The recent Tiger Woods 'confessions' opened a whole lot of debate on the role of celebrity endorsement as a marketing strategy. The issue of celebrity endorsements and its 'side effects' is one of the most widely discussed topic in the branding world. Every time there is a controversy involving the celebrity, these chatter arise and dies down soon .
In this context, it should be understood that celebrity endorsement is a powerful promotional tool . If used creatively, celebrity endorsement can propel a brand to a high growth trajectory. But like any strategy, this option too has its own share of disadvantages. The latest Tiger Woods episode again highlight the issues brands can face when their endorsers ran into trouble.
Will this episode refrain marketers from using celebrities any more ? Never. We will be seeing more of these endorsements in the future also. But there are lessons to be learned from this current developments.
The problems that brands face when their endorsers land up in trouble is more when brand depend heavily on the celebrity for equity ( common sense !). When brands use Celebrities as a pivot upon which the entire brand equity is generated, the risk is more and any adverse actions on the part of the celebrity will affect the brand's strategy.
In the case of Accenture, Tiger Woods was the axis for all their promotions. The brand was so closely associated with the celebrity that coming out of that association will cost both money , time and energy. But the silver lining for Accenture is that Tiger Woods was only a symbolization for the corporate brand. The current controversy is in no way going to affect Accenture's consulting business. Only issue is that the brand needs to find another powerful symbol to convey its message.
For other famous brands like Nike and Gillette too, there is only less impact of this controversy because Tiger Woods does not play a crucial role in their brand building strategy. Both these brands have other celebrities to bank upon.
Marketers should understand that using celebrities should only be a part of the big picture and not the picture itself. There are no short cuts to fame. If at all one is using celebrities as the main talking point, derisk by using more than one (if you can afford that). Otherwise run parallel theme based campaigns to help the brand stand on its own.
Indian brands tend to rely heavily on celebrities for equity. The brand owners should understand that this tendency is because of the focus on short-termism and lack of creative thinking. Celebrity endorsements should only be a part of the strategy not the strategy itself.
Related Brand
Accenture
In this context, it should be understood that celebrity endorsement is a powerful promotional tool . If used creatively, celebrity endorsement can propel a brand to a high growth trajectory. But like any strategy, this option too has its own share of disadvantages. The latest Tiger Woods episode again highlight the issues brands can face when their endorsers ran into trouble.
Will this episode refrain marketers from using celebrities any more ? Never. We will be seeing more of these endorsements in the future also. But there are lessons to be learned from this current developments.
The problems that brands face when their endorsers land up in trouble is more when brand depend heavily on the celebrity for equity ( common sense !). When brands use Celebrities as a pivot upon which the entire brand equity is generated, the risk is more and any adverse actions on the part of the celebrity will affect the brand's strategy.
In the case of Accenture, Tiger Woods was the axis for all their promotions. The brand was so closely associated with the celebrity that coming out of that association will cost both money , time and energy. But the silver lining for Accenture is that Tiger Woods was only a symbolization for the corporate brand. The current controversy is in no way going to affect Accenture's consulting business. Only issue is that the brand needs to find another powerful symbol to convey its message.
For other famous brands like Nike and Gillette too, there is only less impact of this controversy because Tiger Woods does not play a crucial role in their brand building strategy. Both these brands have other celebrities to bank upon.
Marketers should understand that using celebrities should only be a part of the big picture and not the picture itself. There are no short cuts to fame. If at all one is using celebrities as the main talking point, derisk by using more than one (if you can afford that). Otherwise run parallel theme based campaigns to help the brand stand on its own.
Indian brands tend to rely heavily on celebrities for equity. The brand owners should understand that this tendency is because of the focus on short-termism and lack of creative thinking. Celebrity endorsements should only be a part of the strategy not the strategy itself.
Related Brand
Accenture
That is true but these days consumer is so smart that they don't really believe for wat is said in the ad. It happens only in he rural areas that hair oil is bought which amitabh bachchan speaks for or grocerry shops are stalked with crates only with pepsi because its Shah Rukh Khans daily poison. In case of accenture its target customer is not such that it will go on the face of tiger woods than accenture serivce n product quality. So it makes no sense on high profile brands taking a brand ambassador in the first place....because the company itself becomes the brand. Secondly even if it hires a brand ambassador...its only to give a face to the brand. Like nike. No teenager is stop buying nike just because dhoni didn't score century or was thrown out of a match for some reason niether for rumours like bipasha had a break off with john abraham.
ReplyDeleteIts not the first time that a celebrity is exposed for his flamboyant nature. Aamir Khan had an extra marital affair...got divorced n married another woman. Still the brands he dons is not affected niether the companies nor aamir has suffered.
Infact, its the other way round. Even if APJ Abdul Kalam was brand ambassador of Satyam it was not going to save it from it shattered image. At the same time it entirely depends on the product or the service on the offering. For instance, when Salil Chaturvedi owner of famous Provogue store made headlines in drug dealing case, it didn't tarnish the image of the clothing line. It instead highlighted the provogue brand. Fardeen Khan who was then brand ambassador was charged for similar case, which gelled well with the brand perception of flamboyance n stubborn attitude.
But at the end as all the rule says- brand ambassador should be chosen keeping 3 things in mind- target audience, brand perception to be percieved by that audience and brand attitude- actual nature of the products is on offer n how the company promotes it.
thanks
ReplyDelete