When Oscar Pistorius was caught on charges
of murdering his girlfriend earlier this week, Nike added another feather to
its embarrassing “endorsement-gone-wrong” cap (Other feathers being Marion
Jones, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Joe Paterno etc)
 |
| Oscar Pistorius |
Celebrity endorsement has always been
counted as one of the safest marketing tactics. But the times have changed and
so is the perception of brands endorsed by celebrities. In the backdrop of
multiple surveys it may be safe to assume that celebrity endorsement, to say
the least, is no more a safe bet when it comes to ROI for marketers. However,
endorsement of sports products by sports personalities still remains to be fairly
effective.
 |
| Celebrity-Brand connection due to endorsement |
It is largely because of the very association which a consumer can
make between the endorser and the product. Since the endorser is not just the
propagator of the brand and its advantages, but is also an aspirational figure
for the same audience, the brand identity is strengthened due to such endorsements.
Consistent brand communication, synergy
between the endorser and the brand, brand personality created due to the
endorser and the overall credibility of the endorser are some of the other
reasons why companies are still relying upon sports figures for brand
endorsements.
At first look, it may seem like this is it;
the big marketing tactic for any product under the sun. But since we are only halfway
through this post, I guess you must have realized that I would say, No!
 |
| Factors affecting celebrity Brand endorsement |
Celebrity endorsement is not a no-risk
game. There are substantial risks involved and multiple aspects must be
considered before going on with one. Check the smart-art figure for some
pointers on these.
Nike, for sure must have done extensive
research work before inking endorsement deals but these did not turned out to
be as favorable as Nike wanted them to be. Hence, what also must be clearly
put through is a mitigation and contingency plan in the event of risk
actualization. That is where Nike has had problems too, which is rather sad
considering that the other factors, of course, were beyond its control, but its
own response to the disaster was rather perplexing and self-defeating.
Tiger Woods hurt the brand due to his
off-field behavior when he was alleged of having multiple affairs outside his
marriage. The scandal hit both his credibility as well as personality. However,
Nike kept faith in Tiger Woods and made an argument that being a world-class
sports performance brand it builds upon the elitist athletic performances of
its endorsers and draws a line between their personal and professional conduct. It though suspended certain ads for some time but got on with them after some
time again.
 |
| Tiger Woods |
Nike was a tad late in dropping Lance
Armstrong as its endorser after he was charged for doping, which was as per the
US Anti-Doping Agency, "the most sophisticated, professionalized and
successful doping programmme that sport has ever seen". It even
stood by Armstrong initially, before disowning him emphasizing that since Lance
Armstrong had betrayed the spirit of sportsmanship, which the brand stands for,
there was no reason to continue supporting him.
 |
| Lance Armstrong |
In case of Oscar Pistorius, Nike was quick
to take off its “I am the bullet in the chamber” ad featuring him and seems to
be on back-foot. This is in stark difference with the other two cases. Though
the affecting behavior again is outside the field but the response was one
which was supported by Nike for conduct on-field (in connection with Nike’s
argument in case of Tiger Woods).
It’s a Deja-vu moment for Nike with Oscar
Pistorius. It is to be seen how it respond to this known threat externally and
internally but for sure, the celebrity research teams got their job-descriptions
extended with - comprehensive personal
information collection, analysis and risk calculation. May God be with
them!
Cheers,
No comments:
Post a Comment