BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico puts a gigantic spotlight on the danger of an oil company using a rebranding campaign to appear "green."
Ever since buying out Amoco several years ago, BP has presented itself as the green oil company. Of course, they would say they are not just an oil company, but an "energy company." Their logo is yellow and green, and looks like a sun/sunflower/something environmental. They've opened "green" gas stations and created customer participation programs for engaging in environmentally friendly activities.
The Gulf Coast oil spill is a huge contradiction to this image and reminds everyone of what business BP is in... the very dirty, messy, oily - yet necessary - oil business.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
Tiger's new Nike ad
Tiger Woods relaunched his marketing image late Wednesday with a new Nike ad. Much discussion has flowed from it. I have three takes on it - one personal, the other two as a marketing professional.
Personally... The ad is disgusting and disgraceful and opportunist in the worst possible way. Instead of continuing to keep saying the right things, relating to fans and appearing lighter and more accessible than before, Woods chose to jump right back into the circus. I was buying his rehabilitation and redemption this week and, even though it has zero direct effect on me, I was happy for him. He seemed like a different person. This ad told me he has not changed one bit. It's about the image, the money, the brand. It's a big negative for me and makes me care about him not one iota.
Professionally... I think Nike gave Tiger Woods an ultimatum. After months of wondering whether their international, billion-dollar brand might be suddenly ruined, they are anxious to get their brand equity back. They could not resist the opportunity to get their name in front of hundreds of millions of golf fans at Tiger's return to professional golf at the Masters. My guess is the power in their relationship has seriously swung from Tiger to Nike, and Nike told him he is going to do this, whether he wanted to do it or not. No doubt Tiger approved the concept and is not completely blameless in this. But I'm pretty sure Nike is driving it.
Creatively... How do you sell redemption? That was the ad agency's challenge. A dead father's voice, was their answer. (Here is where I think Tiger is morally bankrupt, allowing this concept to proceed. It is becoming increasingly documented that Earl Woods was not the upstanding moral figure that he is commonly portrayed as. Why allow him to be the "voice from beyond" in an ad like this?) It is certainly provocative and that was their goal. How do you overcome four months of disastrous PR? Clearly, this was their intended first step to turn the corner. Now that this is out there, the next ad can be a more standard sales ad. They had to acknowledge the situation and turn the corner so they could get on with the business of leveraging their top golf brand. Mission accomplished.
Addendum: ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski said it much better than I in this column.
Personally... The ad is disgusting and disgraceful and opportunist in the worst possible way. Instead of continuing to keep saying the right things, relating to fans and appearing lighter and more accessible than before, Woods chose to jump right back into the circus. I was buying his rehabilitation and redemption this week and, even though it has zero direct effect on me, I was happy for him. He seemed like a different person. This ad told me he has not changed one bit. It's about the image, the money, the brand. It's a big negative for me and makes me care about him not one iota.
Professionally... I think Nike gave Tiger Woods an ultimatum. After months of wondering whether their international, billion-dollar brand might be suddenly ruined, they are anxious to get their brand equity back. They could not resist the opportunity to get their name in front of hundreds of millions of golf fans at Tiger's return to professional golf at the Masters. My guess is the power in their relationship has seriously swung from Tiger to Nike, and Nike told him he is going to do this, whether he wanted to do it or not. No doubt Tiger approved the concept and is not completely blameless in this. But I'm pretty sure Nike is driving it.
Creatively... How do you sell redemption? That was the ad agency's challenge. A dead father's voice, was their answer. (Here is where I think Tiger is morally bankrupt, allowing this concept to proceed. It is becoming increasingly documented that Earl Woods was not the upstanding moral figure that he is commonly portrayed as. Why allow him to be the "voice from beyond" in an ad like this?) It is certainly provocative and that was their goal. How do you overcome four months of disastrous PR? Clearly, this was their intended first step to turn the corner. Now that this is out there, the next ad can be a more standard sales ad. They had to acknowledge the situation and turn the corner so they could get on with the business of leveraging their top golf brand. Mission accomplished.
Addendum: ESPN's Gene Wojciechowski said it much better than I in this column.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tiger and The Queen
During a late-night feeding with my daughter last night, I flipped on the TV and found "The Queen" starring Helen Mirren. She was nominated for an Academy Award for the role and after watching for a few minutes, I know why. Mirren is one of our finest actresses, overshadowed by Meryl Streep's greatness, but I would put her in the same league.
