The “face” of a business
Using celebrities as the "face" of a brand can help to make a business or product more well known – and therefore more popular. However, if the celebrity at the front of the brand says or does something that the public do not like, then this can hurt the reputation of the brand too.
For this poll, we want you to think about the question:
Comments (263)
I believe that the brand shouldn't have total control because of what others may say or fell about their products for example what if a celebrity is to review a make up brand and the brand is in total control what the face of the brand said turns out to be totally different from what others may tend to see by so doing, their business will surely go down and their profit will turn out to be a huge loss, in such cases, i don't support the brand to be in total control of what the face of the brand says.
So do you think that they should have control at all?
Hi,
I think that the brands should not have complete control but some sort of control over the celebrity. But honestly, this matter is a complex issue with valid points on both sides that is the side of having complete control and that of allowing the celebrities to have freedom of acting however they want. On one hand, the brands want to make sure that the celebrities they partner with maintain a particular status and image that coincides with the values and status of their brand . But then, these celebrities are also people with their own individual and personal endeavors and lives and they also need their freedom and respect for their individuality.
On a scale the celebrities being free has a greater support basis, but honestly too much of everything is bad and if these celebrities are given the leverage to portray the brand and themselves however they like they would be risen problems which were to be avoided. So technically we can't choose one side over the other so instead we should find a balance for both the brand and the celebrity . and there are simple ways in which these can be done , for example :
Guidelines and rules could be set from the beginning of the endorsement agreement so that everything would be made clear and both the brand and celebrity would no what they are getting into, this method is far better than micromanaging.
And also within the boundaries and limitations that have been agreed on trust the celebrities judgement too these will bring a sense of reasoning and understanding into the partnership.
Not only these ways but there are many other methods too but even with just these two I have mentioned many unforeseen circumstances could be avoided.
Thank you!
I agree because... i think brand should have some control to protect their products and image. If a celebrity has a problem with a brand, they might use their fame to harm the company. With some control, the brand can protect itself from harm and keep its interest safe.
I disagree with you polite king, companies shouldn't have any control to whatever celebrities do or say about their brand, we should understand that celebrities are big people who are notable and prominent in the society and the whole world . They do their thing and they are paid and they move in with their life.
These issue of seating and discussing about a brand is not their problem because they have many things ahead of them.
People like wizkid and olamide are known to be quite people who keep to private life so they do not yawn anything about brands, that are only after the money assumed after the endorsement deal.
Thanks.
I disagree. If the celebrities are allowed complete freedom of expression despite being the face of the brand, they are likely to make controversial comments regarding the brand. We need to control their right to make these comments.
Because these people are the reason most consumers buy a product. Like, do we seriously buy half the products we buys cuz it seems interesting? Or because that celebrity has endorsed so it MUST be interesting? The face of a brand influences it's public image. If the face is to spoil this image of the company, the demand of the commodity will fall face - front.
Hence, I believe it is in complete right of the company to be able to control what the celebrity can say about the brand. Nothing more and nothing less.
I have to disagree with you polite_pomegranate, the reason being is that I think that brands should have some amount of control over what the celebrities signed to their brand say about them. When celebrities are made brand ambassadors, they are paid to use their influence to promote the products, thus once they are given money, they are supposed to do a good job in promoting the products.
Therefore in order to ensure these celebrities do the job they are being paid for, there should be some level of control.
I agree. As much as people would like influencers to be honest about products since most times they are being paid to say only good things about the brand, complete freedom to the influencer wouldn't be the right thing. If the influencer was given full freedom to what they were saying about the brand, the brand they are promoting may be put in complete ridicule because of the ambassador's comments. If the celebrity ends up not liking the product, the brand will most likely will be put to shame. This is why I believe celebrities shouldn't have complete freedom when they become ambassadors for a brand.
I disagree with you polite_pomegranete because if companies have no control over the celebrity then the celebrity can do things that may spoil the image of the company.
Celebrities are indeed individuals and they do things their way. This is what appeals to the public and makes their words and actions powerful. Due to this reason, if the celebrity ever says or does anything that might hurt the company then nothing would happen to the celebrity but only the company will have to suffer the loss. Nevertheless, the company is obliged to pay the celebrity for the tenure they agreed. Therefore, a mutual agreement in the form of a contract is required through which the company limits some actions of the celebrity and ensures that no negative impact can be brought to it.
Yeah I understand what you mean benevolent groundhog. There should be a contract for mutual agreement, But celebrities are too busy for that, so many celebrities do not give in for rivals rather they want the money assumed from the endorsment deal. Come to think of it one can't be payed properly and he or she would give in to spoiling the brands name, no it has no gain. Influential people are busy people with ;ots of problems occupying their heads for example Wizkid , Wizkid is a good and very influential musician from Nigeria who is known sometimes to be late to his concert tours or dropping of music 🎵🎵🎵 because he has many things occupying his mind. He was able to catch up with his tour in Saudi Arabian after mourning his mum, it was really impressive, people like these wouldn't have time to disclose brands secret.
Yeah, I agree to a point polite king, but don't you think that if the company has a dark secret that's misleading people which the celebrity has just found out....
And the company is still kinda forcing the celebrity into painting them good, Don't you think it's unjust?
I actually agree to this point because the celebrity could be bribed to give the company a bad image in the society,therefore causing the loss of customers and technically affecting the money and net worth of the business indirectly.
I'm not sure about this because... Do you really think that bribing the celebrity will stop him or her from doing or saying what he or she feels like saying or doing. It doesn't stop it rader the bribing will only be for some time.
Greetings talented_cicada,
If you're a celebrity, and you we're bribed for a huge amount of money and you go against the company in the public.... And like you said.. "The bribing is just for some time".. Do you think that after that period, (you think the bribery was for), would you have the courage to go to the media and tell them the opposite of what you said before?
Even if you would, and you're asked why you changed your mind, would you say your mind? (That you were bribed?)
I respectfully disagree because you and I knows that celebrities are known to be people who make way for entertainment and as well as brings excitement to the people because of the way they act on stage, how they sing their music for musicians and other activities that tingles people's fancy and makes them interested in listening to them as celebrities so the brand controlling them may make them uncomfortable with everything they do and would not have free mind to act as they will do if not being controlled.
I whole heartedlly agree with you because if a celebrity is not able to entertain his audience, how will they be able to advertise the name of the brand. Secondly, the celebrity's function in a brand is to advertise the name of the
business so I see no reason why the brand should have any or absolute control over the celebrity.
I respectfully agree with unbiased planet ,the face of a brand is to entertain people . for example actors and actresses make a particular movie to drag peoples attention to that particular movie so people that are watching will be entertained . I think that a brand should have control over the celebrity.
I sincerely agree to this point made here in the sense that, it is not upright or principled to have full control of the celebrity working with the business. It brings a very bad image about the business. When you take control of people it makes them feel like they are not competent enough or they can't deliver. Everyone should have their freedom. Afterall, it's a free world. Do not take advantage of people. It's not the right thing to do especially in a business. When such is heard, it can take away opportunities for more business partners and etc.
You made a good comment thankful olive but my question is, in what aspect will the brand take advantage of the face of the brand?
Alright!
Good question made here.
If you look at it with a lame mans understanding, the face of the business is used to the business benefits.
The face of the business can be taken advantage of by manipulating them with either money or other benefits attached to it. I cant go really deep into this, but some of the things that are done for others may not be willingly but just for what the people will benefit.
I do agree a branch should not have total control over a celebrity for example a brand wants to use the face of a celebrity for a new brand and they use the celebrities face without seeking their concent the celebrity can sue the brand because of what they did but I do not support the fact that a brand should have every control but I think they should have control but before making decisions for the celebrity the brand should seek permission from that person.
If a brand paid a celebrity millions of dollars to be the 'face' of their brand, why would they need to seek the celebrity's consent to use their face to promote their product?
first of all if a brand paid millions of dollars to be the face of a brand it is not mentioned if that brand paid the celebrity for their face to be on only one of their brands or more so if a brand paid for a celebrities face to be on more than one brand and the celebrity is not aware then that brand should seek for the celebrities face to be on the other brand that was also paid for. And secondly if the celebrities face is on a brand and there other agreement's to be maid and the brand did not consult the celebrity then that brand is applicable to be punished by the law.
I agree because it's true that celebrities often endorse brands for financial gain, and consumers should be cautious and consider the quality of the products they promote. While celebrities may not personally use or care about every product they endorse, their influence can impact public perception. It's crucial for consumers to make informed decisions based on product quality rather than solely relying on a celebrity's opinion qnd advertisement. THANK YOU
But why exactly would the celebrity sue the brand for using his/her face, or the brand need to seek the celebrity's consent? I don't think it's necessary for the brand to seek the celebrity's consent. It should be seen as an agreement that has been made between the brand and the celebrity so there isn't much use of seeking the celebrity's consent. I also feel the brand shouldn't be sued unless it uses the face of another celebrity without letting him/her know. Other than that, I don't think the brand should be sued.
The celebrities entered a deal with the business therefore he or she has to comply with the rules he or she is given or dissolve the argument. This shows that the business automatically has some control over the celebrity, about thirty percent. The celebrities aren't to tarnish the businesses' name even if it they aren't on good terms, only if it will help the society. The celebrity must do everything the business would do; for example, bringing awareness to the public about the business and convincing people to patronize them. Businesses should also work with people with good moral conscience. The business can restrict a little of the celebrity's contacts with other competing businesses.
But the business can't restrict the celebrity's right to movement and other fundamental rights.
I'm not sure about this because... If you say that the business automatically has some control over the celebrity, about thirty percent, I am not sure because some business allow celebrity to control over ninety percent. They business will be loyal because they celebrity have the money to uplift their company. The celebrity will bring up new ideas and immediately the company will agree on it without any haste. That is why I am somehow not agreeing in your comment.
Thanks
I disagree because... one way or the other, the business has some control over the celebrity. The celebrity works for the business, therefore he or she must submit to the legal conditions he or she is given. For example, some businesses restrict the sensitivity of the conversations celebrities have with the public or competing businesses. This is to make sure their secrets aren't made known to their competitors, even if the celebrity is a friend or family to the owner of their competitor(s). The business' main aim is to make a brand out of the celebrity. This is why businesses select celebrities with a good moral conscience so even if they are on bad terms, they won't give away their secret.
Therefore
Thanks for sharing your views bright_philosophy! What circumstances would you say that it would be ok for a company to control what the celebrity say?
I agree with you, before a celebrity agrees to be the face of a brand they must have willingly accepted the deal brought forth by the brand so of course the brand would put in some rules for their benefit which might include having control over some aspect of the celebrity life. The fact is that no brand has the right to fully control a celebrity as they have their own life to live.
Also there are pros and cons if a brand has full control over a celebrity. Firstly, the brand would be able to ensure the celebrity has a public image in their favor and they would also be able to make the celebrity do their bidding without stress. On the other hand, a celebrity has a separate life from the brand their endorsing and controlling their every move would make them feel quite uncomfortable and they might not perform well like they would normally.
In my opinion, a celebrity being the 'face' of a brand doesn't mean their whole life would be surrendered to that brand. It isn't right for a company to have full control because a celebrity has his/her own unique way of doing things. It's just like telling a musician to sing in a way that is not their style because you feel that is the only way consumers would love the brand.
Interesting take, what sort of agreement between the brand and the celebrity would you consider reasonable/ethical?
"I completely agree with the idea of giving_snail. It seems like you have thoroughly considered the complexities involved in the relationship between brands and celebrities when it comes to endorsement deals. It is crucial to strike a balance where both parties have some degree of control and independence. Establishing clear guidelines and rules from the outset can help set expectations and boundaries, while also allowing for trust in the celebrity's judgment within those parameters. Ultimately, the key is to find an arrangement that is mutually beneficial, that respects the brand's image and values, while also honoring the individuality and interests of the celebrity."
Yes I agree because the brand employed them as the face of the brand and so they can still have control over them but cannot have total control over them because we are all human and they are some areas that we need to be controlled, there are some points that the face of the brand might want to add to what they have been told to say and they cannot forget abut speaking their mind because they are only asked to say one particular thing. For example, I am serving as the face of a brand that produces cosmetics and we want to go for advertisement and I will only be asked to say only about body cream and forget about face cream and powder, me as the face of the brand is expected to say a lot about the brand and only for them to hear about body cream and not hearing the rest of the cosmetics items, the people listening to me will really feel not interested in whatever am saying beecause I only focus on one thing. But if i make mention of everything in my mind which I think will help in the advertisement of the brand, stating the uniqness of the brand's product and reasons why it is different and better than every other product from other brand, the people might become interested and will want to have a test of the product and thus making our product be at the top. So as the face of the brand, we cannot be totally controlled but can only be given the hint of what they would want us to talk about.
I bbelieve that the company should not have complete control over the celebrity, as it may lead to the celebrity being treated as a mere object for for the company's personal gain, rather than being given the respect and status they deserve. However, if the company has some ;level of control over the celebrity, they will be able to maintain their status and have equal opportunities, allowing them to have personal freedom.
Thank you😃.
No, I don't think they should have control over their brand ambassadors, because they aren't the only brand existing and their brand face is not only limited to them. As a celebrity you have to be very prominent, promising, notable and influential, when you have all these attributes brands would be looking for you and would be happy to have as their face. The would be no time for disclosing information about other brands. Celebrities are known to do their things on low key and normal range. Many celebrities are also known to keep to a private life, so other things do not guarantee spoiling of the brands name. many individuals have being the brand ambassadors for many years and there is no problem, specifically the tecno brand has always loved to used tiwa savage as their brand ambassador and they're happy about that.
THANKS.
Okay
I my opinion businesses shouldn't be in control of the face of their business.
Brand ambassadors are celebrities with no much time to yarn about any brand.
Some celebrities like wizkid, olamide and Lionel Messi keep to private life and pay more attention to their families and occupation, so they do not have the time for that.
celebrities as notable , promising and influential personalities wouldn't have to drag themselves to mould bu discussing what isn't relevant. Celebrities have more time dedicated to their work and not gossips. Many of them are into competitions and rivals so they shouldn't be controlled.
Thanks.
I disagree because the brand doesn't have to be in complete control over the celebrity at all they just need a fraction and they will be straight.And i know you probably feel that the celebrity has rights however as i said in my writing the celebrity is the one who agreed and signed a contract to be the face of the business. Also just because the person is the face of the business does not mean they have to do reviews in any kind of way.
Indeed, I agree that the brand shouldn't have complete control over it because there's a chance that something will happen that will cause the brand to suffer greatly and cause people who trust them to lose faith as well and this will make them lose profit. Because of this risk, it's important for celebrities to have control over the product and understand its importance to human life in addition to using it to advertise to the public.
I'm not sure about this because... when a business chooses a face they are choosing the person who will represent their company and when a company has no control over their representative there is no telling what they could do that business would completely be ruined by one celebrity if they have no control, and when they have full control over one this would give them a sense of imprisonment by that company.
I disagree with you dedicated strategy because the faces of the brand are always after the money that will be paid to them after the endorsement deal, saying things about the brand may not really matter to them, don't forget that we are talking about the face of the brands who are likely celebrities, so they de not have time to waste.
The tecon camon has used the face of a prominent musician by name Tiwa savage as their brand face and it really got them a lot of sells, the Pepsi producers used Tiwa savage and wizkid as their brand ambassadors during their promo as at 2023. It really helps in the improvement of their brand products.
THANKS.
I would have love to agree with you but if a particular brand have a belief they stand for, do you think it would be nice for the face of the brand to work against it?
I get what you're saying! talented_cicidia.
If a brand has a specific belief or value system that they stand for, it can be challenging if the face of the brand goes against those beliefs. It's important for a brand to maintain consistency and integrity in their messaging. However, it's also important to remember that celebrities are individuals with their own thoughts and opinions. Finding a balance between the brand's values and the celebrity's personal beliefs can be a delicate situation. Ultimately, it's up to the brand and the celebrity to navigate this and ensure that their partnership aligns with their shared goals. It's definitely a complex issue to consider.
Hmmm, Dear dedicated_strategy,
I would like you to throw more light on this question as regards your comment.
Do you think that the business or company shouldn't have a say at all as regards the thoughts of people for their company?
I understand where you are coming from as I too believe that making a celebrity to be dishonest to the masses will only cause more problems. But we mustn't forget that some celebrities have fans who will listen to anything they say and do anything they do. If a brand should let their ambassador be completely honest and defame their products,wouldn't that be more detrimental to the brands sales?
Yes, I agree too dedicated_strategy. You make a valid point about the importance of transparency and authenticity, especially in influencer marketing. Brands should indeed consider feedback and opinions from various sources to maintain trust and relevance with their audience. Ensuring alignment between the brand's messaging and the experiences of consumers and influencers can help build stronger relationships and mitigate potential risks to the brand's reputation.
I agree, the brand should not be in total control of the celebrity because that means the celebrity can not express his or her feelings in the public, yes I agree that the celebrity those not have the right to say or do things that the public do not like because it might bring loss to the brand.But in other case, Balancing personal freedom and brand representation is necessary. It's advisable to line up your actions with the brand's values to maintain a good image. Cooperate with the brand to establish guidelines that reflect both your individuality and the brand's identity.
Absolutely, finding a balance between personal freedom and brand representation is crucial. Collaborating with the brand to establish guidelines that align with both your individuality and the brand's identity can help maintain a positive image while still allowing for personal expression within acceptable boundaries. It's all about striking the right balance to ensure mutual benefit and a strong brand-image relationship.
Beautifully put, Dedicated Strategy. Balance is the key. Businesses need to establish unwavering guidelines, subject to legal procedures, when the contract is established between the Face of the business, and the brand. If a business can respect the face's privacy and individuality, some control over their freedom of speech about the brand is, I believe, permissible.
I mean, whenever there is a contractual relationship between any two entities, both the sides are bound by some norms or some rules in the best interest of their counterpart. Then why should regulations on the face of the brand be made an issue of?
As long as the guidelines imposed are reasonable, they should be allowed, and even more so, advised to other brands as well.
I agree because... I feel that brands should have limited control over the 'face' of the brand or celebrity, because, if the celebrity is in full control, the celebrity would sound very biased, not looking forward to what actually customers want. By this, people may not buy products from such companies.
Instead, if the celebrity recognizes people's desires and complaints, they would like such hospitality and it would also attract customers.
I agree with this point because the celebrity could do a promotion for some other brand that the company is against for whatever reason so the celebrity would not get to be honest with their contract being used tell them say this or say that. The idea of a company controlling a celebrity is a bit wrong as the celebrity relies on now the brands ideas and how they ask for them act. It feels backwards and working under them is a bit horrid. Celebritys shouldnt be dragged on by the company for what they sighned to. So I agree with your point.
I understand your concern. Is frustrating when celebrities feel pressured to promote plant the might not produce support being controlled by a company can a limit their honesty and authenticity. Celebrities should have the freedom to express their genuine options and values rather than being dictated by contractual obligations. Is essential for them to maintain their integrity and not feel dragged by corporate interest. Your point highlight the importance of empowering celebrities to stand by their beliefs and maintain their autonomy in brand partnership.
I agree because the face of the brand gives a different perspective to the brand. If they are being totally controlled by the brand, they wouldn't have the freedom to state things that are seen by everyone outside the brand. I also think that if the brand instead gave all privileges to the face of the brand, they could go overboard and say things that may ruin the brands reputation and image. Thats why I think it should be balanced so each party (brand and face of the brand) share their views and decide on something that could move the brand forward. If the face doesn't comply, the brand has all the right to terminate their contract, just like Addidas did when Kanye made that unacceptable comment.
I agree that brands shouldn't have all the access to the face of the brand but the rules should be kept to a minimum. For example, if the face of the brand says something negative about a state or something where there are different sides, the company value may go down. So I believe that there should be some control but not a controlling over the face of the brand.
I disagree with you because when you do not have total control over the face of the brand the celebrity can do or say whatever thing they feel to say or do it can make them to loose popularity, or even bring shame to the brand that is why I say that the brand should have total control over the celebrity.
I believe that the brand should not be able to control what the face of the brand or people say or review because for example if Gigi Hadid is to review a brand and is not honest about it, it could spoil her reputation and the brand will face a lot of bad feedback. I believe that every person that reviews a brand should be truthful and honest about what they say cause if not people won't believe what the person say which can cause a conflict between the people and the brand.
Do you think it makes any difference if the celebrity is being paid to review the brand?
Hello Tracey,
I firmly believe it will make a huge difference
It really shakes my sense of authenticity when a celebrity is hired to endorse a brand. The question is whether they truly love the product or are just doing it for the paycheck. Imagine a big-name actor making money promoting a skin care product. It makes me wonder if they're raving about it because they truly believe in it, or if it's all about the money rolling in. The authenticity of the endorsement feels a bit uncertain. In this case, transparency can be a game-changer. It helps me make sense of it all if the celebrity is upfront about getting paid to perform. I've noticed that when YouTube bloggers and influencers say outright, "Hey, I get paid for this," it adds a layer of honesty and clears up the misunderstanding. Ultimately, it's not just about money changing hands; It's about trust. If I get the feeling that a celebrity is just there for the paycheck, I'll second guess their words. So, keeping it real, being open about the financial aspect – that’s what really attracts me when it comes to celebrity endorsements. In this case, the issue of authenticity becomes particularly salient. Viewers may scrutinize the celebrity's motivations, wondering whether the endorsement stems from a sincere belief in the quality of the product or is primarily motivated by compensation. This dynamic greatly affects the level of trust between the celebrity endorser and the audience, which is a key factor in influencer marketing. Ultimately, paid celebrity reviews have an impact on brands beyond financial transactions, resonating in areas of consumer trust and influencing how audiences view celebrity endorsers and associated brands. Balancing financial incentives with transparency and authenticity is critical to maintaining the integrity of accreditation and cultivating positive relationships with consumers.
A well balanced point of view -thank you
This was a great way of presenting it. I completely agree especially in regards to endorsement deals on YouTube and other platforms. It makes to me personally no difference if the celebrity saids that they in fact had been paid to present the product, rather this to me shadows a positive light on the celebrity. I know this is a requirement on YouTube and other certain social media platforms but I think it’s a great rule to in-force so we as the target audience know whether or not the brand is sponsored or the celebrity is just sharing their specific view on a product and therefore we can create a solidified opinion on whether or not we want to purchase the product.
If a celebrity has been paid to endorse a particular brand or product, does that mean the celebrity does not actually believe the brand or product is any good?
Hi Rebecca,
Personally, I believe that many celebrities do in fact only push certain produce due to money. Not to say that that celebrity never believes in the product, but more so that not money is the largest factor in deciding weather or not to endorse the product as celebrities are often than not very money hungry.
Yes, it does make a difference if a celebrity is being paid to review a brand. When a celebrity endorses a product, it can influence the public’s perception of the product and increase its sales. However, if the celebrity is being paid to endorse the product, their endorsement may not be genuine, and they may not have actually used the product. This can lead to a loss of trust between the celebrity and their fans, as well as between the brand and its customers. It is important for celebrities to be transparent about their endorsements and for brands to ensure that their products are of high quality and meet the expectations of their customers.
What is your opinion then with the level of control that the brand has over the celebrity if they are endorsing their product and being compensated?
I feel that an ethical issue that comes up in the context of influencer marketing is whether the celebrity endorsement of a brand is authentic or motivated by financial incentives. Some consumers may feel manipulated if they find out that the celebrity is being paid to review the brand, especially in cases where the disclosure is not clear.
On the other hand, some consumers may not care about the payment arrangement, as long as the celebrity provides useful or entertaining information about the brand.
So, I feel the question you asked is based on factors like whether the consumers trust the celebrity and the quality and transparency of the endorsement.
For example, imagine that an influential singer posts a video on social media, where he praises a new air pod brand and says it has one of the best sound qualities he has ever experienced. Some of his fans may want to buy the product, while others may be skeptical and wonder if he is being paid to say that. If the singer discloses that he received the headphones for free in exchange for his honest review, some fans may appreciate his honesty and trust his judgment.
I agree because... When a celebrity becomes the public face of a brand, it raises interesting questions about the balance between personal freedom and brand image. Let’s explore both sides:
So coming to the aspect of brand control: Advocates argue that brands invest heavily in their image and reputation. As such, they should have the right to protect their interests.
Brands may include behavior clauses in contracts, specifying what the celebrity can and cannot do publicly.
This approach ensures consistency and avoids situations where a celebrity’s actions harm the brand.
Also critics emphasize that celebrities are individuals with their own lives and opinions.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Brands should never suppress it.
Overly controlling a celebrity’s actions can lead to backlash and damage the brand’s reputation.
Another point should be that brands and celebrities must find a middle ground.
Transparency is key. Brands should communicate expectations clearly.
Celebrities should be mindful of their actions, recognizing their role as brand ambassadors.
In conclusion, while brands have a vested interest in controlling their public image, they should respect the individuality and rights of their celebrity endorsers...
Thank You.
I disagree with your comment since I believe that companies should at least have some control over brand ambassadors since most celebrities can get into scandals easily by saying something controversial and that could affect the company by supporters of the controversial person since they could make up rumors, leave bad reviews and can boycott by making people not shop form the company anymore.
I agree because if a celebrity was not honest about the review and someone finds out, the celebrity and the brand would both receive bad comments as people wanted to receive truthful comments about the brand from the celebrity so they know what does the brand sell and whether the brand's products suits them. And after the people know that the celebrity is not honest, the other advertisements would not be successful even though the celebrity was honest about that comment on the brand. If the celebrity tried to tell the people who knows that he/she had lied about the brand, not much people would choose to believe the celebrity because the people might still believe that the celebrity was still not honest.
Overall, the consequences would be really serious towards the brand and the celebrity. The celebrity might be known for not being honest and the brand would surely go down as a result of that.
you make some great points thoughtful_peak. Do you think celebrities should only endorse products/brands they like?
I agree with you. Celebrity are constantly under public eye. Any missteps or controversy they are involved in can reflect poorly on the brand they endorse. As a celebrity your job is to help position the brand or product In the mind of the target market costomer, forming a Possitive. And so A celebrity often work with media teams to carefully control their public image and the information released to the media. But the pack of control over the celebrity's can be detrimental to a Brand's image and can result in negative association which will be bad for the company's brand
I understand your point of approach and honestly I thought the same way until it all dawned on me. The truth is, the company needs to get a good marketing strategy for their product, they need it to sell prominently in the market and so they need to get the attention of the public to first of all know what they are selling, that my friend is where the celebrities come in. Who will look at the picture of Ronaldo or Messi on a billboard and not want to see what they are advertising? The truth is, they are able to capture the attention of the public and aid the business's market. Once they have successfully served the purpose off which their services were required for, I feel nothing else should attach them to the company regarding the only string attaching them was to aid public notice not to testify of the worth of the product.
Your perspective on the role of celebrities in marketing is insightful. Leveraging the popularity and influence of celebrities can indeed be an effective strategy for capturing public attention and promoting products or services. Their endorsement can help enhance brand visibility and credibility, driving consumer interest and sales.
However, it's important to recognize that celebrity endorsements are primarily about grabbing attention and generating initial interest in the product. Once the purpose of boosting public awareness is achieved, the ongoing association with the celebrity may not be necessary, especially if their role was solely to aid in marketing.
Ultimately, a well-executed marketing strategy should focus on delivering value to consumers and maintaining the quality and reputation of the product or service. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this topic!
Your perspective on the role of celebrities in marketing is insightful. Leveraging the popularity and influence of celebrities can indeed be an effective strategy for capturing public attention and promoting products or services. Their endorsement can help enhance brand visibility and credibility, driving consumer interest and sales.
However, it's important to recognize that celebrity endorsements are primarily about grabbing attention and generating initial interest in the product. Once the purpose of boosting public awareness is achieved, the ongoing association with the celebrity may not be necessary, especially if their role was solely to aid in marketing.
Ultimately, a well-executed marketing strategy should focus on delivering value to consumers and maintaining the quality and reputation of the product or service. Thank you for sharing your perspective on this topic!
i disagree with your statement because if the celebrity is paid than perhaps the company can have a minor amount of control over what he/she does in public. But, from your comment leaves a big question. would it be worth spoiling their reputation?
I agree because if a brand is controlling a celebrity, the influence of the celebrity can lead to destructive thinking among the citizens, and the brand can create unethical conversations and influences among the people by comtrolling celebrities.
can you give an example of how a brand might control a celebrity?
I agree because there are a lot of newsreporters and journalists who do that and most of the time they do it to gain something like money. Or for other selfish reasons or no reason at all. Others times it could be that they don't like the business and want another one prevail. And most of the time people actually believe it because they trust that specific reporter.
It's unfortunate that some reporters and journalists prioritize personal gain or agendas over truthful reporting. Building trust with the audience is crucial, and when that trust is betrayed, it undermines the integrity of journalism as a whole.
I think the the brand should have no control over the celebrity. Let‘s take bella hadid as an example she supported palestine in the war as she was the face of dior they took her face off the brand because she supoort palestine. I think the brand should have 0% control over the celebrity.
I disagree because I think the brand should have some control over the celebrity, but not 0%. Let me explain why I think so. First of all, the brand and the celebrity have a mutual benefit from their partnership. The brand gets exposure and credibility, while the celebrity gets compensation and recognition. Therefore, they should respect each other's interests and goals. Second, the brand has a responsibility to its customers and stakeholders. If the celebrity does something that damages the brand's image or reputation, it could affect the brand's sales and trust. The brand should have some say in how the celebrity behaves and communicates in relation to their products. Third, the celebrity has a responsibility to their fans and followers. If the celebrity endorses a product that they don't believe in or that goes against their values, it could affect their credibility and authenticity. The celebrity should have some say in how the brand presents and markets their products. In conclusion, I think the brand should have some control over the celebrity, but not 0%. They should work together to create a win-win situation for both parties.
What would/ should the consequences be if a celebrity or brand breaks the agreement?
For example, if a celebrity endorses a product that they don't actually use or like, they might lose credibility and trust from their fans and the public. They might also face legal action from the company that hired them, or from the consumers who bought the product based on their recommendation. On the other hand, if a brand fails to deliver on its promises or obligations to a celebrity, they might damage their reputation and image in the industry. They might also lose the opportunity to work with other celebrities in the future, or face lawsuits from the celebrity or their agents. In any case, breaking an agreement is not a smart move for either party, as it can have negative consequences for both their finances and their fame.
Hi Teff,
Usually the deals between celebrities and brands are successful but in some cases when they aren't, there's always a significant reason. You see, when a celebrity breaks or denies a contract, the reasons can be as follows - 1. They are getting better opportunities working with some other brand. 2. They might be unsatisfied by the service and payment given from the company or brand. 3. Due to health issues. As a consequence for leaving the contract, the actor or model that was about to work with the company, should give the company half of the amount of money that they were about to give him or her. This would prevent bringing a loss to that company that relied on the celebrity. On the other hand, the two main reasons why a company breaks a contract are: 1. They don't find the celebrity worth their money or payment. Like if the actor is not properly attending and paying attention to the company, they can cancel the deal. 2. They find someone else (other model) who fits the company's theme better. In that case, they will have to send a proper apology to the first model before cancelling the contract and pay a fixed amount of cash to the same. And if we talk about the consequences faced by others, the model's income would be affected, affecting their team as well. So, as a conclusion, we can say that infraction of an agreement between a celebrity and a brand or company escorts several changes in the teams of both the parties.
Hi everyone .
The following should be the consequences if celebrity break the business agreement .
1. Financial penalities : monetary penalties and fines most be imposed to the celebrity.
2. Loss of license or contract : cieasing business operation could be forced to shooting down permanently.
3. Damage to their reputation.
If a celebrity breaks and agreement, they might face consequences like losing trust, legal actions, or damage to their repetition. Its crucial for everyone to keep their promises, and if they don't they should learn from mistakes and try to make amends.
But they are paying them, if they cant have a atleast small amount over the celebrity, what would be the reason to pay them?
Even if they are paying them the face of the business has the right to his/her life the company should not have control over the life of the face of their brand
I disagree because... I believe businesses should have some control over celebrities because while celebrities might have good ideas, they could also make mistakes that will reflect poorly on the company. Having the company in control helps to ensure that the celebrity represent the brand well and behaves responsibly.
However, it is important for the celebrity to have some freedom to express themselves and contribute their own ideas. Finding a balance between the two is key to a successful partnership between the company and the celebrity.
I disagree because... just as you said Dior took her off because she took a side during a conflict and this could potentially lead to losses for the company and decrease its goodwill, we should not forget that the ultimate goal of a company is to maximize its profit therefore we can't blame Dior completely and neither can we blame her for sharing her view, both are correct on their part and hence what I suggest is that brands should have some control over the public statements they make especially on controversial topics which can harm their business.
The company should have no control over the celebrity because the celebrity has a mind of his or her own. That person is just trying to help that particular company. In many advertisements,the celebrity helps the company advertise their product so that they can get as many customers as they can. So, if they try to have full control over the celebrity,that person may decide not to help the company again.
I'm not sure about this because the celebrity is usually being paid to advertise the brand. Does this not make a difference?
Yes, I strongly believe that a celebrity can make a difference. A company can pay a celebrity to advertise their brand because they know that they have many followers, and they can influence their followers to buy the product. But sometimes the good advertised is counterfeit and celebrities can mislead the consumers because they have no relevant expertise or experience.
Hi Tracey!
I believe that even if the celebrity is being paid to advertise the brand, they are not being paid for the brand to control their actions. If a brand were to control a celebrity's movements, actions and words, it would not be fair to the celeb. A celebrity is just a normal person like all of us and if they had to watch everything that they do in public, it would become a very tough and tiring job for them. A public figure has the public's eyes on them at all times so how could a brand control all their actions? The contract between the company and the celebrity is to advertise the product and take the money. It does not go any further than that. Also, no person would ever want to live by someone else's rules and without their own free will. I don't think the brand controlling a celebrity would be fair to the celebrity or their fans. What if a fan liked a celebrity because of how goofy and sweet they were, but now due to a control on each one of their word, the celebrity is not the same anymore? The connection between the celeb and the fan would be lost due to a lack of originality. Everything would be scripted whether on camera or off camera. So I think, even if a celebrity was being paid to advertise a product, the company should not control their actions.
Hi forgiving_hedgehog,
I disagree with your comment because a celebrity that's a face of a brand should be conscious of what they say and what they do, not only will it affect the celebrity's reputation it will also affect the company's reputation and both reputation will be ruined which will cause lots of losses. Just as students are controlled in schools to protect the reputation of the school the same goes to celebrity's which for me it is only safeguarding ones reputation not controlling their rights.
Great points intelligent_nectarine!
Even if the corporation pays the celebrities, they are not able to rely only on the money they get.Celebrities make more money in their careers than their organizations do.
I disagree with your comment. If the celebrity is trying to help the company, they should try to be less controversial as whatever they say will be associated with the company, since they are working with them. If a celebrity said, "I hate Palestine!" you'd be mad since people are now attacking your brand for what the celebrity stated. It's not even you or the celeb's fault for being associated together. People online do it. Although I think the celebrity does need to watch what they say, they shouldn't be held back from voicing what they believe. To combat the people online bashing the company and celebrity, the celeb could easily just say that whatever they say is not connected to the company and is their personal opinion.
I chose Option A
From my perspective, a celebrity should be under the control of a brand being the PR face of it because the celebrity embraces the role of the mass media image. Such a perspective flows from the belief that the celebrity acts as an agent and promoter of the brand with a considerably significant impact on the public opinion. If the celebrity behaves controversially or irregularly, it might defame the brand as celebrities and their brands are considered to be very much associated in the mind of the public.
For instance, take the case of a famous actor come face of a skincare product which advocates for natural beauty. In case the actor promotes standards of beauty contrary to those promoted by the brand or institutes such behavior that goes against the brand’s ethics, a disconnect between the celebrity and the brand may occur. This disconnect may influence consumer confidence as well as the market position of the brand.
Despite the freedom of speech and the personal preferences individuals have a point to represent oneself as a brand, there comes a responsibility of behaving in accordance with the brand’s interests and moral values. Thus, some degree of influence over the celebrity’s visibility in the public sphere and what he or she says may be critical for safeguarding the brand’s reputation and the audience’s trust.
I strongly disagree with you because the brand should not have total control over the celebrity because if this news is spilled it might be thought that a "whole celebrity" who has a popular name is being controlled by a brand like a puppet. This might spoil the reputation of the celebrity and might be known as someone who has an approved and certified profession but they allow people to control them. It might be also assumed that they have a job that doesn't provide enough income and that is the reason why the celebrity tolerates the control and works as a subordinate. If a brand has total control over a celebrity, I feel that the celebrity will not have his or her free space and they will feel pressured doing all of this. I also feel that a brand having absolute control over a celebrity might clash with his or her personal life. For example, the celebrity has an interview and they have to stop and maybe attend an advertisement. Viewers might also be relying on this show to see the interview of the celebrity as it has been announced by the media interviewing the celebrity. This will cause disappointment and viewers might think that the celebrity doesn't follow schedules and does things anyhow. On top of that, the celebrity will have a tough time explaining this to curious fans and when the information is out, the fans might loose interest or fun in their celebrity because they might feel that the celebrity is being too dependent by allowing brands to have absolute control over them.
I chose B because a celebrity's behaviour can affect a brand. Celebrities have massive crowds following them so they must say the right, good things that would show people the right way to go, especially the youth. A bad comment or behaviour could cause an uprising and might affect the position a brand occupies in the heart of its customers. So I believe a brand should have some level of control over what a celebrity says.
How would the level of control a brand has be decided on?
Hi Henrietta,
To me, i would say the brand can have limited control of the activities of the brand ambassador because before the celebrity became the face of the brand, he/she had a life, they had already built that network for themselves along with the fan base. As a matter of fact, i would say that the brand is leveraging off the fame of the celebrity. I know the brand is paying for the celebrity's services, but they work hand in hand for a period of time that is why whatever they will be doing is usually signed in a contract which does not totally cage the celebrity but just put them in line so that boundaries won.t be stepped on.
There should be a balance of freedom but in a considerate manner so that there will be total business satisfaction.
The brand and the chosen celebrity could have a meeting and decide on everything. The bottom line is that terms and conditions which both of the sides are comfortable with should be decided on. The celebrity should be able to maintain a reasonable level of independency and the brand should be able to regulate some things that the celebrity is allowed to do. Basically it should be a fifty-fifty agreement. It is kind of like a partnership and in a partnership there are equal rights. If the celebrity is not comfortable with the conditions given by the brand then he or she can ask for a compromise. If that doesn't work, then the celebrity can simply decline the offer. Moreover, both of them should guard each others reputation. They should not do things that could tarnish each others reputations.
I disagree because... a celebrity with many followers and is in support of a brand example a popular celebrity like Dwayne Johnson is a big fan of apple brand many of his fans will like to buy from apple brand and it will also make the brand famous and another means of asking a.nrand popular is by advertising and when a celebrity like Lionel Messi or Christian Ronaldo is advertising a brand he will have millions of viewers and with all this viewers the brand has gone viral and when the see a celebrity like Ronaldo using a Samsung product many people will like to buy it .
I think companies should have a little control on the celebrities as they cannot oppose the companies in public. Even a small comment of them might affect the company immensely. So companies should always keep a check on them and restrict them from doing some certain things. A few years ago none other than the great Ronaldo did an ad with the company coco cola. But recently because of a certain act of Ronaldo the company coco cola underwent a huge loss. Even though Ronaldo is not the face of coco cola but if we think hypothetically and if he were the ambassador of that company than it might create a very bad impression on coco cola because of that act.
I like your Ronaldo example! Do you have any ideas how a company may be able to control the public's opinion even if their spokesperson acts in a way that may negatively impact the company?
According to me the company must try to fix the negative things that the spokesperson has said and immediately issue a new advertisement. This act might show that the company really does look forward to its costumers opinion. Or the company might want the spokesperson to issue an apology. Or, as most of the publics opinion are altered by the social media, so company should take help of some renowned social media influencers.
I chose B because I believe that a brand should not control everything that the celebrity says but instead should have an input in some of the things the celebrity does. I say this because brands have values and celebrities should say things consistent with the values of the brand where people say them as the face of the brand. When this is done, people will always trust the brand no matter what happens.
I agree with you that when being the face of a brand, a celebrity is also a representative of the brand and hence some control is useful. Who would in your view decide on the degree of control (e.g., prohibit expressing any opinions on a specific subject)? Is it the brand or an independent third party?
I think that the brand in a way should control the celebrity. It is the product that they advertise not themselves. The best of course would be to find celebritues that the beliefs they have are not totally opposed to that of the brand. If you want to sell your product, then its better the celebrity to believe what he/ sge says and what he/ she believes .
Can you think of an example where the celebrity's beliefs/image align with that of the brand they advertise?
Antetokounmpo is an example of an image that aligns to the brand!! He is an athlete so he promotes sport stuff, he seems down to earth but simultaneously very strong on his work. That's what Nike wanted I think. An athletic sport person but just doing his job and not being an arrogant super star.
Hello,
I do agree with you when it comes to the brand and the celebrity having similar beliefs. It would be contradicting for the brand to be a well-known supporter of something that the celebrity does not support, people would know they were paid to show off their products. When a brand does not have a full say in what the celebrity does or says they would have to trust them to create a positive image of their brand, not involve them in a scandal. Also, a celebrity does not fully influence the public to buy something, celebrities are mainly there to bring attention to the product, and people's reviews have a significant impact, if their product is being given bad reviews left and right, no one is going to want to spend their money on it, no matter what the celebrity said. Thank you.
Hello! You are right about saying that a celebrity does not fully Influence the public. But I think that these depends on how big star is the celebrity. If this person is famous worldwide then the public is mainly focusing on getting what this famous person promotes. They do not focus so much on whether this product is given bad or good reviews. Who would dare to do it though? We have seen that very famous celebrities are making such big profits because of their own products and their big influence on people.
Interesting points, if you were a celebrity, would you care about the products you promote or would you just care about the money you got paid by the brand?
I think as a celebrity before promoting any product, he should know the products properly and its effect after using it. He should not promote any products without using just only for money. No matter how much money he got, but as a human being he mustn't influence other people to purchase harmful things. If the celebrity himself doesn't use the product or have any trust on the product then how come he is influencing other people to buy it. Isn't it like deceiving people? Now a days we are seeing that many celebrities are promoting harmful product just only for money, which is in against of humane values. As their promotion on any harmful product could have negative effect on general people, for this reason I believe that the celebrity should care about the product before promoting it. They should refrain away from promoting harmful products no matter how much money he got. Promoting harmful products will not only harm people but it will also have a negative impact on the character of the celebrity.
This is also a difficult question to answer. It all depends on the person's values and goals. Personally, I would care more about the products and Ithe way I presented. But this means if I were that famous I would also listen to what the brand wants from me and if i thought we are in common goals and we speak the same language then it would be easier for me to care about their products.
But I wouldn't want to promote products that I don't believe in them and they do not represent me.
I think they should have a certain level of control over that celebrity, because the sake of that business is held in the hands of that celebrity, if the celebrity is to destroy the reputation of that business the celebrity at most times the celebrity usually not blamed and this causes a lot of business damage. This may cause a lot of controversy but I do think that a company should have control over their celebrity.
Certain level of control is indeed useful to ensure that the reputation of the brand is not endangered by the actions of a celebrity. How could one however ensure that such control does not spil over the personal life of the celebrity and in practice amount to full control over his/her actions?
I feel the brand shouldn't have total control over the celebrity. Yeah, they may be scared that maybe during an interview the celebrity may say something that might probably affect their business like having huge losses, but before making the celebrity the face of their business they should've at least done a mini interview with the celebrity, to find out what he/she feels about the business to avoid anything going wrong during the main interviews.
Some great points, would you put terms within a contract agreement with the celebrity that specify what they can/cannot say?
I don't really think it would be necessary for me to specify because I should've done a little bit of an interview before entering the contract, just like I stated earlier on. And celebrity should have the right to say whatever he/she wants to, provided that the comments do not affect my company/business negatively and we both fulfil our parts of the contract.
I'm not sure about this because yes a little background interview will be of great assistance in the long run but what if something unexpected comes up? Or something goes wrong?
For example: the celebrity is not satisfied with their pay and threatens to spill some company secrets or hurt the business. In short words black mail. Things like this can’t simply be avoided by conducting research or interviews, people change or can hide their true intentions. That is why a contract is not a bad idea, you don’t have to control them just limit the amount of things said about the business or what is done with the business’ brand, and can allow the celebrity have their liberations by terminating the contract if you, the brand tried to control, or exploit them.
Contracts can help ensure the safety of the business as well as the individual.
The brand should have some control of the celebrity. I say this because if a brand hires a celebrity via contract, it is of the celebrity's control to agree or disagree with the terms set by the company. With brands, a celebrity has the right to genuinely or not genuinely recommend the product to the consumers. I know personally, I wouldn't want a celebrity to falsely recommend a product that honestly does nothing it is advertised to do. However, I do think a brand deserves the right to comment on the celebrity's actions as they are in contract with. I asked some of my peers whether they prefer an honest review or clearly sponsored review. 5 out of 10 of them preferred that they were given an honest cut throat review of the product they hypothetically would be purchasing. So, in response celebrities should be allowed some freedom, however they should still promote the product honestly.
Do you think most celebrities promote products they actually like/use? Can you provide some examples?
Hi everyone,
Celebrities promote the products they usually like through the following ways
Social media is an important way for celebrities looking to connect with their audience. The plat foam like Twitter, Instagram and tiktok. For example if celebrity introduce new product, it reinforced the perception of the consumers that the product is reliable and suitable for active individuals. Also celebrity marketing help by influencing consumer purchasing power.
I do not think celebrities promote products they actually like/use. Many celebrities and influencers claim to use said product in many ads I've personally watched but I highly doubt it. There was a controversy about this on a website I use to watch videos (Youtube). A influencer claimed to use these vitamins to get his physique, but later he came out saying his body wasn't from the products he was promoting and actually was from outside substances that he used to get his 'natural' physique. That's why I think influencers should be allowed to be honest, but the companies should always look into the celebrities records of their promoting of products.
In my point of view, I think that the brand has no right to take control over what the celebrity would say because each person has the right to describe his/her opinion in the way that they feel right without any pressure from anyone even if this pressure is from the brand that they work for and if the brand forced him/her to say specific things or they had a script for what they shall say that would be a total scam for people because this is just what the brand wants us to see or what they want to be shared with us in a way that satisfies there needs because for companies we are just targets not more than that so when they bring a celebrity and they tell him/her what they shall say just to convince us so that is considered as an insincere and untrusted brand
Hi witty_whale, thanks for your comment - if the brand has no right to control what a celebrity would say, what do you think the brand should be able to do, if they are paying the celebrity to work for them? Can you give examples?
I think without making celebrity a face by giving huge amount of money, Brands can ask for honest review about their products from the celebrities. They can gift the products to different celebrities and can ask for their honest review after using it. They can also give away their products to general people for honest review. After using the product for some days, the people can give their review in the official website or make a video of it and post it in their social media. If the product is good, then surely it will get a lot of support from the people and even the celebrity who have used the product to give a review may become a regular customer of the product. In this way, the product will get the trust of general people and will be able to do business for a long time. It will not need more advertisement because most of the people who have seen the product useful will become the regular customer.
A brand should have total control over the celebrity, because as said if the celebrity does something bad in public the brand could lose followers.
Hi cultured_wallaby, are you able to say more? Are there downsides to a brand having total control over the celebrity - what could these be?
I don't entirely agree with you because in some cases, it is not the 'face' of thee brand that is in the wrong but rather the brand, and if the brand has total control of the celebrity, they can keep them from speaking their truth which may in turn anger the celebrity's followers, so think that there should be some kind of balance.
I disagree with your point because the idea of a brand controlling someones entire life is morally wrong even if its the face of a brand. Who would even want to be told what to say or do for everything. I do understand the idea of protecting the brands reputation and the idea that if the celebrity gets cancelled then the brand will follow but still the idea of someone controlling them is wrong. The celebrity's fame isn't even due to the brand's imput but the celebrity's own hobbies and interest. They should not be known as the 'face' of something but rather their own interests and acheivments over the years. So I dissagree with your point as Celebrities lives should not revolve around the brand or businesses imput or ideas.
how do you think brands select celebrities to be their 'face', busy_trumpet? What factors do brands consider when making their selection?
I decided that the brand should have some control over the celebrity. Complete control over someone is not an option. They deserve to have a say too. But they should not forget that they are now the face of a brand. This means that when someone thinks of that celebrity the brand pops up in their head too and vice versa. This means both of their reputations are intertwined. The brand should at least be able to monitor what the celebrity is doing, just to make sure that they don't ruin both of their reputations. The brand should not completely control the celebrity just because they work for them. They should work hand in hand in order to promote themselves in society. This means that the brand can regulate the celebrity's actions but the celebrity should still have a say. After all, they benefit each other, they should act like partners.
Great points, I like that you have mentioned how the reputations are intertwined, can you find any examples of successful celebrity and brand partnerships?
A very good example of a successful brand and celebrity partnership is that of Nike and Michael Jordan. This is one of the most successful partnerships in history. Nike has grown to new heights because of this partnership and Michael Jordan has also benefitted. One of the most sought after Nike products, the Air Jordan has a logo which was inspired by a silhouette of Michael Jordan. This partnership really benefitted them because they worked together. Another partnership in my country is that of the popular Nigerian singer, Tiwa Savage and the mobile phone company, Tecno Mobile. This partnership has been really doing well recently and the adverts really encourage people to buy their products. When the celebrity and brand work hand in hand, the results will be extraordinary.
The famous Call of Duty player "IFerg" has been in a partnership with the game for 5 years. In his videos, he advertises the game and in return is paid by Activision. The popularity of "IFerg" has been boosted because he is the only known player to have partnered with Activision. Also, Call of Duty mobile has grown to be the most loved FPS(First Person Shooter) game in the world. The player has been able to make ends meet through the game. Their relationship is symbiotic because as the game becomes more popular, the player earns more.
Yes, I do agree, and also like the use of a great example of a partnership situation used in your comment. Luke Fergie popularly known as " Iferg" known on the social media platforms such as, TikTok and YouTube is a content creator who posts gameplays mostly concerning Call of duty: Mobile created by Activision. They do profit from each other because when "Iferg" advertises their game he gets paid and then more people are inspired to join the game and both firms are being profited.
Other examples of partnership businesses are:
-Red Bull & GoPro
-Louis Vuitton & BMW
-Starbucks and Spotify
- Also, the popular computer company Hewlett-Packard which was created by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard.
Could you provide a source for the information?
I believe that the brand should have some control over the celebrity because if you have a brand and it's really good but unknown, you may want a celebrity to promote your brand and say good stuff about it. People will buy the brand because people believe that if a celebrity has or uses something, they should have it or use it. If the celebrity says something controversial it will affect your brand. If that controversial celebrity is still the face of your brand, people may not want to buy it anymore. So if a celebrity promotes a brand, they will have to watch what they say because the company will have some control over what they say.
You are right about this. The brand should have some control over the celebrities as they represent all the beliefs of the company and their product. Celebrities will earn a lot of money so they need to follow the guidelines of their brand. This doesn't mean that they won't have a say but they can't follow a different direction of what their company believe.
Great points shining_aspect!
Hello,
I think that a celebrity that is the so called "face" of a company should have some control to add aspects of what they want, but also the company should have a little control in case their idea is reckless, though most of the time the company should not have all the control neither should the celebrity.
I believe that the brand should have some control over the celebrity but not total control. A celebrity is a famous person that people admire and look up to, Well because people look up to a celebrity he or she should be mindful of what they do because the choices the make might affect the rate at which the brand which their modelling for would sell. They celebrity should be conscious of what they do because the know that not everyone is for them some people are against them the are just waiting for an opportunity when the celebrity would do something wrong so that the can give them a bad name and so that the brand would not sell . The brand should not exercise total control over them but it exercise some control
I believe that the brand should only have some control over what the celebrity should do and say. I say this because if the celebrity gets to do whatever they want, it could tarnish the reputation of the brand and lower their income. With this said, the brand would want to do everything in its control to improve its reputation and increase its income. In some cases, the brand might take it too far and damage the personal life of the celebrity. Everybody is their self and should have some form of control over what they do and say be it good or bad. I suggest that the celebrity should consult decisions that could have a big impact on the brand with the brand owner or director. This way, the celebrity will be able to do everyday things such as where and what to eat, where to drive to, etc while the brand can partially control the things that could impact the brand.
I chose B because I think that companies shouldn't have complete control over celebrities nor should they have zero control over them. If a company has complete control over all the actions and choices of a celebrity it will harm both the celebrity and the company's reputation. Since celebrities are humans too and are deserving of freedom if the company is controlling everything in their lives they might start feeling isolated and trapped and it could harm their mental health and if the public finds out about the company's controlling behavior it will damage the company's reputation and lose support from the public and the media. If a celebrity has total freedom over everything and are doing and saying everything they want unapologetically they might get themselves into a scandal especially if they've done something problematic. So I believe companies should have some good over celebrities to prevent them from doing and saying anything scandalous to protect their reputation.
I completely agree with you. It's possible that the contract between the company and the celebrity doesn't give the company total control over the celebrity's actions. In that case, the company shouldn't dictate everything the celebrity does or eats. However, if the celebrity starts saying negative things about the company, then the company should definitely step in and take action to protect its reputation. It's all about finding a fair balance between giving the celebrity freedom and ensuring that they represent the company positively.
I believe that the brand should have some control over the celebrity. Having full control over the celebrity would make the brand seem untrustworthy and have lots of secrets that they are hiding from customers. Having no control would let the celebrity say untrue things about the brand and have sales deplenish. Having some control would let the celebrity say good and bad things about the brand while keeping the brand trustworthy.
Good points, I like that you consider both sides of the argument!
I strongly think the brand should some control over the celebrity, because if a celebrity has been signed into a brand that means the celebrity should be wearing their merch or should be using any of their products, and the celebrity should post the brands products and name on any social media account, and I am sure the brand will get a lot of sales, because the celebrity posted the brands details on his/her social media account, and because they have a lot of following people will start to purchase the brands products. If the celebrity decides to support another brand before their contract with the brand expires or the time duration has not ended yet, that celebrity can sued for a huge amount of money, just like famous real Madrid footballer named Vinicius Jr, who was sued for wearing a blackout football boots against another football team called Valencia, trying to end his 10-year contract with Nike.
I feel that the brand shouldn't have control over what the celebrity says. Because article 19 of the UDHR grants every human the freedom of opinion and expression, so I don't think any organization should restrict these rights from them. Yes, logically the celebrity shouldn't say anything against the brand it's advocating but it's still the celebrity's right as a human to say what he or she thinks or believes. What if the brand managers are involved in criminal acts and the celebrity discovers this but because of he or she's agreement they can't speak up, this shouldn't be the case so I believe that brands shouldn't have control over what the celebrities say in public
You've mentioned that freedom of opinion and expression is recognised as a human right storytelling_economics, but do you think it changes the situation if the brand is paying the celebrity to promote them? Could a contract be used in that case to restrict what the celebrity says about the brand?
UDHR which stands for Universal Declaration of Human Rights are rights not meant for just the citizens of a particular country but for humans in general which means that no matter the race one comes from, he or she is still eligible to exercise those rights. The only case where any of these rights were restricted was in the case of curfews where the freedom of movement was temporarily ceased but this is usually used in an epidemical situation, in life or death situations. Now moving on to the matter of brands controlling what celebrities do, I don't think they should be able to control what celebrities do because it's not a life or death situation whereby the right that someone has because he or she is human should be taken away, there maybe a need for the celebrity to report the brand to the authority due to some criminal activities noticed by the celebrity. In summary, a signed agreement isn't enough reason to cease a basic right because the freedom of opinion and expression is a right granted to every human and it shouldn't be restricted from.
I truly believe that a brand should have total control because its their image that will be ruined and their reputation that will be tarnished. As an example if Adidas had signed a contract with Kanye West that stated that they were not allowed to drop him unless he himself allowed it, then were would adidas be now that Kanye was supporting anti-Semitism? The 'face' of the brand should know how to behave to protect the brands image, if not then let them be fully controlled.
Interesting ideas @sociable_attention. Do you think there is a difference between having full control over a celebrity and ending a relationship with a celebrity for saying inappropriate and offensive comments?
I believe businesses shouldn't dictate every aspect of a celebrity's life. While they should have control over how the celebrity represents their product, such as during product shoots, they shouldn't govern all other aspects. The celebrity's choices, like what they wear or eat, should be their own, unless agreed upon in the contract. It's important to find a balance where businesses have influence over their brand image, but celebrities retain autonomy in personal matters. This ensures a fair and respectful partnership between businesses and celebrities, allowing both to contribute their strengths without overly infringing on each other's individual choices.
I chose the brand should have some control over the celebrity because the celebrity would have some opinions of what the brand is doing. If the brand has no control at all over the celebrity, the celebrity might say something that is negative of the brand or of other people on the social media. The brand would then surely go down and it will be a huge loss of money or even a huge waste of money because they have to pay the celebrity for them to advertise their products.
If the brand had some control over the celebrity, the brand would have a little bit of control over what the celebrity is going to say about their products in the advert or in social media. The brand would also make lots money if the advertisement is very successful. If not, the brand would still make some money as there would be someone in the world who is a fan of the celebrity that has advertised the brand's products.
I think a brand should have control in what a celebrity says in public. For example, I was a brand owner, and I just signed a contract with a company, I should be able to control what the celebrity says and even does in public because anything the celebrity does or says wrong it can leave a bad name for the company.
Considering what you've said and experienced jazzed_ocean, I have to disagree. While I can see how it would be more beneficial for a company to control what the celebrity says, it is more or less ethically questionable to control the voice of a person. If for example you were contracted to a company, and paid a fair sum to be the "face" of the country, you would be more inclined to say fake words about said products. However, as a viewer of this celebrity, would you prefer if said celebrity was honest or not? I did a study in my classroom and eight out of ten people said they prefer an honest cutthroat expression of the product. Celebrities promoting a product is as common as a car these days, and many brush past the typical 'buy my product, I use it every day'. When I see a celebrity really telling me the negatives and pros to a product, I myself am more inclined to listen to this said celebrity. The celebrity giving me an honest review of said promotion helps me better understand whether the product suits me and is actually something I would use and buy.
I chose the option B, because as the "face" of the brand the company has some control over the celebrity, mostly because the company isn't owned by the celebrity so the company have the right to tell him what to do and how to do it in public, so as to promote awareness of the product or service.
I think that the brand should only have some control over what the celebrity does or says in public, but not total control. Any celebrity is human and has the right to freedom of speech. Being the face of a brand doesn't mean that you can't spread any of your ideas anymore. On the contrary, it means that the brand agrees with your ideas. When someone famous becomes the face of a brand, it automatically gains a few more customers, which are some of the celebrity's fans. I don't think that getting this job means giving up your own opinions or the right to simply have fun, being yourself. I strongly believe that it should never feel like compulsion. I understand that maybe some kinds of actions may not seem suited and that the celebrity should be made aware. The brand should not suffer because of the famous person representing it. However, the celebrity should never be forced to compromise their happiness and well-being. No company or brand is worth it. I think that it is often forgotten that celebrities have lives too. I have heard of many cases in which someone became famous, but then regretted it, due to lack of privacy. It is also very common for celebrities to be constantly judged and accused, even of things they have never done. Fake news can be very dangerous and they could ruin somebody's life. I think that the media is very responsible for how people see others. It might even be why some brands are putting so much pressure on certain celebrities. They wish for everything to be alright. They so very obviously wish for no bad publicity. Maybe if we would manage to spot these fake or just unnecessary news, many people would be at ease. Right now, we tend to interpret everything famous people say and it has a negative impact on them. Perhaps there's a long way to getting rid of all the unnecessary pressure that is put on them, but I think that a great start would be to start spreading more positive energy and messages. It is true that the negative part of what they do should be shown, there are too many cases where some have received a lot of hate, for something they didn't even do. Maybe we could try to choose what to believe more carefully.
This is a really interesting comment and it's great that you've spotted the link between the media and brand ambassadors. What might be some of the positive messages that you would like to see?
I think that a brand should have some control of the 'face' of the brand because the person chosen to represent a respectable brand should not be seen disgracing themselves or the brand but I think that before they start any type of business with the celebrity at all they should have a conversation with them to see their views on certain issues before the are hired because you cant have a brand standing for one thing while the face of the brand is standing for another thing. I also believe that there should be guidelines for the face of the brand to follow but they should be reasonable enough so that the person can openly voice out their opinions on issues. There are some cases where the brand does something the face of the brand does not agree with, if the brand has full control, they might keep the celebrity from openly voicing out their opinion and I think that on important cases such as war, the brand should be united instead of breaking apart. Overall think it s crucial or both parties to have come to some kind of understanding before forming any kind of deal at all.
I would say if the business is honest and truly what it brands itself to be, then they shouldn't have any control of what the celebrity says. Honest people will say what they want about a product, even if they aren't sponsored so i feel that companies should allow the celebrities to say what they want. Not everyone is the same so the celebrities can say how it feels and work for them while other people who might be similar give it a try. Paying the celebrity to say what the company wants them to say will not only turn out to be misleading at times, but the celebrity will lose fans and the company will lose possible consumers. Being truthful and honest goes a long way.
I believe that the brand should have some control. This is only if the face of the brand is doing something that could harm in company. Otherwise, the brand has no right to comment or control on the person's person life and decisions. If it is a public decision, for example, hurting someone, the company should have control to stop the person who is the face of their brand some doing such a thing. Especially if the face of the brand is causing the company to loose business over the things that they have done, the company should be able to stop them from doing such things. Although, if the face of the brand is a child, then the parents of that child should make the decisions, not the company.
In my view opinion B is correct. Famous people are real people bur they are given a big amount of money to sell products. It's business for them and they can not do whatever they want . Brands want to promote a specific idea and celebrities know that. I think they have the opportunity to reject the the job from the beginning if the standards of this brand don't appeal them.
It's too edgy too say that all or no control the brand should have.
I believe and think that business should have some ( not too much ) control over the celebrities that they choose to work with. If they have too much control over the people they are partnering with the celebrities will not have a life as it is the company they have collaborated with making all the decisions not only for themselves but for the other collaborator as well. On the other hand, if they have absolutely no control over their partner -option ‘a’- that person can maybe do several things to affect their health which could possibly make them lose the contract they have done with the company as their health is horrible. Nevertheless, I think that ‘b’ , on the business and politics poll, is the most dominant and reasonable than all the others and I also think that they should stay in the middle with controlling their collaborators by not choosing what side for them to sleep on or if they should go out or not. I only think that they should only control how they pose in the photograph; things like that. If the company controls the celebrity too much then the celebrity would definitely not like it and could, for all one knows, discontinue the collaboration. This could perhaps be majorly bad for the company as they could lose lots of money and they could have a lack of models to advertise their clothing and brand. So that is the reason I think option ‘b’ is the best and option ‘c’ and ‘a’ are the bad ones.
I think brands should have some control over what celebrities do and say in public. Since celebrities represent the brand, their actions and words can impact its reputation. However, it's also important to respect the celebrity's individuality and freedom of expression. I think a way to have a balanced relationship between the celebrity and the brand is to establish clear guidelines and expectations for the celebrity's behavior and public statements. Also open communication and collaboration between the brand and the celebrity can help ensure alignment. It's also important to trust the celebrity's judgment and allow them to express their authentic self, while still being mindful of the brand's values and image. Regular monitoring and feedback can help maintain their relationship.
This is a very pragmatic view, tranquil_writer. What do you think brands should do if a celebrity breaks the terms of their agreement?
I think brands should discuss the specific terms that were violated and try to find a solution that works for both sides. It could involve renegotiating the agreement, imposing penalties, or even terminating the partnership if necessary. The goal is to find a solution that protects the brand's image and upholds the integrity of the agreement.
I think I will go for A because if a person is saying a lie it will remove its public image and reduce the money the company has. (Which is used in paying taxes to the government and giving the workers their wages or salaries). This also can cause people to start boycotting the company because of what the celebrity said, and the company starts to loose money and workers because people might be looking down on them.
This is a good point! What circumstances would you say it would be not ok for a company to control or influence a celebrity?
Personally, I believe that whether the brand can control what the celebrity says and does in public, depends on how involved the celebrity is in the brand.
Through saying this, I believe that if the celebrity is highly involved and very active within the brand, the brand can slightly restrict what this celebrity does and says in public. However, we are all humans and have the right to do and say as we please, in most cases, which is very important to keep in mind as we discuss this topic. If a celebrity is highly involved in a very popular brand, I understand how the brand may want to limit the celebrity's other jobs as they may want the celebrity to only be known for their major company. In this scenario, I'm sure that many contracts would occur and the celebrity wouldn't continue partnership with the brand if they were unhappy with this. In addition to this, the brand may restrict the celebrity from criticising the company in any way or sharing information that may lead customers away from it. This is quite important for the brand as it ensures that no customers are being led away due to the celebrity 'face' and instead, hopefully, more customers are being introduced to this brand and purchasing from it. Building onto this point, many people follow in a celebrity's footsteps so if a celebrity criticises a brand, some of their fans will criticise the brand as famous people can hold a very tight grasp on public opinion. Again, this is not what the company would want to happen.
On the other hand, I am not saying that the brand should have total control over the celebrity's words and actions. This is because the celebrity still have their own mind and opinions so even if they are told what to say and do in all occasions, no one will actually see their personal views, which is also something that celebrity's influence people with. As well as this, if a celebrity is continuously told what to say and some people strongly disagree with what they are saying, it may lead to the celebrity losing their popularity, which doesn't help the celebrity or the brand. Some brands may also wish to restrict what other work the celebrity can take on, which I don't think is particularly right if it's just a small role as celebrities are free to choose what they want to experience and when.
In conclusion, I believe that if a celebrity is the 'face' of a brand, this doesn't automatically give the brand the right to restrict the things that this celebrity can do and say. However, there are some highly understandable ways in which a brand may want a celebrity to act in order to aid the company. I'm sure that situations like this would all be handled in a legal way, such as few contracts.
In my opinion, to have a successful partnership, a brand needs to have control over the celebrity they hire. If the celebrity does wrong or makes negative comments, it can harm the reputation of the brand. To avoid these situations, a contract should be made that outlines the celebrity's role and responsibilities, along with consequences for breaking the contract. This approach ensures benefits for both the company and the celebrity involved in the partnership.
I choose B; I choose b because, if the brand controls somethings that the celebrity says the celebrity might get annoyed and leave the brand and people may not want to buy from that brand again and also, if the brand controls somethings that the celebrity says they might be the ones that might make the celebrity say something that the people may not like and the people may not like to buy it anymore and it will be their fault that their brand went out of business. And most of the things that brands just need out of the celebrity is fame so that whatever that brand makes and the celebrity says it's the best people will all rush t go and buy it. For example if there are different types of shoes and the celebrity says Nike is the best people may start to buy only Nike shoes. And another thing I am trying to say here is that the brand should not have total control on what the celebrity listen to what the celebrity has to say and think will this make the people want to buy from our brand more or will it make them to be angry, they should also think if what the celebrity is going to say will make their brand the best for the people or the worst.
THANK YOU.
Personally, I believe that if a celebrity such as Kanye West is the face of a brand, they should not be completely controlled by that brand because they are only promoting that brand. Now there have been many instances where celebrities have been completely controlled by these brands just so the brand could stay at the top.
Interesting take and example - it often helps to refer to specific situations! What circumstances would you say it would be not ok for a company to control or influence a celebrity?
I belive that brands that endorse celebrities to be the "face" of their brand should maintain some control over the public actions and statements of those celebrities. While it's essential to allow individuals to express themselves authentically, the public image of the brand can be significantly impacted by the behavior and statements of the celebrity representative. Therefore, a balance must be struck between allowing the celebrity to maintain their individuality and ensuring that their public conduct aligns with the values and image of the endorsing brand. By exercising some oversight, the brand can protect its reputation and maintain consistency in messaging, while still allowing the celebrity the freedom to express themselves in a way that remains respectful and aligns with the brand's ethos.
I believe that if a celebrity is the face of a business the business should be able to say certain things, but I also think that the celebrity should have some type of role on what is said . I believe this because what if the celebrity doesn't agree with some of the things the business is saying to the public. For example, if a business had something to say about racism and they decided to try to say something about it to the public press . I believe they should take that up with the celebrity and the celebrity should have a part in deciding what happens.
Personally, I chose answer choice A. Which states "The brand should have total control over the celebrity". I say this because the celebrity agreed to be the face of the brand. Which to me means that the celebrity has to like the brand because of not why agree to be the face of it. The brand should also leave the celebrity a little bit of room to be themselves but control what they do and say. I say this because the celebrity will be like the whole face of the brand.
Hello,
This is a complicated topic, as there are many pros and cons to businesses controlling and not controlling celebrities. If a brand has full control of the celebrities, and the celebrity constantly praises a product that doesn't work for most people, the celebrity and the brand will receive negative backlash. But, when the product does work for most people, the fans are going to trust the celebrity more, and the brand gets a lot of profit. On the contrary, when a celebrity is the face of a brand, but doesn't have a say in what the celebrity says or does, if the celebrity says or does something the majority of the public doesn't agree with, the brand will not have any success in having them as the face of their band. Also, if the brand itself does something the public is hating on them about, then the celebrity will also receive hate (the brand having full control or not). So I think it comes down to making sure the celebrity and the brand are on the same page before making a deal, so the celebrity has the freedom of speaking their mind.
I think the brand should have some control over what the celebrity does as if the celebrity does something that can defame the brand or the celebrity does something ilegal,customers may no longer want to buy from the brand. Also, if the company wants their brand to have certain message to sell or represent their product they might want to show the face of their brand doing something that promotes the message of the company.
However, i do believe that the celebrity should have some control over their own lives.This is because if the company controls every aspect of the celebrity's life they will no longer have individuality or a personality they will just be an item that the company has used to be the face of their brand and will not be a person on their own.
