<img class="size-full wp-image-676" title="Rick Fox_blog_thumb_nb" src="/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Rick-Fox_blog_thumb_nb-e1271798170415.jpg" alt="" width="40" height="40" /> By Rick F.
<object classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" width="450" height="270" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NTRvlrP2NU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="270" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5NTRvlrP2NU&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1&amp;" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

The first questions that come to mind: Is this an ad for Nike, or an ad for Tiger Woods? And is there a difference? Can the two companies succeed without each other? And what is success anyway?

[media-credit align="alignright" width="160"]<img class="size-medium wp-image-528" title="image-1-for-outrageous-golf-outfits-gallery-494008109" src="/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/image-1-for-outrageous-golf-outfits-gallery-494008109-227x300.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="200" />[/media-credit]

Though Tiger has introduced an entirely new generation of golfers to the game, there has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html">no recreational growth in a decade</a> (More Americans Are Giving Up Golf<em>, New York Times</em>, Published: February 21, 2008). However, from the standpoint of profit and ratings, the sponsors grew, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100413/media_nm/us_golf_masters_television">the TV audience grew</a>, and <a href="http://www.golfblogger.com/index.php/golf/comments/analyzing_increase_in_pga_tour_purses/">the purses grew</a>...a lot. Ian Poulter has more <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/pictures/2009/07/29/pretty-in-pink-stars-dressed-in-pink-115875-21556209/">pink pants</a> because of Tiger.

An advertisement's success, however, can be measured by many different criteria, most notably today seems to be "<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/04/super-bowl-beer-commercia_n_437112.html">is this ad memorable</a>?" The rationale is, if it ain't memorable, then you have no chance, no matter how compelling your message. With companies like <a href="http://www.cavemanscrib.com/">Geico,</a> built on the once frowned upon concept of <a href="http://advertisingforpeanuts.blogspot.com/2008/02/confounding-borrowed-interest.html">borrowed interest</a>, it is no wonder why ads today often have little to do with a brand's product or service.

The Tiger supporters will tell you, "Here is a guy who is sincere in his admission of guilt, and is humbly showing you in a touching, 30-second black &amp; white."  On the other hand, the critics, who are always more vocal, will say, "this is a classic exercise in exploitation for capital gain."

Borrowed interest or not, I have not forgotten that Tiger Woods is sponsored by Nike, nor have I forgotten what a tremendous athlete he is. (After all <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/golf/chi-100412-masters-bits,0,1896068.story">he came in 4th at Augusta</a>, and was consistently in contention).

So back to this Nike spot. It's as simple as, "hey, we're talking about it, right?"  I think <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/magazine/26SCHOTT.html">Marge Schott</a> would agree.