Over the past week its been impossible to escape all the hoopla over Tiger Woods and his apology for "indiscretions". While we haven't discussed this in class, what do people think about celebrities as their own brand ? Earlier this month Forbes listed tiger as the world's biggest athlete brand raking in 105 million in endorsements last year. Also, an interesting article pointed out that Tiger's sponsor companies lost 2.3 % of stock value since the crash which comes out to just around $12 Billion.
Tiger Woods is clearly a brand, just like Michael Jordan and David Beckham. Do you think his apology was motivated by true personal remorse or just part of reconstructing his brand and Do you think that people link brands with the negative actions of athletes? Does anyone not buy Nike stuff as a result of Tiger's affairs or Michael Vick's dogfighting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Celebrities are absolutely brands, and I'm sure Tiger's apology was motivated by his hopes to resurrect his brand. After all, he doesn't owe the public any apology for his actions. He owes that apology to his family.
ReplyDeleteThe latest Nike commercial illustrates this idea perfectly. The commercial doesn't mention anything about Nike or their products. It simple features a remorseful-looking Tiger and the voice of his late father. Tiger has already said he's more excited than ever to tee off at the Masters, and - to me - this ad is a sign that it's time to move on and focus on what Tiger does best: Golf.
Here's a link to the commercial:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/7293521/19033053
The public absolutely links brands with negative actions of athletes. This is evident in the amount of athletes losing endorsements due to their personal problems. There are a few names that come to mind when discussing celebrities who have lost endorsements. These names include: Michael Vick, Kobe Bryant, and Ray Lewis. I have attached an article discussing these three athletes and the state of mind which the endorsers had when deciding to drop these athletes in their promotions.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that endorsers have one main goal: to make as much money as possible. Negative spotlight and brand associations only cause them more harm then good and hold back the companies goals of creating the most revenue possible.
link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/sports/football/01sandomir.html
Building on top of what Shamez just presented, there is one celebrity that has greatly been taking advantage of this new “trend” per se that has become increasingly popular nowadays: Oprah Winfrey. Oprah has announced that at beginnings of next year she will be launching her own cable TV network: The Oprah Winfrey Network (OWN). She will be taking advantage of the “brand equity” revolving around her name to create something that critics are calling “not just another cable launch.” Her cable network will feature Oprah in two different shows and will contain several other shows of prominent figures and professionals that have appeared in her talk show. However, the biggest surprise that has arisen with this recent news is not the launching of Oprah’s cable network itself, but the advertisement investment it has already generated from some of the biggest corporations in the world.
ReplyDeleteIts largest contributor so far is Procter & Gamble with an initial investment of $100 million. P&G’s contract with OWN will extend a total of three years and gives P&G the authority to feature its products not only in commercials presented in the network, but also in the many shows that will be broadcasted in OWN. Although this investment represents less than 10% of the budgeted advertisement investment for 2010 for the company, P&G hopes to gain an early advantage over its competitors due to the fact that it forecasts increasing prices on advertisement for the next three years and a decreasing opportunity to hold similar privileges as themselves in the future. Now it is all up to Oprah to make her network a success.
Source: http://www.AdAge.com
- Cristian Lacayo
We all know what Tiger said once he finally came out to speak, but why did it take him so long to do just that? He has been criticized for his hermitry since the car crash, which has been described as poor public relations. Why didn’t he just come out and explain the situation within a few days instead of waiting multiple months before his first press conference? This allowed time for rumors to fester and opinions to be cemented. Had he come out early, he could have cleared the air and set the record straight. He was reportedly in talks with his sponsors during his “quiet period;” so they apparently dropped him after speaking with him. But I would assume if he came out early and the public was forgiving (as they were to Clinton), then many sponsors would not have needed to drop him after all. Do you think he handled the situation in the best way?
ReplyDelete