Two Thumbs Down For Tiger and Nike

Have you seen the new Nike Tiger Woods commercial?

Take a look, then get back to me. Prepare to endure a boring commercial for Showtime. I'll wait.

Now. I know Nike can be pretty avant-garde, but this ... well, it's a bad commercial, it's an obfuscatory commercial, and it's an icky commercial.

Never has the product been so far, far removed from the pitch as in this commercial. I don't think you need LeBron James to say, "These shoes put an extra spring in my step!" to get Nike's point across, but still ... this commercial has nothing to do with:

1) Golf
2) Nike golf products
3) Tiger's golf game
4) Nike products of any kind
5) Sports of any kind
6) Motion

Second, Earl Woods is long dead, so whatever he was talking about in this sound clip (and I watched it three times, couldn't make out what he was saying that sounded like "acquittative," gave up, Googled it, and discovered he was saying "inquisitive" or at least that's the web consensus"), it wasn't about Tiger's affair.

My mother died not long before Earl Woods did. I just cannot imagine allowing her voice to be used to assemble a gentle reproach to some misdeed I committed long after her death, and then cash the paycheck I earned doing so. This makes me think less of Tiger Woods far more than the infidelity did.

Who was Nike trying to appeal to here? I understand that many people are indeed sticking with Tiger Woods, but are they so vehement about it that they'll watch this commercial and buy Nike products in a show of solidarity?

Of course not. And since there is no groundswell of support for Tiger Woods, this only stands to cost Nike money, from frothing moralizing housewives who will see this commercial and start buying young Jayden and Blake Adidas gear instead.

So I'm stumped. I can only muster two realistic possibilities.

1) Nike subscribes to the "any publicity is good publicity" philosophy. As I tried to outline above, I think this commercial can only hurt Nike sales. But that doesn't mean I think every sponsor ought to drop Tiger. I just think you put him in the same type of commercials you did pre-scandal. Don't try to milk it or exploit it. This commercial is nothing but exploitative. And that brings me to my second theory,

2) This isn't so much about selling Nike products as it is about establishing (or reestablishing) Nike as a boldly relevant, unshy, unflinching force in the corporate world. They see value in simply sending the message, "Yeah, we're GOING THERE." As if the sweatshops and the Oregon football uniforms weren't enough reason to hate Nike already.

It's just creepy all around and disheartening that Tiger is going right alone with it. Tiger and Nike deserve each other, a holy matrimony of arrogance. I wasn't particularly down on Tiger after the affair, but I am now. P.S. $10 bucks says he's caught cheating again within five years.