Tiger & Dad in an Ad is pretty Bad

Before we rush to judging the Marcom guys at Nike as idiots for their ill timed Nike Ad featuring maligned Tiger Woods and the voice of his dead father, consider the 'Attitude toward the Ad' model.

The Model proposes that a consumer forms various feelings (affects) and judgments (cognition) as the result of exposure to an advertisement, which, in turn, affect the consumer’s attitude toward the ad and attitude toward the brand.

Lets now try and map how a viewer will respond to the latest Nike Ad. On exposure, the viewer forms both judgments (an act of cognition) and also 'feels' a certain way. My gut tells me its the affective (feel) part that would contribute overwhelmingly (over judgements) to forming attitudes about the ad, therefore about the brand. Currently as further skeletons tumble out of Tiger's amorous cupboard, disgust levels will only rise. Which means the Ad featuring Tiger looking like he's swallowed marbles, and his dad's voice will only seem in poor taste. As the lousy feeling evoked by the Ad subsides, judgements will take over. The viewer will now be incensed at both Tiger and Nike trying to exact mileage out of what's otherwise a sickeningly scandalous story. The emotions and judgment combined will only contribute to an ill-will towards Nike as a brand.

But what may still work in Nike's favour is the negative attitude not translating into a non-buy of the brand at the store. Though I think its too much of a risk that Nike's taken. The only silver lining is the brand noise this Ad will generate. Blogs, Social and Mass media will be buzzing with reactions to the Ad.

That means the Brand Nike gets talked about even more leading to stupendous levels of brand recall, should a sneaker purchase be considered. Despite that, I think its fair to go with the word 'dumb' to aptly describe those behind the commercial.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.


Popular Posts