WSJ: “KPMG might be better off taking a drop”

Wall Street Journal says: “Mickelson may turn out to be a bad bet.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to WSJ: “KPMG might be better off taking a drop”

  1. Short Grass says:

    You are tedious, lanny. clearly you have nothing to offer about GOLF. USA Today quoted an expert in marketing who said this won’t hurt Phil at all. Until you start covering players and touranments I am no longer a reader.

  2. Jaybird77 says:

    I mean, I guess sponsors have to be careful about who they sponsor for potential problems like this but, I must be in the minority, because I don’t buy products, subscribe to services, or the like because an athlete in a sport I follow, “endorses” it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, sponsors are, to an extent, wasting their money while athletes are running to the bank.

    I guess to summarize, of course Phil was a bad bet and he was even before this latest issue.

    • lannyh says:

      I bought some UA socks because of Jordan. That’ll prop up their bottom line.

      Hey, I really did.

      But this must be said: Nike has built a $90 billion company on the strength of “wasting their money.” The reality is that such endorsements are very effective, and the ones wasting moneys are the ones buying the products — whether socks, Air Jordans, or KPMG audits.

      Go listen to Macklemore’s song “Wing$.” (My articles on that, three years after I posted them, still get 20-30 page views a day, every single day. Think any other golf writer can say that about any 3-year-old articles?)

      • Jaybird77 says:

        I guess I’m mainly focused on non sports sponsors. Things like KPMG, Wheels Up, 5-hour energy, ExxonMobil, etc.

        Nike, UA, Adidas, Callaway, TaylorMade, Titleist, Footjoy, etc, companies that actually deal in sports products are a little more realistic.

      • lannyh says:

        Well, some of them seem a stretch, I know. But those guys don’t throw away money, wasting it on ineffective advertising. A lot of them have stock options and other incentives to make every penny per share of earnings very rewarding. Maybe it’s just name recognition. I am deciding between ABC Consulting, XYZ Consulting, and KPMG. I think, “I’ve heard of those guys!” Maybe I feel like they are more legit or something.

      • lannyh says:

        In the case of KPMG and Barclays, I think they are both foreign companies, so maybe Mickelson makes them seem more “American” and therefore less risky over here.

      • Jaybird77 says:

        Could very well be. Familiarity does help. I just haven’t ever made a purchase, signed up for s service….because so and so endorses it.

      • lannyh says:

        Check out some of those UA socks. I love them. When I pull them on, I have a little more spring in my step. When others notice the emblem, I sense they are a little in awe of me.

  3. Ken says:

    I can’t see clients of Barclays or KPMG really caring about the Mickelson association. They aren’t going with those companies because of Mickelson, certainly not in the case of the big corporate clients from whom KPMG and Barclays really they make their money. Same with Embril. If I have arthritis and a doctor thinks it will help, I’m not going to refuse to take it due to Phil Mickelson. He’s pretty limber on the golf course and would be just a limber picking up trash on the side of a highway in an orange jump suit.

    I think there’s more danger to sponsors like Callaway. People do often buy products like sporting goods because their favorite athletes use them. I play Callaway. Used to play TM. In ’09, I tested out new woods from TM, Callaway, and Ping and found that the Callaway felt best. I play Callaway irons now too (replacing TM in 2013) and really like them. I won’t be ditching Callaway as they lead Phil off to jail. But some new buyers who want to play what their favorite players uses might.

    • lannyh says:

      KPMG’s entire well-being is dependent upon a good image. Are you guys reading any of the links I’m posting from the financial media? Their expectation is that KPMG will be the first to jump ship.

      And, look, this, to me, makes absoultely no sense: “They aren’t going with those companies because of Mickelson, certainly not in the case of the big corporate clients from whom KPMG and Barclays really they make their money.”

      So why then doesn’t KPMG hire some guy on and save a bundle? Go read your Bernays. These guys paying big bucks for sponsorships are some of the most intelligent people on the planet in highly-competitive positions. They don’t flush money down the toilet. (Not for long; they’ll be replaced.)

      • Ken says:

        Oh I think KPMG will terminate its relationship or at least let it lapse. When they do, there won’t be an impact at all. How could they know what Mickelson may have been up to? Even if they don’t, I just don’t think that companies doing business with KPMG are going to change. If Wal-Mart uses KPMG for it’s accounting, which is a behind the scenes function anyway, do they have a reason to be concerned because of Phil Mickelson? No, they don’t, not if they’ve been happy with KPMG. KPMG clients may be worried about appearances, but can you name KPMG’s clients?

        To be honest with you, I don’t understand a lot of sponsorships. I work for Fedex. We sponsor just about everything, to excess I think (Fedex Cup, F1, Fedex Field, tennis, rugby, soccer, the Grizzlies and more). They think they need to promote the Fedex brand endlessly. To me, it’s a job already done. Fedex is ubiquitous. When someones wants to express mail something, they often say “Fedex it” even if they use a different service. I think that some of those many millions are better spent at this point.

        NIke and Rolex stick with a slimy person like Tiger Woods. Ray Lewis still has corporate sponsors like Visa and Old Spice despite his involvement with murder. Kobe Bryant wasn’t exactly a choirboy and family-oriented brand like McDonald’s still pays him.

      • lannyh says:

        Yeah, but remember Wal-Mart isn’t hiring auditors for their own purposes. They hire auditors so that potential investors have a warm and fuzzy feeling that Wal-Mart’s books are in order. If KPMG is hunky-dory with an inside trader as their poster boy, that’s not exactly a point in their favor. They might think, well, if they “keep it down home” when it comes to Mickelson, what might they be hiding when the audit Wal-Mart.

        Picture this: two guys are in a board room with their CEO. One favors KPMG, the other favors Ernst & Young. There are a lot of political dynamics and personal feelings at stake. A mention that KPMG “kept an inside trader as their spokesperson” is a plus for Ernst & Young. If KPMG hired O.J. Simpson, people would think, “What is wrong with them?” If they hired Honest Abe, people would think, “That’s suitable.” In terms of image, Mickelson is closer to O.J. right now than Honest Abe.

        So much is about perception. I suppose you could make a case that corporations are looking for crooked auditors to overlook things, so Mickelson is a good image.

      • lannyh says:

        Other than Woods and Rolex, none of those bother me much. Nike and Woods was never in question; he IS (or was) their golf division. Old Spice buyers probably think Lewis is cool, and Visa loves people who charge and then pay minimum balance, which might be Lewis fan territory. Kobe and burgers is another match of consumer/fan. Some parents can’t stand McDonald’s. Anyway, that’s just my quick take.

      • Ken says:

        Good points Lanny.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s