"The Queen" in the title is Britain's Elizabeth II, and the movie focuses much more on her reaction to Princess Diana's death than I realized. Tony Blair is the film's hero as it purports that he was reading the public sentiment perfectly while the queen and her husband Prince Phillip continued to disparage Diana even in death.
More than the dynamic of that situation, however, the film reminded me of the recent Tiger Woods media frenzy. In both situations, very powerful public figures misjudged the mood of the masses and created public relations nightmares for themselves. Both stonewalled the media and insisted that the media and the masses bend to their wills and their interpretations of the situation. In both cases, the strategy backfired horribly and the reputations of the public figures took a massive hit.
Elizabeth eventually relented and the people let her off the hook. Tiger has inched out of his cocoon, but has not yet fully come clean. Personally, I doubt he ever will.
For me, the lessons I took away from these somewhat similar situations are twofold:
1. Even without the Internet and the tabloid-reporting media frenzy (Diana died in 1997 at the cusp of the Internet's primacy), overwhelming media and public pressure could still hold sway over someone as powerful as the British monarch. So, the pressure Tiger Woods is experiencing is not completely a function of TMZ and its Internet ilk.
2. Was the queen wrong to change her position and is Tiger right in protecting his? Both of them formed rational arguments for their refusals to cave to public pressure. In the end, what do they owe us? What do they owe the public or the media? One might argue the queen has more of an obligation to the public than Tiger; after all, she represents the British people. However, by the very nature of her title, a monarch is not required to bend to the people whims. She is not elected and she is by birthright a higher level of being. By his performance on the golf course, Tiger Woods has made himself a higher leve of being, as well. What do these higher level of beings owe us mere mortals?
In the queen's case, she eventually felt her lack of empathy for Diana's death was a threat to her monarchy and relented. Whether she went through a personal conversion, we cannot know, although "The Queen" certainly indicates she did. Either way, she certainly understood the political realities she faced.
For Tiger, it all depends on how he feels he can best resume his position as a super-mortal in our society. Does full disclosure bring him too close to us so that his aura will never be the same? Or does his refusal to bring himself down to our levels leave him forever inaccessible and forever vanquished? Will he stick with his convictions and consequences be damned?
As I said, I don't count on Tiger going all Mark Sanford on us. But neither did I think Elizabeth II would capitulate to the pressures of the masses. Time will tell if our golfing king will ride this out as smoothly as the British queen.
"The Queen" in the title is Britain's Elizabeth II, and the movie focuses much more on her reaction to Princess Diana's death than I realized. Tony Blair is the film's hero as it purports that he was reading the public sentiment perfectly while the queen and her husband Prince Phillip continued to disparage Diana even in death.
More than the dynamic of that situation, however, the film reminded me of the recent Tiger Woods media frenzy. In both situations, very powerful public figures misjudged the mood of the masses and created public relations nightmares for themselves. Both stonewalled the media and insisted that the media and the masses bend to their wills and their interpretations of the situation. In both cases, the strategy backfired horribly and the reputations of the public figures took a massive hit.
Elizabeth eventually relented and the people let her off the hook. Tiger has inched out of his cocoon, but has not yet fully come clean. Personally, I doubt he ever will.
For me, the lessons I took away from these somewhat similar situations are twofold:
1. Even without the Internet and the tabloid-reporting media frenzy (Diana died in 1997 at the cusp of the Internet's primacy), overwhelming media and public pressure could still hold sway over someone as powerful as the British monarch. So, the pressure Tiger Woods is experiencing is not completely a function of TMZ and its Internet ilk.
2. Was the queen wrong to change her position and is Tiger right in protecting his? Both of them formed rational arguments for their refusals to cave to public pressure. In the end, what do they owe us? What do they owe the public or the media? One might argue the queen has more of an obligation to the public than Tiger; after all, she represents the British people. However, by the very nature of her title, a monarch is not required to bend to the people whims. She is not elected and she is by birthright a higher level of being. By his performance on the golf course, Tiger Woods has made himself a higher leve of being, as well. What do these higher level of beings owe us mere mortals?
