I think too many blogs spend too much time bashing other agencies’ work. I’m not in to that. What follows is not a critique of Weiden + Kennedy or Nike. It’s an observation of the industry as a whole. Using the recent Tiger Woods ad as an example.

It’s not meant to be a trick question.

Did you like the latest Tiger Woods ad?

When the Tiger Woods ad broke before The Masters, my reaction was visceral. It felt off. Too self-important in its supposed transparency and its tense regretfulness. This was before I found out the voiceover was not a recording of Earl Woods actually addressing his son. For a guy with an authenticity problem, that’s a problem.

The Marketing Twittersphere, on the other hand, erupted in a chorus of applause. Kudos were passed around for the agency, the client and, yes, for Tiger. Courage had been shown. Chances had been taken. Congratulations were in order.

When we evaluate creative, our measure is not whether we like it or the client likes it. It’s whether the consumer will like it. Will they be able to engage with it? (Whether this is something they can accurately tell you is another story.)

On the subject of “Have You Learned Anything?,” the consumer, apparently, agrees with me. Favorability of the Nike brand has dropped from 92% to 79% since this ad aired. The mocking responses are much more powerful than the ad itself.

That’s the short-term. And I’ll grant that success is ultimately measured in the long-term. Maybe this ad will act as the lightening rod that Tiger needed to get out one more flood of “yuck” out before moving on. And if that was the intent – and it works – then kudos are, indeed, in order. But my gut says that this was instance where almost everybody loved the ad – except, of course, the consumer.

SHARE: