Tiger Woods. Image Ruined

Post by **RCAnismo** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:55 pm

I was just discussing this with my g/f. What's it going to be like when he does choose to get back on the green? You think he's going to get heckled?

Post by **Bubba1** » Sat Jan 02, 2010 7:24 pm

RCAnismo wrote:I was just discussing this with my g/f. What's it going to be like when he does choose to get back on the green? You think he's going to get heckled?

That's a good question. My guess he will pick and choose his tournaments carefully to minimize his exposure to hecklers, plus make demands for extra security with the organizers. The Masters, for example, has a lot of experience dealing with protesters and crowd control. So I would think that tournament would be fairly safe for him to compete at without being harassed.

Post by **UpStar** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 3:54 pm

Bubba1 wrote:
According to MSNBC, Tiger's groupies wont have to wait long. They are predicting he will play in the Masters in April.

I hope so.

Post by **RCAnismo** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:04 pm

I hope so but if I was putting money on it I would say it won't be that soon. Probably more like April 2011.

Post by **UpStar** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:50 am

AZhitman wrote:So, he's cost us up to $12 BILLION with his shenanigans.

Like I said earlier.......that was your choice. If you invested in Tag,Nike,AT&T, etc... and you are feeling the pinch of Tigers mistake...then sell your shares. I hardly doubt if mad money Cramer will advise anyone to sell their shares due to this media madness. GET REAL!!! Real investors are smarter than that It’s hardly an issue for most Americans. Like I said, HE DOESN"T OWE US ANYTHING.

Maybe I should stop using Johnson & Johnson products since that girl committed suicide. NOT gonna happen and I doubt if the share price went down, so you kill that talk. Your quote above is probably the most ill minded thing I've heard since the 54 Million dollar pants law suit. You should be ashamed for saying such a thing

edit:

My at&t stock is up approx .75 cents since thanksgiving.

Post by **AZhitman** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:04 am

UpStar wrote: Like I said earlier.......that was your choice. If you invested in Tag,Nike,AT&T, etc... and you are feeling the pinch of Tigers mistake...then sell your shares.

Real investors are smarter than that It’s hardly an issue for most Americans. Like I said, HE DOESN"T OWE US ANYTHING.

You should be ashamed for saying such a thing

I'll consider the source. You're clearly clueless.

Do YOU own any mutual funds? If so, you don't exactly pick and choose the holdings. That drop ni value had to come from SOMEWHERE. Even if you DON'T have holdings such as Nike, AT&T, etc, it's likely that you have stock in a company that holds shares OF those companies... that's the whole idea behind a mutual fund.

Since you brought it up, the J&J heiress issue has NO relation to this.

One, I've not seen anything about any "suicide". Two, she wasn't a public figure like TW. She didn't promote J&J products, wasn't the "public face" of the company, and they're not paying for her "performance".

See, you're grasping at straws, which would be humorous if it weren't so pathetic.

No shame here - If anything, you should be ashamed at your unabashed adoration and defensiveness of someone who sold one image and lived another.

Post by **elwesso** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:31 am

I was talking about this with my dad the other night as well.. I dont understand how they claim that this has cost companies $12 billion... I think thats a loaded statement, and I'd like to see the supporting facts to prove that..

I dont manage any stocks and claim no vast knowledge of the financial market, but how can ONE person account for that much LOSS... I could see how they could claim they could lose that many potential sales (which I dont agree with), but how can you LOSE that much money because of TW's screw up...

Yeah they pay him for the endorsements, but if they drop him, then of course they have less cash going out the door...

My point is, depending on how they claim they LOST that much money, which I would assume is based on lower sales, I think theres gotta be too many other external factors to blame it on one source... I dont see how one could directly correlate sales [revenue] to TW endorsing a product...

BTW these big companies like AT&T, Nike, whatever else, sell a wide variety of products to a wide variety of markets... Do you think that someone is gonna switch to verizon from AT&T because of TW? I dont think so. Do you really think that someone is going to stop buying Nike soccer shoes because TW screwed? I dont think so... Likewise, do you think that someone is going to stop buying, for instance, Nike golf shoes because TW screwed up? Its more likely, but I doubt it...

I just think some of these "claims" that Tiger Woods has ruined corporations are mind blowing... I think the biggest hit will be to live golf events, and that will be to the USGA and the PGA.. Many people that arent particularly akin to golf went to golf events because of Tiger Woods, but now they wont.

Post by **AZhitman** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:45 am

The money already went. Remember, when a company builds an entire product line and marketing strategy AROUND a public figure, then that figure "falls from grace", there's a massive re-tooling needed - which costs money. PLUS, the company doesn't get to reap the benefits of the investment it's already made.

The study:http://faculty.gsm.ucdavis.edu...3.pdf

Here's a fair explanation of how it works: http://www.associatedcontent.c...at=47

On a side note: I DO believe his private business is just that. However, in accepting the millions (that were handed to him because he's a "squeaky-clean overachiever"), it's almost a bait-and-switch.

He sold and benefitted from an image that was misleading, and knew it.

Still the greatest golfer to ever play the game, no question.

This would be like John Daly marketing himself and his image as a wholesome teetotaller.

Post by **elwesso** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:27 pm

I read the study, and I understand what their doing...

They're basing their numbers for 13 days after the incident, which at the time of their writing is the best they could do... How often do you value the earnings (or losses) of a company off a time span of less than 2 weeks? If your mutual fund drops 3% over 2 weeks, are you sweating bullets?

I think that study, while informative, is quite anecdotal in proving that everyone lost all this money... Coincidental or not to the event that transpired, a company's stock can recover 3% in a matter of weeks...

Also, the biggest point in the study is that its a RELATIVE loss, which means that those people's stock price could have stayed relatively stable, while competing firms stock price went up, causing a NET EFFECT loss... A relative loss is kind of stupid in my opinion, because hindsight is always 20/20... What they're saying (if I'm understanding this correctly), is that if Nike's stock stayed the same but relatively reebok's stock when up 4%, then its a net effective loss of 4% on the Nike stockholders... Doesn't that seem a little fishy to you? Yes, I lost that much money had I invested in reebok instead of Nike, but effectively I did not lose any of MY MONEY because the stock price stayed the same!

Let me quote the last line of the studyQuote »Finally, we should caution that our estimates are statistically `noisy,' in that they could besignificantly higher or lower than the numbers we report. One must make that caveat in anystatistical study like this, and in our case the statistical margin of error is particularly large in partbecause Mr. Woods' sponsors are (with the exception of Nike and EA) subsidiaries of larger parentcompanies.[/quote]Overall, I think that the majority of any claimed losses or cancellations in contracts has less to do with the scandal, and more to do with his "indefinite departure" from golf... Of course the "scandal" is a factor, but if a golfer ain't playing golf anymore, why would a company support them and pay them millions of dollars per month?

Post by **UpStar** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 2:42 pm

AZhitman wrote:
You're clearly clueless.

She didn't promote J&J products, wasn't the "public face" of the company, and they're not paying for her "performance".

if it weren't so pathetic.

Please do not get upset, but you really should think long and hard before you post. I don’t want to shift the conversation to the Johnson suicide, but your quote needs some attention. Her last name was Johnson and rather she liked it or not….she represented the company. I’m sure her folks explained that to her on a number of occasions. Listen! If your kids act a fool in the streets and they carry your last name……guess who they represent when they end up in jail or on the news? YOU! They represent YOU! Oh…Referring to me as clueless and pathetic is not effective and shows that you are loosing. Let’s see if you can move your point without using offensive elementary expressions in the future. Now, just to stay on topic….that whole $12Billion lost by these companies is by far one of the most over inflated figures ever. Only Two economics professors at the University of California made claims of a $12B lost and were later up-staged for their remarks.Look:http://sports.yahoo.com/golf/b...11361 my fav:"However, Waggle Room took a much closer look at the figures, and decided that the UC professors' study was completely, utterly wrong -- that in fact Woods' sponsors have earned $1.5 billion since the accident. That link is must-reading for those interested in the financial side of this story, but in sum -- the "losses" were paper losses, not actual cash, and Woods' impact on the sponsors is minimal because so little of their overall value is tied to Woods." Did you see the “UTTERLY WRONG” part?

AZ- Shame on you again for failing do more research before posting such a thing. Do more research next time. Do not pick and choose what you want us to see. It insults our intelligence,plus it make you look bad. Post all the facts from other sources and then let us make our own judgement.

The money lost talk is garbage until I see or hear Accenture, AT&T, Electronic Arts, Proctor and Gamble, Nike and PepsiCo come forward and announce that they've lost X amount of dollars due to Tiger Woods and his relations with numerous women. My At&T stock has yet to announce any PR’s stating a lose due to this media madness. You’ve been served a healthy dose of truth and knowledge!

