This morning, I read an article on Forbes called “The
Financial Fallout of Celebrity Endorser Misconduct,” which discussed the
negative consequences companies face when their celebrity spokespeople’s abuse
of power (overwhelmingly male) is brought to light. For example, Subway was
forced to rebrand after Jared Fogle was arrested for possession of child
pornography and partaking in sex with minors. Nike had the same problem with
Tiger Woods. Instances such as these have caused these companies to lose brand
value, customers, and money.
In this age where Instagram influencers are a plenty, which
brands utilize to the maximum for word-of-mouth for little money: it has got me
thinking whether it’s even advantageous to have a traditional celebrity
spokesperson at all?
Link to the Article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2018/02/05/the-financial-fallout-of-celebrity-endorser-misconduct/2/#42431c0b3a61
That is why all endorsement agreements today have really broad morality clauses that allow companies to terminate the contract with no penalty for misconduct. The real fight is how to define immoral conduct. Of course entertainers would want this to be only criminal convictions for felonies, but if was Nike or Coca-Cola, I would make this clause really broad to include not just convictions but charges and allegations of misconduct, including sexual assault or harassment. Would you really want Bill Cosby selling jello to kids right now?
ReplyDelete