A Wren Says

Yesterday I wrote about the reason brands are cutting ties with Ye, linking it to a branding decision. I touched on the idea that brands choose to distance themselves from negative publicity, because people will transfer a spokesperson’s personal antics to their image of the brand. On the other side, not all negative publicity matters. Tanking public opinion doesn’t necessarily mean a brand will distance themselves.

 Take Nike for example.

In 2009, Tiger Woods was outed for his extramarital affair following a car crash. Ah, okay, affairs, plural. His good guy image was tarnished. He lost a lot of brand deals, but Nike stood by him. Why on earth would Nike stick with him? Are they saying they support cheating spouses? No, they probably just thought, “And what exactly does that have to do with golf?”

Fair or unfair, allegations of a high-profile athlete cheating on his wife are not uncommon. Often, these acts do not diminish their on-field performance. Without actually consulting with the team, I imagine Nike considered Tiger Woods’s golfing career,  his then present and the potential future, and the entirety of their relationship with him. They calculated the impact of dropping him only then needing to resign him once the scandal was resolved. They also probably thought of what would happen if they let him go only to have a competitor sign him on.

Through the scandal, the fall from grace, and the countless injuries, Nike was able to stick with Woods for his entire saga. And that journey allowed them to be there ready with this ad when he finally won the Masters’ again.

To be clear, humans are running these corporations. I imagine a lot of their decisions are not driven by the numbers and potential financial gain. There are people making decisions about people and trying to do what’s right for them.