Be careful with whom you associate: Brand building through association

Oct 3

posted by Dr. Russell Abratt in Branding | 29 Comments

The recent incident with the Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte who filed a false robbery claim while at the Rio Olympics, has led to sponsors Speedo and Ralph Lauren withdrawing their sponsorships. Other well-known sponsors have also withdrawn their sponsorships. This is not an isolated incident. Many other stars have lost their sponsorships due to some form of misconduct.   Maria Sharapova lost some of her endorsement deals after testing positive for a banned drug, Manny Pacquiao, the eight times world boxing champion lost his Nike sponsorship for disparaging remarks about gay people, and running back Adrian Peterson lost his Nike and Castrol sponsorships after he was indicted on child abuse charges. Ray Rice, Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Luis Suarez, Ryan Braun…the list goes on.

Many people make mistakes in their lives. So is it worth the risk? One should ask then, why do organizations endorse and sponsor well-known sports personalities? A major reason is brand building. Consumers see athletes as experts that fans look up to and even idolize. The bottom line is it helps their revenue and profit. But what happens when a controversy arises? The brand could be negatively affected if firms don’t break with the transgressor or at the very least, have a good reason to stick with them.

Brand building requires firms to use multiple athletes if they can afford to do so in case they have to drop one because of misconduct.  Firms must also realize that brands are built in many ways, but a major effort should be through other brand associations. Endorsers are just one type of association. The person an organization employs is also a critical association. For example, faculty credentials are a major reason for a university’s good or bad reputation in the eyes of its stakeholders. Other brand associations include organizations associating with causes, for example, a commitment to sustainable practices. Organizations could also associate themselves with other brands, for example, Delta airlines serving Starbucks coffee or Diet Coke sweetened with Splenda. The point that firms need to remember is that their brand is often judged by whom and what they associate with.

Russell Abratt, Ph.D., is Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. He can be reached at abratt@nova.edu

This entry was posted on October 3, 2016 at 9:12 AM and has received 3700 views. There are currently 29 comments. Print this entry. Download attachment.

Comments

(Comment Moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until approved.)

• #1 by Mike Seochampion on 10/5/16 - 8:43 AM

  

  I think a lot of companies are interested to be endorsed by athletes because they have many supporters. Their endorser reflects their company.
  
  Most of the time, they strike while the iron is hot, which means they get endorser that are popular in that time but sometimes they failed to do background check. That is why they need up getting bad image because of their endorser.

• #2 by henry on 10/5/16 - 11:45 PM

  

  Hello great article. I believe in great brandin. I created http://www.hydroponicswholesale.com/blog at unlv. It's a great school and I learned alot in the marketing classes.

• #3 by Maryim Alfaro on 10/26/16 - 7:47 PM

  

  I can easily see why companies want to associate with and endorse athletes, these are people whom lots of people follow and who they look up to. A lot of people look up to these individuals and are willing to purchase goods and services provided by those brands they promote. However, it is also important to note that companies must have a diverse selection of positive associations, not just through endorsements, in order to best enhance their brand recognition and value.

• #4 by zakia nakad on 10/27/16 - 12:00 PM

  

  I understand why brands associate with great and popular athletes to enforce their brand and increase their revenue. I don't think it's wrong to drop an athlete from wrong doing because they are given the opportunity to wear a well known brand and introduce it to the world. Companies have the right to choose who they want to sponsor in order to have more popularity

• #5 by Eduardo on 10/27/16 - 4:17 PM

  

  We have to realize that athletes are also regular people that they make mistakes like us. Companies also make mistakes because it is difficult to see they outcome of whoever they sponsor or endorse. We can't judge people just by one simple mistake. People make mistakes when they are pushed into a corner or when they struggle with an issue, that’s why they sometimes lie, cheat or use some drug to help them overcome that problem or even become the best in the world although it is the wrong way to do it.

• #6 by Pei-Hsuan Mu on 10/28/16 - 1:39 PM

  

  The endorsement and sponsorship from organizations are mutual brand building, creating a win-win situation for both organizations and sports stars. The association between athletes and companies gives the brand personalities from those stars. On the other hand, the athletes raise their public recognition by associating with well-known brands. The halo effect is a powerful marketing tool, but it could be harmful for the brand image if the individuals do not act properly in their personal lives or in a way that does not synchronize the brand spirit.

• #7 by MELISSA CLARKE on 10/28/16 - 10:37 PM

  

  The days of quality endorsements may have died with Jordan. Yes, there are still athletes who uphold the standards of their endorsers, but the incidences of misconduct amongst athletes seem to be more prevalent than any partnerships that are long lasting and mutually beneficial. It almost seems like a risky investment to endorse athletes nowadays. I think this is due in part to social media being such a huge window for people to have their every move scrutinized. No aspect of an athlete's life is private. Michael Jordan could have peed on a bathroom door back in the 90s for all we know. He may have been just lucky enough not to have a cell phone camera turn on him and a dozen different types of social media platforms gossiping about it.

• #8 by Carolynn Rendon on 10/29/16 - 6:26 PM

  

  I think it is very important that organizations are careful who they associated with, what other organizations they partner with or what athletes they sponsor. Company's have a reputation to keep and if they continue to associated with an athlete that made a mistake it could hurt them in the eye of the public. At the end of the day they need to make money and by keeping a bad relationship could hurt their bottom line.

• #9 by Jeff Ramos on 10/30/16 - 4:15 PM

  

  Organizations endorse and sponsor well-known individuals because of the positive effects it has for their brand building. I believe companies are very particular when they decide who gets to represents their brand, therefore the individual/ organization that is chosen is held to a higher standard. I understand why individuals get dropped from representing the brand because of their misconduct. People associate these indivduals with the brand and this could negatively affect the brand's name and revenue. In the end, I believe brand association is a win-win situation for the individual and brand, however I believe that the indivudal who looses their sponership has more to lose than the brand.

• #10 by Alexandra Montenegro on 10/30/16 - 4:35 PM

  

  Brand building is needed in order for a company to stay relevant with the ever changing times. Every time new marketing comes out with a well-known celebrity feature it brings attention to the brand that people could have been forgetting about. There are so many companies out there providing all the same things that they need an extra boost to help put them above the rest. Also, the fans trust celebrities opinions which persuades people to buy and try new things which gains a company more potential buyers.

• #11 by Sabrina Smith on 10/30/16 - 5:35 PM

  

  Brand Building is a very sensitive concept in which all factors can contribute to slightly tilting the scale. Much like a person’s reputation, “who and what they associate with” as the article states, is very imperative.
  There will always be a risk. However, the article did not mention a key element in that the risk can be calculated. They can ultimately decide whether the value of the branding outweighs the risk. I agree that there are many avenues available, such as collaborating, but often times the public pays attention to more obvious connections to the brand, which likely are from celebrities. That is why in order to build up the brand to a recognizable reputation, it’s very sensitive to its messenger. The sponsored public figure, whether it be a sports personality or another celebrity, is that messenger. The company should always calculate the amount of risk that public figure’s behavior may cost them. It will significantly allow the company to either be prepared or decide whether to take on that sponsorship.
     This also links to public relations. It’s not so much about the notion of dropping the sponsorship for that celebrity, it’s the publicity handling that goes on behind the scenes. Every company and every sponsorship should be consulted by a publicist. This also includes brand associations, if it actually contributes or can hurt the brand’s reputation. The example with Coke and Splenda brings to question that since many consumers associate Coke as an unhealthy drink, is it a good idea to associate with Splenda? Bringing to attention the unhealthy factor may hurt them instead. Coke has done other marketing campaigns with holidays, especially Christmas, and maybe the brand should focus on associating with happy times.

• #12 by Adriana Montenegro on 10/30/16 - 8:54 PM

  

  Brand building lines can become blurred when dealing with a scandal. It is all about how the media and people view the celebrity, athlete, etc. Disassociating the brand from the celebrity has to be done carefully. You have to fully explain why you are ending the sponsorship because you need to regain your consumers trust, and remind them of your values as a company. If you are sticking with the celebrity you need to explain why you chose to do so. Brand building is needed for growth and to maintain your consumers but it can also tarnish the image of the company if not done correctly.
  
