Corporations are willing to pay substantial amounts of money to prominentpersonalities so that consumers will relate the brand with their favorite star,and thus will be more likely to buy the product. The buying public impartscredibility to the celebrity because of his or her charisma as well as thecredibility that comes with prominence in the media. The power of someone'spersonality also entails risks for the brand with which they are associated,because any controversial behavior may reflect badly on the product. This hasbecome an especially frequent problem in recent times.
Whoopi Goldberg, for example, lost her Slim Fast contract due to her abrasiveremarks regarding the President. The people at Slim Fast did not want theirbrand associated with a personality embroiled in controversy, who was likely toupset people by insulting a respected figure. In 1989, Pepsi dropped Madonnafor her "sacrilegious" "Like a Prayer" video. McDonald's allowed Kobe Bryant'scontract with them to lapse after a woman accused him of rape. After allegedlyentering a special treatment program for anorexia, Mary-Kate Olsen vanishedfrom the "Got Milk?" campaign. Hip-hop star Ludacris became another Pepsicasualty when executives heard Bill O'Reilly remark upon the obscenity of therapper's lyrics, and decided he wasn't beneficial for their soda's reputation.
Sometimes celebrities act indignant when they lose an endorsement due toremarks they made or other forms of expression in which they indulged, as iftheir freedom of speech has been violated. Whoopi Goldberg felt she was being"punished" for speaking freely. The First Amendment says nothing abouthaving an inherent right to multi-million dollar deals, just that the State cannotprosecute you for the content of your expression. On the other hand, if theState were to dictate Slim Fast's ad campaign by forcing them to retainGoldberg, that would be a violation of Slim Fast's rights.
For many years, celebrities like Whoopi have made enviable amounts of moneyfrom endorsements, but now that they are getting axed so frequently, theymay need to take caution if they want to keep this source of revenue.Celebrities are not so irreplaceable and unique. Companies fed up withprominent scandals can easily resort to lesser-known actors who have notaccumulated a reputation, bad or otherwise. Advertisers can even employanimated or animal mascots, who have absolutely no independent life of theirown, and thus will not ever bring shame upon the company name. Thus,household names who lose their reputation may also lose their big advertisingmoney to, let's say, Tony the Tiger. This phenomenon brings to mind whatCassius said in Shakespeare's Othello, "O, I have lost my reputation!... and whatremains is bestial."
Superstars have to make a choice when it comes to endorsements. They haveto realize that companies have reasons for keeping them, and for getting rid ofthem. If celebrities want to do as they please, they cannot expect companies toput up with everything they do and keep on paying them. Eminem lives by hisown rules, and companies never hire him for endorsements; but he doesn'tseem to care. Those who care about the exposure and money associated withendorsement deals must cultivate a good reputation, maintaining healthy,controversy-free public personas. Otherwise, we will keep seeing more andmore stars disappearing from the ad campaigns in which we have becomeaccustomed to seeing them.
Michael Levine is the founder of the prominent public relations firm LevineCommunications Office, based in Los Angeles. He is the author of Guerrilla PR,7 Life Lessons from Noah's Ark: How to Survive a Flood in Your Own Life.
GuerrillaPR.net is a resource for people that want to get famous in the media,without going broke. http://GuerrillaPR.net |
