Nike Golf is one of those very few sponsors of Tiger Woods who did not change their sponsorship cooperation with the golf player. The question rises what makes Nike Golf so loyal to Tiger Woods? Is it still beneficial and lucrative to be attached with such golf player as Tiger Woods? Why do not they replace him with somebody else? The answer is simple: Nike Golf piggybacked on Tiger Woods. Or let's say in a different way, Nike Golf would be able to secure such market share in a very short period of time in this very tensed industry without Tiger Woods. According to New York-based market researcher TNS, Nike Golf spent $84.4 million in cross-channel advertising for its golf products during the first three quarters this year. Nike Golf is still not as strong as Callaway or TaylorMade. They want to maximize their investment in Tiger Woods and in marketing.
Yes, Tiger Woods is a brand, just like Barack Hussein Obama. Both are good example of the American dream. Today no one can afford to replace Tiger Woods since the whole sport depends on Tiger Woods' performance. TV channels as I said in my previous post, will lose $200 million due to Tiger Woods decision. Let's calculate who will effect of absence of Tiger Woods: TV channels, golf courses (development, green fees etc.), golf education, golf equipment manufacturers, golf tourism, golf media etc. The list could be very long. I assume it is worth at least of $3-4 billion. In current economic climate no one can afford this luxury.
Brandweek Buzz Report conducted how certain Tiger Woods sponsors' customers reacted toward the brand. Gatorade buyers reacted in the most positive way. Gillette buyers' view toward Tiger Woods is almost the same than before the case. Only Nike's women buyers reacted in a negative way, but here also we can see a growth after a sharp fall. Now let's see how consumers reacted:
