Returning Tiger's Shirt.

I heard this conversation second-hand:

An early-shopping mother had bought a Sunday red Tiger Woods branded shirt as a Christmas present for her adult son. She was talking with a group of women about whether she should take it back to the store and exchange it for another brand.

One suggestion: It's his gift, let him take it back if he wants.

Mother: Well... I'd feel good if he did that, but what if he doesn't? Then I'd be annoyed whenever I saw him wear it.

Another said: It's your shirt until you give it to him. If it makes you feel icky, return it. He'll never know.

Mother: I'll take it back this afternoon.

That's the abridged version. No one really questioned why the mom would feel that way or that her desire to dump the shirt was at all off base.

Let me speculate here that a men's discussion might go differently, with the least noxious statement being to the effect that it's just a shirt. 

This discussion more or less confirms my hunch.

Lin says:

I, for one, have changed my buying pattern and no longer will purchase Nike, Gatorade or any Pepsi products, Gillette is a goner, AT&T will never be my cell phone carrier and I no longer use my AmEx credit card. [...]

And Jason responds:

give me a break, you expect us to believe that you will not purchase nike, pepsi, gillette, at&t, or amex products – this is a crock, and any educated consumer will base their purchase decisions on product quality and perceived value, not sponsorship

Kurt also rationalizes:

First of all, the sponsor companies did not know about Tiger’s actions until after the fact. This is why you are seeing and will continue to see certain sponsors drop Tiger. So you can’t really blame the consumer companies. They did what they thought to be best at the time of acquiring him as a spokesperson.

The sponsored athlete does not make the products good, the producing company does. The athlete is merely a marketing strategy.

Like Jason said, if you are dumb enough to buy or drop products solely because of the associated athlete, then you are NOT a smart, educated consumer.

These guys totally miss the fact that they are paying extra for the "perceived value" of a $75 to $100 TW shirt. They are ignoring their own response to the emotional dimension of brands, as well as the fact that women consumers may view Tiger's behavior differently than they do.

Bill has a more nuanced take:

I see Nike & Woods as actually four brands: 1) the Tiger Woods garments with his TW logo. These sales will suffer. 2) Nike golf clubs which had a poor image until Tiger won with them. These too may suffer, somewhat. 3) Nike golf clothing. Not a factor. You’re not going to switch to inferior fabrics/styles at Adidas etc. to avoid the swoosh. 4) Other Nike sporting goods. Not a factor. But back to #1 and 2…Nike has to think twice about its ads showing Tiger in a “heroic” follow-thru pose.

Given that a lot of menswear is purchased by women, Nike has to be concerned about the likelihood that its Tiger line of clothing is going to take a hit. For how long remains to be seen, but the value of his endorsement has to have plummeted.

And if sales do drop, it's certainly not a matter of women not being "smart, educated consumers."