Both the image and credibility summarizes around everything that is involved in marketing. When analyzing ethical issues, this assignment looks at the unethical issues involved in use of celebrities as a marketing strategy. When referring to effective marketing, to most individuals, it will mean the use of celebrity role models. However, the fact remains that; the image of a celebrity can be destroyed just in a blink of an eye. For example, this can be depicted by looking at the latest incidence that involved Tiger Woods, (Apryl par1).
According to the U.S law, Woods was still far much innocent, till the time he opened his mouth to admit his immorality actions, but companies like Gillette, Accenture and even AT&T began pulling endorsement deals from the table. Since the companies feared what can be termed as bad publicity, as the consumer's image was to be associated with Tiger plus his sex scandals most companies decided to disassociate with him, though not many of these companies admitted openly that this was the reason that made them to distance themselves from him. "Companies may have to distance themselves before their own reputation is tarnished," (Apryl par1). But being a consumer, am cant base on such a factor to conceal either my approval or opinion that their decision they reached at was either correct or not. But I absolutely feel that any endorsement needs to be reinstated.
The most recognized manner in which agencies evaluate celebrities' capability to being an endorser or the organization's representative is source credibility. They usually recognize that, their consumers are individuals and a good percentage of them, I being included am responsible for making their own opinions, but we should not be in a position to reduce affect played by media on the formation. Before Tiger got himself in a scandal, in the media it seemed as though he could not do any wrong thing, and was used to "refer to as the greatest golfer" (Londino 10), in the entire history of golf. Though he is still the greatest golfer, but he was uncovered by media which highlighted every dirty detail of his immoral actions. If in case there was a chance that no one had an idea who was Tiger, or what he was doing as a profession, then after the media's coverage of his personal life, then everyone could have known him.
It is true that, most of contracts of endorsement around 75 percent in the current world contain a clause which deals with moral values. This clause gives room to companies to continue existing without any penalty in the event of an incident carried out by a celebrity that in one way or the other damages the reputation of the company he or she is working for. In most cases, the incident has been only limited to criminal activities. But some times back, it was far much uncommon for legal language within a moral clause, to give offers a mandate that, an actual conviction of a crime be presented before the termination of the deal. But the reality is, this is changing very first.
The reality is, when a popular celebrity, for instance Tiger Woods, makes a mistake, or is even just faced with an accusation that deals with crime, these moral clauses need to be revisited extensively. This should be based on the fact that, the end results and the effects of such a marketing campaign that involves the celebrity endorsement can be detrimental to the company's image. This is there way of looking for any way as well as any means that will ensure that the company has protected itself. It will not hold any water for us to downplay that, the current market conditions shows that celebrity endorsement advertisement strategy, can in real sense justify the high costs under the right circumstance. But the significance of a company, and the responsibility that it has to guard its image and reputation that will solidify its brand solidity. When allegations and credible issues raised by the public concerning the celebrity endorser are ignored, the company's brand might be damaged, which in turn might affect its bottom line and their massages.
This is the reason as to why companies do not give a distinction an accusation and a guilt verdict of the credibility of their endorser. This in one way or the other can end up costing the company millions and millions of dollars. "Companies have to make quick decisions when one of their endorsers comes under fire or their own image could be tarnished," (Advertising. about par 7). Due to this fact, a company depends more on moral clause in their protection in the endorsement contracts. The estimated endorsement for Tiger Woods for the year 2010 is a round $22 million less than 2009. This is based on the Sports Illustrated annual analysis of the highest earning American athletes.
In conclusion, the arguments that were made on behalf of Tiger Woods were; he is not in any way a public offer, who should be pledged to uphold the public trust, or even does his private life have any thing that deals with his job or career as a professional golfer. I do conquer with both arguments, but on the side of business approach, the partnership between Tiger and these companies, was created when these companies brought images, brands and products, with the aim of combining with his, to either promote or sell a product. As partner, he absolutely had an obligation to not only the companies that partnered with him, but to their consumers as well.