Marketing Experts Say Tiger Should Talk To Set Record Straight

Woods Still Has Not Spoken Publicly Regarding Traffic Incident Last Friday

Marketing and crisis management experts claim by "refusing to speak publicly" about his traffic incident early Friday morning, Tiger Woods has "failed to learn from high-profile athletes who faced media scrutiny before," according to Wharton & James of the L.A. TIMES. Woods has yet to speak publicly about the incident outside of a statement he posted on his Web site Sunday afternoon, and N.Y.-based PR firm Sunshine, Sachs & Associates President Ken Sunshine said, "From a PR point of view, it's a disaster. It looks like you're covering up something and it just adds to this feeding frenzy that's developed in the last 72 hours." Wharton & James note Lakers G Kobe Bryant in '03 faced a sexual assault charge, and several days later, a "tearful Bryant stepped before the cameras to say that, while not guilty of criminal behavior, he had committed adultery." N.Y.-based Group Gordon Strategic Communications CEO Michael Gordon said Bryant is the "best example of how to turn this kind of thing around." He added that he believes by looking "through the prism of what Bryant did right ... Woods 'is failing PR 101'" (L.A. TIMES, 12/1). More Gordon: "Every day he doesn't explain what happened is a lost day and it's a day that his sponsors will question what happened. He needs to, whether he likes it or not, come out with the facts, show some contrition and talk about what he's going to do differently going forward." Texas A&M Univ. associate professor of sports management Gregg Bennett: "He's such a model citizen, such an ambassador for golf and the entire sports industry, I think he's going to be very durable marketing-wise." But crisis management experts indicated that while Woods' silence "isn't hurting him with sponsors, it is hurting his public perception" (ORLANDO SENTINEL, 12/1).

SILENCE ISN'T GOLDEN: The AP's Nancy Armour wrote Woods' statement Sunday "about the 'embarrassing' situation surrounding his car crash, coupled with his refusal to meet with police, is only heightening suspicion that something is not quite what it seems." 16W Marketing co-Founder & President Steve Rosner said, "It's his privilege not to address the other innuendoes and reports that have surfaced over the last three or four days. But by not addressing them, I believe he has set up a situation where the story will continue to be the story." DC-based Levick Strategic Communications Senior VP Gene Grabowski: "Tiger risks making this a bigger issue than it has to be." Armour noted Woods withdrew from this week's Chevron World Challenge tournament, which benefits his Tiger Woods Foundation, and while that may "spare him from facing reporters for now, he is almost certain to be questioned about it at the end of January, when he is likely to make his 2010 debut" at the PGA San Diego Open (AP, 11/30). In Detroit, Lynn Henning writes Woods' brand "suffered some damage" over the weekend. But the damage "could have been lessened to everyone's benefit had Tiger and his entourage not gone into ominous seclusion ahead of making a statement that seemed to confirm honest suspicions" (DETROIT NEWS, 12/1). AD AGE's Peter Madden wrote under the header, "For Brand Tiger, Silence Isn't Golden" (ADAGE.com, 11/30). CRAIN'S CHICAGO BUSINESS' Ed Sherman writes Woods "definitely has lost some credibility with people who are thinking the worst about what happened" (CHICAGOBUSINESS.com, 12/1).

Columnists Encourage Woods To Clear The Air, End Silence Over Incident

SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE: USA TODAY's Mike Lopresti writes, "Tiger, it's time. If not now, soon. The silence has been deafening, and it won't work. It really won't." The rules now "have changed for Tiger Woods." If he were "merely a golfer -- even if he were merely a champion golfer -- how many would care?" But Woods "passed such mortal categories years ago," and "today he is a symbol." Woods is a "brand name and a conglomerate and a logo and the face and name of a sport." Lopresti: "At a moment like this, a few crafted comments from the website won't do. He has to talk" (USA TODAY, 12/1). In DC, John Feinstein writes Woods "has a legal right not to speak to the police" regarding the accident, and he also has the "absolute right not to speak to the media on this subject." But there is a "difference between what one has the right to do and what is right to do." Woods "owes the media nothing," but he "does owe his adoring public something." Feinstein: "To speculate on what occurred is unfair. But only Woods can stop the speculation" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 11/30). In Charlotte, Scott Fowler writes, "By letting people's imaginations rush in to fill the information void, you're making things worse than they actually are" (CHARLOTTE OBSERVER, 12/1). In Denver, Mark Kiszla writes Woods' marriage "definitely does not deserve to be turned into a national sport, kicked around by TMZ." He "owes absolutely nobody an explanation," but "fair or not, Woods must deal with roughly 300 million prying neighbors across the country" (DENVER POST, 12/1).

