As the sordid details of Tiger Woods’ personal life continue to unfold in the national media the question arises: will Electronic Arts stick by their videogame cover boy?
While EA issued a statement a week ago saying that it wouldn’t dump Woods, the media frenzy surrounding Tiger’s transgressions continues to grow and more information is revealed seemingly everyday, all of which could influence EA’s stance.
A Forbes column contains the opinion that Tiger’s days are numbered as an EA spokesman, going so far as to say that “Tiger is done as a corporate pitchman” overall, regardless of what companies sticking by him are currently saying now.
The columnist also believes that the Tiger scandal will force companies to do full diligence on a spokesperson before choosing them:
…companies that throw big money at athletes are going to do a lot of research on them to make sure they are not phony (or make risk-adverse decisions based on information they do have) and funnel their endorsement dough at popular athletes whose image will not blow up.
Some of these athletes may not even be among the best in their field, but they will typically be in global sports and not be ticking time bombs.
Forbes writes that no other golfers carry enough buzz among consumers to fill Tiger’s shoes. Certainly however, EA could find a new PGA pro to build its game around if events warranted. Phil Mickelson might be the perfect choice, though he may need to work on his fist pump to take it to Tiger’s level.
What do you think? Should EA keep Tiger on board?
Comments
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
Don't forget the source code for their computer models. I read it, and the programming notes in it specifically state that all data after 1970 is manipulated to look higher than it should.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
"when one portion of an experiment is manipulated fraudulently, IT FUCKS UP THE RESULT"
For THAT experiment. Other independent researchers have actual results. Science is not dependent on a single source.
Seriously though. The only "news" source in the WORLD that is taking this to mean anything big is FOX. There's a reason for that. REAL scientists (i.e. ones that know the world is more than 6000 years old) analyze multiple data from multiple sources before making claims.
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
Except when the next group that does research uses the same, now manipulated dataset.
And yes, Fox is the only news channel that's reporting this at all. Just like they were the only one that reported on ACORN for the first few weeks. Isn't that a coincidence.
Meanwhile, every other channel ignores the whole story, or only reports on the hope that the 'hacker' will be brought to justice. That's some reporting, let me tell you.
But come back when you've read the emails, eh jackass?
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
You know... sometimes your arguments seem like they're going somewhere... but you really hurt your chances when you start childish name calling. You've called me "jackass", you've called other people "dumbass". How old are you? Or is name calling what you do when you can't assemble a coherent argument. I guess you've just accidentally stumbled into saying somewhat intelligent... too bad, I was hoping you were getting smarter.
Anyways... ACORN is a US matter. I was saying the WORLD knows better than to take the emails as more than they are - some fraudulent scientists. Science is not a house of cards, you don't pull one out and everything falls. Principles of science are independently reviewed and tested.
It's no wonder you're completely misinformed about everything since all your news comes from FOX, CNN, MSNBC (yes, I'm including the extreme left in there as well)...
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
You're right, in that science isn't a house of cards. The problem is, so many studies and laws have been passed based on nothing more than East Anglia data. It is now out that they have manipulated the data to achieve a result they wanted, and tried to prevent people with alternate theories from being published, and to have peer-review boards stacked in their favor, effectively making the peer-review process invalid. They also VIOLATED THE LAW by trying to prevent people from getting access to their source data through the Freedom of Information Acts of both Britain and America.
So, the data is tainted and they didn't submit to independent review and testing, but those of us who are actually concerned with those facts are in the wrong. Okay, just wanted to clear that up.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
Although I do have to agree with you on one thing. Global warming is not a sure thing. But it's something that's we're better off playing it safe with.
Using less carbon is a good idea all around and the advent of cleaner energy and technologies will create new businesses and jobs. Moving away from fossil fuels will have a lot of benefits. For instance, better battery technology (in which innovation has stagnated for decades - especially compared to other technologies).
The internal combustion engine has not seen true innovation in over 60 years. There's a reason for that. Oil companies have far too much interest in NOT innovating.
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
You're wrong about the internal combustion engine not getting innovative. GM's direct-injection technology and LS engine architecture are both major innovations. The first injects fuel directly into the cylinder, versus mixing it with air in the intake runner, thereby cooling the fuel, allowing for the use of less fuel while making more power. LS architecture, on the other hand, uses lighter materials to make the engine, as well as creating every conceivable concession to computer controls, allowing a computer to manage every aspect of the engine's operation. Ford's Eco-Boost line, while not necessarily "innovative," is helping them get on the right track as far as fuel economy is concerned. Combine that with Ford (not Toyota) making the best hybrid car on the market, and you got yourself some innovation right there.
---
He was dead when I got here.
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
Global warming and cooling is a sure thing; the world does warm and cool. The unsure part is whether or not people have as much an affect as people like Al Gore would like you to believe so that he can continue getting rich selling carbon credits.
Do I think we need to move off of fossil fuels? In many cases, hell yes. But using phony and fraudulent science to support that movement is wrong, and it brings all of science down with it. It's as bad as what the church did all those years ago, denying people who disagreed the right to speak their mind. Now, you have these leading climatologists blackmailing academic journals to not run the research of those who disagree. That's wrong.
We need to go to more nuclear power (which is something, at least, that Obama has right). I believe that wholeheartedly, and it's a great power source with a lot of benefits. Better battery technology would also be great.
My point is that lying to the people to support those things is wrong, a waste of the billions of tax dollars spent on it, and it makes all sciences look bad.
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
Surely there isn't a connection? People are say, running this Tiger Woods nonsense instead of, you know, real news?
Re: How Much Longer Can EA Stand by Tiger?
No. Couldn't be.
---
He was dead when I got here.