Skip navigation
advertisement

When a celebrity endorsement deal sours

Bad-boy or bad-girl behavior can kill a deal — or score a big payday

Image: Michael Phelps
Gail Burton / AP file
After News of the World published a photo of Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps smoking a bong, Kellogg’s opted out of a contract extension with the 14-time gold medalist.
SportsBiz video
  Business of Tennis
The sport of tennis is actually growing during these tough economic times, reports CNBC's Darren Rovell. With Dave Haggerty, Head USA president & CEO and John Muir Wilson Racquet Sports GM.

By Bill Briggs
msnbc.com contributor
updated 10:19 a.m. ET March 3, 2009

When the stars fall, sometimes it’s not what they did that kills or saves their sponsorship deals, but who they are.

Sometimes it’s not what they did, but what they’re selling.

And sometimes, yes, it’s all about what they did.

Story continues below ↓
advertisement | your ad here

Those are the murky, muddy, ever-morphing ethics of the celebrity endorsement game, where bad acts committed by bad actors cause stern-faced corporations to (a) issue a huffy condemnation of the indiscretion but stand by their man or woman; (b) decline public comment; (c) decline public comment but privately praise the edgier image; or (d) bounce their famous spokesperson faster than a cereal can snap, crack and pop.

Some examples:

As Kellogg’s opted out of a contract extension with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps several weeks ago, the company simultaneously ripped Phelps’ bong-hit photo as being inconsistent with its image. The next day, Subway formally announced it would plow ahead with a new ad campaign featuring the 14-time gold medalist.

Three days later, in the wake of New York Yankees star Alex Rodriguez’s admission that he once used steroids, Nike issued a statement saying that steroids are bad but adding nothing more about its endorsement deal with the baseball star. In 2006, Nike dropped Olympic gold medalist Justin Gatlin from its sponsorship stable three weeks after the sprinter flunked a doping test.

When it comes to the slip-ups that cause some sponsors to bolt and others to stick, the behavior bar — and where it is set — seems about as crooked as A-Rod’s many years of steroid denials.

The inconsistencies, sponsorship experts say, lie in a brand’s self-identity, a company’s read of current consumer attitudes, the spokesperson’s bank of goodwill and, in some cases, what other celebrity sins are making news that week. All those combine to twist the ethical lines.

A bad-boy or bad-girl image
“Kellogg is a family brand. How does Mom, who does the family shopping, feel about Phelps?” said David Reeder, vice president of GreenLight, a brand and entertainment consulting firm.

Subway would make a slightly different calculation, based on its target market of young adults, Reeder said.  “Additionally, Subway may have so much invested in (Phelps) that they have little choice but to ride it out and hope the whole thing ends up in the rearview mirror.”

Nike, meanwhile, seems to be applying an artful if not calculating touch to the A-Rod mess. “There is much more mileage to be gotten out of Rodriguez after all this blows over, and Nike wants to be in a position to take advantage when the rehabilitation begins,” Reeder said.

Nike used the same blueprint to perfection six years ago when Kobe Bryant faced rape allegations in Colorado. The company shelved its active promotion of the NBA all-star until he was commercially viable again after the charges were dismissed.

Not that bad press is always a bad thing. Some brands purposely pick spokespeople with slightly tainted résumés to attract consumers who like a little rebellion. Entertainer Sean "Diddy" Combs, twice accused of assault and once indicted on weapons charges (later cleared), has endorsed products for Burger King and Ciroc Vodka.


Sponsored links

Scottrade: Trade Stocks
Open an Account Online Today! $7 Trades & Powerful Trading Tools.
www.scottrade.com

Resource guide