Gillette limits Tiger Woods’ role in marketing

Gillette said it would distance itself from Tiger Woods after the golfer admitted cheating on her wife. The same day Accenture ended their sponsor for Woods.

The Procter & Gamble razor company said they would limit Woods’ role in its marketing to “help protect his privacy”.

Several other major sponsors including Accenture have already taken down Tiger Woods’ name from their websites. Sponsorship contracts are terminated.

It is estimated that Mr. Woods will lose more than £66 million of advertising income over a year after his sponsors dropped him.

Gillette didn’t say they would terminate Mr. Woods’ contract; instead, they would just limit his role in marketing.

Gillette Vs. Accenture in news sense

Gillette’s Woods story was published on the front page of Telegraph. On the same day, Accenture dropped the golfer from their sponsor list, but this was only published in the Sports channel.

From news angle, Accenture could have been more news worthy than Gillette. There are at least three reasons:

• Accenture was the second largest sponsor of Tiger Woods;
• They terminated contract with Tiger Woods while Gillette just limited the golfer’s role;
• The public may want to know what happens next after Accenture terminated contract with Tiger Woods.

However, Gillette’s story was published on front page.

Smart Gillette

If you look at the two stories, there were not much differences. Both talked about Tiger Woods’ extramarital affairs, estimated losses he might suffer from losing sponsor, and the stance of major companies who sponsored him.

Gillette did a better PR job than Accenture.

Since it made onto the front page, I even doubt that it was actually an advertorial article.

One proof could be that there were no byline for both stories. No author was accredited, not even “Telegraph staff” as they did in “Liverpool 1 Arsenal 2: match report” story.

Morally acceptable?

If the story was indeed an advertorial article, should Gillette be morally blamed for adding salt on other’s wound?

Or, they might just argue that business is business. I pay you, so I expect publicity for our brand from you.

Gillette was very carefull about the bottom line that they do not offend the public, especially Tiger Woods’ fans by playing on the hero’s scandal. That’s why they choose to “limit his role” instead of dropping him from their sponsor list.

But who knows whether or when they will abandon the golfer after his last PR contribution to the company?