The Tiger talked, but does he walk? By now, you know that Tiger Woods’ statement has been published on his website for all to see.  From a communications standpoint, it’s an amateur move.  Any pro knows: he needed to come forward (yes, sooner) and deliver the statement on-camera.  A video statement would have humanized him even more. This is important because, if genuine, he would have made a deeper connection with the public-at-large, and it would enable him to rise above the messiness of his personal life faster.

Let me emphasize a key point, I am commenting on this story from a communications/PR perspective, and how it has played out in the media. People who love golf (or not), love Tiger, and the fact that he posted a statement at all is certainly just fine by them. His fans will forgive him and encourage him to keep playing. Those that respected him for his professional accomplishments are certainly not going to argue with a man who wants to spend time working on his personal issues behind closed doors. In fact, comments on his website are pouring in (over 6,200 last I checked), and mostly comprised of that sentiment. See, people now recognize Tiger for the human he is — faults and all — and are rallying around the “you’re just like us” feeling.

But if only it were that simple. And it isn’t enough. You see, the media is interested in all aspects of Tiger Woods, not just the parts he wants to put out there.  If you know this, then you understand the rules of the press game, and you don’t do anything that plays into the media’s hands in a way that causes more damage to yourself. If you don’t know this, then you hire someone who does so you don’t dig yourself into a deeper hole.

And if you’re Tiger Woods, for goodness sake, you should know going in that if you say things like “No comment” or worse, you don’t comment at all,  you look like you’re covering up something. You set off so many alarms with the media that you essentially set yourself up for failure, because they will hunt down the “story.”  The story, then, means a cast of characters will surface, who may or may not be deserving of being in your story in the first place. So, by the time you release the written statement, the media is already way ahead of you.  What you want from people (privacy, for example) may no longer be possible.  Now, the public is engaged in “the story” and you’ve just put yourself in reactive mode.

I feel sad on a personal level for him and his family. After all, he’s a husband. A father. A friend. But he’s Tiger Woods, the brand too. So this is where things  get more complex. As a global brand, there’s so much money invested in making it thrive and succeed that there are enough resources in place to also make sure “personal inconveniences” associated with the Person get diffused as fast as possible. So, in this case, a brand can forget personal strife quickly and move on with its business.

But we live in the digital age, the age of information gathering and sharing at warp speed, and whether we like it or not, the Internet’s memory is infinite. There is no distinction between Tiger, the uber brand, and Tiger the flawed person. Everyone’s voice and opinion gets equal space. The current digital footprint that is being created has grown much bigger than either would like. It’s permanent. The “story” will live on. He missed an important opportunity to own how this would play out. Sure, people will forgive him. His brand, while currently hemorrhaging will have a healing phase (meaning no appearances or tournaments for awhile, and then a great comeback will be planned…how many times have we seen this now?), and thus will forget this dark period. But the Internet will remind us all of a time when a great professional athlete who so successfully managed his golf game, misstepped badly in the life game. The toll it takes on the Person as well as the Brand, and all who come into contact with each, has yet to be realized.