Troubled stars like Tiger Woods can no longer be used to connect with an audience at a higher level. If they change their image, they can continue to endorse a different type of brand.
National Creative Director, Leo Burnett
Controversies involving brand ambassadors affect public perception — but the brand can get the same stars to endorse a different product based on their newly formed image
A scandal or controversy changes the value of a brand forever. Let me explain what I mean when I say this. There is a certain value attached to every image that you project, whether a clean one or a promiscuous one. A brand, therefore, can choose to tap what it finds relevant.
Good examples of this are Rolls-Royce and Rolex — these are brands that will never ride on the image of a celebrity who is viewed as a playboy. These are classic brands that sit at the very top of the need-hierarchy. For them, it is timeless beauty that counts. So, their choice of celebrity to endorse their brands will be in accordance with the standards they have set for themselves.
Certain brands are about sensuality and sex appeal. They choose the celebrity who endorses them while keeping in mind the image they have projected all this while. Axe is a good example of this type of branding.
In the case of Tiger Woods, he had been known as a good boy, a good father, a good husband, a good son and an ace golfer, till the infidelity issue dogged him. He was an ideal for many people at both the professional as well as personal level. Which is why Accenture backed him and made him its brand ambassador.
Also Read
With the infidelity issue coming to light, however, people now see him for what he is — a man with his fair share of weaknesses, one who is frail and weak and can get swayed in quite the same manner that anybody else can be swayed. He is no longer infallible, no longer a man who is larger than life.
This change in perception, therefore, is likely to attract a different set of brands for him when it comes to endorsements. He may now appeal to them more that he would have earlier, at the time when he had a larger-than-life image.
So as I pointed out, Woods’ value-perception has changed based on what he has been doing. One may argue that as long as he plays golf, it does not matter what he does and what he doesn’t. But people’s perception of him has changed, and this is what the advertisers have to bear in mind.
Which is why when Nike Golf released an advertisement with Tiger Woods recently, it played on the aspect of susceptibility, using the voice of his late father to project a Tiger who had swayed, seeking forgiveness for his misdeeds. It was a clever advertisement.
Brands will somehow have to live with the reality that Woods’ brand value has changed. So if Jaguar comes to him tomorrow looking for a brand ambassador, chances are the company may not select him to endorse the classic car. It is too high up the need-hierarchy now for Woods to touch. But yes, the company may choose him to endorse a flamboyant or flashy sports car. This is quite possible.
Sometimes, the secret life of a sports star, or even a film star for that matter, can be quite exciting. Brands may choose to use this opportunity without admitting that they are doing so. There is a duality that exists here, and Tiger Woods will have to live with this.
The question is whether this is good or bad. I don’t know, it is relative.
According to me, there is nothing good or bad in life. Life is what it is. Sometimes, you can’t help certain things that happen to you. They just happen. Tiger Woods, too, was a victim of his circumstances and of his emotions to a certain extent. One shouldn’t forget that he is human. And sportspersons can be intuitive at times. There is nothing wrong in it. One needn’t rationalise every move made by them. I guess that’s what happened to him. He just succumbed to his emotions at one point. The result was that his marital life fell apart. He had to publicly apologise for his misdeeds. Having done that, I think, he is ready to make a start, although in a manner that is different.
Executive Director & CEO-Mumbai, DraftFCB+Ulka
The ‘tainted’ star may still attract the crowds because of all his shenanigans. But for the brand that used him for its promotion, the magic doesn’t work
When a celebrity gets involved in a rather murky battle of the sexes, what happens to his/her brand value? When a sports star gets caught using intoxicants, what happens?
Tiger Woods has been acclaimed as one of the biggest sports stars ever. In fact, Time magazine did a story a couple of years ago on what it called the “gap” theory. The article said that the star value of a superstar could be measured by the distance created by him between himself and the next biggest competitor, a perceptual lead over his next toughest rival. The “gap” defines, in some form, the long-term legend potential of the sports star, or even film star. The article also pointed out that there were possibly only two big living sports stars who fulfilled the criteria that was laid down: Roger Federer and Tiger Woods (Sachin Tendulkar would have found mention if the author had even a passing knowledge of cricket).
Woods had the biggest endorsement deals at that time, the most prestigious brands were in his kitty. The sex scandal he was embroiled in grabbed equally big headlines, not to mention the innumerable internet jokes that it spawned. All that is water under the bridge, Woods is playing golf again, and his followers seem to be back. So the question remains, does the brand value of a star go up with notoriety? Or does it go down?
I would like to say that the brand value always goes down, unless the star has built his/her reputation on notoriety. For example, a rock star, a heavy- metal star or a gangster-rap star may actually sell more records when he gets imprisoned. But I can’t see too many brands running to jail to sign new endorsement contracts with these artistes.
We have seen many cases where the star has been dropped like a hot potato when embroiled in a controversy. Thums Up dropped Salman Khan soon after the car-crash episode at Bandra in Mumbai. And there are more such examples.
Before jumping to a conclusion on brand value of stars and their apparent value to brands, let us revisit the basic reasons for which companies look for star power in the first place.
Companies use stars to promote brands for many reasons. For instance, a brand like Nike may use David Beckham or Tiger Woods to symbolise excellence in sports. Brands also use celebrities to inject credibility to their brands. For example, Hyundai used Shah Rukh Khan to build familiarity and credibility with Indian car buyers. Brands also use celebrities as a character in a well-told story. Look at brand Santoor’s use of actors like Saif Ali Khan and Madhavan in this context. Sometimes, brands use a star to stand for something of a higher order like respect, perfection, etc. Several brands in India have used Amitabh Bachchan in that context. Internationally, the biggest such deal was possibly between Accenture and Tiger Woods.
It is here that the case gets interesting. If a brand-owner is using a celebrity star, from sports or film, to bring in a higher-order connection with its target audience, what happens if that celebrity is embroiled in a big controversy? The star may still be at the peak of his performance, may still attract the crowds to his or her concerts and games. In fact, the crowds may be bigger, simply because the star was in the news for months on end, for all his shenanigans. But to the brand that used him to bring that higher-order connect, the magic doesn’t work anymore.
In a sense, the star is untouchable, untainted and pure when he is used for a higher-order connect. A scandal/controversy clearly diminishes his brand value.
I would like to add that all brands need a higher-order connect at some stage of their evolution. Using a “tainted” star, therefore, has its ramifications.
That said, Tiger Woods is an exception and Nike may continue to use him for another decade. I’d like to submit, however, that one Tiger doesn’t make a summer.