Given the topic of Case #3 surrounding sponsorship, here is an interesting and prevalent story relating to this topic. Most of us probably will have heard about Tiger Woods and some of his extracurricular exploits in the past year, and his sponsorship has suffered because of it. That is not surprising, but what does surprise me is that his sponsorship may suffer due to his poor play.
Take a look at this article explaining the current situation:
As in Case #3, and as in all sponsorship deals, the goal is to maximize exposure and reach the biggest number of consumers possible. It is understandable that certain of Woods’ sponsors dropped the golfer after his public image was tarnished, because they may have been worried about how his acts may reflect negatively on the company.
What does not make sense to me though, is how certain sponsors who have stuck with Woods through this scandal may drop him due to his poor play on the course. Woods is receiving more media attention than ever, and his sponsors are receiving media attention just for the fact that they stick with him. Why should his play influence whether or not they stick with him, since exposure is greater than ever? It doesn’t make sense.
Categories: