Tiger is the man, but still gets canned

Tiger Woods is the man. As an athlete, a role-model and an endorser, nobody can come close to his perfection. Tiger is young, articulate, attractive, charismatic, clean-cut, family-oriented, scandal-free and, don’t let me forget, he wins a lot of golf tournaments.

Tiger is the first athlete in history to bank $100 million in a year, a feat which earned him the #2 spot on the Forbes Celebrity 100 list last year. Right behind Oprah and just ahead of Madonna. Tiger was the only athlete who made the top ten.

So why did Buick and now American Express slice their endorsement deals with the star? Just because he is the man doesn’t mean that Tiger makes sense or is worth the price of endorsement for every brand.

Tiger and Buick

Endorsing the Buick brand makes no sense at all for Tiger. There was just no believability that Tiger was dying to drive a Buick. And without believability a celebrity endorsement is worthless.

The personalities of Buick and Tiger went together like oil and water. Buick is an older person’s car (Tiger is less than half the age of the average Buick buyer.) Tiger is young, very cool and at the top of his game.

And here is the killer. Sticking Tiger on Buick for the past 10 years has done absolutely nothing for the brand. Year to date sales at Buick dropped 28%, making it the weakest of GM’s original 5 brands. (Tiger will now promote OnStar for GM.)

Sure, without Tiger, Buick could have been doing worse but at least GM would have had $40 million plus in the bank.

Tiger and American Express

In terms of believability, the opposite is true of Tiger’s endorsement deal with American Express. There is extreme credibility that a man like Tiger Woods is a card-carrying American Express customer.

Anyone can easily imagine Tiger charging up exotic vacations, pricy jewelry, fancy meals and designer duds with a black AmEx card. What they can’t see is Tiger going to the grocery store and getting milk, Wonder bread and baby formula then swiping an American Express card.

American Express has not used Tiger to reinforce the brand’s dominance as the top high-end credit-card brand in the world. What they have been doing is trying to move the brand downscale to the mass market.

Tiger is at the top, you can’t move him down. He’s not like everybody else. There is no believability in making Tiger an average guy. Yet here is what an American Express vice president said about the company’s decision to cut Tiger Woods: the company was looking “to build a broader base of consumer experiences.”

In other words, we got the rich people, now we want to go after everyone else. Problem is Visa already has everybody else. By moving the brand downscale, American Express risks losing its bread and butter.

Tiger is taken

Tiger’s dance card is full. Nike has bought all the dances. Tiger has been with Nike since 1996, the year he went pro. The $600 million Nike Golf brand has been built on the shoulders of Tiger. The two are synonymous. It wouldn’t be Sunday at the Masters without Tiger wearing a Nike red shirt and a Nike swoosh hat.

It goes even further than that. Tiger always wears Nike, even when pitching products from other sponsors including American Express, Accenture and Buick. This is unheard of in celebrity endorsements but works in this case because it is so naturally to see Tiger in Nike. Other companies put up with it since they all want Tiger.

Nike has built its brand on celebrity endorsements both big and small. The essence of the brand is its association with top athletes.

Michael Jordan is the father all of endorsers, but it was his deal and his relationship with Nike that made him one of the greatest endorsers of all time. On the other hand, his work with Rayovac batteries, Ballpark franks or Hanes underwear was more embarrassing than effective.

Now that Michael Vick has gone to the dogs, Nike will be looking to Tiger even more.

Celebrity endorsements: good or bad?

It all depends. The right celebrity, at the right time, for the right brand at the right price is fantastic. But using a celebrity who has no believability with your brand is money down the drain.

The first thing to remember is that a celebrity is never a replacement for an idea. People might talk about the celebrity but that rarely translates into much for the brand unless there is such a strong tie like the one Tiger has with Nike.

What makes a brand successful is owning a word in the mind. Paying Tiger Woods or anyone else millions of dollars is not a replacement for that.

The second thing to remember is celebrity endorsements only work when the consumer has a credible belief that the celebrity would be interested in buying and using the product or service despite being paid to do so. If not, your money is wasted. Something Buick recently realized.

What is truly amazing and important about today’s news that American Express dumped Tiger is that even the best athlete and endorser in the world can’t score for any brand. And despite all the data, Tiger is likely to pick up plenty more endorsements deals in the years to come. Maybe Hanes underwear or Rayovac batteries?

Comments

[Laura Ries]

Love Roger and love tennis! Brilliant for Roger to change into the white coat and pants for the award ceremony. He certainly knows not just the game of tennis but the game of branding too.

Has anyone seen the terrible Gillette ads with Tiger and Roger? Yicks. Not a good fit for either.

In terms of convergence and restaurants. I don't think the fusion idea will last. What props up the successful restaurants in doing fusion are celebrity chefs. The PR generated by the chef makes the type of food served less important. Fusion without a star is unlikely to succeed.

[Sam]

Hey Laura,
Good point on the misuse on celebrities...may he he'd be more suited for Virgin Airlines.
I was thinking back to the convergence/divergence thing as I was out to eat last night, so what about fusion food restaurants that we see all over place? Is this passing convergence or is food a place where convergence can work?

[Ben Bacon]

Tiger + Nike is like Roger + Nike. What's more, Nike has launched special editions for these athletes that has made their brands even stronger. Tiger's One brand and Roger's RF brand. (Granted, it's next to impossible to get one's hands on an RF branded item, but it's something brand fanatics can aspire to own.)

"It wouldn’t be Sunday at the Masters without Tiger wearing a Nike red shirt and a Nike swoosh hat," Laura wrote.

It wouldn't be Sunday at Centre Court Wimbledon without Roger Federer donning a white-and-gold pair of custom made sneaks and a stunningly white sport coat. It works, too. Why? Roger is a classy guy.

Stuffing Tiger into a Buick is like having Oprah become the new spokesperson for anarchy and insensitivity. (Perhaps I'm being a bit facetious, but nonetheless...)

The brand represented must be reflected by the spokesperson. That seems like a simple enough equation, does it not?

Michael Jordan wearing Nike kicks? I believed it. So did the world.

Tony Hawk and video games bearing his likeness? But of course.

Maria and Tag? Makes sense to me.

But Tiger and Buick? Hmm. It sounds a little off. Apparently not to the marketing "gurus" at GM. (Oh yeah, those quote-marks were meant to be a bit snarky.)

Thanks for the inspiring blogs, Laura.

[yasser brohi]

the simplicity makes it superlative.

[Neil Bull (Australia)]

Really well said Laura.

I would also love to hear your thoughts on how the Tiger Woods personal brand has been affected by these failed endorsements.

[Steve Woodruff]

Good thoughts. For all the money involved in endorsements, you'd think a little bit more intelligence would go into "matchmaking" celebrities with brands/products that have natural synergy. The one thing that might be said in Buick's defense, however, is that a lot of the people who watch golf are their target market - older males. While it might not be believable that Tiger was just hankering to drive Buicks, the brand may well have gotten some reflected glory among those who watch golfers like Tiger on TV week after week.