If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or follow us on Facebook. Thanks for visiting!


In about three hours, the sports world, once again, turns itself over to the larger than life character of Eldrick “Tiger” Woods, and of course, Nike is right there, turning Tiger’s offseason of discontent into a potential marketing blitz. This time, Earl Woods, Tiger’s father, “returns” asking if his son has Woods has learned anything from his mistakes. While the latest Nike Golf offering is effort in poignancy, it would be wise to keep in mind they are doing so to separate you from your hard-earned dollars in exchange for a set of Nike golf clubs.

If Tiger’s in contention for the Masters and the green jacket as the weekend draws closer, I would expect to see this commercial about umpteen bajillion times (a bajillion = a whole freaking lot).

Perhaps Nike deserves credit for sticking by their golden goose man, but we shouldn’t be surprised their marketing department is capitalizing on Tiger’s mistakes. Granted, the commercial gives an appearance of disapproval and finger-wagging, but again, they want to sell you golf clubs, and whether or not Tiger’s star has been fractured, his presence, especially now, makes for a compelling approach.

I suppose this method is better than having Tiger celebrate his mistakes by pitching golf clubs with a bevy of scantily-clad golf hotties running around in the background. I’m thinking something along the lines of Doria Baird’s spread she did for Maxim from a few years ago.

You know? Something like this:

Doria Baird

Then again, maybe I’m wrong. I think the Doria Baird method would’ve been filled with an illegal amount of “____ you, I’m Tiger Woods and you’re not” awesomeness that would’ve knocked the judgmental world of sports fans on its collective asses.

Update:

The voicemail version of Tiger’s commercial. Two words: ***king awesome.


All of this is proof that it’s simply Tiger’s world and we’re only living in it, like it or not. It doesn’t matter if his actions disagree with a particular moral setting. The fact that the public even cares this much — about a golfer, mind you — is all the evidence required.