Personally, I believe that the brand should have control to an extent. This is because, obviously a person has human rights to do whatever they please. However, if the celebrity does something controversial, this could lead to discrimination or stereotypes of a brand. Furthermore, to stop this issue, I think that brands should create a list of terms and conditions of what you can do and say before agreeing to be the 'face' of an organisation. I'm quite certain that celebrities sign a contract, so this would ensure they know what they're signing up for. This would solve issues and disagreements going on with the contract, but gives the celebrity a choice with their own right.
I agree because... its a basic human right but the batndbalso does not want to face negative backlash
I agree because... its a basic human right but the brand does not want to face negative backlash (had to redo comment)
I believe barnds should not be able to controll a celebrity,
After all they are humans like me and you and are allowed their own opinion and voice in public, its a basic human right to have ur own opinion and no amount of money should forefit that otherwise is this not slavery?
people have unrealistic standards toards all celebritys and at the end of the day you cant satisfy everybody in the public and the amount of pressure this would put on a celebrity it could cause them to finally break.
They could develop poor mental health and body image, eating disorders anxiety depression.
No human could be able to constantly recieve the backlash and riducule the whole world gives you if your famous. Numerous celebritys have had mental breakdowns due to the build up of public pressure such as britney spears, robbie williams and even kanye west.
Brands should therefore not be able to constrict a celebritys voice and views because after all due we not strive for natural beauty standars and expressing and raising awerness to mental health issues. So why should a brand be able to control a celebrity and take this away from them to only show theor brand in good light and re enforce this unrealistic media standard.
I agree because... this is very true that celebrities can develop severe mental health problems and at the end of the day they're normal humans just like me and you and don't deserve to be controlled like a puppet.
I agree with opinion that brands should have no control over celebrities. Because celebrities have freedom rights, thus no body should control them just because they brand's face. In addition, letting celebrities to express themselves without restrictions may be benefitable to both the brand and the celebrity. What's more, controlling celebrities may lead to unintended consequences and bad results, like declining in sailing
What about if the celebrity agrees to a contract where the brand can control what they say in return for money? Do you agree that the celebrity should have a right to agree to this? What do you think?
Of course the celebrity have the rights to agree or disagree with this contract, because it is his life after all, and he has the rights to do whatever he wants or appeals to him. Some celebrities may accept this contract and get deceived by the lure of money. In contrast, others see, so do I, that the human rights can't be bought, so the celebrities shouldn't lose their rights and freedom in return for money.
In my opinion, the brand shouldn't have complete control over the face of the brand, but they should still have some. Why is this? I think this because if a brand had complete control over a celebrity, like John Cena, when John's outgoing personality that made him famous is combined with the products of a brand, they recieve for profit, more popularity and traction, but when John is just controlled by the Marketing Team of that company, he won't always be fresh, and it'll feel like John is just owned by the company, instead of the cool guy we know and love. But I still think that a brand should still have some control over the face of their company. Take for instance, maybe if Adidas had set some boundaries, and had a little more control over Kanye West, he wouldn't have said those things to make him and Adidas split. That's why I believe that while a brand shouldn't have complete control over the face of the brand, they should still have some to prevent hurtful, rude, uncalled, or even hateful things said.
Hello
In my opinion, companies should have a certain level of control over celebrities especially concerning what the celebrity does in respect to the company for instance the celebrity should not be allowed to say certain thing or make certain comments to tarnish the image of the company.
Thank you!!!
I chose the point which states that a business should not have any control on the celebrities, from my research, controlling them can be seen as a form of Duress, celebrities no matter how famous, or wealthy are still humans, they still have their rights and I think that controlling them is not right, I mean they have to have their own say and actions, again the celebrities who are not being controlled should not say or do bad things that may tarnish the reputation and name of the business, rather they should report malfunctions of the product to the manufacturers to fix them, the celebrities should remember that their actions have a lot of impact on the media and since the media influences people the celebrities should know that their actions about or to a business has a lot of impact on the globe. At the same time businesses should not see people criticizing their products as a form of insult but rather as a challenge to improve their products for their consumers, I did my research and I found out that some big companies like Apple and Nintendo started out as trash but look at them now. With perseverance and not giving up, I believe that many companies can rise up to the challenge from critics, so they do not need to control celebrities because a good company takes the people's reactions, whether good or bad and turns it into a challenge to do better to make their customers happier.
I feel like the brand should have some control over what the celebrity does and say in public. One reason being if the celebrity acts out then that will be a bad face for the brand and possibly ruin it. There is this dhar man video...about this girl being the face of an anti-bullying campaign. Turns out the girl used to bully people in school and still does. Though the girl doesn't really pose a threat to the company, she should've still been careful.
Another reason is if the face of the brand does something that the public doesn't like, it usually doesn't end well for the company. With a quick google search, it says that the face of the brand is supposed to create awareness for your business, generate leads, and make sales. Something tells me that if the face messes up, then so does the brand. I feel like the face should be careful with their actions when they are in cooperation with a company. It'll be better for both the brand & the face.
Well, I believe that the company should not get complete control over the celebrity. The celebrity is the 'face' of the brand could mean a proper interaction and co-operation between celebrity and the company. Some control over a celebrity might be tolerated cause sometimes fixed plan and proper determination can be obtained through the company support. Due to the opposite thoughts between celebrity and company, the business will get interrupted and the company might suffer a huge loss. The celebrity are the attraction to social medias, so the brand should not stress and command the celebrity.
The question was regarding the matter if the brands could control the "faces" of their brand.
I think a brand should leave the person and not force them to say anything except if it is a review of their products or any matter related to their personal opinion or personal life they should have some control but not complete control like if there is a certain situation of war and the celebrity comments on it, it is their opinion to that matter or what they think is correct, they will just voice over their thoughts in such circumstances. People should understand that it's the person's thoughts and that does not affect or relate to the company in any way. They should, I believe have a prior reviewed agreement so that the company is not blamed for any of the statements made by the celebrity and vice-versa.
Personally, I think that the brand shouldn't have all control over the celebrity.My reason for thinking this is that the celebrity should have some control on what they say and do since they are their own being and needs to have at least some control of themselves and their actions instead of being controlled by the brand entirely.
Hello, I believe that the business should have at least a fraction of control of what the face of their business says. I say this because if the celebrity says something that can affect some customers or workers in a harmful way, this can cause them to end up leaving your company and could go to your business rival. Another reason is social media. Your face of the business can post something that makes people feel off. That's another reason why a customer could stop doing business with your company. I completely understand how these celebrities have the right to freedom of speech. However the celebrity is the one who signed the contract and agreed to be the face of the company and knew that there will be certain things to go along with that position.
your points made me think of this in a different way, but i do agree with you. Maybe brands should have a little control over the "face" of the brand because if they say something harmful publicly it could affect the company. But, even then i think the celebrity should have complete freedom but in a way where both the brand and the celebrity are working together but where if something goes bad neither can effect one another.
I feel the company should have some control over the celebrity because in public if the celebrity has a certain opinion on something, they might tie what they said to the company or might say the company agrees with them too. What the celebrity said might upset the public. The celebrity is the face of the company. If they say something wrong and the business still has them as the face of the company people might not want to buy products from them. I feel that the business should make the celebrity write a contract saying they can't tie their opinion to the company.
I believe that the brand shouldn't have full control over the celebrity because that's not fair for the celebrity but the brand should still have some say in what they say and do. For example what if they're saying things that are targeting your company or saying things that are specifically for certain people which might offend people that are loyal customers .
I say that a business should have some control over a celebrity. I say this because you wouldn't want a celebrity who is the "face" of the business to talk bad about something and it will fall on you and your business.
One example is, if you have a celebrity who specifically talks about something you sell in a bad way, it will reflect badly on you and would affect your business. You might not have as many customers because of what this celebrity said/did. It would most likely be on social media and nobody would want to support your business.
Since celebrities are here to provide ideas to the company, the brand needs to have some control over them. Controlling someone prevents them from being able to contribute to the growth of the firm, and if a celebrity feels they are doing the business owner a favor by being under the brand's control, they will get arrogant and start misbehaving. Thus, the brand ought to have some influence over the celebrity.
I believe that the brands shouldn't have total control over the celebrities because if the brand control them a lot and the celebrity gets into any problem or would do something that reflects the brand badly.
the brand should have some control over the celebrity because in my own opinion when the brand have some control it is as if the brand gives the celebrity liberty to contribute to the growth of the brand this can imply that the their is no to much control, just like when your mother and father gives liberty or control but not to the extent that the child disrespect the parent but should be room for contribution and so on. because when the parent have to much control it will not be good for the child, mentally and physically the same way goes to the brand having to much control over the celebrity
I feel that the brand should have some control over what the celebrity says. The celebrities are the ones that are advertising our business, so a celebrity might take it the wrong way and not want to advertise our business anymore. Celebrities are still adults and they should not be told what to do by another adult. No, that doesn't mean that the celebrities should just say whatever they want, however they should be allowed to say some things. The celebrities should know that they shouldn't just say whatever and keep the company's business safe. This is why I feel that the brand should have some control over what the celebrity says.
I highly disagree with the fact that a company should have total control over the face of a celebrity even though his the face of their brand they do not own him they do not own his say in public his do and don’t and their freedom and right if they have full control over a celebrity they will be able to manipulate the celebrity to say good thing about their brand and face denying their freedom and their rights basically making him a pun in their game but if they have no control the celebrity will say anything he likes about a company tarnishing his the company name and history making the celebrity happy and the company sad basically the other way round of total control over celebrity but if they have some control over the celebrity it would be a 50 50 split making the company happy and celebrity happy protecting each other’s right free and fair making it easy for celebrity and companies to get along allowing rest and freedom of mind for all this is why terms during agreement are made
I think...
The relationship between a celebrity and a brand often involves a contractual agreement where the celebrity becomes the "face" of the brand. While the specifics can vary, it's common for such contracts to include clauses regarding the public behavior and statements of the celebrity. However, I think the extent of control depends on the terms.....
Brand Image
Professional Conduct
Endorsement Agreement
Social Media Presence
It's crucial for such agreements to respect individuals' rights, including freedom of speech and personal autonomy. At last I think think that the brand should not control what celebrity do or say in public.
Thank you.
I believe the brand should have some control, or moderate control over the celebrity.
The celebrity is the face of the brand. If people actually got attracted to the brand BECAUSE of the celebrity, then any statement made by the celebrity or any of his/her actions would affect the demand for the product on a mass-basis...
Thus, the business must have the right to decide what comments can be made publicly about the particular product or the brand, and legally prohibit any actions that may be harmful for the business.
However, it should not have full control over the celebrity. The celebrity is just a face of the business, not even an employee. the business will have no right to intervene in his/her personal of professional matters.
For eg: If Miley Cyrus becomes the face of a Strawberry Lip-Balm producing company, the company will have no right to dictate whom she can sign up with, date or any other personal or professional matters. It can only exercise control up to legally prohibiting her from bad-mouthing or defaming strawberry lip-balms, the company or any of it's related matters.
Hence, I believe a business should have some control on a celebrity, for it's own well-being, but not complete control for the sake of the celebrity's freedom.
Personally,
I feel like the businesses should have control of the celebrities when it has to do something about their brand if what ever they are saying doesn't affect th brand they shouldn't get involved cause at the end of day they are humans with different opinions about things
That doesn't justify that celebrities should be matured about what they say cause at the end of day they are role models to youths of today
I chose that the brand shouldn't have any control over the celebrities because the celebrity is a human being and is no different from the CEO of the brand. Just because the celebrity signed a contract with the brand doesn't mean they gave the controls of their lives to the brand, no, the celebrities still have the control of their individual lives. So, they can say whatever they want in public. What they agreed to in the contract should be that the say good things about the brand, they use the brand, and they fight (not physically) for the brand (except in the case that something is wrong with the brand, or the celebrity does like or want to use the brand).
I think if A celebrity is promoting a brand or endorsing it, He/she should be highly specific with what they say in public because these people nowadays are highly influential. A mere statement of these people is taken very seriously by the youth and even the aware social media users . For example Akshaya Kumar an highly influential actor promotes healthy and clean life but when he advertised for the tobacco related products he saw a great fall in his fan following and vimal also faced criticism . here the celeb handled more damage but when in times of corona celebs were promoting the use sanitizers and soaps even as social campaigns lead by big pharma companies but when these celebs were affected by corona he public rose a question that the guy who gives us advice to be safe and take precautions is only an patient , so are the products bad or the celeb does not use them . defaming both at great level.
I believe that The 'face' of the brand should be in little control of the brand.But at first the brand should choose the celebrity who's gonna be the face of the brand by the celebrities maturity,smartness not only through their popularity.The face of brand should know how to choose the right words at the right time.
But if the celebrity does something stupid that can haunt the brand then the brand should obviously break bonds with the celebrity.Not only how celebrities behave determine the brands reputation but it also goes vice versa..
For example:Recently there was a rumors circulating regarding Balenciaga.The brands reputation fall down and the celebrities using the brands product were also criticized.
So both brand and the face of the brand should have control in themselves.
I picked (B) because I completely agree that the brand should have some control over the celebrity they choose to partner with after all the celebrity actions and behavior can reflect directly on the brand and its image The brand needs to have a say in things like messaging, tone, and overall conduct to ensure that the partnership is a positive and mutually beneficial one.
The topic of whether or not brands should have control over the celebrity, who is the face of their brand is very controversial. Many believe they shouldn't have control, on the other hand, many believe they should. Some people are indecisive though and may believe companies should have some control over the celebrities that are the face of their brand. I personally believe companies should not. The thought of companies having control of celebrities is a bit concerning and confusing to me. I believe companies should not because celebrities should be able to do what they want to do, they should not have to lose that privilege due to being face of a brand, the privilege should not be taken away. For example, a brand may take their privilege to wear certain clothes. The brand shouldn't be able to do that as it's the celebrities body, not their, their clothes shouldn't be their concern unless they wear it during advertisements, the brand should be able to stop them, but unless it's worn during advertisements, brands should not be able to control. Celebrities should have rights such as,
- Freedom of speech
- The right to wear what they desire
- The right to have privacy
Some of the listed rights and freedoms were taken away from celebrities. The brand should not be able to take away their rights, sadly, some brands have already done those actions. According to "Wikipedia", it states that there is no current federal law to ensure celebrities right of privacy shows that they no longer have privacy. The information shows that they have lost some freedom. Another reason why brands shouldn't be able to control the celebrities is because though they are the face of the company, they should still be able to say what they want to say, companies shouldn't be able to control that. Sometimes, bad or negative stuff is needed to be said by celebrities. For example, paparazzi or citizens may be harassing or assaulting the celebrity, they should be able to stand up for themselves, they shouldn't accept the fact they are being harassed or assaulted. The idea of companies having control over celebrities is somewhat cruel, celebrities should be able to do what they want to do, as long as it isn't illegal, they should be able to say what they want to say, dress how they want to, and have privacy, but sometimes, companies and brands take those rights away. Overall, companies shouldn't have control as it is somewhat cruel, I understand if people say companies should have little control, there are many reasons to back that stance up, but companies having full control is wrong and should not be done.
I feel they can have some control because no matter how it attracts fame and recognition, being the brand of the company, the celebrity in question is still a human being with a life of his or her own as much as that have a standard to keep up they should be able to be themselves. On the other hand, he/she should still be conscious of how the public sees them, the fact remains that they decided and agreed to hold a responsibility and they should try and keep to it. That being said I agree that the other should be some control
I chose B, they have some control because they can't fully own and control them. If they have full control the business might push the "face" too hard causing them to not want to be the "face" anymore. I think they can have some control like, being on time, uniform for work, and how to do the job. A celebrity is a normal person so you have to treat them like one.
Hi guys,
I want to tell you my opinion about the question above. I think that if the celebrity doesn’t want to do or say anything in public they don’t have to do anything. It should be up to that person and no one can force them. There was once a time when my friend asked me to show them a chin stand. I kept on telling them I don’t want to do it and in the end they stopped bothering me.If someone says no they don’t need to tell you why.I think that only you can boss you. No one can tell you what to do except for yourself.
Thanks for reading!
If a celebrity is the face of a brand it is obvious for the brand to be more successful but the actions the face of the brands do also may make some changes in the reputation of the brand. We all know that brands make different agreements among the ambassadors or the faces.
However ,the control the brand has depends on the agreement. But I personally think that the brand should not have all control over them as they don't have any rights to completely control someone.
Thank you
I believe that the company of the brand should have a little bit of control over the celebrity that is promoting their product. For starters, if a country has total control over the celebrity, the people watching the celebrity are seeing the company's personal opinion on the product, not the celebrity's opinion. In addition, it's well known that celebrities read scripts that the companies make for them to promote the product that they have created. When they do this they can sell more units of the product. When the company has total control of the celebrity, they get to control everything that the celebrity does. If they get total control this will be very wrong since celebrities are just normal humans with intense fame, meaning they have all the rights the normal human being has. Companies that have little control of the celebrities can control what they wear in the advertisement making them more appealing in ads to promote the product. Meaning companies/brands should have little control over the celebrities.
Hello! I chose option B. I believe that a brand should minimally control the "face" of business. This is because if a business has zero control over the "face" of their business that celebrity may begin to say disrespectful things or do outrageous things in public. This would overall hurt the entirety of the business. However, if a business has total control of what the "face" or celebrity says, people may start to notice patterns in their actions or their speaking. Local customers might figure out what the business and doing to that person. People may boycott the business, also resulting in damage to the businesses economy. This is why I believe that businesses shouldn't have complete control over the "face" but also not any control over them.
