Martyd3 Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091218/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_tiger_woods_tag_heuer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panerai153 Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I saw a news report in the New York Times last week i believe that Tag Australia was removing all advertising with Tiger Wood's photograph from it's dealers showrooms. It's pretty sad, and a little incredible to me that someone can go from and Icon to a punchline in a mattter of days. I suppose the higher up you are, the farther you have to fall. Arthur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterOfPuppets Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 It is pretty sad, but Nike is standing by him and wont drop him from their campaigns What he's been doing is pretty messed up, but u dont let go of an icon just like that, the guy has made them earn millions just my $0.02 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Is it sad? I know that's the automatic reaction, but honestly, is it really? Personally, I've never liked Tiger Woods, and always felt he gave off a vibe of arrogance, entitlement and smug superiority, but that aside, he has no one to blame for any of this, than himself. Companies are not going to want to endorse, or be represented by someone who is anything less than an excellent role-model, and, from these revelations, Tiger Woods has shown himself to be a 'less than perfect' example. I've got no issue with him, or what he's done, those were his choices of his own free will, but, there are always consequences for ones actions, and he is now feeling that. Lets not forget that he is a multi-millionaire anyway, he's not going to be struggling the same way which Joe Sixpack might struggle if getting fired from Wal-Mart... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyd3 Posted December 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I'm with you on this one TeeJay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 I'm with you on this one TeeJay. Thanks, I didn't want to get into bashing the guy, afterall, I don't know him personally, so my opinion is only based on my perception of him through the media, I'm just being honest about how I feel about the subject 'Everyday people' in a similar situation would feel much bigger implications for such actions, and whatever happens, I can't see him having to claim welfare anytime soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opti Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) Won't affect him in the least, the endorsements have already made him many millions over the years. Don't care or feel sorry for him. Edited December 19, 2009 by opti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterOfPuppets Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Companies dont pay endorsements for key figure or role models based on their personal lives, he's an excellent athlete, like many others, and im pretty sure other athletes like him have bigger problems, they just keep them personal In Tiger Woods' case, things got outta hand and the media blew it way out of proportion, no one has any right to stick their noses up anyone's personal issues Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Companies dont pay endorsements for key figure or role models based on their personal lives, he's an excellent athlete, like many others, and im pretty sure other athletes like him have bigger problems, they just keep them personal In Tiger Woods' case, things got outta hand and the media blew it way out of proportion, no one has any right to stick their noses up anyone's personal issues Lack of a 'private life', is one of the prices celebrities pay for their fame and renown. At least he is doing the honorable thing and stepping out of the public eye to put his affairs in order (no pun intended) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Teejay I got to agree with you mate. At the end of the day a celebrity/ known figure sells his image to the corporate advertisers based on that public image. If he/she decides to undermine that public image then they forfeit the right to expect continued advertising of that image. Effectively they are in breach of that contract, they may of made millions for a company but they also earned millions on the back of it. As for privacy I dont agree that he deserves it while using his image/lifestyle as a marketing tool and being paid handsomely for the priviledge. However now he has stepped back from that he should be allowed an opportunity of privacy not so much for him but his family. A lot of people do a 'job' that makes them famous to varying degrees, the 'job' itself doesnt give anyone the right to invade their privacy. But if those people chose to sell their image on the basis of the perception of them by the public then they can expect ridicule when they are found to be in breach of that image they or others (with consent) have created. Thats my pennies worth..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanikai Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 It is sad.. it is his personal life and as such you'd wish the media circus would just leave it at that.. but the price of glory for athletes that are more like celebrities is high..he has got to get on Oprah to start rebuilding his image (sad to say) and make amends..although to late to save his family Although he was totally wrong I feel for him deeply, since he is loosing what I thought he cherished most... above any trophy and golf itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4GTR Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 The guy is famous for being good at whacking a ball with a stick. Thats all. Personally I'm glad I dont have to see every single TAG model with some OMGTIGERWOODS edition with his gay signature adorning the caseback and some random tasteless dial color change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 The guy is famous for being good at whacking a ball with a stick...... Surely its for putting his balls in a lot of holes !!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeJay Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 Teejay I got to agree with you mate. At the end of the day a celebrity/ known figure sells his image to the corporate advertisers based on that public image. If he/she decides to undermine that public image then they forfeit the right to expect continued advertising of that image. Effectively they are in breach of that contract, they may of made millions for a company but they also earned millions on the back of it. As for privacy I dont agree that he deserves it while using his image/lifestyle as a marketing tool and being paid handsomely for the priviledge. However now he has stepped back from that he should be allowed an opportunity of privacy not so much for him but his family. A lot of people do a 'job' that makes them famous to varying degrees, the 'job' itself doesnt give anyone the right to invade their privacy. But if those people chose to sell their image on the basis of the perception of them by the public then they can expect ridicule when they are found to be in breach of that image they or others (with consent) have created. Thats my pennies worth..... You're absolutely right there, 100% There are celebrities who court media attention more than others, for example, Katie Price invites the reality show cameras into her house, Cheryl Cole, on the other hand, I can't ever imagine doing something like that. As you say, when someone is using their image