Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

LINCICOME: Woods-GM divorce bodes ill for rest of us

By Bernie Lincicome, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published November 25, 2008 at 7:34 p.m.

Text size  

More Sports Columns & Blogs

More stories »

Tiger Woods never sold a Buick. Since he started trying to sell them, only half as many were sold as before, so in a way, the problems of General Motors can be seen as Tiger's fault. If he had been able to convince the world that he liked the car or that he even drove the car, maybe car company bigwigs would not now be begging.

Just so we have someone to blame - and why not the world's most famous, most admired athlete - because if Tiger can't save GM, the economy has gotten to Tiger, and what chance is there for the rest of us, really?

Woods did not, to use the golf term, finish the round. He was whipped by GM 2 up, or maybe worse, whatever it means to be $7 million worse off, a still substantial sum even with Woods' overall endorsement income of some $128 million.

Not that Woods needs a fundraiser, for he is ultimately better off than any of his endorsees, including American Express and that Swiss wristwatch he wears.

He's building a house on 12 acres on Jupiter Island in Florida, which will do nothing to depress home prices on that exclusive little sandbar, already determined to be the richest ZIP code in America.

Maybe this is some kind of squeeze on Congress by GM, essentially saying if you can't help us, you can't have Tiger, at least not with our logo on his bag, a bag by the way that someone else carries for him.

Or maybe it's just golf, since the ladies tour lopped off $5 million and three tournaments, and Cadillac, one of the prestige sponsors of the Masters, has withdrawn its money. GM, though, did also bow out of the Super Bowl. Next thing you know, they'll have to sell their corporate jets.

Imagining sports without sponsors is a bit frightening, leaving us to wonder what ultimate winners might shout now that they have won the big one. Not, "I'm going to Disney World," but "I'm not going anywhere because no one will pay me to."

We look around town and see all our sports palaces with corporate names, none of which has sold a single can of Pepsi or bottle of Coors, and Invesco might get through the remaining 12 years of its contract without anyone knowing exactly what Invesco is or anyone not thinking of the place as Mile High Stadium.

Citigroup, rights namer of the new Mets stadium in New York, has just been bailed out by the government, yet it will spend $20 million a year to keep its name on the ballpark. The Mets might lose fans just from resentment.

Every airline seems to be in trouble, but airline names are on arenas from Chicago to Phoenix to Salt Lake City, which is, by the way, a recent route I had to fly to keep my airline ticket cost down.

It is never quite clear who gets the best of these things, but I will say that I tried a pizza only because Rod Smith sold it.

Ugh.

I am not sure what Matt Holliday and Clint Hurdle were selling with the "Did you touch it," commercials (jelly doughnuts?), but if I had figured it out, I would have tried that as well, just because it was so clever.

Woods once humiliated himself by making a commercial parody of the movie Caddyshack, cringe-worthy and embarrassing, leaving the impression only that Woods would do anything for money.

Off-the-field income is what defines a mere athletic star from an athletic superstar, such as Woods, such as LeBron James. This is what, among other things, separates James from Carmelo Anthony.

Marketing of athletes became what it is out of the promoting of Michael Jordan and Nike, one case in which the relationship actually benefitted both parties.

But I've never bought underwear because Jordan said so or had a sports drink or a hot dog, and I liked Wheaties a long time before Jordan suggested them.

As corporate America authenticates athletes, so does it work in reverse. The greatest example is Barry Bonds, who is yet to be found guilty of anything but whose image is clearly that of a rule breaker and steroid user because no company would associate with him. Bonds had a brief bit with Fila and a stock brokerage firm, as I recall, but on the night he hit his record-breaking No. 756, it was as if he were playing all alone, as, indeed, he has been.

Hertz was once married to O.J. Simpson, who used to run through airports to the rental car lot while old ladies cried, "Go, O.J., go."

Didn't rent their cars then, don't now.

Comments

  • November 26, 2008

    9:27 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    ParkHillPosse writes:

    Bernie: I think you're conflating two separate issues: (i) a short-term reduction in corporate discretionary sponsorship/advertising spending, and (ii) a continuing shift in ad spending toward media with better measurability in return on investment and effectiveness in driving actionable responses (purchases). The GM issue is an aberration (other firms will eventually pick up the sponsorships that GM was forced to drop), and the larger economic trend will only last so long. The GM-Tiger "divorce" has no implications for the rest of us. What would have an impact on the rest of us would be a lowering of ticket prices and a related downward adjustment in salary caps and player salaries.

  • November 26, 2008

    10:13 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jimboelrod writes:

    I take it you haven't been to a Utah Jazz game at Energy Solutions Arena in Salt Lake City

  • November 26, 2008

    11:14 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    primafacie writes:

    Tiger didn't sell enough Buicks. That makes it a bad $7 million annual investment for GM.