There are thought leadership lessons in Tiger’s tale

• Share
• Tweet

Gap analysis has been around for decades.  Simply put it is the expectation of a brand’s current level of performance and where it wants to be in the future. The difference between the two is the gap analysis.

In Tiger Woods’ case the gap has become a chasm.  However, it also begs the question as to whether his personal brand was built into something it was not.  Testimony to this is the website www.tigerisgod.com which was taken down a few weeks ago.

What has this got to do with thought leadership?

Put it this way.  If you are planning on using your thought leadership campaign to build you or your brand into something you are not you run the risk creating a massive perceptual gap problem – one which could be damaging to your brand.

Very few consumers stick with brands that overpromise and under-deliver.  So be wary of the PR campaign or thought leadership campaign that sets out to build you into something you are not.

Align your campaigns to your values

I am a firm believer in aligning, in particular your thought leadership but also other campaigns like your PR and CSR campaigns to your company values.

These values should be the compass by which to steer your profile building efforts.  But how often do you hear an advertising agency or PR company asking for a company’s values when designing a campaign?

True thought leadership campaigns need to be credible internally and across multiple external stakeholders.  The more your thought leadership campaign relates closely to the issues, trends or hot topics across your sector and the more it addresses the concerns of your clients or customers, the more authentic it will be.

Today more than ever, consumers are looking for authenticity in the brands they choose.  If you can achieve this there is far less chance that your campaign will create a gap between the perception of what you stand for and the reality.

A classic Australian example was a company called Firepower, a company which created enormous media hype around the promise of a fuel pill that would save motorists and transport companies a lot of money on their fuel consumption.  It has gone down as one of the biggest corporate scams this country has seen – a brand promise that missed the mark by a country mile leaving a litany of court cases and red faces and designated the brand to the bottom of the corporate scrapheap.

I would love to hear from you if you have examples of similar companies or campaigns that have overpromised and under-delivered.  

7 Responses to “There are thought leadership lessons in Tiger’s tale”

1. karalee says:

   December 15, 2009 at 00:46

   Craig, great article and some very pertinent points.

   It interests me that a great brand, which is respected and has built up trust and sentiment, can be undone in a matter of minutes by failing to deliver on their value proposition.

   One example which immediately comes to mind, is Australia’s low cost carrier, Jetstar. They have built a brand on the value of value for money and fun. Great brand attributes.

   But when they heavily promoted a flight sale via social media, and eDM to their database, including having their sale retweeted, facebooked, tagged and commented on their online booking system crashed! They were perhaps a victim of their own success to an extent, however, the failing of the sale was they neglected to communicate to their customers an apology or to admit they stuffed up.

   This resulted in a lot of negative backlash online, and I suspect via WOM. Good idea, bad execution. More details here: http://www.digitaltip.com.au/index.php/jetstars-5-cent-fail-sale/

   Cheers
   karalee
2. craig says:

   December 15, 2009 at 01:00

   Karalee, interesting case study and interesting point you pose re brand trust being undone in minutes. In some instances consumers can be more forgiving than others. There has been quite a bit of research done on the recovery of brands post crisis. The ones that recover quickest are those that had a great CSR program in place and were perceived by the market to be seen to be doing the right thing. Not sure that Jetstar falls into this category and therefore customers may be far less forgiving.
3. Sean Williams says:

   December 15, 2009 at 21:33

   Craig – When you say “align your campaigns with your values” that’s when the Tiger Woods situation becomes quite salient. Accenture’s decision to drop Mr. Woods, and Nike’s to retain him, surely are reflections of how those companies see their own brand values.

   Accenture was never a good fit for Woods, in my opinion. I never bought the concept that a business consultancy had anything in common with a professional athlete. Their “high performance business” brand target seems rather pedestrian. I know they used Woods’ image everywhere — and I can see where Tiger’s top-o-the-heap reputation might endear them to that type of campaign. However, what sort of business are they helping clients become? Low-end, mediocre? Fah.
4. craig says:

   December 15, 2009 at 21:55

   You raise two interesting points Sean. The question for the stayers like Nike is at what point does community and other stakeholder pressure grow too uncomfortable and when do they decide that it is starting to damage their brand? Time will tell.
5. Craig Pearce says:

   December 15, 2009 at 22:29

   Well, if the option is to build Tiger’s brand into something that reflects his reality, I’m not sure how marketable he would be: porn stars, rampant infidelity, alleged connections with illegal drug subscribing doctors…how the hell do you build a brand on that?

   It may well be that the building of Tiger’s brand on a fantasy was the guy’s most viable option, when you apply a risk-reward equation to it.
6. Trevor Young PR Warrior says:

   December 21, 2009 at 02:56

   Timely comments Craig. The whole issue of ‘disconnection’ is one that has fascinated me in recent times. How many brands out there spend so much money promoting themselves but there is a distinct disconnect between the advertised brand and reality (Telstra always springs to mind here – last week they sent me a magazine on small business, trying to establish some sort of relevance between the brand and SMEs, while at the same time I’ve been trying in vain to get our new office connected by Telstra, it’s been six weeks and could well be another six weeks before it’s done! That’s a massive disconnect in anyone’s language).

   Then there is the ‘other’ disconnection – the one between brands and consumers. The public is increasingly disengaged from major companies and organisations that don’t treat them with respect, won’t engage in two-way conversation, and generally (continue to) act like the big faceless corporation they’ve become.

   More and more the future belongs to those ‘brands’ (whether they be companies, politicians, sportspeople etc) that develop a genuine ‘connection’ with consumers, staff and other stakeholders.
7. craig says:

   December 21, 2009 at 03:09

   Trevor, your point is exactly why large corporations battle with a decent thought leadership platform. By their very nature large corporates often lack a real connection with their customers. In addition, there is the ability, as in your case, where one area of the business destroys the experience in another.

   That’s not to say large corporates shouldn’t embrace thought leadership – the disconnect you speak about is something should always be work in progress. Thought leadership is merely one of the, albeit it a powerful tool one can use to effect this.