The Corporate Storyteller

Nike CEO Mark Parker recently defended the company's latest ad featuring Tiger Woods listening to the voice of his deceased father. Parker said it's the "most polarizing" ad that Nike has run in a long time, and he explained that "what's really at the root of a lot of what we do is the connection and commitment we have to the athlete."

I commend Nike's commitment, but my question is, Didn't Tiger break the agreement with behavior unbefitting a sports hero--especially one of his elevated status--whom youngsters around the world look up to and want to emulate?

What do you think? Is Nike's commitment justified? Does Tiger's behavior tarnish any brand he represents and warrant a change in the company-spokesman relationship? Does the company's stance alter your view of the Nike story?