We’re not jumping on the Tiger-Woods-is-a-bad-guy bandwagon. Tiger didn’t shoot anyone, snort coke, steal his aged mother’s retirement fund, or sponsor dog fights.

Handsome, successful, and famous - i.e. with all the opportunity in the world - he had sex with women outside his marriage. Something like half of American husbands occasionally do that, and in Tiger’s shoes we suspect that the other half would be sorely tempted.

In the parlance of agent-scripted apologies, Tiger “made mistakes” - but in our opinion, the more costly mistake is depending on any celebrity endorsement to promote your brand of packaged goods or services.

Endorsements are a creatively simple, easy-to-sell-to-the-client substitute for the more difficult task of engagingly and effectively conveying quality, performance, or features.

But does the fact that Tiger recommends a Gillette razor convince many consumers that it’s sharper or more durable? Are consumers glued to their tv sets because Tiger Woods is shaving?

In the early days of advertising, interest in a celebrity was reason to pay attention to the ad. Dinah Shore’s voice got Americans to listen to Chevrolet radio spots. But in these media-saturated times, it is absurd to think that consumers pay attention because a celebrity is in the ad.

On the other hand, will Tiger’s dalliances materially diminish a corporate executive’s expectations of Accenture’s consulting efficiency? Probably not.

But like politicians and preachers, corporations want primly proper public images. So Accenture divorced Tiger faster than Alpo would have canned Michael Vick had he been their spokesman.

Embarrassing? Sure it is. But the real problem with endorsement marketing is that it’s a poor substitute for the hard work of research and creative execution that produces genuinely effective advertising.

Tags: labnotes, namelab, Naming, Strategic Branding

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 12th, 2010 at 10:30 am and is filed under Brand Identity, Language, Naming, Research, Strategic Branding, Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.