Celebrity endorsements: It's a give and take thing

TUDUETSO TEBAPE
Correspondent | Friday January 15, 2010 00:00

But now, almost two months later, with the rippling effects of Tiger Woods' off the golf course escapades still rippling - it is now impossible for me not to say something about it.

There is after all, so much that can be said. My fascination about Tiger Woods' recent troubles is how they have affected his multi-million dollar endorsement deals. This man earned over $100 million a year from his endorsement deals - a number which made up close to 90 percent of his income. Now, several of the companies, which invested in his image through endorsement deals, have decided his now tarnished image is not worthy of selling their products. This makes one take a close look at celebrity endorsements and what they are all about - it appears to me the relationship between a brand and its ambassador is a very volatile one.

A paper written by Suman Kalyan Chakraborty and Mayank M. Agrawal tittled, Impact of Celebrity Endorsements on Overall Brand, explains celebrity endorsements when they say, 'in this jet age, people tend to ignore tall commercials and advertisements while flipping through the magazines and newspapers or viewing TV. But even then, the glamour of a celebrity seldom goes unnoticed. Thus, celebrity endorsement in advertisement and its impact on the overall brand is of great significance. In this process, the companies hire celebrities from a particular field to feature in its advertisement campaigns. The promotional features and images of the product are matched with the celebrity image, which tends to persuade a consumer to fix up his choice from a plethora of brands.'
Several companies had signed multimillion dollar endorsement deals with Tiger Woods:  Nike ($30 million), Accenture ($20 million), Gillette ($15 million), Electronic Arts ($8 million), PepsiCo/Gatorade ($1 million), GolfDigest, NetJets, Tag Heuer ($5 million), Upper Deck and AT&T. The list of companies who are certainly sticking to Tiger Woods has now been depleted to four (Nike, Gillette, Electronic Arts, GolfDigest); Upper Deck and AT&T are still mum on weather or not they will still use him as their brand ambassador whilst Accenture, Tag Heuer and Gatorade have decided to end their relationship with Woods.   Many people argue that Tiger Woods' escapades between the sheets, in parking lots, strip clubs and wherever else off the golf course should really be of no concern to the public, and that they certainly should have no effect on his endorsement deals. I think that is nave - can we really separate Tiger Woods the golf god and Tiger Woods the mortal human who erred? Why should that separation (if it is at all possible) apply when we are separating his imperfections from his achievements in golf - is this man not one and the same?  According to Chakraborty and Mayank, 'the most important attribute for a celebrity endorser is the trustworthiness. The target audience must trust that a celebrity carries a particular image and it must match with the product'.  And that's why it should and is of concern to the companies and public how Tiger Woods conducts his personal life. We trusted and believed the hype: We've spent thousands of currency on products promoted by a certain individual based on the 'fact' that they are a Super Human Being who we all aspire to be even remotely like - only to find we have been fooled. He is not any better or worse than me - he is just like me; human and flawed.
I wonder how things would turn out if a similar thing was to happen with a local celebrity endorsed by any company here in Botswana. Granted, celebrity endorsements in Botswana are not what they are in countries where the advertising, marketing and PR industries are much, much more advanced. Celebrity endorsements in Botswana which may compare with others on the international front are those signed between musicians and cellular network providers.  The local musicians' arrangement between themselves and these companies are a bit more complex and layered than them just selling the brand in Botswana, but one has to wonder what would happen if it were discovered that one of these artists had very dirty secrets - or allegations of very dirty secrets in his/her closet. Would s/he be dropped like a hot potato, or would s/he be forgiven as we at home tend to do so easily when it comes to someone in the limelight?  I would not be surprised if the person was forgiven - without question or explanation. We generally have a long way to go as consumers in Botswana with regard to understanding just how much power we have and how much respect we deserve.

 I tread lightly in making my next statement - which I am making merely to get my point across. During election time last year, a quiet storm brewed when a top politician was accused of being the reason for the breakdown of a happy home. This is a shattering accusation to be made of someone any time, but even more so during election time of someone who is a top official of the political party. When I read the first newspaper reports, I wondered what it would do for the party's campaign. In other developed countries, such a scandal would be detrimental to an election campaign and would be cause for a lot of damage control. Here in Botswana, such events occur and make about as much noise as a drop of water in the ocean would. Even though the allegations made were dismissed in court, I still feel more should have been done to assure us voters that we still had an honourable leader - after all, members of political parties are endorsers of that party and anything that happens to them in their private life has a rippling effect on the party. Anyway, at least that worked out for the best. I'll leave it there.

Going back to and ending with celebrity endorsements, I have noted in my mind that the relationship between a celebrity and whichever company endorses them to sell products or their brand on their behalf is a very intricate relationship. It makes sense to me that the company drops celebrity endorsement deals should the private life of this celebrity not marry with the message a company is trying to communicate. The argument that what happens in this celebrity's private life should be of no concern doesn't sit well with me because in my mind - as a consumer - I don't immediately make any kind of differentiation between what a celebrity does for a living and his/her private life. To me, they are one and the same. For all the fame and fortune that celebrity endorsements bring, the least the celebrity can do is behave, or at least go to extreme lengths to keep all their dirty laundry out of the public eye. It's a give and take thing - they (company) give lots of money, the celebrity takes it, consumers give lots of money to the company - and so the cycle turns.