Edit:

Ohhh! Ohhh Ohhh ! Once I saw the “Finally, we should caution that our estimates are statistically noisy……" from that article..... I realized I just wasted my time reading it. All that talk and boom they throw in their "we might be wrong"disclaimer. I'll never get those 2 minutes of my life back. thanks alot!

AZhitman wrote:Still the greatest golfer to ever play the game, no question.

atleast we agree on something
Modified by UpStar at 4:57 PM 1/5/2010

Post by **Bubba1** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:08 pm

elwesso wrote:I read the study, and I understand what their doing...

They're basing their numbers for 13 days after the incident, which at the time of their writing is the best they could do... How often do you value the earnings (or losses) of a company off a time span of less than 2 weeks? If your mutual fund drops 3% over 2 weeks, are you sweating bullets?

I think that study, while informative, is quite anecdotal in proving that everyone lost all this money... Coincidental or not to the event that transpired, a company's stock can recover 3% in a matter of weeks...

Also, the biggest point in the study is that its a RELATIVE loss, which means that those people's stock price could have stayed relatively stable, while competing firms stock price went up, causing a NET EFFECT loss... A relative loss is kind of stupid in my opinion, because hindsight is always 20/20... What they're saying (if I'm understanding this correctly), is that if Nike's stock stayed the same but relatively reebok's stock when up 4%, then its a net effective loss of 4% on the Nike stockholders... Doesn't that seem a little fishy to you? Yes, I lost that much money had I invested in reebok instead of Nike, but effectively I did not lose any of MY MONEY because the stock price stayed the same!

Let me quote the last line of the study

Overall, I think that the majority of any claimed losses or cancellations in contracts has less to do with the scandal, and more to do with his "indefinite departure" from golf... Of course the "scandal" is a factor, but if a golfer ain't playing golf anymore, why would a company support them and pay them millions of dollars per month?

I think the real financial impact of the Tiger scandal/hiatus cannot yet be determined. The depth of the impact might be influenced more by the nature of Woods individual endorsements. For example, I would think AT&T would fare better than Nike due to the fact AT&T has no actual products in Tiger's name. Nike, on the other hand, has much more at risk with millions invested in Tiger Woods specialty product lines, from clothing, to clubs and accessories. The longer Tiger stays out of golf, or if the flow o' Ho's grows, Nike could easily be stuck with devalued, or slow selling merchandise. Now if Nike were savvy, they might think about taking advantage of Tiger's newly revealed image and offer a new line of Tiger Woods golf gloves , "ribbed for her pleasure" , or perhaps Tiger Condoms ("for that special hole in one").

Post by **DRO@G37** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:56 pm

thats

Bubba1 wrote:
Winning an NBA championship the next year and a scoring title (?) tends to help hardcore NBA fans forget about his pesky rape allegations.

I'm sure once Tiger resumes his golfing and wins another tournament, fans like Upstar will resume their adoration. Personally I think "Ashley Madison.com" should seek Tiger out as a spokesman.

thats f en funny bubba HAHA ASHLEYMADISON....tom would definitly not approve

Post by **DRO@G37** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:04 pm

thats true.

AZhitman wrote:Update:

Looks like some of the people ni this thread need to go back and re-evaluate what they've said.

See, here's the deasl: While his private life IS his business, he's responsible to a whole other group of people: Shareholders.

If you own a mutual fund, chances are it holds stock in Nike and all the other companies he endorses.

So, he's cost us up to $12 BILLION with his shenanigans.

If you're Joe Public, I don't pay your salary (unless you're a government employee). But athletes are paid through ticket sales, andorsements, and sponsors, and that money comes from us, the general public (and golf fans).

So he DOES bear some responsibility to the public. Who do you think made him all those millions of dollars?

I disagree 100% with UpStar on this point.

Thats true.. He is a public figure, so his actions, most indefinitely will have re precautions on the stock holders. But, maybe stock holders need to invest in companies with a less negatively media driven market. For example; nike stands by its endorsements to tiger, why? because regardless of the act(excluding in moral) nike targets young people, who dont care about politics, but the sport. Wearing a nike shoe is still wearing a nike shoe, unlike his watch brand which drop him, because after all, for wants to wear a watch endorsed by someone who likes a side with thier main course.(wife vs mistress)

Post by **AZhitman** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:36 am

UpStar wrote:Please do not get upset

Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you could post would make me "upset".

