 "Celebrity or hot potato?")
It wasn't a first for Nike, but Maria Sharapova's shocking revelation just over a week ago of failing a doping test purportedly dealt another blow to its haloed brand image. The sports brand, eager not to be seen committing a double fault, was prompt in suspending ties with the tennis superstar just as it had once done with Tiger Woods after the iconic golfer admitted to adultery. The shapes of the market or the media may be changing, but brands continue to necessarily rely on celebrity endorsements knowing well that their public personalities - forever subject to scrutiny - can come back to haunt them with proven or perceived lapses.
The question is, have brands learnt any lessons from the recent experiences of the likes of Maggi and Nike? How much do they stand to gain or lose without leaning on celebrity endorsers? Is social media, which has widened the net of word of mouth for consumers, affecting the relationship between brands and celebrities in any way?
Samit Sinha, founder and managing partner, Alchemist Brand Consulting, points out that there have been many incidents of late where celebrities were dropped. He referred to two incidents - one where the brand was in trouble (Maggi Noodles, which was banned last year in India, while its endorsers were threatened with prosecution), and the other where the celebrity was in trouble (Aamir Khan, whose contract with e-tailer Snapdeal was not renewed after his comments on intolerance in India angered customers). "Sometimes, you begin to see the celebrity more as a liability than as an asset, if the celebrity is going through some sort of a negative public opinion. Sometimes, the celebrity outlives her purpose. And sometimes, you change the positioning of the brand itself, when you have to change the ambassador," he explains.
Celebrity endorsers, he says, are primarily used to add a certain stature to the brand, especially if the brand is new or unknown, or the brand tries to borrow certain characteristics that she represents to lend personality to it. He admits, "There's always a trade-off between the impact you think that you are going to get by using a celebrity versus the reach that you'll get from buying more media." According to him, these factors are independent of the emergence of social media. "Definitely, social media has facilitated more engagement with customers, but that doesn't necessarily diminish the role of the celebrity endorsers, because their purposes are different."
Although he identifies the internet as a huge enabler and a "force multiplier", Sinha senses a flip side to it "because it's become so easy to put an opinion out there, the opinion has become less credible than before". Also, despite the fair amount of money being ferried away from traditional or mass media to the digital channels, a different set of communication rules apply in the latter with its scope for dialogue, interactivity and more engaging content. "Anything that is very patently hammy which looks like advertising doesn't work online," Sinha says.
Pranesh Misra, chairman and managing director, Brandscapes Worldwide, agrees that in the first place the target audience is one of the determinants for the choice of the celebrity. "If your target audience is small town and rural men then someone like Sunny Deol or Ranveer Singh might be the best choice. However, if your target audience is more upmarket and metro consumers then celebrities like Deepika Padukone might work better. But whether to rope in a brand ambassador or not is a decision that is more dependent on the marketing situation involved, rather than the target audience," he adds.
For brands, the choice of a celebrity also decides whether or not you can prolong an association. One of the reasons, as Misra points out, as to why brands decide to discontinue with an endorser is the fading charm or fan following of the celebrity. He adds, "In my view celebrity advertising pays off more when your brand is the only one using a celebrity and there is a good reason for using the celebrity. Also, the pay-off is better when the celebrity is used appropriately."
For Anand Halve, co-founder of brand consultancy chlorophyll, with increasing product parity there is little difference between one brand and the other brand in most categories. When brands have nothing different to say they lean on celebrities to stand out. "What has happened today, not only in India but everywhere, is that celebrities have become mandatory in advertising. There is very little difference in brands and very little consumer loyalties. So how do I create any kind of differentiation? I do it by connecting with some celebrity."
Halve believes a brand's decision to dissociate with an ambassador is tactical. Citing an example, he says, "Once, Airtel had Shah Rukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor, but got away from them. From the Har Ek Friend Zaruri Hota Hai campaign onwards, they have used social media to make celebrities out of ordinary characters. This is tactics; strategy is the smartphone network."
