By Michael Mark, Creative Director/CEO @ NYCA
The person. The player.
One has nothing to do with the other and yet, with the Tiger Woods situation, they have become forced bedmates.
No one knows if what happened off the course will affect Tiger’s play.
I can’t imagine his shot-making will affect Tiger’s relationship with his family.
But what about the rest of us?
Are we more likely to accept, excuse, Tiger’s transgressions if he wins?
When he struggles on the course, will we think, “Aha! That’s Tiger getting his comeuppance for what he did to his family.”
I think so, though I don’t think it’s right. What do golf fans have to forgive him for, except not playing, not entertaining them? After all, that’s the contract we have with him: He hits amazing shots, we stand mouths agape.
He is a father, husband, son to a very few so his athletic majesty will have little effect on them. The vow is not love, honor and birdie.
Tiger’s big sponsor, Nike’s Phil Knight says this whole matter is already forgotten and never was much anyway; in fact, he’s made a commercial to remind us of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr0JDJFEOqw Just to increase sales. Those brands that have left him will not come back to Tiger, though they will want to. He will attract other quality brands. They will be betting on his personal turn-around. They will get the chance to be magnanimous, capitalize on forgiveness, knowing he is as attention-getting as an athlete has ever been. The first new brand on board will get unearthly press. No doubt, there’s already a line of companies ready to align themselves with him. And it’s as long, perhaps, as the fans ready to cheer for the world’s best’s best golf shots.
The kind that win trophies, build brands, make fans, land in the hole but fall short of redemption.
Posted by NYCAgrow 



Should morality affect creative opinion?
April 16, 2010By Mike Frey, Associate Creative Director @ NYCA
It’s a subjective business.
When the face of your brand falls from grace, what do you do? The public is outraged at Tiger for his indiscretions. So chances are, any Nike ad featuring Tiger would be damned by the public no matter how he was portrayed. I thought they showed guts by attacking the issue head on.
I thought to myself before the spot aired, what would his dad think about his infidelity? In fact, according to a show I saw recently, his dad also cheated on his wife. So he might not have even cared. Who is to say whether his dad would have disapproved of using his voice for this commercial?
Much of the public has judged this spot as being manipulative.
This is how I judge a commercial.
Does it hit me and make me think?
Is it original?
Is it not pandering to make a sale?
Is it going to create buzz?
I thought it did all of that. I can’t remember the last time a commercial even touched me that much. I don’t think this spot was trying to sell anything. It said, “I f–ked up. I got caught. There is nothing I can say to change that. I just have to learn from it and move on.”
So the public doesn’t like it. And what does the public like? Girls Gone Wild videos. Porn. Millions of dollars are made each year off of this type of stuff. The public really liked “Don’t Squeeze the Charmin.” With Mr. Whipple. A classic indeed. But that isn’t what I appreciate or admire.
A tough assignment for Nike. Thought they handled it well. I still think it will get in the One Show. Gold is a tall order to call. But I stand by what I think is great.