UpStar wrote: Her last name was Johnson and rather she liked it or not….she represented the company.

Really?

Does Paris Hilton represent a hotel chain?

Does Teresa Kerry represent a ketchup manufacturer?

UpStar wrote: I’m sure her folks explained that to her on a number of occasions. Listen! If your kids act a fool in the streets and they carry your last name……guess who they represent when they end up in jail or on the news? YOU! They represent YOU!

And I'm sure Earl Woods is turning over in his grave.

By your logic, I shouldn't be concerned about my kids' behavior - After all, that's their private life, right? Whose business is it? Hmmm....

There's a HUGE difference. YOU brought up Ms. Johnson (not I), and it was a pathetic attempt at a comparison. The two are as unrelated as apples and oranges.

She is NOT the "public face" of J&J. Her image is NOT tied to the brand. No one pays her to represent the company. She wasn't hired. She's not on commercials. She's not making public appearances to promote J&J products. She is merely a nameless, faceless heiress, just like Ms. Hilton, just like Ms. Heinz-Kerry. Hell, I didn't even know who she was before her death.

Your comparison is, in a word, invalid.

UpStar wrote: "However, Waggle Room took a much closer look at the figures, and decided that the UC professors' study was completely, utterly wrong -- that in fact Woods' sponsors have earned $1.5 billion since the accident.

What the hell is a "waggle room"? Sounds like a reliable source to me.

Here's the problem with the article you posted, and I'm surprised you didn't catch it (since you're the self-proclaimed harbinger of truth and knowledge on this topic... ):

Of COURSE those companies have earned a lot of money. No one is disputing that! They're expected to make money. The study pointed out that they earned comparatively LESS than comparable companies who did not have TW endorsements.

In other words, they're saying that while Woods' sponsors have earned $1.5 billion since the accident, the projections showed they WOULD have earned $13.5 billion had the "scandal" not come to light (which is where they get their figure of $12 billion in "losses".)

UpStar wrote: The "losses" were paper losses, not actual cash,

Let's see what you say when your accountant tells you that your 401K value's losses were paper losses, not actual cash.

UpStar wrote: The money lost talk is garbage until I see or hear Accenture, AT&T, Electronic Arts, Proctor and Gamble, Nike and PepsiCo come forward and announce that they've lost X amount of dollars due to Tiger Woods and his relations with numerous women. My At&T stock has yet to announce any PR’s stating a lose due to this media madness.

Don't hold your breath. That would be a PR nightmare, an unnecessary exposure to legal liability, and an idiotic thing to do. If you're waiting for that as your "proof", you'll never get it.

Now, I will concede THIS: I don't think $12B is accurate, I think it's probably overstated to some degree, and I don't think you can claim he's somehow ultimately responsible for those "losses" (paper or otherwise). I will agree that it's been blown WAY out of proportion.

I believe that's a knee-jerk response to the cavalier, arrogant and indifferent attitude that celebrities can behave as jackasses and get away with it, while the people who pay their salary have social (and other) consequences for our actions.

My point is that when the public pays your salary, either directly (public servant, government employee) or indirectly (through sponsorships, ticket sales, royalties), you have a responsibility to shareholders to give them what they're paying for.

If you don't want to live under the microscope that comes with being a squeaky-clean master of your profession, then don't take the money they pay you for the image of being a squeaky-clean master of your profession.

It's simple.

Post by **Bubba1** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:32 pm

Actually, Nike might now be happy to keep Tiger on after Elin smacked him upside his head with a club. Check out the pic I saw today....

Sorry upstar, couldn't resist.

Post by **AZhitman** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:00 pm

Bubba1 wrote:Actually, Nike might now be happy to keep Tiger on after Elin smacked him upside his head with a club.

Someone needs to send Tiger a video of some guy slipping his wife the ol' driver.

Post by **elwesso** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:43 pm

id rather slip her the pitching wedge, personally.

Post by **Bubba1** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:27 am

AZhitman wrote:
Someone needs to send Tiger a video of some guy slipping his wife the ol' driver.

It would be even greater if it was Phil Mickelson getting caught "mid-stroke" with her. Of course, Phil would claim he was seeking tips from the one person who could beat Tiger with a golf club.