Indranil Das Blah, founding partner of entertainment marketing solutions firm CAA KWAN, says that when contracts terminate, both parties stand to lose"You may save monetarily, but the brand will still take some hit. So I don't think brands will look at it as a monetary escape."
Social media has also emerged as a image builder in the last few years. "Anything that a celebrity does is amplified on social media, so it has a huge impact on the way brands would see celebrities," he says.
If celebrities are used strategically, they may help the brand to ride the tide, says Dr Falguni Vasavada-Oza, associate professor, marketing, and chairperson of online programmes, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad. "But the celebrities have a personal life and that is where the brand walks a tightrope." She cites the example of Aamir and Snapdeal: "The outrage was so massive that in a day not only hate messages were posted but hundreds of people uninstalled the app."
Manish Kalra, chief business officer of Craftsvilla.com, says that if the celebrity endorser lands in a controversy, it has the possibility of a negative rub-off on the brand which may or may not come true. What companies widely do in such a scenario is to discard the celebrity. Or, as Kalra says, "If one wants to wait and watch, I could wait for six months or a year as a cool-off period, which ideally is not the recommended option for the brand because you should move on and find either a newer association or positioning or a communication that will help take the brand to the next level."
For marketing heads, the key factor remains knowing exactly what they are getting into before embracing a celebrity and signing on the dotted line.
There are many examples from across the world that show the negative impact on brands arising out of the personal lives and actions of celebrities. So, what is the lesson here for brands? Do they stop using celebrities as endorsers and play safe? Probably not the best thing to do. Here are some key lessons for brands:
Strategy first, celebrity next: All communication efforts around the brand should be guided by a strategy and the celebrity endorser should be brought on board only if the strategy demands it. If not for strategy, a celebrity merely remains a glamour feature and gets overlooked.
Be in sync: A brand should tie up with a celebrity whose personal branding is in sync with what it stands for. There has to be a match between the values of the brand and those of the celebrity, to increase the probability of a successful association.
Ensure digital connect: Brands today live in the digital world where consumers need to be served 24x7. It is a potent platform for establishing a strong connection with consumers. Focus on content to pull consumers/fans and create a strong community of people who believe in the brand and stand rock solid in support in case of adversities.
The golden rule - nothing comes closer to having the right strategy in place.
The question is, have brands learnt any lessons from the recent experiences of the likes of Maggi and Nike? How much do they stand to gain or lose without leaning on celebrity endorsers? Is social media, which has widened the net of word of mouth for consumers, affecting the relationship between brands and celebrities in any way?
Samit Sinha, founder and managing partner, Alchemist Brand Consulting, points out that there have been many incidents of late where celebrities were dropped. He referred to two incidents - one where the brand was in trouble (Maggi Noodles, which was banned last year in India, while its endorsers were threatened with prosecution), and the other where the celebrity was in trouble (Aamir Khan, whose contract with e-tailer Snapdeal was not renewed after his comments on intolerance in India angered customers). "Sometimes, you begin to see the celebrity more as a liability than as an asset, if the celebrity is going through some sort of a negative public opinion. Sometimes, the celebrity outlives her purpose. And sometimes, you change the positioning of the brand itself, when you have to change the ambassador," he explains.
Celebrity endorsers, he says, are primarily used to add a certain stature to the brand, especially if the brand is new or unknown, or the brand tries to borrow certain characteristics that she represents to lend personality to it. He admits, "There's always a trade-off between the impact you think that you are going to get by using a celebrity versus the reach that you'll get from buying more media." According to him, these factors are independent of the emergence of social media. "Definitely, social media has facilitated more engagement with customers, but that doesn't necessarily diminish the role of the celebrity endorsers, because their purposes are different."
Although he identifies the internet as a huge enabler and a "force multiplier", Sinha senses a flip side to it "because it's become so easy to put an opinion out there, the opinion has become less credible than before". Also, despite the fair amount of money being ferried away from traditional or mass media to the digital channels, a different set of communication rules apply in the latter with its scope for dialogue, interactivity and more engaging content. "Anything that is very patently hammy which looks like advertising doesn't work online," Sinha says.
