This was the headline in a Financial Post editorial written by Hollie Shaw:

Love It or Hate It, Nike’s Ad Got Noticed

The sub-head: Widespread reaction means ad worked, executives say

Really?

I have a lot of respect for Hollie Shaw and I am sure her reporting is accurate. I also swore to myself way back when that I would not weigh in on the whole Tiger thing on the basis that enough ink had already been poured into the sea of Tiger Woods reporting to keep the Titanic afloat. But the premise that noise for noise’s sake is a good thing bears discussion.

You all know about the commercial. Trading in on the dead father’s memory and the respect in which that memory is held. A cut and splice job assembled to set the stage for the son’s redemption. A swirl of publicity ensued in the wake of the ad’s appearance. Some decried it for being in bad taste. Others, including a goodly number in the advertising industry said that bad taste or not, the commercial wouldn’t hurt Nike a bit. Indeed, they surmised, all that publicity would be a boon for a company that seen its golf sales decline 11% in 2009.

“If I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I’d be a pretty happy guy”, said the chief creative officer at one large at agency.

Why?

In the bad old days, that mantra was a variation of the line usually attributed to master showman, P.T. Barnum: “I don’t care what they write about me, as long as they spell my name right.” Which is reminiscent of the classic from Mae West: “Call me anything, but call me often.” (Note: you may also find the first quote ascribed to Mae West and, another old time entertainer, George M. Cohan.) Any publicity, it was said, was good publicity.

Well, we know better now. And, somehow, I don’t see where the Nike ad is good publicity. Here’s my thinking.

1. Reflected Glory?

Nike’s promotions are celebrity-based, with Tiger Woods the centerpiece of its celebrity platform. If the ad reflects badly on Tiger Woods – and even the ad execs admit it doesn’t help polish Woods’ already tarnished image – how could it be a plus for the advertiser who clearly produced the ad to play off that image? Sorry, but ugly is as ugly does.

2. Bottom Line Contribution?

The link between Woods and Nike is well-established…and well understood by the golfing community at large. If this ad had not been aired, would Nike’s notoriety be one wit less impressive? I doubt it.

For example, none of Nike’s 2009 sales decline is attributed to the Tiger factor (if there is such a thing).

According to a survey conducted by TNS, a world leader in market research, global market information and business analysis, the scandal may have hurt Woods’ personal reputation, but not those of the brands he endorses. Respondents to a TNS survey said they had a more favourable opinion of Tiger’s brands including Nike, EA, Gillette and Gatorade (which did drop Woods but only at a point too close to the survey to have an impact).

I cannot see where this ad did Nike any good in the market or that missing out on the publicity garnered by its airing would have done it any harm.

3. The Fatigue Factor

Polls confirm that most people are tired of hearing about the Woods scandal. It was interesting…even titillating. For a while. But most now feel it’s time to move on and time to let Woods move on with his life, sympathy for Elin Nordegren notwithstanding. The ad, therefore, did nothing but keep the embers lit. It contributed to the fatigue.

Plus, frankly, the ad wasn’t that interesting. Or the production quality that good. In fact, objectively, the ad was pretty boring and, were it not for the context in which it was placed so callously, it would have been eminently forgettable.

In short, if I were the marketing guy at Nike the day after that ad ran, I wouldn’t be that happy with myself.

“Just because everything is different doesn’t mean anything has changed.” (Irene Peter)

If I have learned anything over the past 30 years, both as an experienced practitioner and keen student of business strategy, it is this: Those who run companies have one basic responsibility. No, it is not to make money. It is to keep their respective companies running. The core of any strategy must, therefore, be sustainability.

Too often, you will hear the same answer, told smugly, when asked about the essence of business enterprise. Business, it will be knowingly explained, is about making money…the more, the merrier. In fact, greed is about making money, the more the merrier. Business is about building an enterprise that is capable of making money over the long haul. Strategies that yield unsustainable profits are short-sighted, short term and doomed to failure. Greed is short-sighted and almost never sustainable.

So, more than just building a profitable organizations, business leaders must be focused on building sustainable ones. A company must be able to withstand economic volatility, a hyper-competitive market, lengthy supply chain disruptions and, yes, catastrophic events. It is easy to make money when your boat, like those around it, is rising with the tide. But can your boat survive a tsunami? Can it survive a protracted industry slump? Can it survive the Chinese? How about new technologies? Sweeping regulatory changes? What would happen to your organization in the event of a major acquisition?

