A number of recent articles in the U.S. press have cited the marketing prowess of Tiger Woods, the world’s highest paid athlete. Lisa DiCarlo on MSNBC.com refers to Tiger as “a marketer’s dream,” while Rich Thomaselli in Advertising Age (9/24/2006), lauds the golf genius as a “dream endorser” and possibly “history’s most effective product spokesman”. While one might argue with some of the ROI analysis presented to support these claims, there can be little doubt that having Tiger on your brand’s team is a good thing. But what makes him a better endorser than Indian cricketer Sakin Tendulkar, English soccer player David Beckham or the Chinese NBA star, Yao Ming?
Each one of these famous sportsmen has sold his support to an impressive roster of brands. What follows is the most complete list I could readily come up with of brands associated with each athlete.
- Woods: Nike, American Express, Buick, Accenture, Tag Heuer, EA Sports, Titleist
- Tendulkar: Canon India, WorldTel, AirTel, Britannia, HomeTrade, Boost, Adidas, Visa, Pepsi, Fiat Palio, Colgate, Philips, MRF, Action Shoes
- Beckham: Gillette, Motorola, Pepsi, Adidas, Marks & Spencer, Brylcreem, Siemens, Vodafone, Police Sunglasses
- Ming: Gatorade, McDonald’s, Reebok, Tag Heuer, Apple, China Unicom, Sohu, Garmin and Upperdeck
(Many of these associations are ongoing, but some have ended, notably Beckham’s relationships with Vodafone and Police. Rumors persist that Gillette will soon drop Beckham in favor of fresher global stars, but so far these rumors have not yet become fact.)
So what’s behind the claim that Woods is a “dream endorser”? Are U.S. publications just being parochial and ignoring sponsors who hail from other countries? Some of the ROI claims made by Thomaselli seem pretty dubious. He seems to suggest that the upswing in sales for EA Sports video games was due in large part to the release of Tiger Wood’s Golf, though he also recognizes the bulk of sales from John Madden’s football franchise. Thomaselli also claims that Woods helped lower the average age of Buick buyers, from 65 to 55, though he qualifies that assertion by saying “Granted, Buick introduced newer, hipper models that appeal to a younger demographic, but Mr. Woods deserves some credit.” (Note: the MSNBC article echos this sentiment, quoting a Buick spokesman who said that the sale of the Buick Rendezvous SUV exceeded forecasts, and attributed the strong sales to Tiger.)
Judged by these less-than-exacting standards, our other contenders for “dream endorser” could probably cite equally impressive ROI. MSN Money UK reports that David Beckham helped raise sales of Brylcreem hair-styling products by 50%–excellent ROI for an investment of £1 million. Without citing monetary returns, India’s Tribune reported in May 2002 on Tendulkar’s effectiveness, saying, “Tendulkar brings his own clinical efficiency for his sponsors off the field. He is known to refuse a cola in public and insists on Pepsi which he endorses.”
Even if the other candidates were proven to bring as much value as Woods to the brands they endorse, many people would argue that Tiger is still a dream endorser because of his personality. Thomaselli quotes David Carter, president of Sports Business Group, as saying that Tiger Woods is unmatched in providing a combination of “likeability, believability and popularity.”
On this basis, the only one of our international superstars who gives Woods a real run for his money is Sachin Tendulkar. The Tribune article describes Tendulkar as a dependable family man with solid values, and quotes sports entrepreneur Lokesh Sharma, who describes him as, “a winner with the boy-next-door face.”
By contrast, the reliable and trustworthy Gillette may have gotten more than they bargained for if they hoped that David Beckham would add style and flair to their brand image. His bad behavior as a sponsor is well-known, as typified by this billboard in Tokyo featuring an unshaven Beckham advertising Vodafone at a time when he was also sponsoring Gillette.
