Phelps partied with marijuana, a performance-detracting drug, and was suspended from swimming. Rodriguez took banned performance-enhancing drugs for three years and suffered no penalty but an uncomfortable television interview.
The American swimmer Phelps, 23, won a record eight gold medals at the Beijing Games last summer but lost an endorsement deal with U.S. food giant Kellogg Co after a British newspaper published a picture of the Olympic champion apparently smoking marijuana.
USA Swimming then suspended him for three months.
Rodriguez, 33, the highest paid player in baseball, admitted to ESPN television on Monday that he took a banned substance from 2001 to 2003 after Sports Illustrated reported he tested positive for testosterone and the anabolic steroid Primobolan in 2003.
He escapes sanctions from Major League baseball because it did not punish players at that time for using steroids.
"We should leave Michael Phelps alone. He's a kid. So he made a mistake. He owned up to it right away -- as opposed to A-Rod, whose been lying about it for a number of years," said Deborah Cohn, professor of marketing at New York's Touro College.
So far other sponsors have stood by Phelps, including Speedo swimwear, Omega watches, Visa Inc, Subway sandwiches and Hilton Hotels Corp.
FODDER FOR TABLOIDS
Rodriguez of the New York Yankees is on course to break the career home run record and his $27 million annual salary and stormy personal life have made "A-Rod," as he is known, fodder for tabloids.
So far none of his sponsors have announced they were cutting ties, though marketing specialists said he could still be dropped.
What would be worse to any baseball superstar, he may be denied entry into the sport's Hall of Fame after he retires.
Rodriguez lists apparel giant Nike, Rawlings sporting goods, baseball card-maker Topps and Oasys Mobile as "corporate partners" on his official website.
"If we freeze-frame right now, it would look like A-Rod got off pretty scot-free. But it's only two days old. It's got to affect his own endorsement possibilities," said Michael Josephson, founder and president of the Josephson Institute, which promotes ethical behavior in sports and society.
"People don't think horribly about swimming because one young swimmer smoked marijuana. It's different with A-Rod. The impact goes to the core of the integrity of the sport," he said. "Doesn't anybody have the moral strength to say 'No'?"
Rodriguez may pay when he plays in rival cities like Boston, where the fans are sure to jeer him with relish.
"I think A-Rod's going to suffer a little bit in his performance because it's going to be on his mind wherever he goes," said Jason Teitler, senior vice president of Steiner Sports Marketing. "It might take him a while to get the forgiveness of fans even in New York."
A-Rod may have done permanent damage to his reputation as a baseball player, but I think that Yankees fans are unlikely to stop buying tickets. (And true or not, he was smart to admit to using steroids...but also insist that he hasn't since being signed with the Yankees.) Yes, he has sponsorship deals. But a) that's not the only way he generates money and b) he was never necessarily considered "suitable for children." Back when the A-Rod/Madonna story came up, brand expert John Tantillo appeared on Fox news and called A-Rod the performance brand...and that for that reason, the scandal didn't really matter for him.
Phelps, on the other hand, isn't going to sell any tickets. It's all about endorsements, so as long as he endorses products targeted toward children and their parents, a scandal like this is of course a big deal: the value of his endorsement for Kellogg's was based on the idea (however farcical perhaps) that he was the image of the healthy, polite, all-American boy who had reached for his dreams and been rewarded.
At least one branding expert, though,, believes that getting dropped by Kellogg's will actually be better for Phelps in the long-run, and that his sponsorships should be for products targeted toward the 18-35 demographic, rather than toward children and parents. In his weekly brand winner/loser post, Dr. Tantillo named Phelps last week's winner and Kellogg's last week's loser--for not seizing the opportunity to build their brand by standing by Phelps rather than tossing him aside.
I actually support the legalization of marijuana, but as for all the op-ed pieces condemning Kellogg's for having dropped Phelps--don't they have something better to write about? It was a business decision. And they have just as much of a right to sign or not sign whomever they choose as Phelps and everyone else should have to smoke if they so choose.
A-Rod may have done permanent damage to his reputation as a baseball player, but I think that Yankees fans are unlikely to stop buying tickets. (And true or not, he was smart to admit to using steroids...but also insist that he hasn't since being signed with the Yankees.) Yes, he has sponsorship deals. But a) that's not the only way he generates money and b) he was never necessarily considered "suitable for children." Back when the A-Rod/Madonna story came up, brand expert John Tantillo appeared on Fox news and called A-Rod the performance brand...and that for that reason, the scandal didn't really matter for him. http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2009/02/09/brand-winners-and-losers-phelps-and-kelloggs.aspx
Phelps, on the other hand, isn't going to sell any tickets. It's all about endorsements, so as long as he endorses products targeted toward children and their parents, a scandal like this is of course a big deal: the value of his endorsement for Kellogg's was based on the idea (however farcical perhaps) that he was the image of the healthy, polite, all-American boy who had reached for his dreams and been rewarded.
At least one branding expert, though,, believes that getting dropped by Kellogg's will actually be better for Phelps in the long-run, and that his sponsorships should be for products targeted toward the 18-35 demographic, rather than toward children and parents. In his weekly brand winner/loser post, Dr. Tantillo named Phelps last week's winner and Kellogg's last week's loser--for not seizing the opportunity to build their brand by standing by Phelps rather than tossing him aside. http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2009/02/09/brand-winners-and-losers-phelps-and-kelloggs.aspx
I actually support the legalization of marijuana, but as for all the op-ed pieces condemning Kellogg's for having dropped Phelps--don't they have something better to write about? It was a business decision. And they have just as much of a right to sign or not sign whomever they choose as Phelps and everyone else should have to smoke if they so choose.
NEW GOOGLE OPTIONGoogle adds automatic captions to YouTube
SUICIDES.Korean supermodel found hanged in Paris
NEW YORK SHOWPHOTOS: Victoria's Secret hot show!
HEART DISEASEVitamin D deficiency linked to strokes
IPHONECisco releases Web security app for iPhone
INCREASED POPULARITYMexicans prove infidelity using DNA
SEXPO SYDNEY 2009PHOTO: Fair ‘fires-up’ adult Australians
SKINNY FEELS GOODModel Moss rapped for -skinny feels good- motto
GOOGLEGoogle image search gets a "swirl"