I believe that brands that have the "face" of a celebrity shouldn't have entire control over what a celebrity may do or say in the public eye because it is quite unfair for celebrities, these "faces" of the brand are what is the main focus, therefore they should have the rights and freedom to be able to make their honest opinions or ideas, whether it's problematic for some or not. It'd also be unfair if their viewpoints and opinions don't match up with the brand, that'd be lying to the public and themselves, which can cause controversy.
Hi!
I think the brand should not have a control over the face of the brand but some terms and conditions should be informed before making a deal with the face of the brand so that there is no issue in the upcoming project. And if the individual celebrity agrees with the terms and conditions of the brand then the brand's can have a control on them regarding specific conditions.
For example:- Media always ask questions to the celebrity regarding their brands. And if by chance they spill anything which had not to be told and it is against the brand's terms and conditions then they should give some penalty or what the brand's want like an apology or something.
HELLO!
I believe the brand should have no control over the celebrity or his or her private life. But if the celebrity is trying to defame the company, I think they have all the right to control what the celebrity does in public.
THANK YOU!
I chose option B because if the company has total control over the celebrities the celebrity will not get any free time. After all, the company will take advantage of that celebrity for he always does things to improve their brand. and if the company has no control over the celebrity the celebrity will not do their responsibility to improve their brand, but if the company has some control over the celebrity, the celebrity will do his part and the company will do their part.
Thank you.
I choose the option "B" that brands should have some control over the face of the brand. A Brand’s image reflect on it’s ambassador's behaviour. If the face of the brand behave bad in person, it will cause a great loss to the brand. They also have a market strategy to increase the brand’s value by using celebrities as their brand's face. So, they want to control their works. For an example, Adidas remove Kanye West after he made some anti-Semitism remark which leads to an uproar on social media. If the brand have a control over the face of the brand’s public appearance and their behaviour in front of media, they can maintain their brand's reputation.
But it is important to note that, brand should have a collaborative relation with their ambassador. They shouldn’t interfere on their personal life freedom. They should maintain their public and personal appearance while upholding the brand’s pride.
I believe that they should have some control over the things that the"face of the brand" does.Example what if the celebrity decides that they don't like something that the brand is doing they should be allowed to change what they want and talk how they want when being the face of the brand.The celebrity will not want to be controlled as much if they are the source of the fame that the brand has.So, In conclusion I totally believe that they shouldn't have that much control over a human being.
I chose that businesses should have some, but not total control over their faces, also known as brand ambassadors, because as brand ambassadors, despite having rights to freedom, also have a responsibility to preserve the good reputation of whichever brand they represent. As ambassadors, they were employed for publicity, to improve the status of the business. If, as brand ambassadors, they do something that soils the reputation of the business, then it could be a major setback to the brand.
Brand faces influence what the public think or say about the brand they represent. If they do something bad, it may cause the public to have a negative disposition towards the brand, hence the need for some, not utter, control.
I feel that all this should be specified in the contract that the "face" signs with the brand. Terms and conditions that both protect the ambassador's rights and benefit the business positively should be created. During the agreement, the brand face should be made to know that although the position could be very beneficial to them, they should bear in mind that they are in the public eye and that whatever they do would be closely monitored, hence the need to be of sound character.
Some celebrities have gotten fired for exhibiting in tolerable behaviour while endorsing a brand, like in October 25, 2022, when Adidas fired Kanye West over Anti-Semitic comments and the controversy they sparked across the world. No brand wants their reputation tarnished, which is why they should have some but not total control over the actions of their face.
The brand should have no control over the celebrity in order to maintain authenticity. It is important for celebrities to maintain their individuality and express themselves freely in order to remain authentic to their audience. Additionally, it is important for celebrities to have the freedom to speak out on issues that are important to them, even if these issues may not align with the brand. By allowing celebrities to be themselves, the brand can benefit from the celebrity's authenticity and personality, which can help create a deeper connection with the audience.
I believe that the brand should have some control over what celebrities say. Most celebrities sign a contract to become the face of the brand. A clause should be in the contract that states they have some control over what celebrities say. Reputation of a business is very key to their success, if the face of the brand says something that most people do not agree with the company behind the face gets backlash which could lead to boycotting.
I'm not sure about this because some brands can also be awful and despicable. Yes, it is a good point to bring up that some celebrities could say something that leads to backlash, but it doesn't mean the brand cannot do this either. For example, some idols have received backlash for acting a certain way or doing something when they have absolutely no control over it as their company / brand dictates their actions. Most companies deceive the idols by not putting specific things into the contract, so it is not entirely the idol's fault either.
I agree because... brands have expectations, it is important to find a balance between control and personal freedom. Collaboration and communication are key in maintaining a successful partnership while protecting the brand's reputation and values.
I think that the brand can only take some control over the celebrity because if the things that the celebrity are saying in public are about the brand, then the brand can take some control on the celebrity. In the celebrity's personal life, I don't think that the brand should take control over the celebrity because They are also human beings and they can't always let other people control them.
Thank you!
I think that the brands should not have complete control but some sort of control over the celebrity. But honestly, this matter is a complex issue with valid points on both sides that is the side of having complete control and that of allowing the celebrities to have freedom of acting however they want. On one hand, the brands want to make sure that the celebrities they partner with maintain a particular status and image that coincides with the values and status of their brand . But then, these celebrities are also people with their own individual and personal endeavors and lives and they also need their freedom and respect for their individuality. I believe that every person that reviews a brand should be truthful and honest about what they say cause if not people won't believe what the person say which can cause a conflict between the people and the brand.
They might also face legal action from the company that hired them, or from the consumers who bought the product based on their recommendation. On the other hand, if a brand fails to deliver on its promises or obligations to a celebrity, they might damage their reputation and image in the industry. They might also lose the opportunity to work with other celebrities in the future, or face lawsuits from the celebrity or their agents. In any case, breaking an agreement is not a smart move for either party, as it can have negative consequences for both their finances and their fame.
Businesses should not have complete control over a celebrity's face because celebrities have the right to control how their image is used commercially. Allowing businesses unrestricted control could lead to endorsement of products or services that don't align with the celebrity's brand, damage their reputation, and lead to legal consequences for the unauthorized use of their likeness. Respecting a celebrity's autonomy and legal rights is essential in these situations as well as if your business is getting quite known with their face just pay them more no need for control over them...
thankyou
I believe should have some control when the celebrity does something perhaps in their contract or promotions for the company but not actions out of the the partnership like actions to do with their public image other companies or personal actions.
People must also recognise that celebrity's can be used to draw customers to buy the companies products
I believe that when celebrities endorse a product or even be the face of a brand, the company is putting an immense worth of trust into them. I think that the company should have somewhat control of the celebrity because it is THEIR business that the celebrity is agreeing to represent.
The way I see it businesses often choose celebrities as the face of there business to reap the benefit from there fan following and by getting in touch with a new customer base whereas a celebrity also gets a fixed charge as income for promoting the business. Both of them are benefitted creating a symbiotic relationship. However every coin has 2 sides, getting associated with a person or brand means that there actions can also have a negative impact on your own self either a person or a firm. The perfect example of this is how recently Marvel Studios decided to cancel their contract of casting Jonathan Majors due to some charges alleged on him. Another famous example is how Coca Cola suffered a loss of 4billion dollars just because Ronaldo kept aside two coca cola bottles during a press conference. These examples imply that a celebrity have a large influence on a business and therefore BUSINESSES SHOULD HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER THE CELEBRITY however it should also be kept in mind that they are independent individuals and therefore complete control over their public actions is not desirable.
In my opinion when a famous brand choose a celebrity to " sell " their product, they aren't able to control them, even if I think that some control is needed. In any case , brands as we have seen nowadays when they notice that their face of the brand says something racist or offensive, they stop the cooperation with them as they believe that this will do harm on their business.
So even If some control is needed, in reality business will choose what benefits them most.
I think brands should have some control over the celebrity. Not total control, but some. I've seen cases where a celebrity can't use certain products due to their partnership/association with their brand, which is reasonable. However with these partnerships, celebrities can't even live normally without having to make several videos, posts, and different other media. While this is a way to promote businesses worldwide, it can really take a toll on these celebrities lives and how they live.
Hello!
I chose the option of brands not having control over their celebrities this is because the celebrities should have a say alongside the brands for the following reasons:
1. FREEDOM: This falls to the advantage of the face of the brand because if the celebrity is not allowed to have a say in that organisation and is restricted to doing some things he/she enjoys doing, he/she will feel like the business is only being used to gain profit and nothing more, this makes the celebrity to leave the business because he/she is just useless in the running of that company and may decide to leave, which makes the business to fail, but if the celebrity is given an opportunity to have a say in the running of affairs of that company, he/she might be able to give good suggestion which helps the business to grow.
2. PROBLEM PREVENTION: I think that the companies should still be given little rights over the celebrity in the aspect of social media because some of the celebrities may misbehave and begin to say bad things about other people and companies for different reasons, a very good example is Kanye West who lost his collaborations with Balenciaga, Adidas, and Gap over his social media post which was antisemitic and also in support of Adolf Hitler who started the Second World War which led to the killing of many people globally. This is a typical example of a company having some rights over their celebrities so as to avoid problems with other people and consumers.
In conclusion, I think that the business should have control over some affairs of the celebrity because of freedom and problem prevention.
THANK YOU.
I totally disagree, the brand should not take control of the face of the brand. However, talking from ethical perspective, I believe it should be a matter of mutual consent between the brand and the celebrity. At the onset of paper signing, if the clause in the agreement contain that the brand will take control of all what the celebrity says and does henceforth, then the terms of agreement should be held in high priority by the celebrity. Otherwise, the brand has no control because the celebrity is human too and humans deserve some level of freedom.
I think the brand should not have total control over the brand face because the brand face is rendering a service while in return the brand have to pay for this service
The agreement between the two parties doesn't have to trespass the brand face personal life thereby restricting him/ her from what he says or does in public. Although it can positively or negatively affect the brand.
I think that and I believe that Using celebrities as the "face" of a brand can help to make a business or product more well known – and therefore more popular. If some normal people who don't have to much fan following if they do advertisement about some product or brands .The product and brand would not famous immediately and people's wouldn't believe that product or brand.
If we replace celebrities in place of that normal advertiser The brand and products would be famous immediately and people's would also believe that same product or brands immediately. From their would be benefits to brand and products.
The brand should have some control over what the celebrity does or says, as nobody wants to be know with a bad reputation. For example, if the celebrity was a very famous person, you would want them to be the face of your brand for a long time, unless you find someone else.You could tell them what to do while listening to their ideas on what they will perform or say. Also, some people might not like some things about that celebrity, so you could report it to them and explain that you need them to take constructive criticism and build off of it. And sometimes they will stay with you for a long time so you'll be able to know more about them and what their fans like seeing from them and how their daily routine is. So I think the company that has the face of a celebrity should be responsible with the power they have, but they should have a little bit of control.
Hello;
I think If a celebrity is the “face” of a brand, should the brand be able to control . But, not fully.For example When a band is advertised by a celebrity. Maybe the product quality of that brand increases a bit. But this is temporary and only for fans of that celebrity. If the celebrity gives a bad comment about the product, its value goes down a bit and if the celebrity gives a good comment it goes up a bit. However, the brand's product production, product supply, product quality and pricing remain with the brand.
I am not saying that only celebrity or only brand is able to control. I just want to say that they both is able to get control. Because they can both increase the demand for the company's product. This increases the company's chances of profit many times.
Thanks.
I don't believe that a brand should hold total control over the brand's face. That's because the celebrity isn't its muppet. Although the celebrity might have signed a contract that may allow the brand to tell them what to do, it is not humanlike. Taking advantage of someone, just because you can is not alright. The celebrity might have different opinions than the brand, but it doesn't mean that they must be changed. People have the right to different points of view. Something that could be done to avoid scandals as a brand is to make sure you have similar beliefs with the famous person, before hiring. If you haven't realized the difference in your opinions at the beginning, then I recommend you try and have a talk with them.
Being the face of a brand means that you are there to support the brand and make publicity. However, I believe that the brand should also support the celebrity. I think that it is supposed to be a close and friendly partnership. Both the brand and the one representing it should feel at ease when the other is speaking publicly. The brand should not shame the celebrity and the celebrity should not say anything that affects the brand. Balance is crucial in such matters. If proper collaboration isn't possible, then I think that the brand should simplify just end it and find another person that fits their expectations. I think that finding just the right person to represent the brand is the key to this matter.
I believe that when a famous person is chosen to be the face of a brand, the brand wants to make sure that this person acts in a way that doesn't make the brand look bad. So, the brand might want to give some guidance to the celebrity about what they should or shouldn't do or say when they're in public. This is because the brand wants to stay popular and have a good reputation. It's like when you're in a team, and everyone needs to work together to make sure the team does well. Similarly, the brand and the celebrity need to work together to make sure the brand stays popular and respected.
Hello everyone,
As the “face” of a brand, a celebrity plays a vital role in shaping public influencing consumer behavior. However, it is important to bang a balance between preserving the individuality and originality of the celebrity and protecting the brand’s image. While brands may apply some control over what the celebrity does and says in public, it is crucial to respect their personal opinions, freedom of voicing, and maintain transparency. Collaborating with a celebrity should be a jointly beneficial partnership where both gathering range on values and ethical standards. Ideally, the brand should provide instructions and have open communication with the celebrity to ensure their actions and statements align with the brand’s overall messaging. This collaborative process allows for a positive brand image union and the preservation of the celebrity reliability and genuinely.
Thank you!!!! 🙏
I think that a brand should have no control, this is because of the fact that if a business is sure of the quality of their products, they do not need to control the celebrities, also if there is a misunderstanding between the company and the celebrity, the celebrity should not act out based on emotions, but they should rather resolve the issue and say the truth on the quality of the product.
I think the people should have no control over them because it could ruin their image. The fans who support the celebrity could decide to post vlogs on why people should not buy their items and could gather some other fans too help protest and share the news. And besides, I think that they would be the ones begging the celebrities to be on the face of their brand which would attract more customers Example" wow the product is so good to the extent that a celebrity is on the face of the brand. We are definitely getting it."
I believe that the brand should have partial control over the face of the brand because if the brand had total control over the person then if the face was reviewing something like a rival company to the face of the brand’s then what they say about it might not be true.
But if the face is being paid by the company then it might be different because the celebrity/person (face of the brand) are being paid to advertise the company’s products in a good way and if they do not then they might be breaking their contract/side of the agreement which I think is utterly wrong.
I am going to agree with you on this topic. The second a celebrity steps into a position where they are the face of a brand it becomes a partnership between them and the company. This partnership requires both of them to hold up their side of the arrangement.
If the 'face' of the company does something immoral in a public or private forum then the brand should reserve the right to stop working with them. Let's take Sharon Stone as an example, she was the face of the majority of Christian Diors advertisements before she implied an earthquake in China was karma for their past actions. As a result of this insensitive comment, Dior decided to stop working with her so they were no longer associated with her past or further comments.
However, it goes both ways if a brand does something the celebrity finds dishonourable then they should also have the right to stop working with them so their own image isn't destroyed along with the brand.
So as a result of this, both the brand and the celebrity should have partial control over the other. Not one or the other should have more or less control the power should be equal when putting out advertisements to grow the brand.
I don't think that if a celebrity is the "face" of a brand the brand should not be able to control everything they do/say.I think this is because that everyone should be entitled to their own opinion.Also, I think they should be able to kinda control what they say but they should have to have them sign a contract and they should put it in the contract.Only time I think a brand should be able to control what they do/say is if they are doing a commercial.
I believe that a brand can have control over a celebrity when they work together to promote a product because they make a special agreement called a contract. In this contract, the brand can set some rules for the celebrity to follow. These rules are important because they make sure the celebrity represents the brand in a positive way and says good things about it.
In my opinion, if the brand doesn't have control over the celebrity, the celebrity could say negative things about the brand, and people might believe them since they are the face of the brand. This could lead to fewer people supporting the brand, and the quality of the business might suffer.
Therefore, I agree that it's important for the brand to have control over the celebrity to protect its reputation and ensure a positive image. Thank you!
I don't think a company should have complete control over a celebrity. If a celebrity was getting paid money, you would guess that they would not say anything to get canceled in order to continue getting paid. Also, if a company had full control of a celebrity, how would you be able to know if anything the celebrity is saying is true? Well, you wouldn't. If a brand had absolutely no control over a celebrity, the celebrity could run wild and say whatever they wanted!
In my opinion, any brand which is hiring a celebrity for promotion should in the beginning have an interview or discussion with the celebrity about how they truly feel about the brand . And if the celebrity has a good opinion about that particular brand, they should be made the face. In this way, the celebrity would not be controlled by the brand about what to speak and what not to and, at the same time, the brand won't face any losses as they have chosen a person whom they can trust in terms of speech. So, in a nutshell, only those celebrities who truly are in favor of a brand should be chosen as the representative. Thank you
According to me- If a celebrity is the "face" of a brand, the brand sometimes should be able to control what they do and say in public because- Brands are important company assets. If the brand is the star, then the celebrity will be the spotlight. Hence, while hiring a celebrity to endorse a brand, company should take mini-interviews to understand the review of celebrity towards the brand.
For example:- If a celebrity is endorsing the brand for just the sake of a few bucks, then fans can quickly turn into vicious critics, if the celebrity does something that's not in sync with their professional beliefs.
Therefore, brands should select celebrities who represent the image and acts as an agent and promoter, while keeping in mind brand's reputation and maintaining the audience's trust. It turns out that even though viewers aren't viewing at the product as much, the celebrity is still building consumer's confidence.
Brands should not completely control the celebrity just because they work for them. Celebrities are also humans and if they know how to maintain transparency and balance between freedom and their job but in a considerate manner, they may help brands stand out from the surrounding clutter. This will create a harmonious agreement between both the brand and the celebrity to work unitedly.
