BWAHHHHH I'M SOOOO SORRYYYYY!!!!
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Tiger apologizes to Ken Pitts
Next: Killfile me
From: Frank Ketchum on 21 Feb 2010 18:56 "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message news:m373o5tsj6uhfmkhgmk44os19294i45ko9(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:23:03 -0500, "R&B" > <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote: > >> >>He deceived the public. > > Please cite examples of his deception to the public. Nobody will because there are none. People angry with Tiger are mostly angry at themselves for getting duped, thinking he was something he wasn't. He is the best golfer, but why does that imply he is even an adequate husband or person? It is part of our hero worship society. It is a real problem imo.
From: R&B on 21 Feb 2010 19:30 On 2010-02-21 15:47:14 -0500, Howard Brazee said: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:21:38 -0500, "R&B" > <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote: > >>>> But of all my little character quirks, one of the biggest is that once >>>> I've been lied to, I can never trust the liar again. >>> >>> I'm curious. What lie did Tiger tell you? >> >> You're missing the point, Howard (which is fairly standard fare for you). >> >> Tiger didn't tell ME any lies. >> >> He did, however, attempt to portray himself as something he was not. >> Not only to me, but to you, and to everyone else, all in the name of >> creating a concocted image that he knew full well would benefit him >> financially by making him appear desirable for corporations to sign as >> an endorser and to pay handsome sums of money. But that business >> arrangement only works if we (the public) buys into the image. > > I didn't notice him portraying himself to me, you, and everybody else > as a model husband. > > Please give me an example of him portraying himself as something he > was not? Was it driving a Buick? Drinking Gatorade? Wearing a > watch? Using Nike equipment? Cursing on the course? Throwing a > club? (not as hard as Villegas did this morning). Did he discuss > how good his marriage was? (At least he didn't have an affair with > another tour pro's wife). Let me paint this differently... What do YOU think Accenture, Gillette, AT&T, Buick, Gatorade and the rest were purchasing? Were they wishing to associate their brands with a womanizing, self-indulgant, narcissistic, self-absorbed prick whose behavior would be so embarrassing to most parents that they'd want to shield their children's eyes from seeing or hearing it? Is that what those corporations were buying? No, it isn't. They were purchasing an association with an image that the public bought into that would make it worth their corporate checks to associate themselves with. The only way that makes good business sense is if the public buys in. I'll be the first to acknowledge that Tiger owes us far less of an apology than he does to those corporate sponsors whose money got flushed down the toilet after they associated their brands with his now tarnished name. But even Tiger was smart enough to realize that he had to include parents of children that looked up to him in his list of people to whom he had to apologize. Randy
From: R&B on 21 Feb 2010 19:35 On 2010-02-21 18:56:02 -0500, Frank Ketchum said: > "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message > news:m373o5tsj6uhfmkhgmk44os19294i45ko9(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:23:03 -0500, "R&B" >> <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> He deceived the public. >> >> Please cite examples of his deception to the public. > > Nobody will because there are none. > > People angry with Tiger are mostly angry at themselves for getting > duped, thinking he was something he wasn't. He is the best golfer, but > why does that imply he is even an adequate husband or person? > > It is part of our hero worship society. It is a real problem imo. Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis, but you miss the point. I'm not into hero worship. Ask anyone who knows me well. And I'm certainly not mad at myself for getting duped. I've been around (and covered for the media) far too many professional athletes to believe they're anything more than human. They put on (and take off) their pants, one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. But as anyone who's spent a nanosecond working in and around sports marketing will quickly acknowledge, the "packaging" of a sports celebrity is all about portraying an image. Yes, of course it's a concoction. Those of us in the media know that all too well, as we get to peak behind the curtain more than most. But it remains a simple matter of fact that the projection of Tiger's image proved to be a fraud. And for that, he owed an apology to anyone who bought into the charade, however naive they might have been. For without their buy-in, however mindless it might have been, none of the corporate endorsement deals would have made business sense for his sponsors. Randy
From: BAR on 21 Feb 2010 20:23 In article <2010022119350975249-noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom>, none_of_your_business(a)all.com says... > > On 2010-02-21 18:56:02 -0500, Frank Ketchum said: > > > "Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message > > news:m373o5tsj6uhfmkhgmk44os19294i45ko9(a)4ax.com... > >> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 14:23:03 -0500, "R&B" > >> <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> He deceived the public. > >> > >> Please cite examples of his deception to the public. > > > > Nobody will because there are none. > > > > People angry with Tiger are mostly angry at themselves for getting > > duped, thinking he was something he wasn't. He is the best golfer, but > > why does that imply he is even an adequate husband or person? > > > > It is part of our hero worship society. It is a real problem imo. > > > > Thanks for the amateur psychoanalysis, but you miss the point. > > I'm not into hero worship. Ask anyone who knows me well. And I'm > certainly not mad at myself for getting duped. I've been around (and > covered for the media) far too many professional athletes to believe > they're anything more than human. They put on (and take off) their > pants, one leg at a time, just like the rest of us. > > But as anyone who's spent a nanosecond working in and around sports > marketing will quickly acknowledge, the "packaging" of a sports > celebrity is all about portraying an image. Yes, of course it's a > concoction. Those of us in the media know that all too well, as we get > to peak behind the curtain more than most. But it remains a simple > matter of fact that the projection of Tiger's image proved to be a > fraud. > > And for that, he owed an apology to anyone who bought into the charade, > however naive they might have been. For without their buy-in, however > mindless it might have been, none of the corporate endorsement deals > would have made business sense for his sponsors. Don't you think that you are the slightest bit culpable in your gullibility in believing in the Tiger facade? You know, with your experience in the media and vast behind the curtains views. Shouldn't you have been skeptical from the start? Shouldn't you have known that a character flaw was lurking in the dark recesses of Tiger's persona waiting for the chance to emerge?