Poor on-field performance and off-field behavior have ensured that his star has waned over the course of his contract, according to Simon Rines, publisher of International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorhip. And Yao Ming’s personality is criticized by Nick Barham, planning director TBWA\China (Campaign, March 2006) for being “ubiquitous and passive,” adding more to his own fame when he appears in an ad than to the brand he is sponsoring.
At the end of the day, however, the important thing is not that Tiger Woods seems to be a nice guy. What matters is that he is a winner who is still winning, something that Beckham and Tendulkar can no longer claim. The benefits that this brings to a brand extend beyond recognition, fame and image to imitation. What Beckham did for Brylcreem in the early days, Woods has done for the mock turtleneck and Nike Golf. People want to wear the same clothes and use the same equipment as the undisputed master.
One last point which is made in the Advertising Age article is that Woods prefers to limit the number of endorsements he makes. While this might be done only to keep his sponsorship price high, it does have a benefit for the brands. One criticism leveled at Tendulkar and Ming is that they sponsor too many brands at the risk of confusing consumers. Nick Barham sum’s up the dilemma succinctly in his Campaign article:
“As an exclusive relationship with A-class celebrities becomes more implausible, so it is more important to make sure they do something for you that would be impossible for another brand. Just holding your product isn’t enough any more.
So what do you think? Is Woods the sponsorship superstar? Who else might claim that title, and why?
(18 votes, average: 2.94 out of 5)
Loading ...
Email This Post
January 5th, 2007 at 3:41 am
There are a couple of other reasons why Woods is the dream endorser. Aberrant behaviour is often part of the celebrity package. Given that these folk are under constant scrutiny that behaviour is inevitably picked up and splashed across the media. For a brand that is edgy or fashionable that is a risk worth taking and which may actually add to the brand/personality link. For an Accenture that is maybe just too big a risk. Wood’s largely impeccable behaviour is a huge asset in the endorser stakes. But - and here is the clincher - that does not mean that Woods is dull and mainstream. His ethnicity is the other key factor. He has transformed the image of his sport as the bastion of white wealthy males. The fact that he has done this not just by breaking into it but by dominating it only adds to this fact.
As to who else may claim the title, for exactly the reasons I have just outlined watch out for Lewis Hamilton. Formula 1 attracts the biggest audiences of any sport in the world with a rapidly growing following in the Asian markets. At 21 years of age this Englishman has already demonstrated his credentials in Formula 3 and GP2. But as the son of Trinadadian parents he could become the first black driver to make a serious impact on a sport so far dominated by wealthy Brazilians and white Europeans.
January 8th, 2007 at 4:19 am
I am not sure if only sporting heroes were considered here, but I think movie stars make better ‘dream endorsers’.
For one, they are recognised and have greater appeal almost anywhere in the world as compared to sports stars. Golf is hardly a sport having much interest in most parts of India and China, and a Tiger Woods would go unrecognized there. Whereas a Tom Hanks or a Sean Connery (in the top 10 as per the Davie Brown Celebrity Rating Index) would definitely score.
Secondly, their fame is probably more enduring than that of sporting heroes, whose careers are shorter and who also have to deal with dips in form. Even in their respective countries, Amitabh Bachhan and Zhang Ziyi are equally, if not more sought after by brands, than Tendulkar (recently stripped by Airtel as an endorser) and Yao Ming.
Cheers
January 8th, 2007 at 8:40 am
Hi Praveen,
As you surmise I did limit the POV to sports personalities, primarily because of the various articles focusing on Tiger Woods effectiveness as a sponsor. You mention that movies stars would have more longevity than sports stars. I guess that their appeal has the potential to be less segmenting depending the nature of the films in which they star.
Thanks, Nigel
January 12th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Well it looks like I was wrong about David Beckham. The New York Times reports that his “star power still reverberates worldwide”, resulting in the Los Angeles Galaxy signing him up for five years. The deal proves that Beckham is a brand in his own right, with a value of $250 million including endorsement income, since his recent soccer performance in no way justifies that sort of price tag.