He's Not Talking To You, Tiger

So, by now, you've seen or heard or read about the Tiger Woods ad for Nike that he did. It's filmed in black and white and he's just standing there, staring into the camera, a Nike swoosh visible on his sweater and on his hat, as a voice narrates a few sentences. The voice, we've learned, is that of his late father Earl Woods. I'm not sure how we knew that, but someone made sure that we knew. What we didn't know right away was where in the hell that voice footage came from.

And if you think that you're going to get a straight answer from anyone in Tiger's camp or from the Nike fellows, well, you're wrong. It took ABC News to figure out where the voice footage came from. (And yes, I'm as shocked as you are that they were able to uncover it before some blogger did.) According to them, the statements came from "Tiger: The Authorized DVD Collection," distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment. But it wasn't Earl Woods speaking to Tiger at all. No, the deal was that "In the original context, Earl was not talking to Woods, but about the golfer's mother Kultida." Soooo...what now?

When they made the ad, they cut off the first part of what Earl had said. Earl's full quote in the film is: "Authoritarian. Yea, Tida is very authoritative. She is very definitive. 'Yes' and 'No.' I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what you're thinking was, I want to find out what your feelings are and did you learn anything?" Earl then adds, "So, we were two different types but we co-existed pretty well." Wait a minute.

Let me get this straight. He wasn't talking to Tiger AT ALL? He was explaining the differences between his style and the style of his wife? So, they edited in the "Tiger" at the front and then made it so it was like he was talking TO Tiger? What the hell is that all about? Was Tiger aware of this? Of course he was.

He was asked about the commercial during his little Q&A session with reporters after his first round at The Masters. The woman who asked him about it asked why, since he has previously said that talking about his dad's death was a private issue, would he allow that to be the basis for a commercial. That seems like a reasonable question. What I didn't find so reasonable was his answer. "Well, I think it's very apropos. I think that's what my dad would say. It's amazing how, it, uh....how my dad can speak to me from different ways. Even when he's long gone. He's still, still helping me. And I think that any son who has lost a father, and who meant so much in their life, I think they would understand the spot.” Wait. What now?

You think that it's very apropos? You DO? First of all, you DO realize that he's NOT actually speaking TO you, right? You do realize that it was a commercial that you did for Nike, right? But all of that aside, he wasn't speaking those words to you when he DID speak them! No, he was speaking them to your mother! It wasn't ADVICE at all! He was just explaining the difference between her and him. He wasn't trying to teach YOU anything!

And I'm going to take umbrage (because I rarely get to do that these days) and I'm also going to get a little testy with his pity comment at the end of his response. Oh, so anyone (excuse me, any SON) who has lost a father wouldn't HAVE to question what the spot means, is that it? So, if you are questioned on the spot, then it's just be insensitive jerks who don't know what it means to have their father die? I don't think that's it at all. Now, granted, I was not my father's son, but it doesn't change the fact that he's dead. And I've gotta tell you, if someone came to me and said that they wanted to take some stuff that my dad said and use it completely out of context so that I could make a few bucks when people see an ad and run out to buy golf shirts, I don't think I'm going to go for that. I think that, out of respect to my father, I'm not going to essentially dig him up in an effort to rebuild my tarnished image. I don't think I'm going to do that AT ALL.

Are you kidding me? There are plenty of cards out there that people like to play, but I think that the one that I hate the most is the dead relative card. Just because you know someone who died, that doesn't mean that I'm going to feel sorry for you. It happens. Get over it. And the other thing that I hate is when people talk about someone that they've "lost". What is that supposed to mean, exactly? I used to really enjoy it when people would come up to me and say something to the effect of, "I hear you lost your father." I enjoyed responding with, "I didn't lose him. I know exactly where he is." My dad would like that I give that answer. And I like that he would like it. What he wouldn't like would be me whoring out his voice so that I could make a buck or two. No, he'd have a couple things to say about that (and none of them are printable).

What a bunch of crap this commercial is. I guess that it has already run its course. From what I understand, it was aired a couple of times before or during The Masters and that was it. I don't expect it to be seen in the future, nor do I care if it is ever shown again. I'm just not real big on using your dead dad to sell shoes or shirts or whatever it is that he's pitching. I'm also not real big on using something that your dead dad said to your mom in order to try to make people forget that you are the nation's number one serial fornicator. How about you leave the dead folks out of it and you just start acting like a respectable human being instead?

Just Don't

Wow. That's almost all I have to say about this one. Just wow.

Apparently, Nike felt that it would be a good idea to roll out a new Tiger Woods commercial on the day before the Masters begins. Now, I don't proclaim to know anything about corporate advertising. But I think I do know what doesn't seem like a good idea and this commercial would be it.

Here's the gist of it (Well, actually, this isn't the gist. This is IT.): You see a black and white image of Tiger from the chest up just standing there and staring straight ahead at the camera. I don't know if the black and white imagery is to try and trick viewers into thinking that we have magically been transported back to a time before his multiple extra-marital dalliances with cocktail waitresses and porn stars were widely known or what, but it kind of bugs me.

All he does throughout the entire 30 seconds is stand there and stare. The camera slowly moves in closer to his face throughout the spot, but he's just standing there and staring. Meanwhile, we hear the voice of the dearly departed Earl Woods. Now, the only reason that I know that it's Earl Woods is because I read that it was over at The Huffington Post. Otherwise, I wouldn't have had a clue. Don't get me wrong, I follow sports. I know who Earl Woods was. But I don't know if I'm supposed to know that it's Earl's voice when I hear it. It just comes out of nowhere, so are we supposed to think that it's God? Please. That better not be it.

Anyway, this is what he says: "Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything." Are you kidding me?

Are they just begging people to mock the heck out of that or what? He's "prone to be inquisitive"? Like what? "Which Perkins coffee shop did you pick that one up at?" That kind of inquisitive? Or the kind of inquisitive that asks, "Why are you constantly cheating on your beautiful Norwegian wife with all of these porn star skanks? I wonder which one it is.

He wants to find out what his thinking was? Really? Lemme help you out a little bit, Earl. His thinking was "I don't give a fat rat's ass about anything other than myself and my big ol' boner and therefore, I'm going to be having lots of kinky sex with that there cocktail waitress, Pops."

Do they really want to include the line "I want to find out what your feelings are"? I can't imagine that they do. But they did! See, that's where Earl and I differ. Earl wants to know about his feelings. I want to know the total number of bimbo whores he slept with.

Did he learn anything? I don't know. I don't think that he did. Are we supposed to think that he did? Maybe he learned that it's not a good idea to let your wife find text messages from one of your waitress mistresses on Thanksgiving. Maybe he learned to not try and drive his Escalade (unless he can avoid hitting various shrubbery and a fire hydrant) when his wife is chasing after him with a golf club at 2am. Maybe he learned those things. But I'm thinking that the only thing that he might have really learned is that it sucks to get caught.

I don't get the logic behind this commercial. I know that Nike is one of the only two sponsors that he has left (the other one being Electronic Arts, makers of various video games which are seemingly immune from most controversy), but I didn't think that they'd be using him in a commercial again so soon. Then again, I don't know why they'd stick with him at all. Granted, their slogan is "Just Do It", but I don't know that they want a spokesman who really goes with the literal (and the carnal) translation of it.

I guess that they couldn't do a commercial which would have incorporated all of his philandering ways into it, like instead of having gophers pop up across a golf course in all of the holes, have his bimbos pop up. Yeah, I think something like that is probably considered to be "in poor taste". Probably. Whatever. I think that channeling the voice of the dead father is a bit much. The commercial is below. Did you learn anything?

Have It Your Crazy Way

Once again, we have certain folks freaking out over a commercial for a national fast food chain item. And once again, this annoys me.

The culprit this time is Burger King and something called a Steakhouse XT, which, according to SlashFood, "boasts 7-ounce patties that spill over their corn-dusted buns, with a base topping of mayo, lettuce, tomato and ketchup." And while that sounds just marvelous, it doesn't really explain what the X or the T stand for. (Extra Tasty? Extra Toppings? I don't know.) But it's not the X or the T that are in contention here. The problem is the ad that Burger King was running to sell this meaty, meaty burger.

I will say that as a general rule, I have a problem with all ads that Burger King runs simply because I hate that creepy king mascot thing that they have in all of them. What is with that thing? Why is that an effective means of marketing anything? But my being all weirded out by the King isn't the problem here. The Washington Post says that the problem, according to the "Arlington-based National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation's largest mental health advocacy organizations" is that the commercial is offensive to those with mental illnesses because it feature the crazy looking King running through an office building and breaking through a window pane before giving some office working woman one of these sandwiches before being tackled by two guys who kind of look like Steve Martin in "The Jerk". Those guys explain that the King is "insane" and "crazy" for offering his sandwich for the low, low price of only $3.99. Wait. What now?

Correct. That is offensive to people with mental illnesses, according to a one Michael Fitzpatrick who is the executive director of the above cited organization. He says, "I was stunned. Absolutely stunned and appalled." Really? At what, exactly? "He called the ad "blatantly offensive" and hopelessly retro in its depiction of mental illness, adding that the commercial could lead to further stigmatization, the primary barrier for individuals to seek out treatment. "We understand edgy," Fitzpatrick says. "But this is beyond edgy. Way beyond." Oh, please.

Am I to believe that if a person with an undiagnosed mental illness were to view that commercial that they would re-think the decision to go out and get some treatment? I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think that ever HAS happened. The only thing that a commercial like that is going to further stigmatize is royalty having enlarged, plastic looking heads with constantly creepy smiles on them. Other than that, I don't think that there's much to worry about.

But see, that's just me. I am not Mr. Fitzpatrick, nor am I a one David Shern, who is the president and chief executive of Mental Health America in Alexandria. He claims that the ad is "a perfect storm of images and words coming together." OK. I'll buy that. Most things on TV are a storm of images and words coming together. I don't know that much of what is on TV these days is what I'd call "perfect". He also compared it "...to an advertisement using the word "idiot" while featuring someone who was mentally challenged." He's clearly never seen Family Guy.

You'd think that mental health groups would have other things to worry about. Don't their clients have enough made-up issues so that it's at the point where they don't have to start creating anything new to worry about. Trust me. There's a whole lot of crazy out there in all shapes and sizes. You're going to meet a lot of folks before you start running out of crazy and have to start inventing more. But it's mental health groups like these who flipped out over "Vermont Teddy Bear's 2005 Valentine's product, which featured a "Crazy-for-You" teddy in a straitjacket" and over a "2007 General Motors commercial in which a robot jumps off bridge after being fired from the assembly line." Listening to complaints like those makes me want to put on a straitjacket and jump off a bridge myself.

According to Ad Rant, in light of these complaints, Burger King has gone ahead and done the one thing that I despise more than anything in these situations. They caved. Apparently "Burger King has since pulled the ad from national rotation (although it may continue to run in local markets). A Burger King representative issued a statement that the ad's "creative concepts" were meant "to highlight the King's unchecked enthusiasm about giving his guests a steakhouse-quality sandwich at a great price and were not intended to reflect any group or situation." Correct. They weren't intended to reflect any group or situation. SO WHY PULL THE AD?!

I am telling you that the first company that stands up to these ridiculous complaints and issues will be hailed by the consumer public as Gods. All they need to do is issue a statement saying, "Sorry. We weren't making fun of you. The ad will continue to run. Get over yourselves and good day." That would be enough for me to give that company all of my future business for whatever it was that they were selling (with the possible exception of Klan gear, but since I'm so sick and tired of companies caving like this, even the Klan gear might not sway me). It's not offensive to anyone. Knock it off. (And if you happen to indulge in this particular burger, let me know how it is, as it looks absolutely delicious.)

The Burger King commercial which offends no one is below. I'm not saying the commercial makes any sense and I'm certainly not saying that it was money well spent (nor can I really endorse paying four bucks for a fast food burger), I'm just saying that it's not offensive.