RIGHT TO SILENCE: In St. Louis, Bryan Burwell writes Woods "doesn't owe the media or the public one single word of explanation about whatever events did or didn't happen." That is "his private business, not his public obligation," and even if it "severely damages his well-crafted public image, Woods has the right to say nothing." But we are "now entering a point of crisis critical mass," as a woman tabloids have pegged as Woods' alleged mistress is "already hiring a Hollywood lawyer and publicist and planning her own news conference ... and the tabloid and mainstream media cranking up the frenzy like it was the O.J. trial." Woods "may no longer have the luxury of saying nothing no matter how badly he craves his privacy" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 12/1). FOXSPORTS.com's Jason Whitlock wrote Woods "doesn't owe us an explanation for non-criminal behavior that may or may not have transpired between himself and his wife." Whitlock: "If anything, 'Tigergate' is an example of Tiger's impeccably high character" (FOXSPORTS.com, 11/30). In West Palm Beach, Greg Stoda writes Woods and his family "deserve some credit for choosing not to expose themselves to the media machinery that chews up and spits out celebrities as a matter of routine." They also "deserve some credit ... for handling what should be a personal matter behind closed doors" (PALM BEACH POST, 12/1). In St. Petersburg, John Romano: "For all the speculation, for all the salacious undertones, this really is a private matter. ... Why should Woods have to explain himself to me? ... Does that mean he might take a hit as a celebrity spokesman? Perhaps. But that is an issue for Tiger and Buick. Or Tiger and Nike. If companies do not want Woods pitching their products because he refused to talk about his car accident, they are certainly within their right. And Woods will pay the price if the endorsement offers get lean" (ST. PETERSBURG TIMES, 12/1).

Some Writers Think Story Will Quickly Run Its Course, Become Old News Soon

RIDING OUT THE STORM: In DC, Michael Wilbon wrote of the controversy, "Is this going to embarrass Tiger to no end? Yes, for awhile but not as long as we presume today it will." The media speculated that Yankees 3B Alex Rodriguez "would be dogged at every stop along the way and by fans everywhere" this season after admitting in February to having used performance-enhancing drugs. But Rodriguez "had probably the most satisfying season of his career," and it "didn't dog him every step of the way." Wilbon: "In the news cycle we live in now, we were onto something else by mid-May" (WASHINGTONPOST.com, 11/30). SI's Alan Shipnuck wrote Woods is "counting on the fact that the American attention span is so short that in two months no one will care anymore about the details of his accident, or his marriage" (GOLF.com, 11/30). But ESPN.com's Jemele Hill wrote the incident "isn't going to just blow over." Woods is "naive if he believes the carefully constructed statement he released Sunday on his Web site is going to put an end to the speculation, the Internet rumors and the tabloid stories," as it is "going to get worse" (ESPN.com, 11/30). In N.Y., Mike Lupica writes the story "doesn't go away now just because Woods goes away" until he returns to the PGA Tour in January. That is why it "would have been better for Woods to explain how he ended up" having the accident. Woods has a "perfect right not to talk," but you either "get out in front of your own story or it takes off without you." Lupica: "Somebody should have given him better advice than he is clearly getting from his agent, Mark Steinberg of IMG, or Mark Nejame, an Orlando guy with whom Woods has now lawyered up. Or maybe Woods should have just told both of them to get lost" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 12/1).

STAYING HOME THIS WEEKEND: Woods in a statement cited injuries from the traffic incident for not playing in this weekend’s Chevron World Challenge and said, "I am extremely disappointed that I will not be at my tournament this week. I am certain it will be an outstanding event and I'm very sorry that I can't be there" (TIGERWOODS.com, 11/30). ESPN.com's Jason Sobel wrote Woods was "never going to tee it up this week after the incident occurred," and the injury "just gives him an official, legitimate excuse." He "doesn't want to be seen in public right now -- for a variety of reasons -- and withdrawing from his own tourney is a way of deflecting any further attention from himself and the ongoing investigation" (ESPN.com, 11/30). In Seattle, Jim Moore wrote of Woods withdrawing due to injury, "Wouldn't it have been more truthful if he had said: 'I won't be there because I don't want to answer questions about my accident'" (SEATTLEPI.com, 11/30). Tournament officials have announced that fans "who bought advance tickets in hopes of seeing Woods could get full refunds beginning Dec. 7" (USA TODAY, 12/1). Meanwhile, a spokesperson for the Tiger Woods Foundation confirmed that "many credentials were requested" yesterday for the tournament prior to Woods’ announcement, but that the deadline for credentials "had passed and most were denied" (L.A. DAILY NEWS, 12/1).