  * RE-Submitted comment

• #13 by Asia Williams on 10/30/16 - 9:25 PM

  

  Although celebrity endorsements can be a high risk to a organization or company; where there is high risk there can be high reward. In most cases, celebrity endorsements are great branding tactics for a company and have proven over the years to generate revenue. The great thing about brand association is that people can be replaced or let go if backlash from the endorsee occurs. The scandal or situation will pass and people recreate and rebrand themselves all the time so it's not the end of the world for either party. Yes, companies who want longevity need to be cautious of the brand association they portray but how they handle a situation thereafter holds more weight in the customers eyes then anything else.

• #14 by Alejandro Lozano on 10/30/16 - 9:32 PM

  

  There are quite a few old cultural phrases that reference the idea surrounding an individual/firms external association with their partners. It is next to impossible to succeed alone. Thus, individuals and firms who wish to achieve a high level of brand recognition must diversify their strategic partnerships in a variety of ways. The brand must acknowledge that they will be judged by whom they associate with. It is almost impossible to predict an inflection point in an individuals/firms life that would cause a firm to separate from a partnership. In order to avoid such a negative influence to the firm they must have a strong team of individuals who monitor and maintain these relationships actively. In whole, there is an idea out there that suggests you are the average of your five closets relationships, choose wisely!

• #15 by Karen Hill on 10/30/16 - 11:09 PM

  

  When reading this blog, I immediately thought about Brandon Marshall losing his endorsement with Air Academy Federal Credit Union for taking a knee during the season opener of the Denver Broncos game. Although Marshall does not feel he has done anything wrong, the AAFCU feels differently. I completely agree with this blog when it states that when a company chooses to have a person represent them they take a risk. There is always a chance consumers may feel disrespected with whatever actions a public figure takes and in return it can damage the brand.

• #16 by Laura Hernandez on 10/30/16 - 11:57 PM

  

  We must remember that a company's brand represents their market identity , which translates to image, believe, reputation, trustwordiness and more. Then, I do believe that if the company is investing building and transmitting a sense of personification through an athlete, an artist, even a politician those "names", "faces" need to be hold accountable for any actions they take that do not correlate with the identity that the company is performing . We need to remember that consumers own the brand so the awareness towards those consumers and their identifition will determine whether the marketing is a success or a total disaster. To sum up, think it is very important that organizations are careful who they associated with, what other organizations they partner with or what people they sponsor.

• #17 by Paul DeCosta Solomon on 10/31/16 - 10:00 PM

  

  Through years of very hard and dedicated work to present consumer with certain product which become successful; many company build brand. However, these company have to practice good morale and ethical behavior to maintain there brand name. This brand can be tarnish association with other company or person with high social and prestige character. In addition, many company tie there brands to celebrities to attract customers. This have negative and positive effects on the company base on the personal conduct or business principles. As seek too many times companies have to separate there brand from person or business especially when a behavior exhibited by such persons or entities can do harm. This can cause loss of profit, business expansion and customers. therefore companies have to be very aggressive in protecting there brand and ensure branding remain true to the company principles and customer satisfaction.

• #18 by Alex Kaeser on 11/1/16 - 8:21 PM

  

  This most interesting thing to me is how Nike still sponsors Tiger Woods after losing all of his other sponsorships. What gives Nike the spark to give him a "second chance" and have them benefit from it. Nike has gained other brand ambassadors, such as Rory and Johnathan Vegas, but Tigers clothes are still the highest profited area of Nike golf. Another side note, Nike has stopped production of golf equipment and I'm curious to see how it affects the clothing market for them.

• #19 by alfredo perez on 11/1/16 - 9:01 PM

  

  I strongly believe that endorsing famous and talented people is worth the risk since at the long run they will positively affect their revenues against a negative affect on the same. The endorsing companies can also quickly replace their previuos image with a new one and continue earning revenues with new business partners. We also have to remember that people forget fast especially nowadays with so many media available.

• #20 by idania Fundora on 11/2/16 - 8:20 AM

  

  I believe that although scandal hurts brand no matter what they do, the damage can be brief and brands can recover and more often than not brands immediately loose consumer respect no matter how they respond to the scandal .
  It is hard to go in any particular direction since 74% of the public say that scandals don’t impact them and other studies prove that age and gender will make a difference when it comes to attitudes towards the endorsed brand after a scandal.

