The face of a brand: poll results!
We asked: if a celebrity is the “face” of a brand, should the brand be able to control what they do and say in public?
The results are in...
Is this what you expected?
Let us know what you think about the results.
Comments (14)
This is what I expected as the celebrity should have some freedom at how they advertise the brand because it is the celebrity who is doing the advertising so they should have freedom at how they advertise the brand. At the same time, the brand should not have no control over the celebrity because the brand should know what the celebrity said about their products as sometimes the celebrity might say something unkind toward a particular subject and if they do, it might mean that the brand and the celebrity would both go down at the same time.
Do you think there are certain industries where celebrities should have more or less creative freedom in advertising?
I am not quite sure about it because I think that every celebrity should have the same amount of creative freedom in advertising. I think that because after all, it is the celebrity who is advertising the product so they should think of ways to advertise the product in a most successful way as sometimes the brand might not know the celebrity's fans as well as the celebrity.
Hi, yes I think there certain industries where celebrities should have less creative freedom in advertising, for example in football there are several businesses who sponsor players and football clubs to promote their products but there would be some rules for the club or players must follow in order for the business to continue sponsoring them, these rules are called clauses and a football club or player must follow these rules in order to keep the sponsors if not the contract must be terminated. There is a rule in every contract that a business wants to give to a football club or player stating that if they are their sponsors they shouldn't support any of their rivals if not the contract would be terminated and some times they don't follow the rule meaning they loose the contract and the money that came with it. So it is because of that reason that's why I said celebrities should have less creative freedom in advertising so that they won't ruin the image of the company that's sponsoring them and so that they won't loose any profit that comes with the sponsorship.
This is what I expected because the brand pays the celebrity so she/he must represent values system of the brand. This is the reason brands withdraw their relationship with celebrity if she/he is associated with any scandals.
This is because celebrities have large followership, their actions are perceived as the values of the brand there the brands make them sign undertaken not breach such contracts.
I think that the brand should have total control over the celebrity. I said this because when the face of a brand becomes a celebrity, them they pay them to do whatever they were meant to do, so it will not be good of the celebrity comes out into the public and speaks ill of the company. If I owned the company, I would sue you and fire you for good.
Do, I think that a celebrity should do what they are being paid to do with no complaints.
THANK YOU.
I disagree with you. You said that brand should have total control over the celebrity because the face of the brand are being paid by the brand. But don’t they have a personal life like us? Yes, they have. Every person has their own personal life and no one wants that his / her life would be controlled by anyone.
That's why I think that the brand should have some control over the celebrity but not total control. The celebrity and brand should have a collaboration with each other rather than one party have all power. If there is no collaboration between brand and celebrity than neither the brand should hire the celebrity nor the celebrity should have a contract with the brand.
Imagine you are the face of a brand. You belongs to a community who is being exploited by another community. Will you have your personal say against it or be neutral because of your brand?
Yes, it looks like what I expected. The brand should exercise some control over the celebrity. There was a footballer who was the face of a particular beverage but was caught in the public sipping another beverage and the brand sued him. It is mutual relationship but the brand must protect their business by not letting the celebrity violate their ethics and values.
I agree with jolly_cherry because any thing that the celebrity does portraits the face of a business and case of a musician the type if music he does can attract people and if he changes his part this fans would no longer be buying that company product.
I don't quite agree with you, that footballer might just collaborate with that brand for business purposes. The footballer might not like the brand he collaborated with. So I think the brand was just being to strict. The footballer might probably prefer another brand.
This was what i expected in the poll results because celebrities should be allowed to do what they want, but the companies they represent should also have some say in their actions, especially when it comes to promoting products. This helps prevent the celebrity from saying anything negative that could harm the company's reputation. Everything depends on the agreement they make in their contract. If both sides agree that the company has full control over the celebrity, then that's how it will be. But if not, the company can't tell the celebrity what to do.
It was what I expected and I am in the agreement with this.
The celebrity and the brand have made a deal and this deal consists a lot of money when we are talking about famous people.
So this deal has possibly some agreements from both parties to follow.
If a celebrity wants to promote a product that involves a statement or an idea to confess then this person should advertise it as proposed.
Of course this doesn’t mean that he/ she doesn’t have a voice when things are against the values they express.
