Tiger In the Tank

In the world of professional golf, he has always been seen to represent the gold standard. Good looking, athletic, clean cut, the pinnacle of physical performance and integrity are the qualities that have defined the legendary Tiger Woods.

Without a doubt, in just over a decade, Woods has become one of the most well-defined brands in sports history.

Like all successful brands, the Woods’ brand has benefited from its remarkable consistency over the years, earning the golfing phenomenon the distinction of becoming the world's first billion dollar athlete.

Always positive and always predictable, major sponsors from Nike to Gillette have flocked to attach their own brands to the Woods marketing express train. And like all brands, Tiger Woods has earned equity through building solid, consistent relationships with these sponsors through the delivery of the expectation of his brand promise.

But like any relationship, trust drives the strength of a brand's bond. So what happens when a brand betrays that trust, as in Woods case?

As we've seen in recent weeks, brand loyalty is lost and the consumer of that brand, in this case the sponsors who have attached to Tiger Woods over the years, break from that relationship and move on to another brand that will better fulfill the promise.

No brand is bullet-proof. No amount of brand equity can overcome betrayal of the basic brand relationship. Maintaining consistency and staying true to the brand promise as a basic foundational strategy is the key to long-term brand success.

Take Heinz, which in 2000 introduced a new product line, coloured ketchups.

Though Heinz would contend the marketing twist was a success as initial sales of Heinz ketchup spiked in the short run, Heinz abandoned the idea by 2006. If you ask me, despite a short term winfall, coloured ketchup didn't work for Heinz over the long run and may have actually put a dent in its overall brand equity.

Why? Because the introduction of coloured ketchup, moving away from the standard red ketchup we all grew up with, was seen as a betrayal by consumers of Heinz basic brand promise, the comfort of consistency.

Everyone knew what Heinz ketchup was, what colour it was, how it would taste, how it would pour out of the bottle with a few brisk shakes. Change it's colour and you create uncertainty among consumers, who now can't rely on the predictability of the age old product they've come to know and trust.

But what about that short term marketing spike? Anything new enjoys a certain rush of initial attention. But what is the long term negative effect on the brand down the road?

It could be argued that thanks to exposure of his indiscretions, Tiger Woods has never known more media and public attention than he's experiencing at this very moment. But while the short term spike of attention has boosted his currency as a celebrity, it has also carved away a considerable chunk of Woods' own brand for which he'll pay a much greater price for some time to come.

The lesson here is that simply creating a powerful brand is not the end of the marketing story. Living true to it and earning consumers' trust by delivering on its expectation is equally important. Betray your brand, whether you're Tiger Woods or Heinz, and all bets are off regardless of the equity your brand's earned up to that point.

So when it comes time to define your brand ask yourself the simple question, "Can I walk this walk and be true to the brand promise I've created for now and in the future?". Anything other than a resounding "Yes!" will spell disappointment and disaster down the road.

Tiger Woods' biggest mistake may not have been his infidelity but his creation of a brand that was almost assuredly impossible to live up to. In Tiger Woods case, betrayal of his basic brand promise of integrity is Woods' green ketchup. But unlike Heinz, Woods may be unable to put this mess back in the bottle.