Upheavals

Sorry seems to be the easiest word

[Update: Seems even Tiger Woods must break his silence and respond, even if it is only to announce that he is walking away "indefinitely".]

Malcolm McLaren always had a great get-out-of-jail card for every outrage committed by the Sex Pistols. Every time, the punk four would do something shocking, he would dismiss the outrage with “boys will be boys”. That works when you’re the Sex Pistols.

You get away with abysmal behaviour too when you’re Gordon Ramsay (after the mandatory display of contriteness). Because a large chunk of his brand reputation is built on being outrageous. And outrage for a bad boy brand is really just a brand extension. So you say something very rude and undeserved, then say sorry, and you’re back in business - with the added bonus of a reputation for being even more rude than you already had.

It doesn’t work though when your reputation is built on being nice. So, in the case of Tiger Woods, alleged dalliance is not something that is quite so easily dismissed.

Recently, someone asked me whether they thought Mr Woods would survive the scandal of 11 alleged affairs and counting.

To me, scandal is not the issue - because it implies moral judgment. And survivability is not necessarily directly dependent on morality. For a billion-dollar sportsman, the make-or-break factor is bankability. Can his sponsors still make money off him? As long as they perceive Woods is bankable, he’ll be fine. The moment his bankability is compromised however, there could be a real issue. And in that sense, he would probably face a similar public dilemma that had no moral aspect - he’s not the man we thought he was - if he were to have a really bad run on the course.

That though is not the interesting part about what has transpired over the last fortnight or so.

As I’ve said before, it’s very easy in these days of social gossip to confuse noise and crisis. There’s no doubt the former can tip into the latter. The big question is - will it? Or will the storm and the teacup part company as the media moves on.

I sometimes refer to this as the tornado effect. The noise is loudest just before the storm starts to move away. But if the storm stalls and continues to build, and you do nothing but look to sit it out, the conventional wisdom has always said you’ll lose everything.

And the conventional answer has always been to wait for the storm to build to a climax, then apologise profusely and publicly, throw yourself on the mercy of the viewing public, sit out the late night jibes and get your own back with the money you make on the comeback tour to public favour.

But what would happen if a brand was big enough to face down the conventional wisdom? What happens if Tiger Woods doesn’t respond and his brand continues to succeed? What if silence does indeed prove a successful strategy? How will the media respond to a brand that refuses to play along?

Right now, the PR people are baying for a response because, amongst other things, it proves the power and importance of their industry. But if Tiger were to do nothing, and to succeed by doing nothing, that calls a number of assumptions about the media, about public relations and about crisis management into question.

I really enjoyed Marina Hyde’s article in the Guardian . “Modern life is littered with the apologetic posturings of stars, and in a world where meaningless public penance is the norm, it's rather inspiring to find someone refusing to play ball … one can only guess at the mounting pressure from Woods's own backers for Tiger to begin the painstaking image rebuild, by which is meant performative contrition, agreeing to be interviewed by Oprah or Barbara Walters, sending oneself up in ads – all the little ways civilised society has devised to extract its pound of sorry from transgressing public figures.” Then. later: “Perhaps only someone who has spent so much of his career kissing up to corporate sponsors can see the contrition industry for what it is: a business.”

Could he get away with silence? If Tiger Woods does, that could rewrite some time-honoured rules, and he may just prove to be a game-changer again - except this time in the area of dealing with the media.

POSTED: Saturday, 12 December 2009