Trust and reputation: living the brand in public

We can all think of a celebrity or two who has forgotten that they are in the public eye and wound up losing the support (and the money) of sponsors who helped to keep them there. Tigers Woods may be the best a man can get on a fairway, but Gillette concluded that better men were available to grace its advertising. More recently, US swimmer Ryan Lochte has seen his swimwear sponsorship float away after less than ideal behaviour: there is only so much that a Speedo can be expected to conceal, as their statement made clear:

“While we have enjoyed a winning relationship with Ryan for over a decade and he has been an important member of the Speedo team, we cannot condone behaviour that is counter to the values this brand has long stood for.”

In an era so given to talk about ‘the brand’, advertising has become a battlefield over the values different brands have associated themselves with – or been associated with by others – and this can cut both ways. While there are plentiful examples of advertisers who have pulled campaigns to signal their ethical dissatisfaction (the wide criticism over racial representation issues in the VH1 TV programme, Sorority Sisters, led to pulling of adverts from several major advertisers), Buzzfeed recently announced that it will not accept advertising for Donald Trump’s election campaign. “While not expecting to “agree with the positions or values of all our advertisers”, Buzzfeed CEO Jonah Peretti wasn’t above making an exception:

“The Trump campaign is directly opposed to the freedoms of our employees in the United States and around the world and in some cases, such as his proposed ban on international travel for Muslims, would make it impossible for our employees to do their jobs.”