Latest on MJJC

New Tiger Woods Nike Ad (Featuring voice of his late father Earl Woods)

Victory2004

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
4,284
Points
0
Location
California
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NTRvlrP2NU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NTRvlrP2NU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
 
Is that really the new ad? If so, it's different. I had wondered if losing his dad when he did might have a little to do w/how Tiger handled things.
 
Maybe it did have something to do with what he did, but there are no excuses for how he behaved. Also its not like it was a one off affair...apparently he was texting all the time to these girls. If something like your father passing is something you can´t deal with - it doesnt mean you go around and sleep with whomever you want. Its disrespectful to the people around you, and is there is no excuse for that - especially if its using your fame and money.
 
this is why i take everything the media presents, with a grain of sand, whether it be documents or soundbytes on Michael, presented by news sources, and not Michael, himself, or any other subject, because i heard that that Tiger Woods ad was not his father really talking to him. but the voice of his late father taken from a documentary, where he was describing the difference between him and his wife from whom he was separated, at the time. his widow's name is Tyga(sp). some hollywood creative editing tech geniuses, manipulated the wording from Tyga, to Tiger, to make it sound like he was talking to his son, about the adultery. now, of course, if you don't believe me, you can research it via google. i heard the reports on cbs news, and indirectly on abc news via espn sports radio networks. not that i see any media as a tower of respect, but i'm just sayin.
 
it doesn't have to have anything to do with Nike. it's a statement of the power of the media. Nike is established. all they gotta do is show the swoosh on tv and people will buy their product. what i..heard, is that people don't know what to make of the commercial...some think it's manipulative, others think it's great..and despite the media's onslaught against tiger, and what Tiger did, and despite the mixed reviews of the ad, sales of Nike Tiger products went up 8%.
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
it doesn't have to have anything to do with Nike. it's a statement of the power of the media. Nike is established. all they gotta do is show the swoosh on tv and people will buy their product. what i..heard, is that people don't know what to make of the commercial...some think it's manipulative, others think it's great..and despite the media's onslaught against tiger, and despite the mixed reviews of the ad, sales of Nike Tiger products went up 8%.
Click to expand...

Yeah, very true. I must admit when I saw it I was thinking wtf...still don't really know what to make of it but that's the most powerful kind of advertising right? I dunno, it seems wrong to me.
 
Very interesting that you think I'm trying to make excuses for what Tiger did. It's natural for people to wonder why.

G-U said:
Maybe it did have something to do with what he did, but there are no excuses for how he behaved. Also its not like it was a one off affair...apparently he was texting all the time to these girls. If something like your father passing is something you can´t deal with - it doesnt mean you go around and sleep with whomever you want. Its disrespectful to the people around you, and is there is no excuse for that - especially if its using your fame and money.
Click to expand...
 
According to one of the woman that claims to have had an affair with him, things started before his father passed away. I don't know if he was married at the time, though.

I thought that it was common knowledge that the audio of Tiger's dad was edited, so I didn't think it was manipulative. I suppose that Nike's ad agency just wanted to find an interesting way to address the whole issue. However, if they needed to use him in an ad right now, I think they should have just focused on golf.
 
They were gonna get slammed either way and purely from, you know, an economic standpoint, it was something that they had to do, because let`s keep in mind, this commercial was done by one of the few sponsors that actually stuck with Tiger through his whole sex scandal and I think as long as they were going to stay with him, it really was a brilliant move, rather than ignoring the whole controversy.Also Nike is no stranger to controversial ads like remember charles barkley's "I'm Not A Role Model" ad?
 
So cheat on your wife, get a Nike ad?

lmao @ Nike dropping Tiger when the scandal came out, like corporations are moral or something!
 
I don't really mind if it's edited or whatever. I think Tiger Woods would have a better idea if his father would have found this disrespectful than all the spectators commenting on it being disrespectful. I just don't know WTF this has to do with advertising Nike products, lol. Then again, if their sales are up, I guess it worked in that mysterious nonsensical way.

