On the topic of brand architcture, Morgan wrote, “With all his sky-diving off buildings and hot-tubbing it with the hotties - what Flavio calls his "Indiana Jones acts" - Branson has put himself so far out there as a personality (THE personality of Virgin) that Tom's comments (about consumers turning away from the brand), Pete's comments (about succession being critical for Virgin's evolution) and Mike's comments (about "less of Mr. Branson and more of something else")should definitely be ringing the old geezer's bell.”
"And he is old, which is part of the problem - whether it's about him dying and leaving Virgin fatherless or him just getting so creepy and crusty in his old age that anyone who remembers the punk rock cachet he launched the company with, is on their death bed too. Is there an expiry date on a Branded House that's 'slightly maverick'? Will RB make a big personal purchase and re-launch the little blue pill under the Virgin logo? Branson isn't the boss of the brand, he is the brand. It's more than an iconicity, it's like a cult-status. Which leaves just one avenue to pursue if Virgin wouldn't explore the house of brands avenue to prep for the future. Andre's got it: start looking for the future Branson or start producing them. Now.”
Think about this, Britney Spears and Elizabeth Arden launched a fragrance from Spears that is, like J. Lo, be linked to the pop princess’ name. The fragrance marked Britney Spears’ debut in the fragrance/cosmetics category. Not sure how well the fragrance is doing lately with Britney’s latest stunts. The main inherent downside to a celebrity brand is that when the name is no longer the public’s darling or when the celeb pulls some stunts. Yeah, there’s the old saying that there is no bad publicity as long as they spell your name right, and to some degree I think that is true.
Successful celebrity brands have to have a very direct connection to the celebrity. It has to make sense to the prospect. Michael Jordan selling Nike sneakers is no question an effective strategy and flawless execution. The Jordan maketing team are world class. They enjoy great success naturally. But can Tiger Woods sell Viagra? I don’t know, may be not, for the simple reason that the prospective customer sees no natural connection to it. People see he was just paid to be in the TV ad. There is a growing feeling that traditional marketing based on a brand's inherent core values is being crushed under the relentless march of celebrities collaborating with, and now creating their own, brands.
This is an ad for Nikon cameras. The brand-to-celebrity connection is quite clear. Here is a question. Kate Moss has recently launched fragrance Kate by Kate Moss. Moss is one of a growing band of famous faces who are making the journey from featuring in advertising campaigns, to being the "face" of a brand, to becoming brands themselves. Moss' development into a standalone brand is being managed by her modeling agency, Storm. So Moss now needs to continually up-keep her credentials as a style-setter in order to grow into a sustainable brand, with a degree of longevity, as opposed to being a short-lived marketing campaign.
Brands that associate themselves with celebrities such as Moss need to find the balance between choosing the right star for a campaign and not allowing the message to be overshadowed it happens in 6 out of 10 by the celebrity with whom they are collaborating. But Moss is not alone.
There was an incident during the football World Cup, David Beckham appeared in four separate ads during a single commercial break. This highlights the fact that marketers can no longer think of their brands as a single entity but must also manage the brands with which their celebrity endorser may have other arrangements. Essentially their role changed from a brand endorser to a co-brand. Not something marketers would like to see. I think celebrity brands will continue to be welcomed by marketers and celebrities who are forging new relationships with marketerss with a a lot more complexity than the original endorsements and licensing deals.
The obvious upside of attaching a celebrity to a brand is that the brand literally has a real face and a distinct personality that a consumer can link or relate to the product. What is better than the image of a living, breathing, likeable person as opposed to a faceless corporate entity? The downside is celebrities have lifecycles and they are often less predictable. Remember how people were concerned with Martha Stewart a couple of years back? Celebrity branding can be high risks and these risks are sometimes hard to manager.
