But I think it is our business. It's our Nike, Buick, Gillette, General Mills business. Sort of.
Tiger has been good about not thinking that, because he is really good at golf, he is also really good at politics, and I appreciate that. Still, he, like most great sports athletes, has profited, not from his golf winnings as much as his endorsements. He's traded on his fame, and it made him a lot of money. I don't really think it's fair for him or for any other celebrity to use the public's interest in their lives and personalities to make money when it's convenient, only to later argue that the public should stay out of their private life when the public scrutiny is inconvenient.
9 comments:
Ryan, thanks for making this a pop-up.
second. Please explain this further. I am not really satisfied with "fair". Tiger gets paid millions from Nike because he the best golfer in the world, not the best person. Nike can opt out of paying him, if his personal life ruins its reputation. See Bryant, Kobe and McDonald's.
Tiger gets paid by Nike not by our tax dollars.
After today's revelations (or allusion to revelations), it will be interesting to see if Tiger loses endorsements the same way that Kobe or even Phelps did.
My guess is no. Tiger has basically reached the untouchable level, second only to Jordan (who brushed off his fair share of bad press) where nothing short of being OJ can bring him down. He basically single handedly made it cool for people other than rich white guys to like golf.
Is it fair for us to pry into his private life? He's actually done a pretty good job of keeping the public out before there was anything scandalous to pique interest. Does being paid to wear a certain pair of shoes and to make commercials equate to selling one's right to privacy? Granted he does land deals partly on his reputation (in addition to his golfing skills), but wouldn't a decrease in his marketability be consequence enough to be "fair?"
Danny,
Let's set aside Nike for a second, because they make sports equipment. GM (Buick) doesn't pay Tiger to play golf; they pay him to sell cars, which has nothing to do with golf. Why do people buy cars Tiger endorses? Because he's a celebrity. He's well known and liked and he uses our interest in him and his preferences and opinions to make money (and apparently get nookie). Now he wants to say that our interest in his life is great when it helps him sell cars, but out of bounds when it puts pressure on his marriage.
Maybe a clearer example would be the time I first noticed this phenomenon. I was watching Jennifer Aniston on Larry King pitch some movie. She was complaining about how the paparazzi don't respect her privacy and how when she is on The Larry King Show she is "working" and work and private life are separate. But the majority of the show was about her personal life, carrier, etc. She was using her celebrity (the public's interest in her personally) to promote her movie.
Celebrities get paid obscene amounts of money for doing things, like endorsing products or acting in movies, because people like them and care what they think. But the one downside is that people also care about your dirty laundry. For some reason celebrities seem to think they should be able to decide what should interest their fans and what should not. This is what I mean by "unfair." Better words might be inconsistent, or hypocritical.
Brett,
I think what you're analysis misses, is that if Tiger had his way, we would never know about his affair, because the subject is out of bounds. But without that information public, he would never lose any endorsements.
Tiger's been pretty good about keeping his private life private. But if he really wanted to stay private, he could have chosen a different carrier. His entire marketability as an athlete and celebrity is based upon people taking interest in him personally.
So what is your argument for Tiger? I get what your saying about Jennifer Aniston.. but I don't really see how they are the same. Aniston uses the public's interest to promote before her movies are out. Tiger goes on Larry King to discuss why he was so good.. I think the two celebs are fundamentally different. Aniston's personality makes or breaks her income. Tiger's performance on the course makes his. Admittedly he makes more off the course than on, but his money is predicated on his golf.
Tiger is better associated with Apple's Justin Long... a pitchman. And just because the public are interested in the dirty laundry doesn't make sifting through it right.
I thought I had made the argument against Tiger, but I'll try one more time (maybe you just aren't persuaded). Tiger has intentionally used the public's interest in him personally to make money, and now inconsistently claims the public should not be interested in his personal shortcomings.
You say Tiger's money is predicated on golf. From this I gather that you think tiger is famous for a talent not for his personality. But then what does golf have to do with selling cars? Isn't Tiger's ability to sell cars based upon his personality? And couldn't you just as easily say Aniston's money is predicated on acting, not on personality?
I don't see a fundamental difference between Aniston and Tiger, only a difference in degree. I think everyone that chooses to be famous chooses to give up some of their privacy to make money. Thus, I cry foul when celebrities complain about the public invading their personal lives. They chose that fame, and to the extent we care about them personally, they got what they wanted.
I don't know that it's "right" to sift through Tiger's dirt laundry, and to the extent I implied that, I retract. But I also don't know that it's right that we care so much about Tiger's opinions on cars such that he garners millions of dollar in endorsements. It's only natural that if we are paying attention to which cars Tiger endorses, we are going to pay attention to his infidelities too. These phenomena are simply two sides of the same coin.
Way better argument or way better put. Interestingly enough the public or advertisers no longer think he is influential: http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/blog/devil_ball_golf/post/There-s-been-a-distinct-lack-of-Tiger-Woods-ads-?urn=golf,207606
Advertisers pay Tiger to endorse their products because his fame will transfer to similar demographics that respect golfers. I don't think it has anything to do with personality. If it is personality driven please explain the following boring celebrities: 1. Bryant, Kobe 2. Federer, Roger 3. Rodriguez, Alex 4. Sampras, Pete 5. Duncan, Tim
How do you feel about a guy like Steve Nash, who turns down endorsement deals yet still makes 13m a year... because he is not a pitchman for any company does he deserve more privacy than Tiger does?
I've been struggling to find the right word to describe what it Tiger has, and you're right personality is not the right word. "Popularity" is probably the closest word.
Nash is a hard question. Without endorsements, there's a good argument that he has not intentionally profited from his popularity. Still, he has pursued a career that inevitably put him in the public spotlight.
The Nash examples raises a hard question: how much of professional sports is interest in the players, versus actual performance. Would you watch professional sport X, for example, if we didn't know which player was which, and could only see them perform? Is that a fair test? Doesn't that show that actual feats are not what makes the game interesting? But on the other hand, bad players usually don't make a lot of endorsement money either. So performance drives popularity. Maybe this performance/popularity dichotomy leaves something out?
I lean toward thinking that all professional athletes to some extent rely upon their popularity to make money, and so are acting inconsistent when they just want to be left alone off the field/course/court.
A couple more examples (I guess supporting Ryan's popularity theory):
Agassi earned way more in endorsements than Sampras, even though Pete was the better player.
Anna Kournikova never won a single tournament in her career (though women in sports are definitely a different case).
It seems that your real issue is with the way the person earns their money... or is it the amount actually earned? Does a player from Real Salt Lake deserve more privacy because his sport is less popular or he makes less money?
If I am on a billboard for BYU, does that subject me to more public scrutiny than the average guy? If I moonlight for JonesWest Ford and do a car commercial, does that open the doors for the public to interfere with my private life?
Football is a good example of a sport that people watch just to watch the game. Albert Haynsworth was vilified for kicking a guy in the face, but most sports fans couldn't pick him out of a lineup. Anquaon Bolden (sp) from the AZ Cardinals is sponsored by underarmour and does tv spots, but I would bet most sports fans couldn't tell him from any other player in the league.
Post a Comment