http://www.luxurydaily.com/rolex-signs-tiger-woods-former-face-of-tag-hueur-as-brand-ambassador/
Tiger Woods lost all of his major sponsorships in the mist of his extramarital affairs incident not long ago (only NIKE stood by him), and one of the companies that dropped him as brand ambassador was Tag Heuer, his wrist watch sponsor. Tag Heuer thought at the time that Tiger would not be a good representative for the brand. Months later, Tiger joined team Rolex along with other top athletes in their perspective sports, such as Phil Mickelson, Roger Federer, Li Na and Caroline Wozniacki.
A quote from the article interested me:
“There is always a loss of control when you tie a corporate brand to the behavior of a celebrity,” said Samantha Ettus, a branding expert at Experts Media, Los Angeles. “[But] Rolex made a great decision,I agree with the quote as people associates brands with what the brands stand for, and not relate morals or negativity with the brands. Foe example, when people think of Bud-light, they think of their slogan, "Here We Go" have a good time; people never relate to the underage drinking, bad decisions that comes from drinking or the potential drunk driving that associates with drinking and having a good time. I think when Tiger had his issues, all of the sponsors became over-sensitive and only NIKE was brave enough to ride out the storm.
“They are a brand that aims to connote luxury and an expensive lifestyle,” she said. “Their brand is not tied to anything wholesome or family-oriented.
I think that is an excellent point. The decision of a sponsor to drop a celebrity should be directly linked to what the product represents. Rolex is such a well established brand name that it would be highly unlikely that any association with Tiger Woods could lower the brands estimation in the eyes of the public. At worst, it would have no positive or negative on the brand name. As for Nike, I think they were kinda "all in" when it came to Tiger Woods. They had spent a fortune building campaigns around his persona. They would be associated with Tiger Woods even if they dropped him as a sponsor. I think it was definitely the right call for them to ride it out.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that it makes sense for any brand to be in "bad company" especially one that has spend years building a luxury brand to be respected. I do agree that Nike didn't have a lot of choice though. Consider the different target audiences for the 2 brands. How much difference did that make?
ReplyDeleteBut its also a good example of the ties to traditional mass media marketing that still exist; often to the detriment of Internet strategies. I'm trying to think of a major Internet-only brand that has a celebrity spokesperson; they are more likely to have a sock puppet or a Siri--more controllable!
Professor, sometimes a company should shows belief/good faith in its ambassadors.
DeleteFor example - the LAKERS right now basically has a no-trade clause on Kobe Bryant, which will make Kobe retire as a Laker. It is like a reward for so many years of excellent service and the championships won. It boosts the company's reputation to stick with its franchise player through thick and thin (Kobe's alleged rape case).
Nike decided to stick with Tiger because Tiger was the face of Nike's Golf brand for so many years. Nike stuck with Tiger because Tiger stuck with it. Tiger did not jump to other brands, he was faithful to Nike.
Sure, short term it might look "bad" to sponsor a tainted athlete, but look at the long term picture?