Nike and its tumultuous history with its brand ambassadors is a real case study. After Tiger Woods, Oscar Pistorious, Lance Armstrong, and very recently , it is now the Tennis sensation Maria Sharapova who has given a headache to Nike and heartache to her fans world wide.
Nike recently terminated its contract with Manny Pacquaio after what they termed as his 'abhorrent' comments on LGBT community.
In the latest round of strained relationships with its brand ambassadors, Nike this week severed ties with the 28 year old five times grand-slam champion Maria Sharapova after her shocking revelation of having been tested positively for a banned substance - meldonium at Australian open earlier this year.
Back home, Snapdeal had to bear the brunt for its brand ambassador Amir Khan's comment on the intolerance issue in the country which took a political turn.
Such incidents demonstrate the risks that brands are exposed to, while nominating a brand ambassador. While having a celebrity brand ambassador is almost a norm and not a choice in several industries and product categories, the risks of associating with a celebrity are as high as the reward.
Obviously, any such association demands a great deal of focus on personality alignment between the brand and the prospective ambassador, an important but grossly ignored concept.
It is imperative to mention here that the celebrity personality in today's highly networked truly global world is no more only about how they do their job, like modeling, acting or sports etc, but also their social, political and cultural views and inclinations. Again, while these are more public in nature, due diligence is of utmost importance about their personal lives. Tiger woods' and Oscar Pistorious' cases testify this argument.
Brand managers blindly expect the positive personality rub-off from the celebrity to their brands without taking into consideration a host of other factors that must be looked into.
Some of the important factors are -
# The individual and the collective personality of the celebrity
# The desired brand image of the product
# The synergy between the first two personalities
# The overlaps and counter-laps between the endorser and product personality
While the first two factors are extremely important to derive at what are we dealing with in terms of possible association between two personalities, the third factor helps in understanding whether or not there is a broad alignment between the product and the celebrity. However, it is most often the fourth factor which is blatantly ignored, and often to one's own peril.
The counter laps or the points/occurrence/frequency of contrasts between the two personalities(the endorser and the product) must be closely researched and debated before closing a brand endorsement decision. The most important decision here is what aspects of the celebrity's personality may not/are not - align/aligned, with the core brand personality and its desired brand image.
Finally, a brand endorsement is a very expensive decision for any marketing manager and a thorough due diligence is not a choice but a compulsion to avoid foot in mouth situations that hurt the brand and the company. This may very well help in avoiding some issues altogether while mitigate ill-effects of others.
Nike recently terminated its contract with Manny Pacquaio after what they termed as his 'abhorrent' comments on LGBT community.In the latest round of strained relationships with its brand ambassadors, Nike this week severed ties with the 28 year old five times grand-slam champion Maria Sharapova after her shocking revelation of having been tested positively for a banned substance - meldonium at Australian open earlier this year.
Back home, Snapdeal had to bear the brunt for its brand ambassador Amir Khan's comment on the intolerance issue in the country which took a political turn.Such incidents demonstrate the risks that brands are exposed to, while nominating a brand ambassador. While having a celebrity brand ambassador is almost a norm and not a choice in several industries and product categories, the risks of associating with a celebrity are as high as the reward.
Obviously, any such association demands a great deal of focus on personality alignment between the brand and the prospective ambassador, an important but grossly ignored concept.
It is imperative to mention here that the celebrity personality in today's highly networked truly global world is no more only about how they do their job, like modeling, acting or sports etc, but also their social, political and cultural views and inclinations. Again, while these are more public in nature, due diligence is of utmost importance about their personal lives. Tiger woods' and Oscar Pistorious' cases testify this argument.
Brand managers blindly expect the positive personality rub-off from the celebrity to their brands without taking into consideration a host of other factors that must be looked into.
Some of the important factors are -
# The individual and the collective personality of the celebrity
# The desired brand image of the product
# The synergy between the first two personalities
# The overlaps and counter-laps between the endorser and product personality
While the first two factors are extremely important to derive at what are we dealing with in terms of possible association between two personalities, the third factor helps in understanding whether or not there is a broad alignment between the product and the celebrity. However, it is most often the fourth factor which is blatantly ignored, and often to one's own peril.The counter laps or the points/occurrence/frequency of contrasts between the two personalities(the endorser and the product) must be closely researched and debated before closing a brand endorsement decision. The most important decision here is what aspects of the celebrity's personality may not/are not - align/aligned, with the core brand personality and its desired brand image.
Finally, a brand endorsement is a very expensive decision for any marketing manager and a thorough due diligence is not a choice but a compulsion to avoid foot in mouth situations that hurt the brand and the company. This may very well help in avoiding some issues altogether while mitigate ill-effects of others.
