Much has been (un)covered, blogged, tweeted, aired and everything possibly done under the sun to publicize the private life of Tiger Woods. I personally know very little about golf and don't follow the game, especially coming from a cricket crazy nation. But I do respect, admire and know Tiger as one of the greatest golf players. It isn't easy getting to the top and it is ever more difficult to stay there in our respective professions.
Tiger is not just a great player but is a great brand of the sport and until recent events was even a great brand himself. It is public knowledge that the player endorses several global brands (apart from his own) and the ones that I recall are Accenture, Nike, Tag Heuer, Gillete, and perhaps there are many more that I do not know. The key question is, how will these companies that own these brands reexamine their association with the player for their branding, endorsements, sponsorships, etc.?
Among those brands I've listed above, and in my personal experience, I've seen and recall a lot more market communication (in both print and television) from Accenture that involves the player compared to other brands like Tag Heuer, Nike and Gillette. All other brands (listed here) with the exception of Accenture, leverage accomplished individuals from other sports or professions as their brand ambassadors or have alternate communication strategies. Probably because of the nature of their business. For example, Nike has associations with other sports depending on its business interests, like soccer or athletics for instance, and will have professionals from that sport endorsing their brands. I'm sure it also has communication strategies that do not depend on "individuals". Tag Heuer for example has other brand ambassadors like Shahrukh Khan for instance in India apart from the player himself.
Over the years, and again in my personal opinion, Accenture has built and nurtured its brand through some effective market communication that leverages and corelates Tiger's strengths in the game to its very own brand attributes. It has cleverly crafted and communicated its positioning and differentiated itself through some creative and effective communication strategies. It has undoubtedly created tremendous recall and awareness for its brand. But in doing so it has heavily relied and centered all its branding and market communication around the player. Will this over dependence on the player create potential damage to Accenture's brand? Unlike in the B2C business, the B2B services world and its target audience don't rely heavily on advertisements. May be there is very little or nothing to worry at all and this will all end up as just another blip. However, what will be interesting to watch is how Accenture (or for that matter, other brands and products that the player is associated with) will re-assess its brand strategy moving forward and its long association with the golfer.
Tiger is not just a great player but is a great brand of the sport and until recent events was even a great brand himself. It is public knowledge that the player endorses several global brands (apart from his own) and the ones that I recall are Accenture, Nike, Tag Heuer, Gillete, and perhaps there are many more that I do not know. The key question is, how will these companies that own these brands reexamine their association with the player for their branding, endorsements, sponsorships, etc.?
Among those brands I've listed above, and in my personal experience, I've seen and recall a lot more market communication (in both print and television) from Accenture that involves the player compared to other brands like Tag Heuer, Nike and Gillette. All other brands (listed here) with the exception of Accenture, leverage accomplished individuals from other sports or professions as their brand ambassadors or have alternate communication strategies. Probably because of the nature of their business. For example, Nike has associations with other sports depending on its business interests, like soccer or athletics for instance, and will have professionals from that sport endorsing their brands. I'm sure it also has communication strategies that do not depend on "individuals". Tag Heuer for example has other brand ambassadors like Shahrukh Khan for instance in India apart from the player himself.
Over the years, and again in my personal opinion, Accenture has built and nurtured its brand through some effective market communication that leverages and corelates Tiger's strengths in the game to its very own brand attributes. It has cleverly crafted and communicated its positioning and differentiated itself through some creative and effective communication strategies. It has undoubtedly created tremendous recall and awareness for its brand. But in doing so it has heavily relied and centered all its branding and market communication around the player. Will this over dependence on the player create potential damage to Accenture's brand? Unlike in the B2C business, the B2B services world and its target audience don't rely heavily on advertisements. May be there is very little or nothing to worry at all and this will all end up as just another blip. However, what will be interesting to watch is how Accenture (or for that matter, other brands and products that the player is associated with) will re-assess its brand strategy moving forward and its long association with the golfer.
The point is how much of credibility is really riding on Tiger for Accenture or all the other brands he endorses? And how will it impact brand equity or sales? If it doesn't, then the larger question is "are brand ambassadors worth what they are paid for"? Or should marketers just use them to create awareness for their brands and get rid of them along the brand or product journey?
While the player is going through a credibility crisis in his personal life how much will it affect brands that the player is associated with? Will his excellence in the game prevail over his moral virtues? Or is it back to the woods for the Tiger in the world of branding and sports marketing?