As far as the general Tiger Woods controversy is concerned, who gives a fuck how faithful a GOLFER is to his marriage? Am I missing something, or is he rich and famous for GOLFING and not for being Husband of the Year? I'm not playing it off as if adultery isn't a big deal, but the fact that this has had such an impact on the dude's GOLFING CAREER is absurd. Even comments like the ones G-U made above are part of the problem. Who are YOU in this man's personal life to wag your finger?

Let him continue with his sports career, let him sell his products, because he has done nothing worthy of having any of that stalled. HE IS A GOLFER.. I cannot stress that enough. Did he throw a game? Did he fake an injury (I'm not sure how you get injured in golf but that's besides the point)? Did he pay off his opponents or cheat in some way (yeah I know he did cheat in "some way" but that's totally unrelated LOL)? Has he been caught taking steroids? No? Then I guess he's still a model golfer, isn't he?? Jesus.

And a lot of it's his fault too. Earlier he and his camp's stance to the public was "it's none of your fucking business," which I respected, but now he's all "I made a mistake and I'm sorry, world!". I really don't think that this is the sort of thing that's going to kill his career unless he says sorry to everyone. Cheating on your wife is a lot more forgivable to the public than, say, beating the shit out of your fellow pop star girlfriend. Time will fix it.

So yeah, I was disappointed when he publically apologized. I for one would have a problem apologizing to shitstains who don't know me at all but still enjoy analyzing my life from afar. Dude, apologize to your family, but you didn't do anything to any of us, nor do you owe us anything. If some of us had you painted in our head as the poster-boy for wholesomeness and decency, that's our own fault. I know some will make the argument that "we" made him rich and famous, but that's bogus to me. People who have paid money to see Tiger Woods or spent money on products he advertised did it because they were provided a service in return (entertainment, athletic gear, etc.). No one threw money at Tiger Woods out of the goodness of their heart. That's like me buying groceries and saying that the cashier owes me all the money I gave him, as if I didn't get a bunch of groceries in return. He owes us nothing.

I really think a lot of people's perspective would benefit from having every bad thing they've ever done in their personal life publicly broadcasted so that I can give you my "opinion" on what kind of person you are.

HE'S A GOLFER.
 
Last edited:
He is a golfer, and it is his private life, but it also means I do not have to support people who I feel should not get my support. Why should I spend my hard earned money to support someone that I feel did something objectionable. And also this has not really affected his golfing career. At the Masters he was given a standing ovation and people came just to see how he would perform. he is still the consumate golfer and very popular on that front.

What suffered for him is mainly his endorsement deals who have every right to not continue to pay someone that they think the public would object to. And who without a doubt committed the act they are refering to. It may be hypocrtical for corporations to do this, no comment on big business and their constant raping of the American consumer, but it is something Tiger should have thought about beforehand. Tiger publicly apologized IMHO to stop losing all of the millions of dollars in endorsement deals. Otherwise, why would he care what Joe Puiblic thought.

But yeah, let him keep playing golf. I heard he is entertaining.
 
ginvid said:
And also this has not really affected his golfing career. At the Masters he was given a standing ovation and people came just to see how he would perform. he is still the consumate golfer and very popular on that front.
Click to expand...

It has effected his golfing career. In today's world, the endorsements are a part of being a big name athlete. I never said his career was dead, though. Far from it. Obviously he's still going to have a lot of support from golf fans and this whole thing is going to blow over.

Also, if you're against spending your money to buy products from people who have done something you find objectionable, it's a good thing you don't know everything about everybody. You would end up buying nothing. But you'd still be able to pat yourself on the back for being good/righteous/better-than-them, I guess, lol.

And I agree that he would have/should have known about all of this beforehand. You sign on for a certain level of BS in return for all the perks when you become any kind of celebrity. That doesn't make a lot of the reactions from people any less dumb, even though they have every constitutional right to be dumb. If someone wanted to buy a shoe that they no longer want to buy because Tiger Woods advertised it... LOL.
 