In the queen's case, she eventually felt her lack of empathy for Diana's death was a threat to her monarchy and relented. Whether she went through a personal conversion, we cannot know, although "The Queen" certainly indicates she did. Either way, she certainly understood the political realities she faced.
For Tiger, it all depends on how he feels he can best resume his position as a super-mortal in our society. Does full disclosure bring him too close to us so that his aura will never be the same? Or does his refusal to bring himself down to our levels leave him forever inaccessible and forever vanquished? Will he stick with his convictions and consequences be damned?
As I said, I don't count on Tiger going all Mark Sanford on us. But neither did I think Elizabeth II would capitulate to the pressures of the masses. Time will tell if our golfing king will ride this out as smoothly as the British queen.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The Passion of Tiger Woods
More than a month after Tiger Woods' infamous driveway crash, is it possible yet to gain any perspective on why we are all so fascinated by this glimpse into his personal life that has turned into what many believe to be the biggest sports story of the year and maybe the decade?
It's sex and race, of course, but only partly. More than that, it's the incomparable combination of fame and excellence that has developed around him over the past dozen years. He is insanely talented at golf, so good that none of us can relate to him - not even his PGA peers. And he has become famous, certainly, but only in the most superficial level. What have we learned about him during his career before this incident?
He's married and has two small children, who he reveals to us online through staged photos. He has a bad temper, as displayed by his regular outbursts of four-letter words and flying golf clubs on the course. He has been under the microscope since appearing on the Mike Douglas Show at age three. His father taught him golf, as well as his drive, focus and dedication. He is of mixed race - he coined the term "Caublanasian" early in his career to reflect his rich mix of genetic material.
But we've never known him. He's seemed boring. Reports from the Tour and the occasional old friend who has dared speak outside the circle have invariably described him as nerdy, not too charismatic, pretty bland - Urkel to his Stanford golf mates. He never says anything interesting in interviews, after once showing his true personality to a GQ writer way back in 1996.
Because of all this, we were fascinated by him. Superhuman golfer. Blank slate personality. Pitch man extraordinaire. We wanted a peek - just one peek - to provide some real context. We need to know him on a greater level than he allows. All these years we've had an unbalanced, dysfunctional relationship with him, where he makes himself so attractive to us, but never really lets us in.
How did he get so good at golf? What is it like to hang out with him? What does he talk about? Does he really use all the products he endorses (Buick and Tag Heuer)? And does he really know anything about telecommunications (AT&T) or business consulting (Accenture)?
Well, Thanksgiving Day 2009, we found out a whole lot about Tiger Woods. And most of it we didn't want to know. But we were fascinated at the open curtain. Serial cheater? Porn stars? Reliance on Ambien? Secret Las Vegas life? Far less than perfect marriage? And (potentially worst of all) being treated by a Canadian doctor implicated in human growth hormone controversies? This is what we haven't seen all these years? This is the insight we've been craving?
And so we've soaked it up. Every last sordid, disgusting, gossip-rag drop of it.
It's easy to say we've loved every detail, every confession (no matter how small), every new revelation. But I don't think we've loved it. We've certainly been intrigued by it. But I don't think we've loved it. It's also easy to say we expected more from him. But I don't think that's it, either.
I think our fascination with him these past weeks is the result of the void he's left us in over these dozen years. We are so relieved just to finally get something from him. Some insight, some access, some perspective.
We still don't know how he golfs so well. But at least we now know what kind of person he is. That is not a judgment. It's just a curiosity satisfied.
It's sex and race, of course, but only partly. More than that, it's the incomparable combination of fame and excellence that has developed around him over the past dozen years. He is insanely talented at golf, so good that none of us can relate to him - not even his PGA peers. And he has become famous, certainly, but only in the most superficial level. What have we learned about him during his career before this incident?
He's married and has two small children, who he reveals to us online through staged photos. He has a bad temper, as displayed by his regular outbursts of four-letter words and flying golf clubs on the course. He has been under the microscope since appearing on the Mike Douglas Show at age three. His father taught him golf, as well as his drive, focus and dedication. He is of mixed race - he coined the term "Caublanasian" early in his career to reflect his rich mix of genetic material.