• #21 by Wade on 11/4/16 - 4:38 PM

  

  Being a college sports athlete this article could not be anymore true. Even as college athletes we really have to watch the actions that we take because we are representing our school. The actions that happened during the Olympics makes you realize how serious these things are and how we always have to be aware of our actions.

• #22 by David Santiago on 11/4/16 - 8:31 PM

  

  It seems very clear now why so many companies sponsor a multitude of famous people that endorse company’s products and services. It’s to ensure their company is not compromised or impacted severely when they have to let an associate go for misconduct or negative publicity because no one is perfect. It also helps their brand reach a multitude of different societies. This article also help me understand the important of preserving and protecting your own brand "yourself" so sponsors won’t have to worry about you being a risk to their brand.One person that is a prime example of maintaining their brand is Michael Jordan, who is still endorsed by Nike for so many years.

• #23 by Jackie Garcia on 11/4/16 - 9:19 PM

  

  I understand why companies choose to endorse athletes, like you said a lot of fans look to them. Just based on that people are willing to pay for products promoted by the athletes they idolize. I don't think its wrong to drop an athlete based on their wrong-doing, especially if the company is losing revenue because of their endorsement. Of course, athletes will make mistakes, they’re human, however, companies have the right to decide whether or not to drop an athlete based on their misconducts.

• #24 by yonathan afework on 11/7/16 - 9:34 PM

  

  Brand association is pivotal in todays society. With so many competitors out in the marketplace companies need to find a way to make their stick out positively from the pack. This is why sponsoring athletes or high profile people can provide a huge upside. Consumers associate their favorite athlete or celebrity with the fan. If they love that athlete they are most likely going to love they brand they associate with. The same is if they hate the athlete they start to simply don't want to associate with the brand they may be wearing anymore. So this is why companies are so quick to drop sponsorships if the athlete or celebrity's image is tarnished.

• #25 by Sarah Personelli on 11/23/16 - 7:36 PM

  

  I think companies need to be careful with who they chose to represent their brand. Of course athletes who "fit" the brand are usually chosen and it is said that attractiveness of the athlete helps with consumer influence. But what I wonder is how much of impact of Ryan mistake affected Speedo and Ralph Lauren? Can they see a drop in sales? Or did sales increase? When it comes to endorsements does the old saying "any publicity is good publicity" stand?

• #26 by John Hoover on 4/13/17 - 11:27 AM

  

  For many companies, endorsing an athlete is well worth the risk. In most cases the athletes themselves have more to lose than the endorsing company does. The company is going to do whatever makes themselves look better whenever whom they are associated with is entangled in a controversy. It really depends on the size of the company with how much it can hurt them, however as long as they do the right thing they should come out fine.

• #27 by Sarah Shareef on 4/14/17 - 6:24 PM

  

  I think it is important for companies to endorse people who have good reputations in order to associate their brand with a good name. Once that person is in the negative spotlight, it becomes harmful for the company to continue their endorsement. Recently, Nordstrom stopped carrying anything from the Ivanka Trump line. Until they dropped her line, many people were boycotting the company altogether. Consequently, when they dropped the line, fans of Ivanka started boycotting Nordstrom instead. This becomes a difficult situation for Nordstrom, and likely a foreseen circumstance, where the company decides which consumers they are going to please.

• #28 by Christopher Joyce on 11/1/17 - 12:13 PM

  

  I think that Dr. Abratt is spot on about being careful with who you associate. I have always told my little brother growing up "Show me your friends and I will show you your future." By this I always wanted him to recognize that people will not always be willing to know him personally if he is hanging out with trouble. I think this is also known for business. There are some people who refuse to eat at Chick Fil A because of the company leaderships position on social issues. Companies must always be cautious especially when they are out in the spot light.

• #29 by Alin Benny on 2/13/18 - 1:38 PM

  

  This article illustrated with numerous examples how brands are affected by whom their affiliates are associated with. An example of this is when a celebrity associated with a particular brand causes controversy; the brand often publicly apologizes for the celebrity affiliate’s behavior. The company sales can be just as adversely affected by a celebrity endorsement as positively affected.