12/10/09
Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pepsi is dropping a Gatorade drink (something called “Focus”) named after Tiger Woods. Pepsi protests that this was part of a long planned product repositioning and had nothing to due with Mr. Woods’ marital, er, transgressions. Apparently, Pepsi really expects us to believe this.
Why do people in politics and big business feel compelled to lie? Why couldn’t Pepsi just say “We’re dropping Tiger Woods’ sponsorship because…
(Choose one here.)
…we are lily-livered Lilliputians, like most big businesses, afraid that somewhere, somehow, we might offend someone and thus lose even a dollar of revenue”
or, more likely, or at least more acceptable to the general public, even if further from the truth…
…we think Mr. Woods’ inability to control his putter reflects an image inconsistent with the wholesome image Pepsi seeks to convey.”?
Is it just that big businesses and politicians find it easier, and more natural, to lie than to tell the truth? One supposes so; a whole industry that calls itself “public relations” exists to help big corporations and full of themselves celebrities artfully lie. But judging from Pepsi’s performance here, perhaps such entities need no further help doing what comes naturally.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment