The virtual water cooler has been abuzz over Nike’s controversial “Earl & Tiger” ad since its release last week. In less than 48 hours the video was viewed more than 2.2 million times and drew well over 7000 comments.

The implications for both the Nike and Tiger brands have polarized adland and the general public alike. In the video, Tiger’s father declares that he was “more prone to be inquisitive and promote discussion.” A definite truth prompting millions of people to question what Nike was thinking and whether it will help or hurt the brand.

Critics have charged Nike with exploiting a dead father in an effort to reshift the focus from a tawdry sex scandal back to the Swoosh. Supporters applaud the decision and support Nike’s decision calling it a win-win for Tiger and Nike. After all, the ad went viral immediately and has prompted global discussion and debate. Arguably, it would be tough to fail releasing the ad on the back of golf’s most prestigious event, the world’s most famous athlete and a sex scandal, but a success nonetheless.

New questions.

This prompts one to think about what the measure of success really is for marketers these days, and how far to push to attain it. How far would, or should we go to be part of the conversation? Ultimately agencies and marketers need to take a look at their brand and the level of risk they’re willing and able to take to get people talking about it, and whether their equity will support it. With Nike’s history of partnering with other controversial figures like Kobe Bryant and Charles Barkley, using ads like these to make them even more controversial isn’t outside of their comfort zone.

Could strategies like this work for pharma brands?

Risk and sensitivity management is something we know all too well in healthcare marketing. Whether it’s developing a novel, sensitive market like erectile dysfunction or responding to disastrous clinical trial results or recalls; the desired outcome for the brand is the same. We want to control the conversation and get our audience talking positively about the brand.

Today, marketing in the social media space is about communities. For healthcare brands these communities play a larger and larger role both on and offline, and bring a somewhat unfamiliar risk into play for healthcare marketers. Discussions among physicians, patients and consumers have the power to build or kill a brand. Spaces like Sermo, Facebook, Digg, Stumbledpon and hundreds of other sites are facilitating sharing of opinions, experiences, advice, recommendations and commentary.

Ultimately, marketing in this space means we must be comfortable relinquishing absolute control of the message and aware we may receive an unpredictable response. By controversy or positive experience, we need to be the topic of this conversation. That’s what the Internet is about right now, and in turn, that’s where we need to think for our clients.

(Written with Veronica Carson)