With the current media hype around the indictment of Indian movie star Salman Khan, many a journalist has barraged opinions on the hit-and-run case that resulted in the loss of a life. What has been most interesting however are the opinions of advertising and brand gurus of some of the leading companies in India.
With nearly Dh30 million attached to ‘Brand Salman’ by way of endorsements alone in India and the Middle East, it is not surprising brand owners are rallying behind him.
The question is, should they drop their association with a movie star who is loved by and worshipped by the masses in a country that places its cricketers and movie stars on a pedestal? Or should the brand separate its values from the identity of its brand ambassador who has been accused of a crime as deplorable as culpable homicide?
I see it as a double-edged sword only because of sympathetic voices, where a large majority supports the actor irrespective of his actions. By disassociating themselves from Salman Khan, the brands know that they risk a backlash from the very target audience whose favour they have hoped to gain through their partnership with the star.
While companies have used the celebrity status of movie and sport stars to create an affinity to the brand with their customers, in the West they have have usually been less tolerant if brand ambassadors get into controversie. Be it the infamous case of football star O.J Simpson who was dropped by Hertz, recording artist Chris Brown who lost his endorsement with Wrigley after being charged for domestic abuse or my personal favourite, Nivea, who chose to disassociate from its controversial ambassador Rihanna, thereby immediately detaching her identity from their core brand values of family, trust and reliability.
Ideally this should be the modus operandi for all brands to create a clear demarcation between their own brand values and that of their brand ambassador, when things go awry.
The challenge arises when brand owners get confused between what their brand stands and what their brand ambassadors stand for. It is imperative companies remember their ambassadors are brands on their own by virtue of being celebrities, which is why the things they say and do in the public domain permeates into the brand identity of the company.
A brand ambassador’s partnership is to enhance the perception of the brand and not to tarnish. When the two become enmeshed, the risk of a loss in brand belief by its customers increases.
A worse situation is when a brand cannot extricate itself from the values of the ambassador. A perfect example of this is Martha Stewart who, when indicted in a legal case, created a loss of nearly $77 million (Dh283 million) for her company. She was the name, face and personality of the brand and nothing could detach the two.
Companies need to remain honest and consistent to their core brand values and, more importantly, should have a sense of responsibility towards its customers. If a fashion brand catering to young adults endorses the hit-and-run case of its brand ambassador by choosing to continue its support, the message to its core audience is loud and clear.
While companies may argue that they are not in the business of educating customers between right and wrong, it might want to consider a longer-term vision for a brand that could have aimed to grow outside of its current marketplace, onto the shores of other countries where culpable homicide is not tolerated.
The writer is a marketing and communications professional in PR and digital media.