Nike’s unveiling last week of a new ad featuring golf-pro-turned-tabloid-fodder Tiger Woods caused quite the buzz. And much like the game of golf, people seemed to either love it or hate it. In polling my colleagues, I wanted to test my theory that reaction to the ad may be generational: professionals younger than 40 were much more positive about the ad and its objectives (although unclear) than those over 40. Here are some of the reactions from public relations and communications experts from across the country that generally support that theory.
“In a lot of ways, I think the ad was a bold move. Had Nike came back with a stereotypical ad with Tiger on the golf course, it may have appeared trite and would have ignored the giant elephant in the room. I think this was Nike’s way of addressing the situation so they could move on and put the scandal behind them.It also didn’t hurt that the ad is somewhat controversial with the inclusion of Tiger’s father. Controversy always has a way of generating buzz. The bottom line is that this ad is not going to sell a lot of Nike apparel, but then again, that wasn’t really the point, was it?” Laura Click, Nashville consultant
“Bravo Nike for taking a stance on showing they still stand behind Tiger (who is, let’s be real, the greatest golfer of all time), but that they don’t condone his behavior. What a fantastic way to show the world they have integrity!” Gini Dietrich, CEO, Arment Dietrich.
“A little creepy to hear a dead guy’s voice, but brilliant. A lot of the chatter around the Tiger situation was what would his father say. I think he ‘asked’ some important questions, and I’d like to hear Tiger’s answers. Maybe the next ad.” Abbie S. Fink, Vice President/General Manager, HMA Public Relations.
“The commercial did not work for me on a number of levels. Mainly because the ‘Did you learn anything?’ question appears to not be answered. You darn well better have a ‘Yes I learned something…’ response to close the loop. Otherwise, you open yourself up to brand parodies ‘Do you learn anything? Yes, just do it.’ I also see Tiger just standing there and not reacting to the key question, like my oldest son does when I am telling him something and he doesn’t get it. He is standing there, listening and then will move on. Basically the ad catches my attention – but it doesn’t work for me.” Mark W. McClennan, APR, Vice President, Schwartz Communications
“My first reaction was is this a joke or is it for real? When I realized it was real, I thought it was ill-advised. It seemed contrived, and I’m not sure what it was supposed to prove. I now wonder if it was Nike’s way of helping Tiger move on with his life.” Aileen Katcher, APR, Fellow, PRSA, Katcher Vaughn & Bailey Public Relations
“The ad did nothing to help Woods or Nike. There is no ethical stance from the subject or the sponsor. With the help of some very creative people, Nike and Woods worked together to create pure manipulation. I did see a brilliant ad, as well as faux contrition supported by crass commercialism. A pained-looking Tiger reacting to his dad’s words never would have seen the light of day if that conversation actually took place.” Bob Reed, Element-R Partners LLC
“I think it’s odd, eerie and buzz-worthy. What more could you want in an ad? It doesn’t make me feel any differently about him; it just happens to be a good ad.” Margie Maddox Newman, Flack Rabbit.
“College public relations students agreed that the ad was creepy and exploits Tiger’s dead father. But, from a Gen Why perspective, they think it will sell Nikes!” Susan Barnes, APR, Fellow, Instructor
According to this blog from the New York Times, the data indicate the ad seems to be working via online measurement indicators. Another poll claims the opposite, and Brandweek has weighed in on the topic - all of which begs the question of how old were those polled to collect the data.
Want to add your two cents? Send us a comment!