But we've never known him. He's seemed boring. Reports from the Tour and the occasional old friend who has dared speak outside the circle have invariably described him as nerdy, not too charismatic, pretty bland - Urkel to his Stanford golf mates. He never says anything interesting in interviews, after once showing his true personality to a GQ writer way back in 1996.
Because of all this, we were fascinated by him. Superhuman golfer. Blank slate personality. Pitch man extraordinaire. We wanted a peek - just one peek - to provide some real context. We need to know him on a greater level than he allows. All these years we've had an unbalanced, dysfunctional relationship with him, where he makes himself so attractive to us, but never really lets us in.
How did he get so good at golf? What is it like to hang out with him? What does he talk about? Does he really use all the products he endorses (Buick and Tag Heuer)? And does he really know anything about telecommunications (AT&T) or business consulting (Accenture)?
Well, Thanksgiving Day 2009, we found out a whole lot about Tiger Woods. And most of it we didn't want to know. But we were fascinated at the open curtain. Serial cheater? Porn stars? Reliance on Ambien? Secret Las Vegas life? Far less than perfect marriage? And (potentially worst of all) being treated by a Canadian doctor implicated in human growth hormone controversies? This is what we haven't seen all these years? This is the insight we've been craving?
And so we've soaked it up. Every last sordid, disgusting, gossip-rag drop of it.
It's easy to say we've loved every detail, every confession (no matter how small), every new revelation. But I don't think we've loved it. We've certainly been intrigued by it. But I don't think we've loved it. It's also easy to say we expected more from him. But I don't think that's it, either.
I think our fascination with him these past weeks is the result of the void he's left us in over these dozen years. We are so relieved just to finally get something from him. Some insight, some access, some perspective.
We still don't know how he golfs so well. But at least we now know what kind of person he is. That is not a judgment. It's just a curiosity satisfied.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Legends are human, too ... I guess
Eulogizing Mickey Mantle, Bob Costas said, "The emotional truths of childhood have a power that transcends objective fact. They stay with us through all the years."
I was reminded of the line Sunday when Tom Watson gagged on an 8-foot putt on the final hole at Turnberry that would have given him his record-tying 6th Open Championship and 9th major championship.
On the Mount Rushmore of Golf from my formative years, Tom Watson would have been Jefferson to Jack Nicklaus's Washington. Nostalgia is a powerful thing and we sentimentalize the legends of our youth, remembering them as mightier, stronger and more formidable than the mere mortals that are our contemporaries.
Jack would never have missed the putt Phil just missed. Staubach would never have thrown the interception Romo just threw. Reggie Jackson would never have struck out in the bottom of the ninth like A-Rod just did.
And so as Tom Watson made his way around Turnberry on Sunday, I did not see him as a man or as a golfer, but as a legend. A legend would never hit it past the flag on 18. A legend would never miss an 8-foot putt to win a major. But he did hit past the flag. And he did gag on the winning putt.
Throughout the tournament, I wondered why all 59-year-olds do not contend in major championships, so straight were Watson's drives, so accurate his irons and so certain his putts. He was making it look easy. The playoff with Stewart Cink reminded me why all 59-year-olds don't contend in majors and why my own golf game doesn't measure up. Watson hooked drives, pushed irons and needed two shots to hack out of very tall grass. Looked familiar. Didn't look very legendary.
So, Watson is now a human being for me more than he was before. It's sad, in a way. I want to believe in heroes, legends, superheroes who don't fail - even though age and experience have shown me that reality usually doesn't measure up to boyhood visions.
But, hey, I've still got Jack ... and Jack would never have missed that putt. Right?
I was reminded of the line Sunday when Tom Watson gagged on an 8-foot putt on the final hole at Turnberry that would have given him his record-tying 6th Open Championship and 9th major championship.
On the Mount Rushmore of Golf from my formative years, Tom Watson would have been Jefferson to Jack Nicklaus's Washington. Nostalgia is a powerful thing and we sentimentalize the legends of our youth, remembering them as mightier, stronger and more formidable than the mere mortals that are our contemporaries.
Jack would never have missed the putt Phil just missed. Staubach would never have thrown the interception Romo just threw. Reggie Jackson would never have struck out in the bottom of the ninth like A-Rod just did.
