, and add their own unique spin so that they appear to add value.

3 - subgroups of marketers who then hold this broader subgroup in high regard repeat step 2.

4 - the cycle repeats, with the individual in step 1 broadening their reach to the outer subgroups and the entire story gaining more credibility and greater acceptance as fact.

OK, so it doesn't always spin that far out of control - but the steps listed above are very often not too far from the truth. 

So, here's the problem... What if the 'facts' laid out in step 1 by the originator are not facts at all?  What if the 'facts' are really assumptions - and faulty ones at that?  What if these assumptions were made to conveniently fit a pre-conceived conclusion?  (not maliciously, per se, but many times it just seems to work out that way...).  The end result is that through the supposed enlightened debate that originates from the original thesis and conclusion, the originating underlying assumptions gain a de facto status as fact.

Often, the folks who jump on the conversation bandwagon never stop to question the 'facts' (assumptions).  That, of course, is the boring part of the whole exercise.  They are all too happy, though, to skip to the end and weigh in on the conclusions (most often, again, related to someone else's obvious mistakes and the smarter, more strategic, more creative ways they would have handled the situation.)

This, my friends, is dangerous and is indicative of a greater problem within the marketing community.  As past BMC speaker Kevin Clancy eloquently points out in the title of his last book..."Your Gut Is Still Not Smarter Than Your Head."

Here's a recent example of how something like this plays out:  I belong to a special interest group on branding within the American Marketing Association.  A topic was created with the title: Another Brand Bites The Dust.  It was a conversation-starter related to the recent news that a deal to sell SAAB had fallen through.  The main question was 'What really killed the brand?"

The immediate chatter focused on how GM was to blame for taking this successful brand and killing it.  Then the storm began of add-on comments which aimed to pinpoint exactly which stupid actions by GM resulted in taking this once wildly successful brand and running it into the ground.  They marketed to the mean, they didn't innovate, they priced it too high, etc...

This conversation went on the majority of the day with not one single person questioning the original assumption that SAAB was once a successful brand.  In order for GM to 'kill' it, the implication was that SAAB had been a success until it was taken over and run into the ground by the US auto giant.

The only problem is...that isn't true.  The reality is that, prior to GM acquiring 50% of SAAB in 1989, SAAB was a perennial money-loser.  In fact, prior to GM, SAAB had been experiencing heavy financial losses for nearly a decade and in 1989 was forced to shut one of its plants.

And so, a early offering of faulty assumptions, which quickly became accepted as fact, gained steam and generated a days worth of conversation and conclusions which stemmed from a flawed starting point. 

My fear is that with all the 'experts' these days (many of whom, nay, most of whom bestow that title upon themselves!) the marketing community as a whole has become a bit lazy.  Of course, it is easier to accept things as truths - but it is also far more dangerous.  It happens in popular culture, in intellectual discourse, and, perhaps most dangerously, in the way businesses are run and decisions are made. 

Question assumptions.  Check facts.  Conclude responsibly.