"Tyger, tyger, burning bright/In the forests of the night/What immortal hand or eye/Could frame thy fearful symmetry?" Back in 1794, William Blake asked this question of his metaphorical tiger. The rest of the poem continues to delve into the nature of the tiger; what is it that makes the man and who is the one responsible for that creation?
Essentially, who are you?
Turn to 2009 and you're probably sick to death (or morbidly fascinated) by the saga of another Tiger. A private matter has exploded publicly, and the question that hangs above all the allegations, innuendo, and conjecture is, "Who is Tiger, really?"
Do we have the right to know? Normally, I'd say no, but Tiger Woods -- of his own volition -- is not just a man. He's a brand, to whom several companies have attached their name. He is a brand and an icon that has been set up to deliver a maximum return on his sponsors' investment -- and part of that is built upon the façade that Tiger created for the public.
Already vilified in the court of public opinion, Tiger's guilt or innocense will be proven in due time. The damage to his brand? That's instantaneous and long-standing.
A news report today said that Gatorade is dropping its Tiger Focus beverage. The timing's odd and the editor of the publication that reported it (Beverage Digest) said he knew of the decision long before Tiger's run-in with a tree. Maybe so. But if the allegations continue to grow against Tiger, don't be surprised if more and more companies pull out.
Sure, they won't say outright that it's because they're not pleased with Tiger's behaviour. Rather, they'll dredge up the whole "economy" excuse, or play the "we're going a different way in our sponsorships" card. But we know the truth. We're not dumb. If you hitch your wagons to a crazy horse, don't be surprised if it leads you astray. The Tiger brand is careening out of control right now and it could drag down the reputation of other companies in its plummet.
Being in communications, we've had discussions about sponsorships/athletes, etc. off and on. A lot of times it's just fun, water-cooler talk, questioning who would be the best to represent our brand. Tiger's name always came up. Why? Because he's a global icon who, up until a week or so ago, was an ideal spokesman. Now? Who knows. (Personally, my vote's for Yao Ming -- global icon, big in China [uhm, no pun intended] which is a good market for us, well-known in North America. But that's just my two cents.)
Charles Barkley, the former NBA star and current TV talking head, has long argued that he is not a role model. In fact, his speech was the focus of a commercial by his sponsor, Nike. In essence, his argument was that thousands of guys in jail can dunk a basketball -- should they be role models because of their athletic prowess?
He's absolutely right. And wrong. Yes, kids should look up to doctors, police, firemen -- any number of honourable professions that are filled with selfless everyday heroes who serve their communities and country. But the fact is that kids don't have posters of open-heart surgeons on their walls. They have hockey players, basketball stars, and gridiron greats. It's the way it is, and athletes (and celebrities as well) have to be cogniscent of that reality.
It's part of the game. You want the paycheque that comes with adulation, sponsorships, and licensing deals? Then you have to maintain your brand and image. That's your responsibility to your fans and your corporate partners.
So what's a company to do? Kobe Bryant was famously acquitted of rape and kept most of his sponsorships. But has that event stained his pristine reputation? You bet. There are many people who think he's guilty and refuse to support his sponsors. And thousands of number 8 jerseys probably found their way to the trash heap.
Should it matter? That choice is up to you. I've been a fan of Michael Jackson all my life. I like his music. Do I like the man? I didn't know him, nor do I know whether or not the assorted allegations against him were true. Should it matter? If you like a song or a movie, should that change because the singer turns out to be a murderer? Do we appreciate the art or the artist?
Personally, I think it's the former that matters. I love Van Gogh's The Starry Night. Does it matter that the painting's of the view from his sanitorium room? No. If it comes out that Van Gogh ritually beat little puppies would that change my impression? Of the man, maybe; of the art, no.
But if Van Gogh was representing the company I work for, then you're darn right that matters. (Can you imagine that? "Hi, I'm Vince. And I'd give my left ear for an XS Energy Drink right now!")
Advertising's a double-edged sword. You can ride the wave of popularity, but if it ever crests and crashes, your brand will go along with it. All those companies that wanted Tiger before and paid through the nose for it are now wondering if they should have been more carefull for what they wished.
At one point we had a relationship with Asafa Powell. And, after the Olympics, I wrote an Achieve article thanking our athletes for their efforts. Our partnership with Asafa wasn't all about a gold medal (sure that would have been nice), but it was about being your best and striving for greatness. An otherworldly performance by Usain Bolt doesn't change the pride we feel for Asafa being a Double X user. Since then, both parties have moved on, but at the time some criticised us for supporting a fourth-place finisher. And that's the danger of sponsoring athletes. Regardless of why you do it, external perceptions can run counter to what your intentions may have been.
Is there an alternative? I'm not sure. Would Pepsi start doing commercials like, "I'm Ben Agiter, molecular biologist. When I was researching a rare protein on milk peptides, an ice-cold Pepsi always kept me going!" I'm going to say no (unless the point of the commercial was self-referential humour, I guess... Sounds like a viral video). Stars sell -- especially to younger kids. Idol worship and the desire to emulate one's heroes will always be there.
In the end, people are people. A superstar is no less susceptible to lapses in judgement than the next person, nor should they necessarily be more scrutinized for them. But when that star decides to trade in on his or her brand identity, exploiting that trust for financial gain, then they lose that right. If you want to reap the financial benefits of a pristine brand then you have to stay pristine.
Your thoughts? Should companies attach their brand or their name to athletes? If so, whom do you feel would be the best to represent Amway/ARTISTRY/NUTRILITE/LEGACY OF CLEAN? If not, why? Feel free to speak up in the comments section below!
All the best,
Jay