Thank you.
In my opinion, I would choose option B which is the brand should have some control over the celebrity.
I think this option is correct because of the following reasons-
The brand should have some control over the celebrity because if the brand has total control over the celebrity then it wouldn't be fair because even celebrities are human beings, they deserve to live a bit freely. So the company should have a bit of control over the celebrity. The rules would be related to that the celebrity should maintain their respect or image. The rules can also be told to the celebrity before he or she joins the brand. There should be rules for these things as the celebrity is the face, the representative of the brand. If something wrong happens it could start a business disaster and the companies would be ruined.
Thank You
I think that the brand shouldn't have TOTAL control over the celebrity, just a bit of control is fine. I mean, The celebrity has their own life, and if the brand has too much in control, it wouldn't be called control anymore, just plain invasion of privacy. Still, some control is important, because if the celebrity says something wrong in public, the brand will suffer losses, which might be hard to recover from. So, this is why I believe that the brand should have a little bit of control.
According to me the brand should have some control over celebrity the brand should take the celebrity who are in favor of that brand for example if a celebrity says something for the brand but the public did not like that so the brand will have suffered loss. so the brand will take a better celebrity and the brand should take various interview and should have some control over celebrity but not total control over celebrity cause they are also people they know what is right and what is wrong
Thank you !
I believe brands should have some control on celebrity because celebrities have their own life and their life controlled by a brand does not make any sense but if a brand is paying them huge amount they should have some control on them . If a celebrity is advertising a product which is harmful for human body the fans of the particular celebrity will try it or use it will harm there body from this the company can also go in loss . it means that a celebrity should not forget his or hers faith for money .
thank you!
Greetings to all,
In my perspective, I go with option B that states-"The brand should have some control over the celebrity" because I think that if the brand is displaying the product likely to be wonderful but actually it is not then the customers would not have any trust on that particular brand and it could also deteriorate the reputation of the celebrity, as it sells fake products. For example, if I am a owner of a brand and I am confident about my product then only I can display the product to the customers.
Thank you
The company should have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL because the celebrity is one man unlike the company which has thousands of employees and if the company has total control then the celebrity would have no privacy and then he will just quit altogether and the company would suffer massive losses.
In my opinion the brand don't have a total control over the celebrity but some they have sort of control they do have.
Because , Like Amitabh Bachchan is the ambassador of Cadbury Dairy Milk and other celebrity like Priyanka Chopra is the face of Pepsi . In this way, the celebrity have to follow some rules like saying always positive about the brand and are not allowed to say something negative about that.
Thank You
Good day Everyone,
I believe in the brand having some amount of control over the celebrity. As the celebrity is now the face of a brand, I think there should be some amount control because from now on whatever the celebrity says will also be at some point a representation of the company. There are lot times when the companies faced great loss because of the scandals related to the celebrity. To not be a part of these type of scandals the company should beforehand only choose celebrities who are interested in their brand and in the stuff, they are selling. As it might cause great financial lose and the public appearance of the company might be ruined. But it's not always the fault of the celebrity sometimes the company might be related to a scandal which may also ruin the public appearance of the celebrity. So, think there should be an amount of control over the celebrity by the company.
Thank you
thoughtful_significance
Good Day Everyone,
According to me, the brand should have partial control over the celebrity as they are just the face of the brand, not the owner and that they have their own life to live and so cannot be under the brand's control all the time. Although, if the celebrity says anything bad about the brand, the brand gets demoted and followers may boycott the brand completely, which is something we do not want. If the brand has some control, then there is a rare chance of such a situation happening. Thus I support option B.
Thank You!!!
According to my opinion = if a celebrity do advertisements of a brand . The brand will get more following , liking and money .
for ex = there is a brand name red bull if a celebrity like Rock of WWE , if he do advertisements of red bull , people in public will think that Rock get energy by red bull, so the public will buy more and more red bull to get energy like Rock .
I AM THINKING that the brand should give some control to the celebrity because if he say about that product
is good but if he don't like a thing about it so the brand will say to not say the disliked thing .
So this means that brand should have some control on celebrity
I agree that the brand should have some control over the celebrity to avoid the activity that public doesn't likes . It also depends on the character and nature of the celebrity . Besides , the company should use a celebrity that is in their favor . For example :
If a company uses a celebrity with a huge fan come , there would be growing satisfaction between the people and would use its products . So , the brand would gain a huge profits .
THANK YOU !
Good day everyone ,
I think that a company shouldn't have control over the celebrity because if the celebrity advising the product and that product is harmful for peoples it may destroy the reputation of the particular ambassador and if the product is good for people ,it can grow up the market and make in profit ,so it is about the words of the particular ambassador that what they telling about the particular product and the product is good for the people. But i don't support the brand which make fake products and harm the people .
The brand should have some control over the celebrity:
like Aishwarya Rai is the face of loreal Paris and other celebrities who are brand ambassadors of companies. I agree with option B "The brand should have some control over the celebrity" because if they have total control over him/her they would make fake advertisement telling fake facts about their products or if they have no control over the celebrity he/she would have told the truth and it would have disturbed the company's reputation . So i suggest every company should be true to their ambassador and not lie about their product's specifications.
thank you
I believe that that the brand should have control on the face of the brand at some points, like if the celebrity have signed the contracts with the brand and the celebrity says something which is not good for the brand and leads to bad reputation of the brand then who will be responsible for that ? So for this, the brand should have control at what the celebrity says about "the brand and its product or services" , not fully control over the celebrity because they have their personal life too. so all I want to tell is that the brand should have the control over the things which can affect the relation between the brand and celebrity.
Yes, I agree with the point that "The brand should have some control over the celebrity" because it's beneficial for both of them, see as the celebrity grows the brand grows with it and vice versa. If a celebrity does a advertisement of a brand it will provide him/her with increased perceptibility in the fashion world and a increase in his/her popularity.
Where on the other hand the brand gets what it needs and that is increase in production, demand of the product and promotional power. See if it has so many advantages than some boundaries should be made to respect both the parties like a 'Long term contract' which will ensure the celebrity's trust in the brand and protect him/her from overexposure that further leads to celebrity shaming in future. The brand should be allowed to have a check on celebrity's public relations as it can affect the brand's image ,dragging both of them to nothingness.
I think the business should have some control over that celebrity because in a case where the business has total control over the celebrity it might look like he/she is facing slavery because he/she is not allowed to do anything that she even like but when there's lack of control the celebrity can end up portraying the business in another way.
If a celebrity is endorsing a brand, it can make the brand more famous and liked by people. But, if the celebrity does or says something that the public dislikes, it can harm the reputation of the brand. So, it is important to choose the right celebrity who is well-liked and respected by the public. This way, the brand can benefit from the celebrity's popularity and positive image.
Greetings
First of all, a business requesting a celebrity to be the face of their brand would of course be given terms and conditions from the celebrity.
Being the face of a brand is a really tough task if we look at it carefully.
The brand is more or less restricting that celebrity movements.
One of the way the brandnus restricting the celebrity movements is t that the celebrity can't be the face of another brand .
And also in a lesser perspective,if the celebrity does some inappropriate behaviour,another brand wouldn't want that celebrity to be the face of their business,more or less destroying that celebrity career.
I sincerely believe that a brand should control the way the movement of the celebrity in order to keep the celebrity from sabotaging their business as long as the celebrity consent.
Hey there! I totally get what you're saying. Being the face of a brand comes with a lot of responsibility and restrictions. It's important for both the brand and the celebrity to have clear terms and conditions to protect each other's interests. If a celebrity represents multiple brands, it might dilute their image and impact. And yes, inappropriate behavior can definitely harm a celebrity's career and tarnish the brand's reputation. So, it's all about finding a balance and ensuring everyone's on the same page.
If a celebrity is a face of a brand they shouldn't be control they should be able to do what they want, they are people and I think sometimes people forget that and they shouldn't be control about what they do or say in public and yes I think they should promote the brand they are the face off but not be control
In my opinion I think a person has some control of a celebrity in the safe of the Brand. Brands often involve celebrities to showcase products and influencers to recommend them to draw attention immediately and establish brand awareness. Influencers and opinion leaders can generate buzz around a company, increase exposure, and attract more people. If the celebrity is well- known then, then the star needs to lead a good reputation in order of attracting customers. If the "face" of the company does leads to bad reputation people will boycott the brand and lose money because consumers do not want the "face" to get payed, after their questionable actions.
But celebrities are still people they make mistakes.,
Celebrities become overexposed. At the height of popularity, they endorse over ten companies at once. Celebrities can overshadow brands. Consumers may focus on the celebrity, not the product. The study on marketing psychology yielded two significant findings: People are more likely to choose products that are endorsed by a celebrity rather than a non-celebrity, and they make that choice faster. Companies that have a face of their brand they will earn much more money than those without.
But celebrities are still humans, companies having control of people's lives causes severe mental health issues while they manipulate with their "owned Celebrity."
Some great ideas here! You mention a study on marketing psychology – what are your sources?
Hi, I believe that the country has no rights to completely control the words of the celebrity instead, they should sign a Memorandum or a contract with them to prevent them from saying things that can adversely affect the reputation of the company. The contract should a contain a clause stating that ' If the words of the celebrities cause negative effects to the economy or the reputation of the company, The contract or the deal with the celebrity shall be terminated'. Therefore, I am not in favor of the brand in the case of completely controlling the celebrity. Thank you.
My belief is that the brand should have some control over the celebrity because if the brand has more control the celebrity probably wouldn't get all of the credit, for lets say, modeling for the company, and they give them no credit for the work. If the brand was no control the celebrity can tarnish the company's named brand by say false thing about the brand when they get tired of it or even going as low as canceling the brand or even the company itself with the things celebrities can do these day. I wouldn't dare try to take all the credit but rather have a little.
Having read your comment I don't really agree with your point as celebrities are individuals lending their name to a brand for a fee, therefore the control remains with the celebrity as the face for the advertisement.
Yes i see what you mean but, some celebrities have the power to do whatever that individual wants to do depending on the celebrity. Like Kim Kardashian, she can do what she pleases because of her family history. Think about Beyonce its the same thing. But brands do have control over that celebrity no matter what it's still that brands product so that celebrity would still have to respect it.
yes but a celebrity like kim kardashian is a individual human being and should not be having someone controling her by other individual human beings
Hi topical talkers!
When a celebrity represents a brand, it's like a team effort. The brand can give suggestions on how to behave publicly, but too much control can hurt the celebrity's reputation. It's better for the brand to trust the celebrity's choices while offering advice when necessary.
Thank you!!
Unique advertising and strong marketing is the core of any successful business model , where advertising plays a crucial role in impacting the customer and boost the sales. As a human tendency we tend to follow what our favorite /famous celebrities do and try to follow and imitate them. Seeing this as an opportunity many brands hire these celebrities as the "face " of their brand and I think that neither these brands should bound them nor set them completely free and letting them do what their heart desires , because this can greatly impact the brands reputation. Any small gesture showed by these celebrities can result in great loss of the company like in one such case when the famous Portuguese football player Christiano Ronaldo declined two bottles of Coca Cola in one of the press conferences it resulted in huge loss of the brand . That's why the brands should have some harness over these celebrities.
In my view, a brand should have a certain degree of control over the celebrities who represent it. While it’s important to respect a celebrity’s personal space and freedom of expression, they’re also responsible for representing the brand’s image and values in a way that’s consistent with what the brand stands for. If a celebrity behaves in a way or says things that run in contrast to the mission of the brand, it could damage the reputation of the brand and potentially cost the brand money. For example, if the face os a health brand were to smoke in public, the brand could suffer negative publicity and even legal repercussions. In situations like these, a brand should be able to step in and make sure that the celebrity isn’t acting against their interest.
The level of control that a brand has over a celebrity should be reasonable, and it shouldn’t interfere with the celebrity’s private life or beliefs in any way. Instead, the brand and the celebirty should collaborate to set clear rules and expectations to create a mutually beneifcial relationship.
In my opinion, I believe brands should not have full control over what said celebrity says or does in public. The reason someone is a celebrity could be fame from a show or movie or maybe a book. When one does make a deal with a brand it does not mean they should the 'face' of it all the time. The ideology of this is a bit off with celebrity's having to always please the brand and promote it in everything creating their fame around the brand. If said celebrity does something bad causing them cancelled who says the company wont be dragged with them. This could ruin said image of the company losing sales so why make the celebrity in complete contol when your brand can be seprate.
I totally understand where you're coming from! It's important to maintain a distinction between a celebrity's personal life and their association with a brand. Being the face of a brand all the time can be limiting and might overshadow their individual talent or achievements. Plus, if a celebrity gets into trouble, it could definitely reflect poorly on the brand and potentially harm its reputation and sales. So, it makes sense to keep the celebrity and the brand separate to protect both parties. Thanks for sharing your opinion!
I believe that a brand shouldn't have total control over the life of whoever is the face of their brand as I view it as going against a fundamental human right. understand the need for some control as if they do something the public views as negative then that will reflect on the brand, but what I'm saying is that that can be taken to the extreme and to remove someone's autonomy, to me at least, is an affront to human nature and a testament to the greed and cruelty we are capable of
I believe that businesses should not control what celebrities do because celebrities are merely lending their name to a brand and not giving their permission for businesses to take control over them.
I disagree, I think brands should have under no circumstance should have control over celebrities even if they are reviewing a brand I think they should get to say what they think even if it isn't "nice" people should know and get to see other peoples reviews on a brand or product without it being sugar-coated or over looked by the business.
personally, i think that if you are a celebrity you have to be monitored as you could say the wrong thing and you will get cancelled
Personally, from my perspective of this topic, if businesses took full control over everything a celebrity did then this would be a huge risk for the business as celebrities are constantly in controversy and as a result the business would. Additionally this may create a downfall in the business even if they controlled the celebrity as past videos or scandals may occur so this would be a bad idea in my opinion and if I were a business I would stay far away from celebrities that may bring down my business.
me personally i think as a celebrity your actions should be monitored and not necessarily controlled, for example if Ronaldo is sponsored by Nike so he can then not go on the pitch wearing any other brands football boots.
Hi
I prefer that the brands must have some control over the celebrities because they are only the face of brands,brands must give some input as discounts and they may promote from posters too, And if some day the celebrities can criticise the brands due to which the brands can dissolve completely or else they can have a heavy loss and too, and if the advertisements can be harmful to health so their are high chances of dissolving brands because anyone can critises the brand the public also get persuade very easily and so on the brands should not also take too much of risk.
Thank you
i think that the brand should not have control over a celebrity. i think this is because they don't own that person yes they might work for them but if they don't like what that person believes in or supports then why would they hire them? The products should not be affected based on what the celebrity is doing because at the end of the day it's not that celebrity's products. I think that yes they should have some control over what they say about their products, but outside of that they should not say what a celebrity can and can't say or do.
I disagree that the brand should have total control over the celebrity. I think that the brand and the celebrity should definitely have a meeting point because the celebrity should be given a type of contract before representing the brand. The contract should list out what can and cannot be said. I definitely disagree that the brand should have absolutely no control over the celebrity because the celebrity kind of controls how many customers and how popular the brand gets.
The dream of every celebrity is to become the face of a well known company. Even if this dream come true does that mean the celebrity can do whatever he wants? I personally believe that the celebrity shouldn't have some control of what it says but neither the company should control what the celebrity says in public because the company's pays them. So, I think that the face of a brand should have some control of what says because how do we know that the company won't pay them to make positive comments for the products or express the brand's own views? That's at least my opinion.
I think that businesses should control celebtities' lives but only a little bit. That is because celebrities should be able to live their lives as they want and not being controlled all the time but at the same time businesses should control them a little so they can avoid having problems with something harmful a celebrity may sat or do and risk losing customers.
Can you explain some initiatives businesses can put in place to ensure celebrities are respectful to the businesses they represent?
hi
I want to go ahead and say why my opinion might be controversial. "people have free will and the right to choose" that is true but what if this is an item that could help our future generations, or even helping in the future like building credit and knowledge for taxes and other responsibilities. The companies can control small aspects if anything, to market this influential item with this influential host/hostess. so not all parts should be controlled but a small part can be played.
Hello,
I think the brand should not take control over it, because brand invest a lot of money and time in their celebrity support or agreement, and they must make sure each of the celebrities are representing the brand in a positive manner or way. celebrities might bring their own idea and they may feel they should be able to express themselves freely without them be controlled by the brand. The brand might also think that they need the control of the celebrities in other to protect their name and product intact. But I think it's a difficult thing for the brand to balance but a thing that the brands need to.
Thank you
How can businesses make sure celebrities positively represent the brand?
I believe that businesses should have some level of control over celebrities for several reasons. Firstly, it allows them to maintain their brand image. If a business has worked hard to establish a certain reputation, having control over a celebrity's actions and gestures can help ensure that their reputation remains intact.
Secondly, having control over a celebrity enables businesses to effectively deliver their desired message. By instructing the celebrity on what to say, businesses can ensure that their message is communicated accurately and in line with their objectives examples are munch it.
In conclusion, granting businesses some control over celebrities can be beneficial in terms of maintaining brand image and delivering the desired message. However, it is important to strike a balance between control and allowing celebrities to maintain their individuality and authenticity.
When a company chooses its face of their brand they know who and why they choose them. They are not arrogant of their choice, they know the most suitable face that will make them more profitable. So from the beginning of their cooperation it is a kind of control over them.
However this cooperation includes humans and the human element can make the celebrities react according to their beliefs and values.
It is logical to express their opinions as long as they do not express racist views or too offensive.
Brands will always put profit first and having control will always exist. So the question is not if companies need to control celebrities but if celebrities are willing to accept it.