From: Lopez Gomez on 21 Feb 2010 22:37
"R&B" <none_of_your_business(a)all.com> wrote in news:2010022119350975249- noneofyourbusiness(a)allcom: > > But as anyone who's spent a nanosecond working in and around sports > marketing will quickly acknowledge, the "packaging" of a sports > celebrity is all about portraying an image. Yes, of course it's a > concoction. Those of us in the media know that all too well, as we get > to peak behind the curtain more than most. But it remains a simple > matter of fact that the projection of Tiger's image proved to be a > fraud. > It always seemed pretty clear to me that the "image" the corporations were promoting was that of the world's #1 golfer - an aggressive, hard- charging winning athlete possessed of skills with a golf club that almost make him seem more machine than human. i.e. 90% of the "image" that is Tiger Woods had to do with his performance on the golf course - which has nothing whatsoever to do with Tiger Woods the person (outside of the golf course). How can you say that his "image" was a "fraud"? Did his 71 tournament wins, and 14 majors somehow never happen? Do you really believe his behavior OFF the course, somehow invalidates what he has acomplished ON the course. I too worked in radio and television for many years - in the advertising side of the business, and though I did not specialize in sports-related marketing per se, my job did bring me into contact with many professional athletes. In another post, you used the phrase: (describing Tiger) "a womanizing, self-indulgant, narcissistic, self-absorbed prick whose behavior would be so embarrassing to most parents that they'd want to shield their children's eyes from seeing or hearing it?" Well lah-de-dah. Of the 40+ professional athletes I've met over the years (from a variety of sports,) I can count on the fingers of one hand the ones to whom your description does NOT apply. Being a "self-indulgent, narcissistic self-absorbed prick" pretty much goes with the territory in pro sports, and any professional sports journalist knows perfectly well that this is the case. (And most professional sports journalists are themselves hardly paragons of virtue when it comes to living "la vida loca" when on the road), which makes their eagerness to tear Woods apart now that he's down particularly disgusting and hypocritical. And it's certainly nothing new in pro sports. In baseball, Ruth, Cobb, DiMaggio, Mantle and many others were men whose behavior outside of the ball park would not have borne any degree of close scrutiny - yet the advertisers of their era were certainly not averse to holding these men up as "role models". If anyone is guilty of "fraud" in perpetuating an inaccurate or false "image" of Tiger Woods, it would be the sponsors THEMSELVES. You'll never convince me that the senior marketing reps of the companies you mentioned - individuals who surely spent a LOT of time with their client, on the road, during tournaments (and afterwards) didn't know perfectly well what he was up to - just as Palmer's womanizing was known by virtually all tour insiders back in the day. I'm sure they were hoping it would never come out, but they were perfectly willing to ride the Tiger gravy train until it finally did. Marketing is all about presenting false images - it always has been, and it always will be. Those doing the marketing, (the sponsors) bear far more responsibility for any "fraud" that may have been perpetuated than the one being marketed (Tiger). The sponsors who dropped Tiger like a hot potato remind me of Claude Rains' "Captain Renault" in the classic film "Casablanca" who, when forced to close Bogart's nightclub under pressure, sanctimoniously said, "I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that gambling is going on in here!" (just before being handed his night's winnings from the gaming tables.) |