 |
| Mock advert on Chip Shop Awards |
First Tiger Woods. Then Lance Armstrong. Now Oscar Pistorius. It seems the severity of their bad luck got worse as time went on. But, does this really reflect badly on Nike? What happened to the good old saying - 'there is no such thing as bad press'. This could be said when Tiger Woods was found out to be a serial cheater or arguably when Lance Armstrong admitted to doping, but perhaps it becomes exhausted when an athlete is accused of shooting and killing his girlfriend, or does it?
Nike is a likeable and established brand in sport who have stayed true to their roots. So, it is hard not to feel sorry for them when their support of iconic athletes is tarnished by bad press. However, from my own research it seems negative PR which is generated by external influences such as ambassadors and celebrities is hard to evaluate. In essence, they are merely endorsers of the brand, so the only thing that can be lost is their authority and credibility to the endorsement.
Perhaps, the very act of brands publicly dropping associations has a positive value attached to it. The recent Nike ad featuring Oscar Pistorius with the very unfortunate strap line 'I am the bullet in the chamber' got pulled pretty quickly after the incident but yet the advert has spread like wildfire. I bet my bottom dollar that more people have seen the ad now than who would of done. However, what damage has it really done? Lots of free publicity. Great. But, off the back of a murder inquiry. Not ideal, but so what? Nike did not get accused of killing anyone and the average person is not going to associate Nike with murderers. Needlessly to say, Nike did all they could do and suspended any further dealings with Pistorius. As they did with Armstrong.
 |
| Recent Nike Ad featuring Pistorius |
This type of bad press is not unique to the sports industry. Kate Moss' cocaine ordeal in 2005 saw Burberry and Chanel drop her from their books. Rimmel, I guess, saw the funny side.
This brings to light, yet again, the vulnerability of using people/celebrities/ambassadors to support your brand. Yes, they bring all the values for which made them famous in the first place, but, it also brings the uncontrollable attention of their private lives. Is it worth the risk?
Naturally, you do not think most people will be accused of premeditated murder or to be found using advanced doping methods. However, the private lives of celebrity endorsers will never represent the actions of the brand, so arguably there is no risk in the first place. Nike has just unfortunately become a text book example of how badly celebrity endorsement can go but I do not think that has come at a cost.
