Losses Are Losses Regardless Of Size: Tiger Woods, Losses and Celebrity Endorsements

December 29th, 2009 § 0 Comments

Over on The Sports Economist, I found a posting about a UC Davis Press Release on the Tiger Woods scandal and the losses incurred by companies that had sponsored him.

And Felix Salmon editorializes that the number is an example of specious academic research (in other words, like most academic research that has popular appeal, it’s nonsense.) I’m not a big fan of Felix for historical reasons, but his criticism is spot on.

Now, how am I going to spin this as another example of a strategic marketing error that is the fault of executive management?

It’s easy. Because what makes the estimated $12B (or 1b, or whatever number of millions) in losses from the Tiger Woods scandal more interesting, is that celebrity endorsements have very little positive impact on brands, and advertising agencies have known this for decades.

Celebrity sponsorships improve the public’s awareness of the celebrity outside of his or her own field. But that awareness does not translate to the products themselves. In general, Tiger made more people (especially minorities) interested in golf. But he did not necessarily advance the revenue of the “non-golf” brands he was associated with. (I do not have data on Tiger, I’m using comparisons of past celebrities – although I would honestly love to be proven wrong on this).

For example, some of the models and actresses do fairly well with brand development, and have impact on the brand, but they manufacture that value – they don’t bring it to the table. Wilford Brimley’s commercials for grape nuts were a positive example, but he created that value as a character actor, rather than brought it to the table in the form of external legitimacy.

So given the data on losses to shareholder value from the Tiger Woods scandal, it at least appears to confirm what most of us already know: celebrities increase awareness of the celebrity, but have little or no impact on the bottom line, but celebrity exposure once engaged in a brand, has a serious downside that is logarithmically more negative than any possible gain can warrant risking.

And if you pick a reasonably attractive high performance high stress male athlete that marries a woman clearly outside his social class, and who travels extensively among fans (especially homogamous status-seeking females) that you helped create through increasing his exposure, you are simply asking for trouble. You get the same problem if you bring in a young female olympic medalist from a small town, and give her unfettered access to the media – she will speak honestly, and pragmatically, from her heart, and that is not the job of politicians or brand representatives whose job it is, is to perpetuate myths. (Yes, that’s a politicians duty: to perpetuate a myth, because political decisions in large groups are decided according to mythos.)

Now, part of the problem is his own agency’s fault. They positioned the poor guy as a saint. Nike never does this kind of thing that I’m aware of. THey leave room for human frailty. If you don’t you just create a vehicle for necessary failure. They did. He stepped in it. It cost a lot of money – specious self promoting academic research or not.

Celebrities cannot legitimize brands by bringing external legitimacy to them. Characters that symbolize brands, rendered by talented actors bring acting talent to the process of creating brand value. (Mr Whipple – played by Dick Wilson, Wilford Brimley – for Grape Nuts, and Catherine Zeta Jones for T-Mobile, for example, all created brand value.)

In other words, blame the CEO and CMO, and agency for the lost $X-Billion, because it wasn’t Tiger’s fault for being Tiger, it was their fault for using a celebrity as a means of promotin when celebrities have near-zero positive impact on the business.

Advertising should not be comprehensible to executive management. Sales data that is the result of advertising should be comprehensible to executive management. But that’s not how it works. A very smart guy, Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle personally knows the agency and who is representing his company. And while I, he id due his how personal criticisms at times, as a CEO he should be respected for his depth and flexibility and accountability – he demands accountability and is involved in how his company is marketed.

So it’s CEO’s and CMO’s that lost billions by manufacturing a celebrity that they can talk about with their friends, when the data is clearly that celebrities have very little positive impact on brands, and very high negative impact on brands, and they were betting on the chastity of a guy (probably with a lot of legal nonsense that assumes far more of a human animal that is possible) who has about zero chance of holding to those achievements – not because of a character flaw, but because any person under duress for a long enough period will seek human comforts and rationalize them.

We worry about CEO corruption as if it’s an intentional malice rather than the foibles of being a human being in the midst of disconnected, fragmentary, and often erroneous data, in a rapidly changing market, under considerable time pressure, with credit money distorting all financial data worldwide, when CEO’s appear to be, at least from the data, some of the most ethical people in the world – especially given that they must fight the daily battle of tax, banking, investment, regulatory, journalism and political leader’s desire to attribute predictive value to temporal noise in data as if it is a trend, without resorting to calling the leadership of each of these categories ignorant fools, or giving away their current strategy. That’s a task that makes a centrist politician’s duties look tame by comparison. Yet we do not hold CEO’s accountable for malinvestment that was made despite being clearly contrary to all existing evidence.

Except for Nike, who is in this kind of business with full knowledge of the consequences, (and employs some of the smartest people in marketing today) and EA, which of course, is directly profiting from Tiger’s name, (and is an exceptionally well run organization with deep knowledge of it’s customers) and Golf Digest who again profits directly from his participation and legitimacy in expanding the sport of golf, we should blame the CMO’s of the companies that invested in Tiger Woods. (Accenture, Amex, ATT, Gatorade, TLC, Gillette ) because it’s their decision to invest in a risky strategy (most likely because it’s easy to get through the bureaucracy) instead of developing a character or characters that represents their brand. (Geiko, and Progressive insurance are the current popular winners.)

Tiger’s downfall was a foregone conclusion, and certainly, in the trade, the topic of a barstool raffle on his time-to-failure. He’s a human being, and no matter how many layers of paper indemnification we wrap a human in, he is still a human living in a world of other humans.

But while the contract clauses can stop you from paying out your sponsorship fees, and some well spent money will help consumers forget the negative association with your brand, it cannot so easily recover lost shareholder value, despite the fickle memories of investors. Billions are BFN’s to lose. And they are lost by executives who buy into celebrity endorsements instead of building brand value around characters that they actually own, and in particular, fictional characters that can’t get caught in infidelity in hotel rooms with waitresses.

from: www.puretheoryofmarketing.com (offline)