The idea of a person with their own status as an influencer, representing a company or brand for marketing purposes, is not a new one. It is, however, ever evolving, as the industries that market themselves change and the means by which they market themselves also change. Social media has opened up a whole new world as brands, celebrities and fans have the opportunity to interact on a different level.
What hasn’t changed, and never will, is the potential for a spokesperson to damage the reputation of a brand by association. Drug taking, inappropriate tweeting, being caught using a rival brand product can spell reputational disaster for a brand. Time after time, with even the most sterling reputations (hello, Tiger), celebrities show their ‘human’ side and can sour the sponsorship deal.
But what about the other end of the spectrum – the brand damaging the spokesperson?
It came as no surprise to me to hear that Michael Clarke had parted ways with two of his (many) sponsors. Speaking to the cricket fans I know, the general consensus was that Michael was spending too much time posing and not enough time being a captain. And this has been going on for a few years. He has done himself a service, and may save his own reputation, by scaling back his sponsorship commitments and concentrating on his day job.
It is prudent of both the company and the spokesperson to have frank, honest discussions about the reasons for entering the partnership in the first place – because it is a partnership. It’s not enough to throw money at a celebrity and expect that they’ll always do the right thing for your brand. Just as it is not desirable to have commitments to sponsors detract from a spokesperson’s day job. There must be synergy between the intentions of the celebrity and the objectives of the brand, and a mutual understanding of the outcomes and how to achieve them.
Otherwise it could end up very sour indeed.