Business refers to the activities involved in producing, buying, or selling goods or services for profit. It can include various aspects like marketing, finance and management. For the marketing of their business they hier celebrities so that their band can be well known through them and pays sum to them but at last the celebrities who are advertising the product have their personal life and can say whatever they want but as they are being paid they should bias company's rule. So,in my opinion think it's a tricky situation. While brands may want to protect their image, celebrities also have their own personal lives and opinions. It's important to find a balance between brand representation and individual freedom of the advertiser[celleb"] !!!
Hello everyone ,
According to me, If a celebrity is the face of a brand so the people who are influenced from the celebrity would start buying products from that particular brand and Its popularity would increase. I also agree that a celebrity could make a negative impact on a company like :-
DISHONESTY OR FRAUD : If the celebrity is known for misleading people or for fake promotions so the company could face a decline .
TROLL ATTACKS: Even without personal scandals a celebrity could face a lot of trolls on the social media and the online websites and this would give a negative impact on the popularity of the brand and the celebrity .
If I would own a brand and would use celebrities for promoting my brand so I would not take full control because a celebrity can also demote my brand on social media
Thank you for giving your precious time !
Greetings!,
Business is a person's occupation or profession of trade or any commercial activity. Nowadays business organizations are keeping hand on hand with celebrities as the face of brand in order to promote their business. In my opinion if the deal is confirmed by both parties then both should follow some certain rules properly. Before facing any brand,celebrities are asked whether they wanted to do that deal or not. If they agree then they should follow the rules given by the business organizations. And business organizations should take proper care whether celebrities are comfortable with option or not. Image of celebrities matters a lot in brand promotion. People are inspired by their favourite celebrities. Proper coordination between the two parties may develop the image of business.
Hey there, everyone!
I'm of the opinion that brands should have a say in how their endorsed celebrities represent them, but only within the professional sphere. Personal lives should be off-limits. As for discussing other brands within their industry, it's fair game for the brand to guide their messaging.
That's an interesting question.
On one hand, celebrities are paid to represent a brand and so should be held to a certain standard in their public image. However, celebrities are also individuals with their own personal opinions and lives, so it may be unfair to restrict their freedom of expression. I think it depends on the specific situation and how closely the celebrity's public persona is tied to the brand. What do you think?
I chose “B” because, when a celebrity is chosen as the "face" of a brand, it's important for the brand to have a degree of control over the public actions and statements of the celebrity. This is because the actions and public persona of the celebrity directly impact the brand's image and reputation. However, i think that the extent of control can vary based on the terms of the contract between the brand and the celebrity. Typically, the contract includes clauses that outline the expectations for the celebrity's public behavior and may include provisions for the brand to take action if the celebrity's actions or statements have a negative impact.
It's crucial for brands to protect their reputation, and this often requires some level of influence over the public behavior of the celebrities representing them. However, it's also important for brands to find a balance that respects the personal and professional autonomy of the celebrity while aligning with the brand's values and image. Clear communication, mutual understanding, and collaboration between the brand and the celebrity is a recommendation i think can help navigate these complexities and mitigate potential risks to the brand's reputation.
As far as I am concerned , if a celebrity is the face of a brand, the brand should gave some control over this celebrity. That's because if the face does something thatbyhe public doesn't like then the brand can come to a downfall. Especially if this celebrity does something that is totally unacceptable to the public or create feelings of detest.
Well, in my opinion the celebrity is just there to promote the product. So in their lives , they should say that they want to say not what their sponsor wants them to. If a brand doesn't want to state their own opinion about some things, them the celebrities should stop their cooperation because everybody has freedom of speech and should not be controlled by others.
Greetings,
In my opinion ,The degree of control a brand should have over a celebrity who is "face" of their brand is a complex issue . While it's understandable that a brand would want to protect its reputation,controlling every aspect of celebrity's public persona could be seen a in fringing on their personal freedom and authencity . A balance must be struct between allowing the celebrity to express themselves authentically and ensuring their action aling with brand's values a goals.This often involves clear
communication and collaboration between the brand the celebrity to establish guidelines and expectations regarding public behaviour ultimately ,the brand's reputation and the celebrity's personal brand are interconnected so mutual respect and understanding are crucial in managing this relationship effectively .
🙏"Thanks"🙏
In my opinion, companys should not control what a celebrity says or does even if they are the 'face' of the brand. Celebrities should not be restricted by a brand for working with them because not all their fame is from the brand since celebrities have worked so hard to reach where they are on their own with working hard and did this in their own intrests. If a brand chose what they do or say then the celebrity would just be known as the 'face' of the brand and is just a walking promotion for the company which is wrong and underminds the celebrities fame and achievments over years of hard work and pain for a simple contract they signed with a brand.
In my opinion the brand could have some control over the celebrity but it doesn't have the right to have total control. As soon as they pay their face of the brand, they have only the control around how its product is promoted . In other words, when a brands pays the celebrity for wearing their clothes , then they can't wear anything else in special events and that is the only control they have.
Hello
I think that the brand should have no control over the celebrity but there are some exceptions first let me say why they don't have control. Brands care about what people say about their products, but even if they can't control their celebrities only if they are one of these exceptions below.
if a celebrity has a strong contractual agreement or is a brand ambassador
Another exception is when a brand has a significant influence on a celebrity's career or image. If a celebrity relies heavily on a particular brand for endorsements, partnerships, or sponsorship deals, they might be more inclined to align with the brand's values and guidelines to maintain those lucrative connections. Additionally, some celebrities actively collaborate with brands to co-create their public persona, allowing the brand to have more control over the narrative surrounding the celebrity.
Thank you
Hi,
I think the brand should have some control over the celebrity that is the face of the brand . This is because I believe the celebrity has signed the contract to promote the business they should do that . This is if the brand is good and they are treating the deal very fairly . I do not believe they should have full control over the celebrity however because if the brand is not good or is not treating it very fairly the celebrity should have every right to make a comment on what they think of that business or brand .
I believe that brands should have basic control of how a celebrity talks about their products. It should be written in a contract, verifying that a celebrity has agreed that they will not give certain criticism of a certain product. This control only delves about the very basic opinion that celebrities have about something, the brand cannot control the celebrity's personal and professional life outside of the brand itself.
Some brands, like video games, should have no control over a celebrities personal opinion of a game, games are meant to be enjoyed and criticized.
Brands like Adidas and Maybelline hire professional celebrities as either advertisers or consumers of a specific product. So in short, these types of brands should have complete control.
So it all depends on the product and the role the celebrity is participation in.
a celebrity is to review a make up brand and the brand is in total control what the face of the brand.But honestly, this matter is a complex issue with valid points on both sides. The business can restrict a little of the celebrity's contacts with other competing businesses.the business has some control over the celebrity. The celebrity works for the business, therefore he or she must submit to the legal conditions he or she is given. Everyone should have their freedom. Afterall, it's a free world. Also just because the person is the face of the business does not mean they have to do reviews in any kind of way.These issue of seating and discussing about a brand is not their problem because they have many things ahead of them.
Hello,
In my perspective, I think that a brand should not have full control over the celebirty, it may hurt the brand's reputation but having control over the celebrity isn't an efficient way to prevent any kind of disadvantages that could lead to some kind of "bad reputation" but scripting what a celebrity has to say wouldn't be the right decision either because for example if the audience knew that what a celebrity has to say is "scripted" or "written" would make them not really as thrilled . So to solve this issue I believe that a celebrity has the right to say whatever they want as long as there is nothing that can lead to arguments with the brand itself .
Interesting take reliable_butterfly! Can you think of examples of situations where it is ok or not ok for a celebrity to be controlled by a brand?
Yes!, I would definitely love to suggest my own example.
For example, if a celebrity was controlled by a brand and that celebrity was interviewed once about their collaboration with the brand then the celebrity would be forced to say things that the brand is forcing the celebrity to say , so that means alot of things such as:
1. The celebrity would seem untruthful .
2. The brand would make lots of money from just controlling a celebrity .
3. The audience won't enjoy watching something scripted just like I explained in the previous comment .
So in my opinion, it is absolutely not ok ro controll for the sake of whether reputation, money, popularity or just appearance. At last, I would just like to say that it is not good to control people even though it's for a relevant reason. And last but not least, bear in mind that everyone can express themselves in their own way and style.
And of course thank you so much Louise @ PA for replying to my comment.
If a celebrity is the face of a brand they shouldn't have a lot of control over them. They can of course advise the celebrity the style they want to promote but they can't force them to do anything they don't want to.bthey may suggest a business plan concerning events, speeches and so on but celebrities should have their own freedom and they should expect people to like them whatever they represent.
For me, I would prefer the brand has full control over the star because the brand knew what they needed before hiring him or her to serve as the ambassador.
And if the brand have no control over the celebrity, he or she would be given the opportunity to do whatsoever he or she feels like doing and some decisions that would be made might cause the downfall of the brand.
So in summary, celebrities should only have a little control over themselves in a brand because they can bring up some ideas that will also help the brand.
I think that the brands should have some controls over the celebrities because if the brands controll the celebrities 100% the
celebrities would make fake feelings and uncertain motion. The celebrities can show real feelings if the brands didn't control in them.
For Example I like Mohamed Salah, the football player. When he makes any advertisement, I watch it and I believe it because Mohamed Salah has real feelings.
Interesting take! There is something here about the celebrity's principles and ethical considerations. Do you think there are circumstances where celebrities do not believe in a product but still advertise it?
Absolutely no,I think that the celebrities can't make an advertisement to a product without trusting a product. I believe that they must trust the product to make an advertisement to it . The idea behind celebrities endorsing products is that if fans know they use them, they are likely to use them too But if the celebrities is promoting Adidas while actually using Nike, that is just morally wrong on their part.
I think that the brand should have some control over their face but only whatever concerns their product. For example if a celebrity is a face of a big brand then the company has the right to suggest its celebrity how to promote best their clothing. They need to respect their contract both sides. However celebrities shuld be free to act as they want in their personal daily life.
I'm not sure about this because the celebrity outside of work he is a person like we are so he can make mistakes,make his own decisions and living his life without limiting.I think a little control is good but control over the face isn’t a good idea.Therefore it will be very pressing for someone not to be himself
Brands shouldn't have absolute control over reviews. Celebrity endorsers can voice differing opinions, leading to negative outcomes. It's unwise for brands to dominate endorsers' opinions. Brands who would have a celebrity as their face of brand can lead to a disconnect with consumers, causing loss in business and profits.
Hello everyone
I believe that when a celebrity becomes the "face" of a brand, there's often a contractual agreement that includes expectations regarding their behavior and public statements. However, the extent of control varies based on the terms of the contract and the nature of the relationship between the brand and the celebrity. Generally, brands seek to protect their image and reputation by influencing how their ambassadors behave in public, but the degree of control should also respect the individual's freedom of expression and personal brand. It's a delicate balance between brand representation and individual autonomy.
Thanks!
I chose that brands should not have control over their "face" of the brand, because i believe that if they have full control over the celebrity it's very unfair to them and takes their freedom away. They are people just like us and not a way to make money and I feel like if a brand has control over them, that is what it may seem like. Also, let's just say that the brand does something bad, says something bad or makes a product that is just bad. I think the "face" of the brand should be able to publicly say their honest review of the product because they shouldn't sell something that's bad. And you may say that because they are the "face" of the brand they are obligated to say what the brand wants them to say and not what they think but i think it shouldn't be like that because the celebrity has a following and i think it'd be wrong for a celebrity to lie to their followers by saying and or selling something that is just bad and that could actually lead to putting people in harm because the product is bad. This furthermore shows that if a brand has control over the celebrity, they aren't able to share their honest review and means that they could be lying to people that look up to them.
I think that if a celebrity is the face of a brand, the brand can't really control what they say or do. After all, the celebrity and the company should have good communication. If celebrities comes around telling whatever they want, they can hurt the company's public image and vice versa. In these situations balance is the key.
Hello!!
The brand should have some control over the celebrity because too much control may infuriate the person and he/she might feel controlled and treated like a kid, whereas no control at all has it's disadvantages as well; the celebrity might take advantage of the position as "face".
Thank You..!
I strongly believe that a brand doesn't own a celebrity, so they should not have much control over what they say in public. I strongly believe that a brand should know from the start, that if they are making a celebrity the face of the brand, there might be a difference of opinions. I think that in order for brands to not feel the need to control what the celebrity says, it should avoid hiring a celebrity with too many different points of view, from it. I don't think that a brand should hire a celebrity, expecting to be able to change what they think. The face of the brand is supposed to be for advertising purposes only. As for the famous person, he/she should be aware about what is written in the contract they are signing. It has happened many times, for people to get tricked, just because they didn't read the contract properly. Putting your signature on something means that you agree with the terms and conditions. You should always be careful what you agree with. It can be turned against you at any time. Even if you get paid a lot of money, losing the right to share your own opinions publicly isn't worth it. I believe that freedom of speech is one of the most important human rights. Personally, I wouldn't like people to admire me for something I don't believe in. So, I think that celebrities should be known and appreciated for their own person, not the brand's beliefs.
In my opinion, yes brands should have " some " control over their celebrities as they are the face of their business. This is because their entire brand is rooted on the way the celebrity is perceived in the public. For example, if the celebrity is disliked and receives much hate from the public so will the brand and their products. The celebrity should be controlled to some extent, because whatever she does or says will be seen and noticed by the general public and will affect the sales of the brand whether positively or negatively. If the celebrity leaves hate comments about other celebrity or is caught doing disdainful things like going and drinking in bars, over eating at events, the public might not want to buy from the brand with her face as they might feel disgusted towards her. Also the actions of the celebrities that are the face of brands should be monitored especially those revealed to the general public like what she says. For instance, on no account should as she is paid to do the job, should she make bad public comments concerning the product she is advertising as it will strongly discourage many from buying it. On the other hand, the amount of control by the company or brand should be strictly monitored as it can escalate to physical bullying, it can also lead to them putting her on hard malnourishing diets and taking away to maximum extent her freedom of speech. All these circumstances should be considered when working with celebrity brand faces as business especially ones like this can be very effective in the lives and reputation of both the brand and the celebrity.
Should a brand take control over their ambassador's decision? I say no. Lets take Hanni Pham from a musical girl group called " New Jeans" as an example. Hanni Pham is the global ambassador and the face of Gucci. She became a Gucci's global ambassador back in October 2022. Does this mean that Gucci will control every move Hanni makes in public? NO. That wouldn't be fair considering she is a human being with feelings. She may work for Gucci, but that doesn't mean that they will control Hanni. Especially since Hanni is also signed to other record labels to pursue her musical career as well. Even though Hanni is signed to other records, this doesn't mean that Gucci doesn't have at least a tiny bit of control over her. Considering the fact that she works for them, and she gets paid a good amount of money. Hanni made a deal with Gucci to be working with them, to be one of their models, to be the face of their company. She didn't sign a deal for Gucci to be controlling her EVERY move. Of course, as a 19 year old adult, she will know basic manners.
That's an interesting point. Can you provide some sources for your information?
In my opinion, I believe brands shouldn't have full control over celebrities. For example, take Hyunjin from Stray Kids. He's the global ambassador of Versace. So let's say that Versace emails Hyunjin asking him to do a photoshoot immediately but since he is from a famous korean boy group, he couldn't do it. For example, when a kpop group hits that point where they are getting millions of views and followers, they now have a lot more stuff on their to-do list. A few on that list could be doing dance practice videos, vlogs, etc. But, for Versace to keep on demanding, demanding, demanding for him to advertise some clothes or bags , while making it seem like he'll get removed from the company's 'family'. So as I stated in the beginning, brands couldn't have full control for the celebrities they are sponsoring or working on in the company.
I think that the brand should have total control over the celebrity because they are ones paying them . They pay the celebrities millions of dollars to promote their brand so they have the right be controlled by the brand so that they would not do something that would tarnish their reputation . For instance, if one of the most famous people on earth are committed to a brand and they get involved in a controversy or as so much as unconsciously represent the rivals brand, it totally crash it's stock market of the brand.
What might be some of the problems with a company controlling the actions of another person?
Some of the problems with a company controlling the actions of another person are :
*The person might be very anxious about all restrictions and commands.
* The person might have pretend to be someone they are not.
* The person might have stay away of loved ones, who endorse other brands.
All these problem and many others might cause an effect on the person's mental health and they might even sue the brand.
Some of the problems with a company controlling the actions of another person are :
*The person might be very anxious about all restrictions and commands.
* The person might have pretend to be someone they are not.
* The person might have stay away of loved ones, who endorse other brands.
All these problem and many others might cause an effect on the person's mental health and they might even sue the brand.
In my perspective, the brand shouldn't have control considering the fact that the celebrity agreed to this but not to be controlled and told what to do, the brand is the one paying the celebrity . Moreover, the celebrity is just one to get the brand fame not them needing the brand to get fame . Brands shouldn't have the right to control the celebrity's lives because once a video or a post goes publicity about a brand trying to control the celebrity life it damages the brand's social status, and there will be a huge loss in profit and the lack of chance to work with other celebrities .
Hi!
In my opinion, I think that the brand should have some control over the celebrity, the reason for this is that it is true that celebrities are also a human being and should not be restricted from doing what they want to do, but at the same time the celebrity should be cautious of what they are doing.
On a normal day, celebrities are being stalked by the paparazzi, and people are always trying to dig up nasty news about them, thus if they are representing brands, they should be more wary of what they do, what they say, and how they act. For example: a top-notch brand has great influence over society, once the face of the brand does something the public doesn't like, this can have a major toll on the brand destroying their reputation and reducing the number of people who use their products, thus reducing their profits.
Therefore, I think that brands should have some control over what the celebrities say in public.
In my opinion, The brand should have a bit of control over the celebrity because too much is too much and too less affects the brand. