Showing posts with label Brand Personality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brand Personality. Show all posts

Friday, 24 June 2016

Inner-circle counter branding- Ear and eyes open!

I recently came across a print-ad for Nasaka water purifier from Okaya group, and in no time a peculiar fact hit me. Veteran actress Shabana Azmi is seen endorsing the water purifier in the ad. The peculiar fact was that her son (from Javed Akhtar’s first wife, Honey Irani) is also seen endorsing the same category product, Pureit from HUL.

While, it is understandable that Farhan Akhtar is not Shabana Azmi's own son, and this conflict can very well be no conflict, an important question to ask here is, how credible does a product endorsement come across, when close family members, with equally strong brand image and credibility, endorse or anti-endorse products that are in direct competition or even substitution of that product or category.

The context and its implications of such a situation, also makes it imperative to judge if it is critical now to extend the boundary of due diligence and selection process for a brand ambassador beyond the individual to his closest set of people? Simply put, how pertinent it is to given to the individual’s image, appeal, relevance and credibility, should or shouldn’t the inner-circle deserves some notes and thinking, before inking  that million dollar deal?

Coming back to the first example cited, Both Shabana Azmi and Farhan Akhtar are known to be thinking actors and have associated themselves to a social cause every now and then. They have also managed to stay away from any major controversy adeptly, while being known for speaking their mind up. Crafty! Such attributes make them very attractive brand ambassadors for food and health category. Hence, Okaya and HUL were both bang on with the choice of their endorsers. However,  Okaya recently got Shabana Azmi to promote their Nasaka brand of water purifier, while it was well known that Farhan Akhtar promotes Pureit.

This can be a clean overlooking or may even be a thoughtful move. As Jack Trout and Al Reis suggest, in order to build a positioning in customer’s mind, try manipulating what is already there, instead of trying to create something new altogether. People know Farhan Akhtar and that he promotes pureit. So when Shabana Azmi comes up with an ad for another purifier, it helps than remember Nasaka since they would quickly relate Shabana Azmi to Farhan Akhtar, who is related to Pureit, and in the process will remember Nasak water purifier. Or at least the Nasaka marketers would hope for that.

Now, it is quite possible that people don’t fret much about how endorsements by members of a a particular star family cut, overlap or even counter each other, and they are able to remember them individually only attached to their respective endorsements. However, going by the argument in the last paragraph, connections are the easiest way to remember things, for example, Network maps, and hence it cannot be completely ignored that people may notice that while a male actor is promoting a tobacco brand, his star wife is busy educating people about ill-effects of Tobacco. This will not affect the Tobacco consumers but will definitely raise eyebrows on the sincerity of the star wife, and hence can mar the anti-tobacco campaign.

In order to ensure that such confusions and complexities are never allowed to find their way in the prospects’ mind, it is important that the due-diligence which is a regular exercise, post personality-alignment between the brand and the prospective endorser, is not just restricted to the prospective endorser but also to his or her inner-circle ie, the closest family members. The due diligence must along with other things (acceptability, appeal, relevance, credibility, social status, legal baggage etc) include a possibility of prospective endorsements and a contingency plan in case the family member’s brand endorsement interferes directly or indirectly with the primary brand endorsement. While this is a internal preventive technique, marketers can also adopt a regulated preventive technique where contracts pertaining to brand endorsements can be made to extend the exclusivity and non-compete clauses to family members. These of course will be difficult to draft as well as implement, and beyond doubt much more expensive.

There are of course various factors to consider before choosing one of the two techniques and a risk-impact analysis is a must before making a final call. These techniques can help marketers avoid losing their sleep over a challenger brand piggy-backing on their brand ambassador’s family member (and hence manipulating an already established positioning of their brand in the prospect’s mind!).

Monday, 14 March 2016

Celebrity endorsement - Never 'just do it' !

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.

Friday, 22 February 2013

Nike – Just did it…again !




It is remarkable how Nike manages to get into the wrong bogie every time. For the most innovative company of 2012 (Fastcompany.com), it is ironical to be astonishingly innovative and sadly, succeeding in finding a terrible end to its celebrity endorsement spree, with so much consistency!

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,