[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I find it hard to believe that people will buy less of these products because Tiger had many affairs.

Agreed, I don't know anyone that's going to look at Nike and think that Nike must think that having affairs is okay just because one of the people they sponsor has affairs.

Originally Posted by scarlet.starlet

The only people who need to apologize to the public for their moral failings are people who are supposed to uphold morality: clergy, elected officials, the justice department, etc.

I disagree. A clergyman is in his position because he was liked by a number of people, so they chose him to be their spiritual leader. In the same way, a celebrity is only celebrity because they are liked by a number of people. But a celebrity doesn't have to apologize to the public and a clergyman does? Both are put in their position by the people, thus they should both apologize to the people that made them who they are.

For many people Tiger has been a role model of success, especially for a black person (or half black half whatever else he is) in a sport largely dominated by whites. Sure, he hasn't necessarily asked these people to make him a role model, but he knows that he is one. So when it is discovered that he has done something wrong he apologizes to the public, because he has let down all the people that believed that he was a strong moral person.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I find it hard to believe that people will buy less of these products because Tiger had many affairs.

I don't. But it doesn't matter what we find easy or hard to believe because the perception is that because this harms his image it may harm brands he is associated with. Tiger has already lost two endorsements (Accenture Ltd. and Tag Heuer) and Gillette has stopped airing commercials featuring him. AT&T may be next.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I find it hard to believe that people will buy less of these products because Tiger had many affairs.

If anything I'd think it would increase his notoriety and people would buy more. But the purpose of having an endorsement is to instill a product with a mythical, moral value: In this case, integrity and tenacious follow-through. All the while he's been giving off that face, he has lacked both, apparently.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Tiger has already lost two endorsements (Accenture Ltd. and Tag Heuer) and Gillette has stopped airing commercials featuring him. AT&T may be next.

Indeed: BBC News - Tiger Woods in new sponsorship loss as AT&T drops deal

[Hopeful]

I follow golf pretty closely and had a high regard for him for years (like from his last year at Stanford). Granted, fans will always gravitate to a hero, but it was Tiger who rose to the position. I feel as Bowstaff feels and feel that he not only defrauded his wife, but his fans as well. I am very disappointed about this and golf will not be the same without him - for a while. An apology would help with the pain. However, his recent actions are not doing it.

[mulletman]

I heard he recently changed his name. From Tiger, to ....... Cheetah.

lol?

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well like it or not by becoming a sports icon and making it really big and having worldwide media attention- he has a moral responsibility to the public.

Tiger agrees with you. He's really going to town apologizing right now, on live TV.

[Than]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

I'll take the other voice: He wouldn't have to say anything as a golfer, but with an endorsement contract he is the moral face of a company. He is how they transcend mere function or utility and offer a lifestyle.

Edit: I should add that I couldn't care less if he apologizes to me because I don't really care what products he endorses. Ads are more likely to give me a moral reason not to buy a product than vice-versa.

I thought this was kind of interesting...can you elaborate on how a company's endorsement makes one the moral face of a company? My initial reaction is to think that he won his endorsements because of his accomplishments on the golf course and not because of any moral fortitude, but I can see how a company would care about a moral component.

Is it common for companies to make clauses in endorsement contracts concerning how an athlete/celebrity/whatever acts?

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Than

Is it common for companies to make clauses in endorsement contracts concerning how an athlete/celebrity/whatever acts?

My sense is the language in these contracts is pretty water-tight. If anything, recent actions by high profile athletes should make such bad actions a breach of contract which will give the companies a way out of it. I'm sure such clauses have been added in the last few years.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

But the purpose of having an endorsement is to instill a product with a mythical, moral value: In this case, integrity and tenacious follow-through.

Do we need to have an "overthinking things" smiley in the shape of John's user picture?

Ads are usually analogical. "Tiger Woods is good at golf -- so buy the shoes he buys." "Tiger Woods is healthy -- so eat the cereal he eats." "Tiger Woods is considered sexy -- so groom with the same items he uses to groom."

Unless there's a notoriety clause in Woods' contract, he wasn't standing for "mythical, moral value."

I read Shaq's autobiography when I was in elementary school and also encountered the lyrics to his horrid rap album. I stopped looking up to him as a person, but I didn't begrudge his endorsement of athletic-related products, and continued to take notice of what he endorsed for that very reason. He was an athlete, and presumably would understand athletic products, or at least not risk his reputation on a shoddy product.

[Napoleon17]

I didn't see the whole speech, but I saw the important clips. I thought it was so rehearsed and scripted, basically trying so hard to look like a sympathetic figure. Part of me really wants to feel bad for the guy, but he's still lying, IMO. He said:

I have a lot to atone for, but there is one issue I really want to discuss. Some people have speculated that Elin somehow hurt or attacked me on Thanksgiving night. It angers me that people would fabricate a story like that. Elin never hit me that night or any other night. There has never been an episode of domestic violence in our marriage, ever. Elin has shown enormous grace and poise throughout this ordeal. Elin deserves praise, not blame.

He is so full of it if he thinks I'm just going to accept what he says when he tells me that Elin did not attack him that night with a golf club. Okay.... so you ran out of your house, barefoot, hopped up on Ambien, with your wife close enough behind you to smash out the back window of your Escalade, and then proceeded to crash into a tree at 5mph. You then emerge from the car with cuts on your face even though there was no blood on the steering wheel, then you go back to sleep on the ground for 5 minutes cuz you were so OD'd on Ambien that you couldn't even function long enough to care that you just crashed your Escalade. You then proceed to avoid a DUI charge by completely blowing off the FHP 3 separate times (wonder why you wouldn't let them come in your house.... maybe because Elin tore it up that night, or maybe cuz the cuts on your face weren't really consistent with a 5mph car crash and you knew the FHP would put 2 and 2 together if they interviewed you).

I don't really give a crap what Tiger does (I think pretty much every famous athlete cheats on their wife) but I wish that when he pretends to come completely clean, he would at least be honest, instead of saying whatever helps his image the most.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Do we need to have an "overthinking things" smiley in the shape of John's user picture?

Why address me in the third person? Is that a way of saying that you're still not talking to me?

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Ads are usually analogical. "Tiger Woods is good at golf -- so buy the shoes he buys." "Tiger Woods is healthy -- so eat the cereal he eats." "Tiger Woods is considered sexy -- so groom with the same items he uses to groom."

Unless there's a notoriety clause in Woods' contract, he wasn't standing for "mythical, moral value."

Tiger is success, determination, etc. Buy these things and get associated with his success and determination. But this isn't just about winning a round of golf, or only competitive golfers would be reached by the ads; it's about getting to the pinnacle of value. He's not just skilled at hitting a ball; he's a model man. Of course, when Tiger becomes adultery and debauchery, the ad starts telling you that by buying the good you get success at the cost of infidelity, deception, and emptiness. He stops representing a model man.