Adweek: A tale of two Tigers

Adweek has naturally devoted a lavish amount of coverage on Tiger, but can't seem to make up their minds on whether or not recent events will negatively impact his image and earning potential. Here's one Adweek article where they say Tiger won't lose image points or sponsors from the public debacle and here's another from Adweek that says cutting Tiger is generating positive buzz for brands. So Adweek, which is it?

---

Checkmate

I can write in any style necessary, but from a personal standpoint, I'm bored of seeing all of these big companies take a passive aggressive approach. YOU ARE COMPETITORS. It irks me when a company actually has a concrete advantage over another and won't say it because "being negative" (aka this includes saying anything negative about your competitor) allegedly means people will stop buying their stuff. News flash: A negative for your competitor is a positive for you. A positive for you means you sell more stuff, and that's really the whole point.

Now that I've hopped off my soap box, I want to pass on to you one of the most ingenious media placements I've seen that embodies a spirit of clever competition that has been has largely been eschewed in favor of the kind of catty fake niceties normally found in teenage girls.

Thank you Audi, BMW and My Modern Metropolis.