Tiger, Earl & Nike: A Powerful Ad Or PR Liability?

The Tiger Woods Nike TV commercial that debuted during Masters week is powerful in its message of implied contrition and a father's questions to his son about his son's bad behavior. The fact that his father has passed makes it resonate even more for anyone who has lost a parent.

It could be seen as a powerful (and successful) first step in image rehabilitation for the tarnished star.

But is it really?

Some media have looked behind the carefully staged, starkly serious spot, and they have discovered something that has the potential to turn a powerful ad into an embarrassing story about advertising manipulation and insincerity.

According to several media reports, including those on ABC's Good Morning America and in The Toronto Star, the voiceover in the ad by Tiger's father, the late Earl Woods, was pulled from a 2004 DVD about the life of young Tiger.

But here's the rub: The comments pulled from that DVD and inserted into the Nike ad were not directed to Tiger or even referencing him.

Instead, Earl was describing his parenting style versus that of his estranged wife, Kultida.

Moreover, Nike took another bold step in their effort to manipulate the feelings of fans by inserting Earl's voice saying “Tiger” into the first line of the comments pulled from the 2004 DVD. The voiceover now resonates with the late father addressing his son and directing his comments to him.

It's nothing new for advertisers to design spots that try to influence opinion and evoke emotion by not exactly being truthful. But Nike went too far. Such crass manipulation is nothing more than an attempt to stir supportive feelings for Tiger's efforts to emerge from the darkness he plunged himself into.

From a PR perspective, knowing the full story makes the ad more of a liability than an asset to astute observers.

For those already suspicious that Tiger may be insincere in his efforts to change, the ad makes it tougher to believe in his image rehabilitation efforts. For fans who are eager to believe he is working hard to change, his willingness to go along with this charade raises a sliver of doubt.

While airing the spot may be construed as bold and powerful advertising, its true legacy may be negative PR.