Should brand ambassadors be held accountable for actions of their patron companies?
Since celebrities provide companies with credibility, customer confidence and social presence in exchange for money, if and when a company fails to deliver on its promises to customers, or out and out deceives them, should celebrities also not bear some of the responsibility?
When Nike signed Micheal Jordan in 1984, they were a mere struggling company trying to sell running shoes to the masses, unable to compete at the same level with the then giants, Keds and Converse.
Signing a rookie from Chicago to compete with two illustrious companies was a risky move. But it paid dividends as the Air Jordan 1 shoes started selling quickly when Jordan snatched the 'Rookie of the Year' award with his performance on the court.
In the past 37 years, Nike has become a $30 billion company, while Jordan has accumulated over $2 billion from the sale of Air Jordans.
In many ways, Nike and Jordan set the template for celebrity endorsements, which have become an integral part of marketing and promotion mantras around the globe. And this has grown much bigger since the advent of social media, as new celebrities were created while the old ones found a direct platform to engage with their fans. While the effectiveness of traditional advertisements declined, celebrity endorsements grew in strength.
Human beings tend to conduct businesses with people or entities they perceive to be trustworthy, and so companies appoint/hire a public figure to become the face of their company. Brand ambassadors usually work as the embodiment of a corporate entity, especially because people have a healthy dose of cynicism regarding large faceless corporations.
Brand ambassadors are already established celebrities with genuine credibility and large fan bases. Their sheer association with a brand can create immense confidence among the masses about a product.
For example, Christiano Ronaldo signed a lifetime ambassadorship deal with Nike in 2016 for $1 billion, renewing a partnership that started in 2003. Some would be hesitant to spend such an astonishing amount. But according to Hookit, the footballer generated $474 million in profit for the brand in 2015 alone.
Since celebrities provide companies with credibility, customer confidence and social presence in exchange for money, if and when a company fails to deliver on its promises to customers, or out and out deceives them, should celebrities also not bear some of the responsibility?
In 2015, Nestlé's product, Maggi, was discovered to contain an unacceptable amount of lead. Consequently, its brand ambassadors at that time, Amitabh Bacchan, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta found themselves in a pretty sticky situation. Should brand ambassadors be held accountable for actions of their patron companies?
After all, celebrities are not just portraying a character who endorses a product in a commercial, they themselves endorse it.
The conversation around holding brand ambassadors accountable recently emerged in Bangladesh after the Evaly and Eorange fiasco. Actor and musician Tahsan Rahman Khan and actress Rafiath Rashid Mithila were employed as the 'Face of Evaly,' while another actress Shabnam Faria was hired as the Chief of Public Relations of the company. A living legend for Bangladesh cricket, Mashrafe Mortaza, was similarly appointed as the brand ambassador of Eorange.
The reason behind these signings were clear from the start. They were on board to give Evaly and Eorange the credibility they needed, especially due to their dubious business models.
As social media feeds flared up with news of the deception of these e-commerce outlets, some people also pointed fingers at the celebrities and demanded accountability. In fact, Mahrafe's residence was mobbed by disgruntled Eorgange customers. Mashrafe was quick to claim he had disassociated with the organisation a month back, while Mithila and Tahsan cited non-disclosure agreements for their inability to speak on the topic.
But do these celebrities feel they bear some responsibility for the debacle? Mashrafe argued against it. Strictly speaking, brand ambassadors are just like other employees of a company and cannot affect or enforce decisions made at the highest level, he explained.
But this argument does not account for the influence a celebrity possesses, compared to an ordinary employee of a company. While legal action may be a step too far, basic accountability towards fans needs to be maintained.
These people, who trust their favourite personalities enough to buy into a company they are promoting, deserve to know when and why they endorsed a product. After all, these fans are the ones who continually make celebrities culturally relevant and enable them to make lucrative deals.
While this may be the first time Bangladeshi celebrities have found themselves under the radar, this is certainly not the first time this debate about the accountability of celebrities has come to the fore.
In 2015, Nestlé's product, Maggi, was discovered to contain an unacceptable amount of lead. Consequently, its brand ambassadors at that time, Amitabh Bacchan, Madhuri Dixit and Preity Zinta found themselves in a pretty sticky situation. A Mumbai court even ordered to file an FIR against Amitabh for endorsing the product.
In response, the Bollywood superstar said he had not endorsed Maggi in two years. But did that matter? By then, people had associated him with that product, he had already given Maggi all the credibility they needed.
Besides, his two-year break from Magi endorsement was not known before the scandal came to the forefront; so it is probable that the influence of his endorsement continued to play its part.
Professor Dr Mohammed Tareque Aziz, an academic and service quality management (SQM) consultant said, "Brand ambassadors should be held responsible for making product purchase recommendations."
He went on to explain, "There are many instances where the consumers are being misled. An ambassador's primary responsibility is to raise customer awareness of a particular product. Before recommending a product, they should at least try it themselves; their ethical standards, morals and judgment should be put to the test, as the general public is easily swayed by celebrities' remarks, feedback and advice while completing a commercial transaction."
Barrister Faran Md. Aaraf, a lecturer at the University of Asia Pacific said, "Under the Consumers' Right Protection Act 2009, anyone can be charged for misleading the consumers into buying a specific product, like a specific brand of car, soap, medicine etc. If found guilty, individuals can face a fine of Tk2 lakh or a year of imprisonment."
But this rule does not affect brand ambassadors who do not endorse a specific product.
Barrister Faran added, "As social media platforms have increased the number of influencers and their sphere of influence, they can easily persuade people into buying the products or services of a company. There needs to be some kind of legal protection which will stop unethical endorsements".
Brand ambassadorships can be extremely beneficial for every involved party: celebrities, companies and consumers. Companies are in the profit maximisation game. So the responsibility also falls on the celebrities to hold themselves accountable to a higher standard.