as a marketing tool, once they break/change that image, then it's only fair that those deals come to an end... My wife was saying earlier, that she heard that Tiger Woods admited that he'd only got married because it would be good for his image Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted December 19, 2009 Report Share Posted December 19, 2009 If he/she decides to undermine that public image then they forfeit the right to expect continued advertising of that image. Sorry Pete, but I have disagree. The only one who has undermined Tiger Woods' image is the media and papparazzi. His statement which he finally released a week later was well stated: I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone. Although I am a well-known person and have made my career as a professional athlete, I have been dismayed to realize the full extent of what tabloid scrutiny really means. For the last week, my family and I have been hounded to expose intimate details of our personal lives. The stories in particular that physical violence played any role in the car accident were utterly false and malicious. Elin has always done more to support our family and shown more grace than anyone could possibly expect. But no matter how intense curiosity about public figures can be, there is an important and deep principle at stake which is the right to some simple, human measure of privacy. I realize there are some who don't share my view on that. But for me, the virtue of privacy is one that must be protected in matters that are intimate and within one's own family. Personal sins should not require press releases and problems within a family shouldn't have to mean public confessions. Whatever regrets I have about letting my family down have been shared with and felt by us alone. I have given this a lot of reflection and thought and I believe that there is a point at which I must stick to that principle even though it's difficult. I will strive to be a better person and the husband and father that my family deserves. For all of those who have supported me over the years, I offer my profound apology. While I think that the endorsements should equate to a role-model, ie: someone who sets an excellent example among his peers, I agree with his statement that his personal life should not be under a microscope every single day. If you or I had an affair we wouldn't have to offer up a public statement explaining our actions. Why should he have to do the same? Celebrity or not, all persons are entitled to some privacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Sorry Pete, but I have disagree. The only one who has undermined Tiger Woods' image is the media and papparazzi. His statement which he finally released a week later was well stated: And theres me thinking he was the one that went off sha**ing anything with a pulse and all the time it was the media. My bad As he says in his statement its as a consequence of his public actions that has resulted in the media scrutiny over the last week... By the way is this the five minute arguement or the full half hour?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Ahh...we'll just stick to the 5 min one just cause it's almost Christmas Of course, I'm not saying he should be out shagging every babe with a pulse, but the media hype has gotten way out of control lately. Look at how much attention Jon & Kate plus 8 got this year. I mean, come on! This is news worthy???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Your right on the news worthy bit mate. But then news now means ' stories that sell'. But hey we reap what we sow! I don't agree with the level of media scrutiny by any means. But I do think he should suffer the loss of the benefits he received as a public image for sale. Stories seem to be only deemed newsworthy if they titilate or cause fear. But that's another arguement!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTone Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Phil Night will stick by Tiger... At the end of the day always remember - when pointing a finger at someone else, there are 3 pointing back at yourself... "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone" Double T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Well said TT! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteM Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Not sure who is pointing the finger in the context of that post. In my case it's usually two fingers!! And certainly I have done much worse in my life than anything reported about tiger but I don't make millions from my image if I did I would lie my ar-e off too!! I am definitely not taking the moral high ground all I am trying to say is if you get paid for goods or services or an image and you fail to deliver that then you shouldn't benefit from it and you should be called to account for failing to provide it. And I don't mean by the media I mean by the people that pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opti Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 The media are vampires, anyone with half a brain knows that and I doubt anyone is disputing it. They are looking for things gone wrong to cover, then whip that horse till death, and continue to whip it some more. Now Tiger, hes an idiot for thinking that he could get away with it indefinitely and not anticipating what would happen when he finally got caught. He may be rich as [censored], but all that money cannot buy him anonymity. Someone as well known as him, cannot go [censored] around and not get caught out sooner or later. Not taking the moral high ground here, [censored], if I had that sort of dough Id be ploughing a different bird every night too. You just don't do it when your married with 2 kids and that well known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoTone Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 Not sure who is pointing the finger in the context of that post. In my case it's usually two fingers!! And certainly I have done much worse in my life than anything reported about tiger but I don't make millions from my image if I did I would lie my ar-e off too!! I am definitely not taking the moral high ground all I am trying to say is if you get paid for goods or services or an image and you fail to deliver that then you shouldn't benefit from it and you should be called to account for failing to provide it. And I don't mean by the media I mean by the people that pay for it. @Pete Certainly wasn't referencing you... My comment was more rhetorical than anything else... Sometimes I need to remind myself ... TT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippa Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 The media are vampires, anyone with half a brain knows that and I doubt anyone is disputing it. Certainly, but they are vampires because we want them to be. The reason the media is full of celebs, scandal and the private details of other people's lives, is that that is exactly what the public wants. Just as there will be drug dealers as long as there is a market for drugs, there will be peddlers of tabloid filth as long as people read that kind of garbage. Which they do only more and more. It doesn't make much sense to blame the media exclusively for being immoral and insensitive, when the public at large is equally immoral and pathologically fascinated by the private lives of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opti Posted December 20, 2009 Report Share Posted December 20, 2009 a very good point Agrippa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.