And so as Tom Watson made his way around Turnberry on Sunday, I did not see him as a man or as a golfer, but as a legend. A legend would never hit it past the flag on 18. A legend would never miss an 8-foot putt to win a major. But he did hit past the flag. And he did gag on the winning putt.
Throughout the tournament, I wondered why all 59-year-olds do not contend in major championships, so straight were Watson's drives, so accurate his irons and so certain his putts. He was making it look easy. The playoff with Stewart Cink reminded me why all 59-year-olds don't contend in majors and why my own golf game doesn't measure up. Watson hooked drives, pushed irons and needed two shots to hack out of very tall grass. Looked familiar. Didn't look very legendary.
So, Watson is now a human being for me more than he was before. It's sad, in a way. I want to believe in heroes, legends, superheroes who don't fail - even though age and experience have shown me that reality usually doesn't measure up to boyhood visions.
But, hey, I've still got Jack ... and Jack would never have missed that putt. Right?
Friday, July 25, 2008
Marketing Superheroes
Great article from AdAge analyzing the marketing efforts of two of the summer's biggest superhero movies: Iron Man and The Dark Knight. Click here to read it.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Tragedy of Greg Norman
This past weekend, Greg Norman began the final round of The Open Championship leading by two strokes. He ended the round six strokes off the lead after shooting a 7-over-par 77. It was yet another Sunday collapse for Norman, whose closing round close calls are epic, tragic and kind of sad.
After the tournament, conventional wisdom said this Norman loss did not feel like the others. He is 53 years old, after all, and hardly plays golf anymore. ABC golf analysts spotted a flaw in his swing from the beginning of the round, as he was staying back on his drives, which made them difficult to control.
All of this was true, of course. Norman was not expected to win and his performance through the first three rounds could be described as a minor miracle.
However, he could have completed one of the most improbable and legendary performances in professional golf history. In his prime, he was beloved almost on a Nicklausian level. His major collapses never let him achieve his position as Jack's heir.
So, was this year's collapse "okay"? Did Norman not mind so much? Will it not haunt him for the rest of his life, like his 1996 Masters performance? His attitude all week suggested it probably will not. He obviously does not have the passion for the game he once did, nor does golf define him like it did 15 years ago. His business interests, personal fortune and new love (tennis star Chris Evert) seem to be consuming his attention these days.
I suppose that's all well and good for Norman as a person. He's probably healthier this way. But as a golf fan, it is sad and disappointing. It would have been unbelievable to watch him redeem himself, grab that one last trophy and say to all his detractors, "See, I told you I was better than you all along." Jack Nicklaus would kill for one last major.
It's sad to see someone lose his passion, his drive. And as much as Norman contends that he is not all about golf anymore and that his new life and new successes satisfy him, I don't believe it. He's fooled himself into this mindframe because he's sustained losses like no other professional golfer. He's haunted and this is his coping mechanism.
After the tournament, conventional wisdom said this Norman loss did not feel like the others. He is 53 years old, after all, and hardly plays golf anymore. ABC golf analysts spotted a flaw in his swing from the beginning of the round, as he was staying back on his drives, which made them difficult to control.
All of this was true, of course. Norman was not expected to win and his performance through the first three rounds could be described as a minor miracle.
However, he could have completed one of the most improbable and legendary performances in professional golf history. In his prime, he was beloved almost on a Nicklausian level. His major collapses never let him achieve his position as Jack's heir.
So, was this year's collapse "okay"? Did Norman not mind so much? Will it not haunt him for the rest of his life, like his 1996 Masters performance? His attitude all week suggested it probably will not. He obviously does not have the passion for the game he once did, nor does golf define him like it did 15 years ago. His business interests, personal fortune and new love (tennis star Chris Evert) seem to be consuming his attention these days.
I suppose that's all well and good for Norman as a person. He's probably healthier this way. But as a golf fan, it is sad and disappointing. It would have been unbelievable to watch him redeem himself, grab that one last trophy and say to all his detractors, "See, I told you I was better than you all along." Jack Nicklaus would kill for one last major.
It's sad to see someone lose his passion, his drive. And as much as Norman contends that he is not all about golf anymore and that his new life and new successes satisfy him, I don't believe it. He's fooled himself into this mindframe because he's sustained losses like no other professional golfer. He's haunted and this is his coping mechanism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
