In today’s world of brand marketing and the influence of social media, many companies looking for shortcuts in gaining visibility are relying on building relationships with ‘influencers’ or even celebrity endorsements.

While this might seem like a great strategy to accelerate brand awareness with third-party credibility, it doesn’t come without the risk of potential downsides.

Guilty by association

Perhaps the greatest and most obvious risk in associating your brand with a popular personality who suddenly (or regularly) has a pattern of self-destructive behavior, is becoming guilty by association.

Any unacceptable or reckless behavior by an endorser immediately puts brands on the defensive, having to shift into damage control and issue statements trying to distance themselves from their own ‘brand ambassador.’

When this type of thing happens, reaction can be swift as news travels across social media and the blow-back against any associated brand can be very painful.

Public perception is a mine field

For any brand trying to present a consistent, positive image, being viewed favorably by large segments of the public can be a tricky path to navigate. It’s also constantly evolving and shifting, influenced by social, political, or economic issues happening in the daily news cycle.

Trying to stay ahead of emerging issues and always on the ‘good side’ of a fickle public can be an impossible task for anyone managing their brand image. Trying to manage positive or negative perceptions of those representing your brand can only compound those challenges.

No one’s perfect

Simply put, people are fallible. No matter how perfect someone might seem or how non-controversial their image might be, eventually everyone has a misstep. This is the inevitable tradeoff when entering into a relationship with anyone who becomes the face of your brand.

History is filled with countless examples of things going quickly off-course and brands having to immediately take action, issue statements, or even take positions they may not fully agree with simply in an effort to appease an angry public.

One of the most famous endorsement disasters I can recall is the relationship between Pepsi and Madonna.

In 1989, Pepsi signed Madonna to a reported $5 million endorsement deal which included a television commercial and sponsorship of her tour. The commercial, featuring the song ‘Like A Prayer,’ premiered during the 31st. Annual Grammy awards with much fanfare and a global audience of roughly 250 million viewers. The ‘wholesome’ concept showed the artist dancing and singing with teens and was intended to reinforce the brand as the ‘choice of a new generation.’

However, the celebration was short-lived when Madonna released the official video of the song the next day. The video, which featured Madonna dancing in front of burning crosses, controversial religious imagery, and featured an African-American ‘Jesus,’ was quickly criticized by conservative media, faith-based organizations, parent groups and many others.

The backlash was swift and substantial, immediately pushing Pepsi into damage control and forcing them to issue statements, explanations for the relationship, and countless other public relations efforts to try to control the outrage.

This negative publicity seemed to have the opposite affect on Madonna herself, who was always perceived as rebellious and showed a pattern of thriving on controversy. As a result, her tour was a huge success and she rode the wave of outrage all the way to the bank.

Further, it’s reported that Pepsi had to pay her millions of dollars to honor their contract, and it’s likely they also wanted to pay her to make the whole situation just go away.

Building in protections

Despite the inherent dangers of celebrity or influencer endorsements as witnessed by the Pepsi fiasco, most companies do try to take steps up front to mitigate potential future problems. This usually takes the form of contract stipulations and clauses built into the agreements.

Sometimes referred to as morality clauses, these can stipulate—often specifically—any behavior deemed damaging to the brand and become deal breakers to the relationship.

These clauses usually have certain remedies built in as well—typically monetary, whether in the form of cancelling compensation or even so far as financial compensation directly to the brand for any damages incurred to its image and affects on sales.

Is it worth it?

This is a highly subjective question and depends on many factors and a serious risk/benefit analysis. Some questions to consider might be:

Is your brand new or established?
Newer brands are more likely to be tempted by influencer endorsements in order to gain some immediate traction and gain visibility in their category. More established brands may already have a carefully curated image and might be more cautious ‘hitching their wagon’ to any spokesperson.

Who is your target audience?
Brands that appeal to younger demographics might need to consider influencer relationships in light of the importance of social media with their potential customers. More established brands can choose to be more selective on whether or not they even need any third-party endorsement of their product—or may in fact only use endorsements with select products or highly limited campaigns.

Are you prepared for the worst-case scenario?
Brands can often get caught up in the excitement of celebrity relationships and will sometimes neglect necessary steps in the vetting process. Any serious relationship calls for experienced legal counsel and proper preparation up-front before any deal is signed. Things can change quickly and unexpectedly, and no one wants to find themselves unprepared.

Whether or not any kind of third-party relationship can benefit your brand can only be determined after careful consideration and research. The key is to remember that you are in control of how your brand is represented, and if you cede any of that authority to someone else, you no longer have full control.

The bottom line is this: any relationship has the potential of taking a wrong turn, only you can decide if the potential rewards outweigh the very clear risks.