Pranesh Misra, chairman and managing director, Brandscapes Worldwide, agrees that in the first place the target audience is one of the determinants for the choice of the celebrity. "If your target audience is small town and rural men then someone like Sunny Deol or Ranveer Singh might be the best choice. However, if your target audience is more upmarket and metro consumers then celebrities like Deepika Padukone might work better. But whether to rope in a brand ambassador or not is a decision that is more dependent on the marketing situation involved, rather than the target audience," he adds.
For brands, the choice of a celebrity also decides whether or not you can prolong an association. One of the reasons, as Misra points out, as to why brands decide to discontinue with an endorser is the fading charm or fan following of the celebrity. He adds, "In my view celebrity advertising pays off more when your brand is the only one using a celebrity and there is a good reason for using the celebrity. Also, the pay-off is better when the celebrity is used appropriately."
For Anand Halve, co-founder of brand consultancy chlorophyll, with increasing product parity there is little difference between one brand and the other brand in most categories. When brands have nothing different to say they lean on celebrities to stand out. "What has happened today, not only in India but everywhere, is that celebrities have become mandatory in advertising. There is very little difference in brands and very little consumer loyalties. So how do I create any kind of differentiation? I do it by connecting with some celebrity."
Halve believes a brand's decision to dissociate with an ambassador is tactical. Citing an example, he says, "Once, Airtel had Shah Rukh Khan and Kareena Kapoor, but got away from them. From the Har Ek Friend Zaruri Hota Hai campaign onwards, they have used social media to make celebrities out of ordinary characters. This is tactics; strategy is the smartphone network."
Indranil Das Blah, founding partner of entertainment marketing solutions firm CAA KWAN, says that when contracts terminate, both parties stand to lose"You may save monetarily, but the brand will still take some hit. So I don't think brands will look at it as a monetary escape."
Social media has also emerged as a image builder in the last few years. "Anything that a celebrity does is amplified on social media, so it has a huge impact on the way brands would see celebrities," he says.
If celebrities are used strategically, they may help the brand to ride the tide, says Dr Falguni Vasavada-Oza, associate professor, marketing, and chairperson of online programmes, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad. "But the celebrities have a personal life and that is where the brand walks a tightrope." She cites the example of Aamir and Snapdeal: "The outrage was so massive that in a day not only hate messages were posted but hundreds of people uninstalled the app."
Manish Kalra, chief business officer of Craftsvilla.com, says that if the celebrity endorser lands in a controversy, it has the possibility of a negative rub-off on the brand which may or may not come true. What companies widely do in such a scenario is to discard the celebrity. Or, as Kalra says, "If one wants to wait and watch, I could wait for six months or a year as a cool-off period, which ideally is not the recommended option for the brand because you should move on and find either a newer association or positioning or a communication that will help take the brand to the next level."
For marketing heads, the key factor remains knowing exactly what they are getting into before embracing a celebrity and signing on the dotted line.
| Endorsements should be anchored in strategy: Falguni Vasavada-Oza |
| EXPERT TAKE |
Strategy first, celebrity next: All communication efforts around the brand should be guided by a strategy and the celebrity endorser should be brought on board only if the strategy demands it. If not for strategy, a celebrity merely remains a glamour feature and gets overlooked.
Be in sync: A brand should tie up with a celebrity whose personal branding is in sync with what it stands for. There has to be a match between the values of the brand and those of the celebrity, to increase the probability of a successful association.
Ensure digital connect: Brands today live in the digital world where consumers need to be served 24x7. It is a potent platform for establishing a strong connection with consumers. Focus on content to pull consumers/fans and create a strong community of people who believe in the brand and stand rock solid in support in case of adversities.
The golden rule - nothing comes closer to having the right strategy in place.
Falguni Vasavada-Oza
Associate professor, marketing, and chairperson, online programmes, MICA
Associate professor, marketing, and chairperson, online programmes, MICA