i’m heavily amused by accenture’s extreme efforts to ditch the tiger brand. they probably should not have staked so much of their marketing on one guy. rookie mistake.

But it takes time to erase the golfer’s identity completely. Accenture spent $50 million on advertising in the United States last year, and Mr. Woods appeared in 83 percent of the company’s ads — far more than for any of his other major sponsors — according to TNS Media Intelligence.
…
On Tuesday, that meant telling staff members in an e-mail message to review their sales pitches and slide shows to ensure that they “no longer include Tiger Woods.” In New York, employees were asked to bring posters and other physical assets to the company’s front desk for disposal. The company would not comment on exactly how they would be disposed of.

They may be trying to avoid having the materials recast as collectors’ items. Already, some Accenture magazine ads and memorabilia, including an Accenture Match Play Tiger Woods Caddy Bib, are on eBay (Asking price for the bib: $175.)

i think i have some tiger-branded accenture recruiting brochures. i might just have to hold onto those now.

kinda sucks. but i have some logistical questions and comments.

1. i’m trying to construct a timeline here:

sometime in 2006: edwards and hunter meet

november 2006: eliz edwards’s cancer goes into remission

march 22, 2007: eliz edwards’s cancer comes back. also, john edwards says he was no longer having an affair after her cancer came back

may 2007: hunter’s baby is conceived

july 2007: if the national enquirer is correct, this is the earliest the affair ended (18 months)

february 2008: hunter’s baby is born

now, something here is not right. if the enquirer is correct, then edwards is lying about the when he was banging that chickie, and it is completely possible the baby is his. the other less awesome possibility is that the enquirer is wrong about the length of the affair.

2. i care about this a lot less than this analysis suggests. i was just trying to do the math and it wasn’t adding up, i swear.

3. do i think the liberal media f’d this one up? oh hell yes. way to show your true colors and make this whole enterprise harder to defend. someone explain the state of journalism to me when the national enquirer is breaking one of the hugest political stories of the year. ugh.

4. how is it that this 42yo hard-partying “filmmaker” can bag two married men in such a short amount of time? how and why? and i really want to see a pic of this andrew young fella, just out of sheer voyeuristic curiosity.

4. in any case, i really don’t like you, john edwards, b/c you sue people like my mom and seriously threaten my inheritance. and you cheat on your dying wife, who is dying b/c she was trying to have more of your lecherous babies. and your hair is too nice. i’m so over it.