FBlog

Branding

Brands take out ‘disgrace’ cover

by Nader Khosrovani on Jan 14, 2011

embarrassedOne of the most curious articles I have read this year has been reported by Marketing Magazine. They say that brands are taking out extra ‘disgrace cover’ to make sure they are insured against the cost of celebrities they sponsor doing naughty things… a little like Tiger Woods (a married man) sleeping with other women. In that way, you might say it’s a little like a divorce settlement.

Anyhow, the policy insures brands against the costs of a campaign relaunch. However, much like a divorce settlement, whilst money might be an immediate gain, the long term emotional and reputational damage is far more costly and takes a much longer time to heal.

Indeed some brands, like Dasani in the UK, have never recovered from failing to live up to their promise and representing a false image to consumers.

In my humble opinion, I think the best answer in every case is honesty. It’s as true to life as it is to branding and in our digitally enabled world, the brands that take advantage of being open, honest, collaborative and look to establish meaningful dialogue are the ones that will win.

Tags:   

Join the Discussion

  • chris nurko - Jan 14, 2011

    Nader…interesting points. I wonder how much damage Tiger did to the brand’s he was associated with vs. helped… I mean, for Gillette (‘the best a man can get’) – it might be relevant to both sides of the equation… for accenture, ‘cheating is never good – whether in marriage, games, or accounting. But, he probably picked up some other offers (Lynx?) Seriously though, your point is good. Shouldn’t brands be not only strategically careful in their choice, but also make sure that celebrity branding in the short term (advertising) is separate from branding (spokesperson/brand ambassador/equity point) for the longer term?

    And, I wonder how the policy is written into the contract? I know that social media has now made ‘twitter guarantees and facebook/flickr policies…eg) if you are sponsored by Pepsi, you must never blog, twitter or be pictured drinking the red-canned opposition’ are being enforced… anyone else have a view?

  • Ed Roach - Jan 18, 2011

    Honesty – it’s so simple isn’t it. Business only has to understand that they MUST live up to their brand promise. Take it lightly and you may never recover. Honesty insurance is a tough call. It is definitely more a financial claim than a solution. The dumb companies will close their eyes and rely on “being covered” while reality will show being covered is the least of the affected brands problems.

    Good article Nader.

FutureBrand is part of McCann Worldgroup, the official marketing services provider for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

www.interpublic.com