 |
|
ENGAGE TREND REPORT 03.04.10
Is Accenture out of the Woods?
Accenture has dumped Tiger Woods. It is peeling his image off airport billboards and train platforms as fast as possible. It would appear that Mr. Woods is not the poster child of 'high performance' and 'excellence' that Accenture promoted.
A cynical ad agency exec we know says "They got their money's worth for years". For him, what Tiger Woods did or did not do isn't the point as much as the measurable value of the sponsorship. Is he right? What is Accenture's vulnerability to the allegations and the recent behavior of Tiger Woods? They built their brand on his shoulders. What does that say about their judgment? Did they vet him appropriately? Worse -- did they know he was the scoundrel he appears to be - perhaps condone it and align with him anyway? Will their clients continue to associate his face as the face of Accenture now that his mask has come off?
Either way, Accenture made four tactical errors in their use of Mr. Woods in their decade-long relationship with him.
1) Accenture made the brand building of Tiger Woods an equal part of their own brand building. When one of these two ships starts sinking, it could take the other down with it. Can Accenture sell 'high performance' solutions as its own brand and not as a jointly branded effort?
2) Accenture tied their brand to a living, young celebrity/personality. There's a reason that some firms use long-deceased icons like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington as brand identifiers. Other firms use animals like geckos or lions as brand identifiers for similar reasons.
3) Accenture failed to see how over-extended Tiger's brand is, endorsing products for Nike, Gatorade, Gillette, Buick, Titleist, American Express, Rolex, General Mills, etc. If Accenture and Mr. Woods really are high performance players, would an Accenture staffer who wore Nike shoes and a Rolex watch be an even higher performance systems integrator?
4) Accenture has overstayed its joint branding with Tiger by a few years. Had anyone asked "How long should this partnership last?" "When does the risk (and cost) start to outweigh the benefit of continuing this relationship?"
Tying a company's brand to a celebrity is always risky. Celebrities are human and they suffer the same foibles that you and I do. They get addicted to sex, gambling, food, drugs, etc. They can have bad parents, bad parenting skills, bad kids, etc. They get photographed in unflattering poses, places, etc. Some know no end to the depths of their human condition and get private, intimate movies of themselves sold on the Internet. Psychology Today succinctly opines on Tiger's actions as being relatively natural. Celebrity endorsements are ripe for trouble and few celebrity endorsements can last a long time.
When you sell soda pop it can be damaging. When you sell acumen and judgment its far worse. Accenture must learn to market and promote itself without the crutch of a celebrity. Accenture needs to make its solutions and abilities (not the golfing industry) sexy and exciting. In his blog, Brian Sommer (ex-Accenture) probes this topic in-depth. High performance is something that potentially exists in all of us. Maybe Accenture can focus more on how they draw that out and bring it to bear on client projects.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