Sustainability in the management context is about ensuring that a company’s product or service offering responds to the needs of its customer base and that it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. It is about its operations being as productive and as low cost as its competitors. It is about having a strong and stable customer base and a reliable supply chain. It is about having a stable cash flow and not having bank covenants that could strangle it when things become volatile. And, yes, it is about being prepared for catastrophe.

So, what is the first step in becoming a company from which investors can count on reliable, consistent returns well into the future? How does an organization become sustainable?

The answer is somewhat paradoxical. To be sustainable, a company must change. To change, the company must begin by strengthening the status quo.

Sustainability strategies require leaders to take a long-term view of their business. Getting the future right, however, first requires getting the present right. You cannot attract good people unless you take proper care of your current people. You cannot attract new customers unless you are adept at keeping the ones you have. You cannot usefully leverage a weak product portfolio. You cannot successfully expand a weak geographic base. Jim Collins writes Good to Great because you cannot go from Bad to Great. Without a strong foundation, you cannot get to there from here.

Sustainability, therefore, begins with understanding what you are doing right and then doing it better. Build from the foundation up, not the roof down. In other words, do not change. Evolve.

In a fast changing world, where most advisors would say that to succeed you must learn to change, it’s a paradox, to be sure.

Fellow business blogger Dave Jung at B2Blog alerted me to this tell-tale tempest at American Airlines.

To summarize, blogger Dustin Curtis took American Airlines to task for a terrible website (cluttered front page, poor user interface, etc.). Remember, customer experiences take place at points of contact. Every interface, every encounter, online, in-store or in person, is critical. Curtis received a detailed, if anonymous, e-mail from an AA designer explaining why it is understandably difficult to get good design at large companies. The big issue, he explained, is the sheer number of interventions by competing interests within the company.

My own experience in a large company says this is not necessarily true. Successful design is predicated on a consistent brand message being presented with clarity and creativity. The size of the company and the need to accommodate a range of interests are not predictors of design excellence. But let’s put that aside for the moment.

Mr. X, as he dubbed himself, did say that there were updates on the way that would address some of the problems. So far, so good, though I question the need for anonymity.

In telling the story, Techdirt shows an unfortunate bias. Our intrepid reporter very much appreciated the response given by Mr. X. “It’s human. It explains the situation without PR/marketing speak that a recipient would know was bogus. It is the type of response that makes someone feel good about American Airlines (mostly). So, how did AA respond? It fired the guy.”

Let us begin by looking at the actual response given by the supposedly well-intentioned Mr. X:

“I like to think I’m decent at what I do, and I know the others I work with here are all pretty good. The problem with the design of AA.com, however, lies less in our competency (or lack thereof, as you pointed out in your post) and more with the culture and processes employed here at American Airlines.

“…doing the design isn’t the hard part, and I think that’s what a lot of outsiders don’t really get, probably because many of them actually do belong to small, just-get-it-done organizations. But those of us who work in enterprise-level situations realize the momentum even a simple redesign must overcome…. They know what it’s like.”

So, this is how I interpret what Mr. X said:

- I am a good designer. Any problems with the AA.com design are not my fault, nor the fault of my colleagues. The fault lies with my company which is large and unwieldy (“the group running AA.com consists of at least 200 people spread out amongst many different groups”) and the cumbersome process we are required to work with. Let’s face it: AA is not a “get-it-done” organization.

- Left to my own devices, I could make a really cool site. I could make changes I deem appropriate on a dime. I would not bother with review and approvals with all the revisions such reviews would likely engender. I would say no to new feature requests if they prove difficult to accommodate.

Am I being unfairly selective? Am I being a corporate apologist? Just read Mr. X’s e-mail and judge for yourself.

So, I see things differently from Techdirt:

- Mr. X is certainly human with a number of very human foibles…one of which is an inability to take responsibility. He and his colleagues are clearly unable to neatly marry up the different needs of a complex organization.

- His response does not show loyalty to his employer. He dissed his company publicly. And, in cowardly fashion, did it behind the cloak of anonymity. I wonder if he ever bothered to show Mr. Curtis’ e-mail to his superiors so as to allow the company to come up with an appropriate response. Forget for a moment the highly prejudicial comment about PR/Marketing Speak. The fact is that any company with its head screwed on straight, given a well-intentioned criticism, could easily respond without being bogus. (Whether or not American Airlines is a company with its head screwed on straight is another question and probably a very good one.)

- The response would NOT make someone feel good about American Airlines. On the contrary, it says: if you think the website sucks, you should see what it’s like working here!

Would I have fired Mr. X? No. At least not unless this was one of a series of offenses. But I certainly would have had a chat with him about the appropriate way to approach outside criticism of the company.

This is a case of dumb and dumber. It is not completely obvious which is which.