Tiger Woods has done for all elite sportsmen what Bill Clinton did for all politicians, further tarnishing a profession that had already well and truly lost its gloss (it’s a bummer these days looking for heroes for our children to follow).
But in a world where we are quick to forgive fallen heroes what does the long term outlook hold for Tiger Woods’ reputation? I say almost nothing; he will be forgiven. Witness our own Matthew Johns, who less than a year after his well publicised fall from grace is already in talks with television networks regarding hosting new TV show.
There is a proviso: if the scandal keeps growing then all bets, most sponsorships, and perhaps a return to the tournaments he has dominated, will be off.
I say Clinton is a true hero; probably so is Woods. You may disagree? But, that is why I was optimistic about Woods’ recovery to hero status on the ABC last Thursday (Spindoctors ABC, 10 Dec), where others were not.
The media generally makes the critical mistake of confusing heroes and celebrities, and crucifying both.
My analysis is an over-simplification of real life; dangerous I know, but sometimes simplicity is required to help PR practitioners drill down before giving useful advice. The distinction between hero and celebrity is important in the PR business as it helps us design rescue strategies. I am inspired by the way US popular culture historian Daniel Boorstin writes it:
“The hero was distinguished by his achievement; the celebrity by his image or trademark. The hero created himself; the celebrity is created by the media. The hero was a big man; the celebrity is a big name.” (for more see NYT Dec 12: http://bit.ly/5fopJ8 )
The difference between a hero and celebrity often appears to be a set of values born from a solid family and/or hard-learnt experience. A hero knows deep-down what to do right, a celebrity has yet to learn. A hero that misbehaves has simply to tweak his behavior, check in on his values; a celebrity has yet to discover them (witness any number of pop stars).
So, now take a closer look at Tiger. He was a prodigy who grew up with ambitions and personal skills large enough to convert that talent to global hero status. What’s more, he’s had the determination to invade the mostly white man’s exclusive world of golf, with its silly old-time dress rules and bias against (for instance) women. That shows evidence of vision and a remarkable sense-of-self. He’s been able to withstand the super-human pressures of fame and appear to be a genuinely nice guy. Rare human qualities; evidence of a deeply rooted set of values. On that basis, much more the hero than celebrity.
It’s bewildering for the public (especially children), elevating equally the hero and celebrity. And the media, interested in circulation and rating isn’t too interested with the difference. But we PR people have made it our chosen profession to study and know the distinction. And to then give good advice to either.
So what advice do we give to the next silly man (or women) who finds himself in this situation?
If Tiger Woods is a hero, and already starting his personal journey of rescue (including his marriage), then start with C-A-P-P (Concern/Assess/Penance/Perspective). Issue a statement of Concern as soon as possible (note Tiger’s this past weekend); take time to Assess (still in the spotlight) and let the public do it too. Then embark on a long road of Penance (he’s done the crime, do the t… his wife will be key here); and finally, put this tacky matter into Perspective (allowing the public time to do the same). That was B Clinton’s journey of reputation rescue.
However note that if he’s a fraud, a paper mache star, he’s (on Boorstin’s definition) a mere celebrity, like so many footballers and rock stars. In this case, the PR person’s task is to manage him while he learns life skills; so most of our effort will be directed at protecting the talent as best we can and filtering what the public can see through this learning process. Maybe that’s what Tiger’s agents and PR people have been doing for all these years. Time outs the truth.
Simple, isn’t it. Not.