Yes, it is what I expected. I expected that most of the topical talkers will choose "brands should have some control over the celebrity ". When a celebrity becomes the face of a brand, the reputation of the brand depends on his/her public appearance. If the face of the brand does any controversy, it may have a negative impact on the brand. Brand sales may decrease. Thus, they will have a great loss. But, the brand shouldn’t have total control over the celebrity because everyone has their own personal life. Brands should maintain their rules with celebrities personal lives. Brands shouldn’t interfere with their personal freedom of their personal life. Brands must have a collaboration with the celebrity that will not only maintain the reputation of the brand but also gives personal freedom to the celebrity.
I am satisfied with the results. In relation with some of the topics on the hub, human rights are being advocated for. This means that everyone should be able to have their own say. Owning and controlling a celebrity complete seems unfair to the celebrity. The business will simply be taking advantage of the celebrity's influence. I think they are better off working as partners instead. In this way, they will be able to benefit from each other in a perfect symbiotic relationship.
Yes, this is what I expected. As everyone knows, the term "celebrity endorsement" refers to the use of a celebrity's image and stature to advocate a product. Since profit is the primary objective of any business, I expected that the celebrity would also have some freedom, as indicated by the vote. Celebrities must learn to speak with the same voice as brands for companies to maintain their consumer base. A contract between the company and the celebrity is always vital to ensure that nobody speaks inappropriately because, as I also foresee, the brand won't have perfect control over everything a celebrity says and does in public.
I say that the brand should have no control over the celebrity because a celebrity is a famous person, especially in entertainment or sport that is quite known in most of the places that people reside in.
So, I think that it will be a risky thing or act for businesses to tell the celebrities what and what not to do, it will be risky because the celebrities are so famous that they do not need to rely on that business for virtually all it's fundamental needs. If doable, they can boycott that business and go to another business.
So, it will be quite risky for a business to have full control over the celebrities.
THANK YOU.
I disagree with you. You said that the brand should have no control over the celebrity. It is not right in business. Brands should have some control over the celebrity. When a celebrity becomes the face of a brand, the reputation of the brand relies on the public behaviour of the celebrity. If the face of the brand gives any controversial statement about anything then it will impact the brand's business. The sell rates will get low. The brand will be on a great loss. That's why, the brands should have some control over the celebrity but not total. They shouldn’t have total control because celebrities have their own personal life. They wanted to have privacy about their personal life. Rather than giving one party the whole power they should have a collaborative agreement. The agreement should focus on both the privacy of personal life and public behaviour of the celebrity.
This is what I expected because this pretty straight. Brands should have some measure of control over the celebrities who become their face. While on one hand the celebrity brings massive followership which could translate to clients, it is also important that the brand is also protected from any misadventure of the celebrity.
The outcome aligns with expectations to some extent. The topic of celebrities representing brands often intersects with issues of business ethics, public relations, and freedom of speech. The result indicates that the majority of respondents may perceive this issue as falling within the realm of business and politics, where considerations of control and image management are paramount. However, it's also crucial to recognize the complexities involved, such as balancing the brand's interests with the individual's rights and responsibilities.
Thank you
This is what I expected because the celebrity is being paid to represent the brand. If the celebrity badly represents the brand, the brand will lose money. This means the brand should be able to partially control how the celebrity acts in public. We also have to realize that the celebrity is their own person and should be able to make their choice. I believe that the celebrity and the brand should collaborate on decisions rather than one party having full control. If both parties cannot come to an agreement or arrangement, the brand should not hire the celebrity or the celebrity should not accept the proposed contract. I believe that it all depends on the brand's and celebrity's needs and wants. This is why I believe that the brand should have some control over the celebrity.
Hello 🤗
In the beginning, I would like to clarify that if I were the owner of a brand, I would make my brand completely control the celebrities, because I would pay them a lot of money in exchange for them advertising my product in the best way and never saying anything bad about it so that my company can earn. Money or profit. For every company to ensure this is achieved, it signs contracts with celebrities or advertisers with all conditions that guarantee my right not to mention anything bad about my product. Otherwise, I will expose them to legal accountability, and they will do this in exchange for money. For example, if there is a brand of clothing that should not be I have to pay them money in exchange for advertising it, and I leave the most important freedom of expression that, for example, the material of the clothes is not good, otherwise, I expose myself to loss. I have a suggestion that we take people's opinions on whether celebrities should try the product first before announcing it. Or do they just do what the companies ask of them in exchange for money without considering the quality of the product?
Thanks 😊