The sordid details of Charlie Sheen's latest adventures with porn stars and alcohol are widely and regularly reported, and his employer says he's showing up for work and they don't care. When word leaks out of Tiger Woods' relatively quiet (though prolific) philandering, the golfer loses his endorsements and, it seems, his ability to practice his trade.
Forget Fate being cruel. Branding is worse.
It's especially dicey in this new world of ours in which distinctions between public and private are either purposefully blown up or unwittingly merged, whether through use of Facebook, the unstinting efforts of paparazzi, or the conscious efforts of marketers. The mechanisms that render the famous infamous are the same, just as the ways we unknowns of the Great Unwashed get known. There's no longer a way to be aware of just something (or to promote it) and avoid the likelihood that people will eventually learn everything, or at least discover a something else that qualifies or obliterates somethingoranother.
I think that's why icons and role models are becoming things of the past. The great and horrible each have their "other" sides and qualities. No good story goes without challenge, and no dismal news comes without a silver lining or glimmer of hope. Anyone starts to resemble everyone over time. And the rule for friends, consumers, voters alike is to know everything and thereby trust nothing.
What's a brand? Nothing more than the current collection of knowns over the unknowns or simply suspected. A ratio, and one that is destined to get smaller over time, and smaller means less valuable. It's inevitable, with only a few exceptions (or variations of time or bluntness).
Back to Charlie and Tiger, though.
Two different guys with very different claims to fame, but I find it interesting that one "brand" seems to defy my aforementioned ratio decline while the other evidences it with conviction. I can think of at least three broad reasons that matter to the distinction:
- Context -- They're both trying to sell us something, but we experience Tiger and Charlie within two very disparate contexts: Tiger is most-often selling something else, and Charlie is probably only selling himself. I think people are more critically aware of hired pitchmen, almost as if we're more suspicious of them. I'd argue that the more tenuously attached they are to whatever it is they're trying to sell, the more likely they're going to ultimately fall short. The context demands it.
- Meaning -- Funny, but the more we learn about Sheen, the more vividly consistent his brand becomes, while getting greater detail about Tiger only ruined our perception of him. Quite frankly, Sheen has it far easier because there’s a wide range of behaviors in which can engage that support his reputation, while Tiger's activities had to be so circumspect because there were far fewer ways for him to substantiate his. The meaning of libertine is all-embracing, but the definition of saint is more rigid. I think this dichotomy meant, again, that we tended to always harbor suspicions that Tiger's perfection wasn't so perfect, or that his actions didn’t necessarily mean everything they were supposed to mean. If we suspect anything about Charlie it's simply that he's probably more of a scoundrel than we know.
- Utility -- The question of "what are we supposed to do -- as consumers -- with the Charlie and Tiger brands?" is very relevant to our valuation thereof. Tiger wanted us to buy golf clubs, workout drinks, and consulting services because of his reputation, while Charlie, well, just wants us to watch his television show...in which he acts as himself. There's no leap of faith or trust required, in that Charlie is as bad an actor as he's a bad person. Tiger required us to really suspend disbelief before we could act on his recommendations. The quicker path to consumption is the more truthful, generally.
Tiger made more money, but it's better to be Charlie, at least in terms of sustainable branding (and presuming he can keep himself from self-destructing). I don't think you'd want either of them attached to your brand...or any other spokescelebs.
(Image credit: YouKnowYouCare.com)
