SherriBerry wrote:Ehwmatt wrote:SherriBerry wrote:In terms of marketing, the ad is brilliant. It doesn't depict Tiger as a victim, but rather as someone who is ashamed and needs to analyze his mindset and learn from his mistakes. Whether he really is ashamed or simply embarassed at being caught and the details being made public, I really don't know. I do think using his father's voice is designed to create a degree of sympathy for him. After Kanye West's incident with Taylor Swift, Kanye tried to claim on The Jay Leno Show that his behaviour was due in part to the loss of his mother and her guidance, even though he had pulled a similarly arrogant stunt at the 2007 MTV Music Video Awards 2 months before her death.
For Nike, it's a really smart move. Tiger is such a sports phenomenon that the public is looking for any reason to forgive him and move on. Either that or the public really doesn't care all that much what he does in his private life, and his sponsors will simply change the way they market him. A year after the allegations against Kobe Bryant, he signed a $136M contract and got endorsements back from Nike and Coke. I read his formal apology to the victim and her family and based on what I read, he didn't sound innocent. Tiger is a philanderer, but not a rapist or murderer. As long as he keeps winning at golf, he will be back on top within a year.
He might as well have raped his wife considering the degree of his infidelity. Calling him a philanderer is an insult to men and women carrying on affairs everywhere. Much too classy of a term for him. There's cheating on your significant other, and then there's what he did... wow.
It is a creepy ad - a grown man being scolded by his father's voice while he stares emotionless into the TV? Fucking bizarre. But like I said, to use your dead father's voice to try and recoup your public image is so disgusting on the part of both Nike and Tiger that it's not even funny. Sickening. If my dad were dead and someone came up to me and asked to use him in that way (eg to recoup my damaged public image), I probably wouldn't even say the word "No:" I'd probably just punch their teeth out.
There is no rational argument for equating messing around on your wife to any degree and raping her - not even in the same orbit. And right now I have no doubt there is a plethora of rock stars and movie stars thanking God that texting and paparazzi were not around in the 70s and 80s - considering the groupie culture, we would all have to hate a lot of people whose work we admire. Think about it - how many rock stars whose music you love, probably did at least as much screwing around on their wives as Tiger Woods?
Sorry, faulty analogy. Most rock stars weren't running around selling their clean, family-friendly image for hundreds of millions. On the contrary, the rock star lifestyle was well-documented and would come as no surprise to anybody. Doesn't make their conduct right, but they aren't douchebags like Tiger.
