I’m a big fan of using some kind of research in order to back up my statements, but I’m going with my gut on this one. It was inspired by this article in AdWeek, Are Brands Hostage To Endorser Scandal. The survey shows that consumers say they don’t feel that celebrity scandals have any effect on their perception of brands they endorse.

I don’t believe them. It’s the problem with self-reporting sometimes. People think that when a star like Tiger Woods is involved in a scandal that they don’t think it reflects badly on Nike because it wasn’t Nike who was sleeping around, after all. But, they don’t understand the psychological effects of association and how that’s what branding is all about. If Nike kept airing Tiger ads during the onslaught of “mistress” interviews, it would most definitely reflect negatively on Nike. No matter what consumers say, it’s not worth the risk.

But, I do think that it’s senseless when brands end endorsement deals following scandals. Hell, I actually think it’s counter-productive. They do so to tell the world, “Look, we don’t endorse this kind of behavior so we are no longer associated with this celebrity.” But in reality, I think it can have the opposite effect.

Consumers know that athletes like Tiger endorse Nike products so that Nike can sell more products, but when brands cut those connections when athletes are in the middle of scandals they’re showing just how artificial and shallow that relationship is. It says “We at Nike don’t really care about Tiger, we were just using him so you would think we were a great brand so that you would buy more of our products. Now that we can’t influence you to give us more of your money from this relationship, we have officially announced that we are ending this promotional relationship.”

In my opinion, they shouldn’t cut the endorsement deals and announce it. Just say something along the lines of “Tiger’s actions greatly trouble us,” and cut the ads from running until his image is restored.

It’s really unfortunate when the brand name for your competitor works against you this way. I know I’m late to the party on this one, but found it too funny to not repost. This comes from a TechCrunch comment

BING is okay,

But
It’s
Not
Google

Burn.

As everyone has heard by now, Starbucks is launching new offshoot cafes under the “Inspired by Starbucks” brand in an attempt to grab some of the nightlife market. The new cafes will add alcohol to the menu, and Starbucks hopes customers will sit back and relax after a long day of work to listen to some live music and socialize with nearby cuties. It’s an interesting brainchild of Starbucks’ senior project manager, Major Cohen, but there are many reasons for Starbucks to prepare for disappointment.

With the national unemployment rate at 9.5% (myself included), it would be an obvious understatement to say this is the wrong time for Starbucks to be experimenting with a new chain of cafes. According to a story by the LA Times, 40 percent of bar owners are reporting down sales. And a quick visit to the message boards at Nightlife & Bar Magazine leads to many threads about the recession hurting business for many owners. Example:

“I have a pub in a city that has over 15 colleges in the county. I am slow and most of the other bars and clubs are also. One large club just closed a month ago. Scary.

Even though Starbucks is only experimenting with one location, it’s risky to guage the viability of a new business unit during a time when no industry is experiencing growth. People are cutting corners all over the place, and even if they try the new “Inspired by Starbucks” cafe once, they probably won’t visit continually since they’ll perceive it as a novelty not worthy of their limited disposable income.

Additionally, the nightlife industry is fickle. Customers like to visit new and different places in order to unwind. And while I may be thinking too deeply about it, Starbucks is normally associated with a pre-work ritual for most. While it’s true that a lot of people sit in Starbucks, sip coffee, and chat, it’s the first stop in the morning before heading into the office for the vast majority of their customers.

Is it possible that for the new cafe’s target market (basically, professionals who still have jobs), Starbucks may be more associated with work rather than relaxation? If I use Starbucks to gear up in the morning, I’m not sure if I’m using it to unwind at night.