Let's talk about... Tiger's Nike ad

Just in case you haven't seen it yet, allow me:

They went for it.
In all fairness, it is Nike and their slogan is "Just Do It" (notice how the slogan was conspicuously missing from the last screen?)

Regretfully, when asked what I thought about it almost a full day after seeing it for the first time, my response was "I have to think about what I think about it." But quickly thereafter I came to my senses.

I keep hearing people say that the ad "crosses the line", but I am going to reject that assertion right off the bat. Why? Because as far as I'm concerned, there is no "line" anymore. Sex is used to sell everything from soccer shoes to appliances. The other day I heard "Shaun from Spence" on the radio using S&M innuendo to sell necklaces FCS. Let's face it, at least half of all ads thesedays are vulgar or disturbing in one way or another. Do we really expect Nike to meet a higher standard when millions of dollars are at stake, when their golden boy is tarnished, when they have to make him immediately palatable to a skeptical public?

Puh- lease.

Let us, for the purpose of this discussion, accept as a given that this ad was born from a reality that team Tiger has finally grasped: Tiger should not speak for himself. Not yet. Maybe not ever. People are not buying it. Even when apologizing, he comes across as insincere. Better to let someone else do the talking for him, especially now that Tiger's scandal does not seem to be abating but rather gaining momentum.

Just this week, a neighbour admitted to having slept with Tiger as a salacious Vanity Fair article detailing his "relationships" with four of his mistresses hit stands. VF may as well have dropped a bomb on what was left of his dignity; the stories are truly disgusting, painting a picture of a selfish, remorseless lecher with little to no sexual self- control. Also not in his favour is the fact that his wife continues to refuse to publicly show signs of forgiving him- she won't wear her wedding rings, move back into their house or accompany him on the golf circuit. His colleagues haven't exactly jumped to his defense, either. His mother has tried to be supportive but, come on, she couldn't even look at him during his "press conference" (scoff) in February.

So who, WHO? I ask, can help absolve Tiger of his sins? Who can give him the wings he so badly needs to rise like a phoenix from the ashes of his self destruction?

Enter his deceased father, the man who knew him best, was by his side through all his biggest triumphs, served as his backbone, his rock and, apparently (conveniently?), his conscience. Anyone who followed Tiger's early career knows that the son leaned heavily on his father both personally and professionally. Tragically, Earl Woods died from cancer in 2006, around the same time that Tiger's reckless behaviour began. Is there a link?

Nike wants you to think so.

Here is the subliminal message of the ad, as far as I'm concerned:

This is a face you know, you have seen it a million times. You used to see it and think of ambition, drive and good sound values. Now you see something different. But while you are thinking of all those other things, remember this: Tiger Woods is a human who has suffered loss and pain, just as you probably have. Imagine trying to navigate the world of celebritywithout your moral compass. You'd be likely to make some mistakes, too. Tiger lost his way because he is human like you, but here is that voice of the past calling him back to the person he was before. He realises this now. Tiger was the person you believed him to be, the person you admired. He can and will be that person again.

So, is it working for you or not? For me, not, but I was never invested in the image side of Tiger.

What do you think?

Am I a lazy narcissist?

While chilling out on a dock at the lake this weekend, someone asked me exactly what it is I do for a living. I hate answering that question because PR can be notoriously complicated and therefore so is any explanation of what I do at work. Usually, I approach the answer with a focus on social media and its role in achieveing business goals, since that is where my interest lies. When I started talking about how important social media/networking tools like Facebook, Twitter, blogs and even texting are to business growth, I was met with skeptical expressions. I had accidentally sparked a debate. Why? Out of the 5 people on the dock that night, I was the only one who used any of those tools on a regular basis.

Par-don?

How is that possible, I wanted to know. How did they stay in regular contact with people? Were they actually talking on the phone or (gasp) e-mailing? Does anyone even answer a phone anymore or check their E-mail inbox? I know I don't. To me, it's the equivalent of hitching a horse to a buggy to deliver a hand-written letter.

It wasn't like I was talking with a bunch of Baby Boomers either, the people on the dock were between the ages of 20 and 33, so Gen X, Gen Y and Millenials, all generations that are supposed to be technologically saavy. So what was the deal, then. Why the resistance?