I agree, ignorance is bliss. I would be in the woods somewhere in a log cabin living off of the land if I didn't give money to everyone who did something I didn't like. That's true on that point. I am glad I don't and can enjoy modern comforts.:D :ph34r:

But I think some things people do will affect some more than others. For some, it's not that bad, even though they they don't agree with it. For me, this is just a deal breaker. I guess I feel strongly about it. So yeah I would not buy something Tiger endorsed. In my own mixed up head I have levels of what I will accept and I'm sorry, but Tiger just makes me sick. And I don't feel like he should get any of my hard earned money. Some won't support Chris Brown. But I would buy his music still. (Crazy I know).

We all rationalize ourselves what we accept and what we will live with. So it is not about being better than someone, or more righteous or saying their sins are worse than their's. Our experiences in life make up a large portion of who we are. Experience something objectionable and anyone who does similar will feel the wrath 10 fold. i do not like cheaters. In any form. whether on tests or in sports or adultery. they irk me to no end. But that is just me and my experience. Anyone who feels differently can do so. What can I say?:flowers:
 
That ad is a bit strange. But it's powerful and effective. I like it.
Tiger Woods is a human being and human beings make mistakes. We have no right to judge. Acting like we are perfect in comparison, when we are not. We just have the luck of not having our entire lives splashed across the newspapers.
 
The Masters Tiger Woods Ad by Nike Golf is being hypocritically slammed in the media. If you've not seen the controversial ad, which has now generated over 1 million views on YouTube as of this writing, here it is:

Some in the media, actually a number of people, have called the ad "tasteless", "rank", and other choice words and then harp on the commercialism of it all as AOL's National Columnist did in the first blog post on the Tiger WOods ad in this space.

What's funny about the blast against Nike and consumerism is the news websites and blogs that are leveling those claims have ads on their pages, thus making money from the online traffic the Tiger Woods-Nike-ad-related article draws.

In other words, the New Media critics charging that Nike's just trying to sell products are themselves helping other companies (and maybe Nike if the Nike ad's on their website) sell products and services. That's why I claim the Tiger Woods Ad is being hypocritically slammed. The News Media itself is part of the same consumerism some in News Media rail against.

HLN's Jane Valez-Mitchell, who's Issues show I really love, was for me uncharacteristically annoying in her blast against the Nike ad, slamming the use of Tiger Woods' father's voice to "sell products" and screaming "consumerism" while at the same time promoting Geico auto insurance (which uses that awful commercial series that makes Cavemen a minority group), and day-trading software.

Why doesn't Jane have a problem with a Geico commercial that subversively makes fun of the concerns of American minorities who've been stereotyped in the media? Is it because Geico sponsors her show?

The American News Media has been so drunk on the revenue from ad spending for print for so long that it has been under the impression that news produced was totally disconnected from ad sales and what was produced was free of corporate influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that the ad money for newspapers and magazines has dramatically decreased and television has become a trend-follower's free-for-all, News Media journalists and editors are at a loss to figure out how to replenish lost ad dollars online, yet still act as of they're not part of the same corporate system that sponsors Tiger Woods, when they really are.

It's silly; it really is. If the News Media took off their blinders, dropped the ego, and realized that they need the same Nike company to buy ads, they'd see the whole Tiger Woods Nike Ad issue differently.

No, I'm not saying don't criticize the ad, but just stop mentioning how Nike is trying to sell product. It's really weird, silly, and hypocritical to have News Media people whining about that.

In other words, leave Tiger Woods alone, unless you're going to admit, as I do, that blogging about him generates traffic and ad revenue. In other words, be real!

Stay tuned.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?blogid=95&entry_id=60941#ixzz0kjj0puCa
 
Victory2004 said:
The Masters Tiger Woods Ad by Nike Golf is being hypocritically slammed in the media. If you've not seen the controversial ad, which has now generated over 1 million views on YouTube as of this writing, here it is:

Some in the media, actually a number of people, have called the ad "tasteless", "rank", and other choice words and then harp on the commercialism of it all as AOL's National Columnist did in the first blog post on the Tiger WOods ad in this space.