Post by **MinisterofDOOM** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:42 am

Interestingly, EA Sports, who has a sponsorship deal with Tiger (obviously) for their Tiger Woods branded golf series, is standing behind and defending the guy, stating that his personal life is beside the point and he is still (or was still) one of the greatest athletes and golfers in history. They will continue to use his name and image on their games despite the controversy and his hiatus/retirement/whatever.

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time EA Sports continued using a sports celebrity's image for a game despite controversy. They continued using Tyson to promote their boxing series even after his rape conviction.

Post by **AZhitman** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:07 am

That's just good business, given their demographic.

Remember, these are the same people who are entertained by GTA and such.

Post by **Bubba1** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:40 am

AZhitman wrote:That's just good business, given their demographic.

Remember, these are the same people who are entertained by GTA and such.

So true, I could see EA rolling out a "Leisure Suit Tiger"game.

Post by **Bubba1** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:48 am

MSNBC reported today that a 13th Tiger mistress, former Playboy model Loredonna Jolie Ferriolo is shopping a book claiming she not only had paid sexual liaisons with Tiger but that she witnessed him having sex with men.Interesting development.

So, If it turns out to be true, I'm curious if that would impact Upstar's worship of Mr. Woods.

Post by **AZhitman** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:58 am

Wonder if he was making this face:

Post by **UpStar** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 3:33 pm

Bubba1 wrote:So, If it turns out to be true, I'm curious if that would impact Upstar's worship of Mr. Woods.

I worship no man. As for him being with men... I doubt that, but the media will say anything right now just to be saying it. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if it’s from two professors from California.

This Tiger Woods talk is getting old. You boys have fun with it.
Modified by UpStar at 5:39 PM 1/7/2010

Post by **Bubba1** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 4:28 pm

UpStar wrote:I worship no man. As for him being with men... I doubt that, but the media will say anything right now just to be saying it. Don’t believe everything you read, especially if it’s from two professors from California.

This Tiger Woods talk is getting old. You boys have fun with it.

Modified by UpStar at 5:39 PM 1/7/2010

Could you please elaborate on the two professors from California??

As far as men, most of the rumors thus far about his sexual infidelities have been found to be true, so it's certainly possible Tiger could be bi.

You also dodged my question, if it turns out Tiger does enjoy sex with men, would you still be as big a fan as you are now?

But I wouldn;t blame the press so much as the women who are seeking out the press to tell their stories, and, of course, Tiger himself for cheating with so many women who would rat him out instantly if asked.

Post by **AZhitman** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:39 pm

UpStar wrote: As for him being with men... I doubt that, but the media will say anything right now just to be saying it. Don’t believe everything you read,

Interestingly, the consequences for such allegations would be pretty severe in a civil case IF the woman who said them didn't have some corroborating evidence that she's not shared yet...

Doubt away. Sounds like someone might have "had the tiger by the tail"...

UpStar wrote: especially if it’s from two professors from California.

UpStar wrote:This Tiger Woods talk is getting old. You boys have fun with it.

Are you taking your clubs and going home? Who's gonna defend Tiger's good name? Who's going to speak against these mean and nasty rumors?

Post by **UpStar** » Tue Mar 16, 2010 4:51 pm

welcome back tiger! go get that green jacket

[/QUOTE]

Post by **Bubba1** » Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:54 pm

UpStar wrote: welcome back tiger! go get that green jacket

QUOTE]

Post by **Bubba1** » Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:16 am

Bubba1 wrote:
. Now if Nike were savvy, they might think about taking advantage of Tiger's newly revealed image and offer a new line of Tiger Woods golf gloves , "ribbed for her pleasure" , or perhaps Tiger Condoms ("for that special hole in one").

Hey I think I'm psychic. look what I just found...

Post by **UpStar** » Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:54 am

one dumb post followed by another! good job

Tiger Woods. Image Ruined

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (RCAnismo)

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (UpStar)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (UpStar)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (elwesso)

Re: Tiger Woods. Image Ruined (Bubba1)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (UpStar)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (elwesso)

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (UpStar)

Re: (UpStar)

Re: (AZhitman)

Re: (UpStar)

Re: (Bubba1)

Re: (Bubba1)

Nissan Forums

Infiniti Forums

Datsun Forums

Technical Forums

Classifieds / Marketplace

Nissan Motorsports

General Forums