Apart from the baffling assertion that "most people" don't use social media was that, if they did, it's because they are a "certain kind of person". The general opinion seemed to be that this "certain kind of person" didn't use social media because they were too busy, but because they weren't busy enough. Basically, people who regularly use social media tools are lazy and need to find something more useful to occupy their time.The concensus was that Twitter is useless and narcissistic, Facebook is nothing more than a time-wasting device and texting is rude because you should just dial a phone and call someone. I tried explaining that these technologies are mobile, so really most people aren't sitting in front of a computer, they are going about their lives while simultaneously using the technology for business or leisure purposes and also that businesses were increasingly making use of them. Face-to-face is still the ultimate goal but, when that is not possible, this is how people communicate now, I said. Nobody was buying it. "Look around, there are five of us here and you are the only one who thinks like that", I was told.

I was f*cking blown away.

Is this true? Are most people not using social media? Are the people who do use it just self-absorbed Tyras with too much time on their hands? Are other people still having several telephone conversations and sitting down to answer e-mail messages daily while jotting things down in their hard-copy daily calendar?

Have I been under the false impression that the world is moving in this direction and this is the new way to communicate?

Weigh in bitches, how big of a role does social media play in your life and who is using it?

That's my name, don't wear it out!

You May Kiss the Bride
Originally uploaded by foundphotoslj

Here's an e-mail I recently got from a reader. Thought I should share with you all:

"I have a topic idea for you: professional women taking their husband's name when they get married. I have not changed my name in ANY legal way. And I've told everyone that, yet EVERYONE addresses me by my husband's last name. I was completely called-out and berated by my in-laws for not taking his name, meanwhile my husband doesn't care one way or the other. Why do I have to give up my name? Why do I have to have an identity crisis with adopting a new name and have to rebuild my "name" again corporately and socially?

I got like 10 cards all from family and every single one of them was addressed to Mrs.***. WTF?!?! Sorry for my rant. I think it would be an interesting topic though."

Indeed, it is interesting. This topic seems to spark debate no matter where you go. Here is my personal experience:

After we had been dating for about six months and realised that we were probably going to get married, my now-husband and I had the name change talk. Mufti (that's what we'll call him) said something along the lines of " Yeah, we can get a sign for the house that says "The (insert his last name here) Family". I paused for a second, surprised that he would be so presumptuous, then nonchalantly replied that I didn't plan to change my name when I married.

You should have seen the look on his face. I might as well have told him that I slipped him a roofie the night before and cut off his testicles, which I was now wearing around my neck as a symbol of our love. It probably would have elicited the same reaction.

Needless to say, it turned into a huge fight. By the time it was over, I was AMAZED that I had just had an argument in which I had to defend my right to keep the name that had identified me my entire life. It was so thoroughly ridiculous, so offensive and, at least to me, archaic, that I made it very clear to Mufti that we were never having that kind of conversation again because it was insulting.

He thought I was insane because he had never met a woman who hadn't changed her name after marriage (What??Really?!).

You see, my rationale was this: I am a child of interracial hippie parents, very little in my life has been "traditional". I don't cook, I am not chomping at the bit to have babies, and I am not a dedicated housekeeper. Why, then, would I carry this old-school tradition into my post-second-wave marriage. why?Why?WHY? I paid my own way through University, got a degree, got a good job and started my career all under my name. Was I really going to repeat all I did to build that name over the years? F*ck no.

Despite this, just to not be a total shrew, I tried tacking my husband's name (not legally) onto the end of mine after we married. You know what happened? People just called me by his name and it made me cray-zay. I didn't feel comfortable assuming his name as my own. Eventually, every time I looked at him all I saw was a giant penis screaming "I OWN YOU NOW, MRS.YOURIDENTITYISINSIGNIFICANT!"

Aside from that, however, it made me realize just how much you learn about someone by their name; it tells the story of where you came from, it says something about (at least part of) your heritage. When explaining this to a friend, she retorted "Yeah, but isn't it just another man's name anyway?" Yes, but that man and I share blood and history. By changing your name, you disconnect yourself from that history. Sure you are beginning a new history and a new family, but you do that whether you change your name or not.

Does this seem obvious to anyone besides me?

Why are some professional women holding on to this practice? Convenience? Romance? Just plain old traditional values?

Did you change your name after you were professionally established? Why or why not?

Does your man care if you take his name or not?

Let's have it, bitches. I want your feedback.