What's funny about the blast against Nike and consumerism is the news websites and blogs that are leveling those claims have ads on their pages, thus making money from the online traffic the Tiger Woods-Nike-ad-related article draws.

In other words, the New Media critics charging that Nike's just trying to sell products are themselves helping other companies (and maybe Nike if the Nike ad's on their website) sell products and services. That's why I claim the Tiger Woods Ad is being hypocritically slammed. The News Media itself is part of the same consumerism some in News Media rail against.

HLN's Jane Valez-Mitchell, who's Issues show I really love, was for me uncharacteristically annoying in her blast against the Nike ad, slamming the use of Tiger Woods' father's voice to "sell products" and screaming "consumerism" while at the same time promoting Geico auto insurance (which uses that awful commercial series that makes Cavemen a minority group), and day-trading software.

Why doesn't Jane have a problem with a Geico commercial that subversively makes fun of the concerns of American minorities who've been stereotyped in the media? Is it because Geico sponsors her show?

The American News Media has been so drunk on the revenue from ad spending for print for so long that it has been under the impression that news produced was totally disconnected from ad sales and what was produced was free of corporate influence. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Now that the ad money for newspapers and magazines has dramatically decreased and television has become a trend-follower's free-for-all, News Media journalists and editors are at a loss to figure out how to replenish lost ad dollars online, yet still act as of they're not part of the same corporate system that sponsors Tiger Woods, when they really are.

It's silly; it really is. If the News Media took off their blinders, dropped the ego, and realized that they need the same Nike company to buy ads, they'd see the whole Tiger Woods Nike Ad issue differently.

No, I'm not saying don't criticize the ad, but just stop mentioning how Nike is trying to sell product. It's really weird, silly, and hypocritical to have News Media people whining about that.

In other words, leave Tiger Woods alone, unless you're going to admit, as I do, that blogging about him generates traffic and ad revenue. In other words, be real!

Stay tuned.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/abraham/detail?blogid=95&entry_id=60941#ixzz0kjj0puCa
Click to expand...

yep. be real.
 
Dangerous Incorporated said:
So cheat on your wife, get a Nike ad?

lmao @ Nike dropping Tiger when the scandal came out, like corporations are moral or something!
Click to expand...

No. Tiger endorsed Nike products long before the scandal, and Nike was one of the few companies that stood by him. Michael Jordan cheated on his wife. Kobe Bryant cheated on his wife. The only companies that "dropped" these athletes did so mostly for the attention they would receive for "dropping" them, and the fact that they couldn't afford to lose customers for backing them. Nike is huge, and they've made billions for making ballsy moves for their clients. Tiger wasn't the first, and he's surely not the last. Once all of this blows over, and Tiger starts winning tournaments again, these companies will come running back to him.

Off-topic: I just hope that dude is done with all of the apologies. This is a family matter. His kid's kindergarten teachers don't need an apology, nor does the PTA, my kindergarten teacher, my future child's kindergarten teacher, my future wife, etc. Those whores sure as hell don't need no apology. They can peace out with that lol. People need to get over themselves. Guy made some mistakes, and he'll make some more. That's life.
 
Last edited:
vncwilliam said:
it doesn't have to have anything to do with Nike. it's a statement of the power of the media. Nike is established. all they gotta do is show the swoosh on tv and people will buy their product. what i..heard, is that people don't know what to make of the commercial...some think it's manipulative, others think it's great..and despite the media's onslaught against tiger, and what Tiger did, and despite the mixed reviews of the ad, sales of Nike Tiger products went up 8%.
Click to expand...

i dont like NIKE especially after all the BS surrounding the sweatshops,and cruelty to these people of their living condition...
 
Is it fine for me to become really cynical about this now? I mean, I emphasized and felt sorry for him for some time. But I wish the media would get off his bum only so this story can go away.
 
Using the memory of his dead father to try to get pity for his own errors...that's a new low!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top