I couldn’t give a tinker’s toss about Tiger Woods but I am also fairly sickened by the hypocrisy of the firms dropping him like a hot cake. Presumably they will all be purging their Boards and senior management of all who have a record of extra marital affairs?
What really got me is the fact that a consulting company called Accenture is paying Woods 12 million dollars. If I were either an employee or a shareholder of this company I would be asking what commercial value it can possibly be recovering from this arrangement.
Call me an old cynic but I suspect it has more to do with the fact that key board members are golf groupies who love to turn up at tournaments in exotic places around the world glad handing it and maxing out on their expense accounts as they “promote” the company.
OK, perhaps a tad harsh…? I picked this little rant up from a quality ranter friend of mine yesterday and because it unsettled me – I wanted to share it. I think there is a point worth discussing in here, and whilst $12m may not be much (cough cough) to the company in question, it’s quite a pile of loot.
I wonder what kind of social engagement could have been funded with this sum? Imagine if the company had engaged with colleagues and customers to co-create a piece of work designed to meet community needs. The kind of social engagement that might have made folk think – hey – these guys are in it for the money so they can do something cool with some of it. I know…the next time we need business advice we’ll consider using a firm that maybe gives a damn…
Like my ranter friend, I struggle to see a sufficiently compelling link between advising and encouraging organisations to be the best they can, and a lone wolf type of sports star. Whatever you think of Mr Woods, a team player he is not (self confessed). And as much as it might disappoint the egos of some high flyers, without people, we’re nothing.
What might you do with $12m of sponsorship fund?
Wow – this post has sparked some interesting discussions! Here is some of what folk have been saying:
Terry Barnes: It raises kind of an interesting point for me. (I’m aware that I’m often the only one who finds my points interesting). A substantial number of the public have extra-marital affairs – as partly evidenced by the divorce rate. Similarly a significant proportion of the general public conduct other ‘misdemeanours’ that tend to land celebrity endorsers (endorsees?) in hot water.
Is there then a danger that by saying Tiger is no longer fit to represent Company X because of his behaviour that they are also broadcasting the message to a proportion of their customers that maybe they’re no longer fit to be customers of that company?
If someone worked up the numbers on the proportion of the population that have done something that, were they a celebrity, would lose them the gig – what are the chances that the number of customers potentially being alienated are rather high?
My job in business is to sell products and services to people at a price they want to pay, wrapping that all up with lovely customer service. It’s not my place to make moral judgements on my customers or to disapprove of them.
Joseph Bridgstock: While I agree with some of the comments and sentiments here, I’m not sure I’d agree that Accenture are necessarily wrong to drop Tiger. Putting myself in their position, of running a consultancy company where trust and reputation are central to our relationships with customers, I can understand why they may not want a figure that is becoming associated with broken promises, lost trust, or infidelity to be the public face associated with their organisation.
While I accept that people are not perfect (including their senior management) I don’t think that means we should bin behavioural ideals or advocate lesser role models. The whole issue surrounding behaviour of senior management, huge financial endorsements, and self serving behaviour is certainly a wider discussion, but for me Accenture’s obvious concern about what message keeping Tiger as a public face will send is quite encouraging. Perhaps the fact they dropped him is an encouraging indicator that whatever their senior management imperfections, they recognise that people do still care about morals, honesty, integrity, keeping promises, and so on. For me that is a hopeful thought.
Anyway, all that said, I’ve never really cared about golf (I drove one once if that counts) and know very little about Tiger either. I do however join the mass of football followers that applaud the recent BBC recognition of Ryan Giggs, a hugely talented individual that behaves himself superbly. Maybe his agent should drop Accenture a line?
Terry Barnes: I think that’s partly my point Joseph. People mess up. Celebrities maybe more so than others because (stereotypically) they’re a) surrounded by sycophants who praise their every move and b) the subject of intense media scrutiny likely to bring any misdemeanours to light. The former is bad for your soul and likely to lead people into doing bad things, that latter means that the minute you do one of those bad things, everyone will know about it.
So – I think what I’m saying is that celebrity endorsements can only fail. It might take years, but they will fail. If Simon Le Bon is the perfect embodiment of everything that is good about a company that sells toasters, why wouldn’t I just buy a toaster from Simon Le Bon? What is missing from the company’s self-image that it feels that it can only tell me how great its toasters are through the medium of saying to me “Hey, we’re a bit like Simon Le Bon. For now. But only his good bits, obviously.”
Going back to Doug’s original point – how much is paid celebrity endorsement about improved brand image, and how much is about flattering the egos of the people who appoint them?
Tony Mason: What “celebrity” endorsments then would be apporopriate, given the rumours, would Aviva be a good tie-up for Tiger Woods? – can we expect to see chemical companies lining up with Pete Doherty? or certain football managers Wenger for specsavers, Ferguson for any watch manufacturer!
from a personal point of view I question the background of endorsements, as a quick fix in connecting certain traits of an individual to a product – surely brand management means a lot more than that – Volvo as a policy do not sponsor individuals because of this very reason.
I also wonder what impact the “non-sponsorship” opportunity cost would have if the same value was spent on customer service or pricing policies…..