Brands and their fallen heroes

If recent disclosures regarding golfer Tiger Woods have created a nightmare for his family, they are also surely causing sleepless nights in the corner offices of custodians of many global brands. He was the iconic face of equally iconic brands – Nike, Gillette, Tag Heuer and Accenture. Nike’s advertising contract with him is reportedly worth an astounding $40 million. Now that Woods has confessed to infidelity and decided to take an indefinite break from the game he has dominated so brilliantly, what happens? Will these brands stand by their poster-boy ambassador or will they abandon him?

This is a risk and dilemma that marketing managers have to be ever ready to face: Our famous sportsmen and movie stars may be invincible in their respective professions, but they are human after all. Consider the number of famous brand ambassadors who have strayed in so many different ways in the past few years.

Shane Warne was accused of harassing various women with lewd text messages. Boris Becker was alleged to have evaded taxes, and was in the news once again for his furtive sexual encounters in broom cupboards. Salman Khan and his illegal black buck shoots are still fresh in our minds. Allegations of match fixing cut short the promising cricketing career of the otherwise brilliant and dashing Mohammed Azharuddin. Some of these allegations eventually turn out to be true, and others not so true. Yet brands which used these faces had to suddenly grapple with a new and unpleasant reality. Their ambassadors were in the public dock, and this could end up badly hurting their brand. What should they do?

The answers to this million-dollar question is not easy because brands have invested several millions in building a strong consumer proposition through their ambassadors. Consumers don’t merely associate specific brands with these faces but over the years also develop an emotional or intellectual connect with them.

Accenture without Tiger Woods or Virgin without Richard Branson somehow appear incomplete. There are, however, a few key factors which can suggest the right course of action in each case.

Let values be the guide

First and foremost is the gravity of the charge faced by the brand ambassador. To illustrate a point, if the celebrity concerned has been accused or convicted of premeditated murder, the brand has little choice but to withdraw support. It would be virtually suicidal to feature such a criminal as the face of your brand, so this is a decision etched in black and white. But other trespasses which are not necessarily illegal or a heinous crime involve many shades of grey. Marital infidelity is one of these moral issues. In the value systems of much of the civilised family world, it is treated as a clear lapse and a betrayal of trust. Yet, it is acknowledged that in today’s world, infidelity is not an uncommon lapse, so would consumers really be alienated by an ambassador such as Tiger Woods who has admitted to this failure and sought forgiveness?

In my view, the answer in such cases lies in the nature of the brand itself. If trust is a core value of the brand, then perhaps it is best to dump the philanderer immediately and move on. But if the brand is built around core values such as achievement or precision, perhaps the ambassador should stay, as he continues to remain an excellent practitioner of his art, which is his true source of value. Similar judgements have to be drawn in respect of allegations such as cheating in sport, public smoking and drunken brawls.

A second factor is the length of association which the brand has with its ambassador who has strayed. If a celebrity is well known as the face of a specific brand for several years, and if the charge against him or her is not very grave, then the brand often gains by staying committed to its ambassador. Generally speaking, consumers value long-term loyalty, and they value brands and institutions which stick by their people, particularly when they are navigating difficult times. However, if the celebrity has only a nascent or recent link with the brand, it may be best to part ways, as the world has still not associated the two in any significant manner.

Thirdly, the brand should arrive at an honest assessment of how long the dark clouds are likely to remain in the skies, and how powerful and sustainable the celebrity’s key strengths are, even if such an assessment is likely to be a challenging exercise and a matter of judgement.

Public memory is often short, and if the celebrity concerned has many other strengths or positives, these will in due course outweigh the negative impact of a single episode. This is particularly the case if the person concerned has been honest after the disclosure even after some initial dithering, and thereafter does his best to put the matter behind him.

For instance, consider the case of Bill Clinton who continues to be a roving ambassador for the world’s largest nation brand, the USA. After a near impeachment for his alleged misdemeanours with an intern several years ago, he is fondly regarded today as a successful President by a majority of Americans and most of the world. The positives of Mr Clinton far exceed that incident.

A fourth factor is how well the brand can manage without the ambassador in the short-term. Sometimes, the prudent action may be to remove the celebrity from all advertising material and appearances on behalf of the brand until the storm has passed and devise impactful but ambassador-less marketing campaigns in the interim. The brand can thereafter return with its well-known face once the issue concerned has reached some satisfactory resolution.

Brands with deep pockets and a sharp view of the long-term can afford such an approach, particularly if the celebrity concerned is a perfect fit with what the brand stands for. Affected celebrities with a long-term view of their association may also be willing to renegotiate commercials significantly, perhaps even waive fees entirely, for this limited period of time.

Gillette appears to have taken this approach on Tiger Woods, stating last week that it supports his desire for privacy and will limit his role in marketing the brand in the immediate future and for as long as he desires.

I end this piece on a somewhat light yet entirely relevant note. For this, I must return to the famous adage that there is opportunity in every adversity, which brands can spot and leverage.

Take the case of Shane Warne, whose lewd text messages laid him low for a while. Earlier this year, he was quite appropriately appointed brand ambassador for 6UP, an SMS service and game. Now, that’s a really brilliant spin on a famous man’s transgressions !

(The writer, Harish Bhat, is Chief Operating Officer – Watches, Titan Industries Ltd. These are his personal views.)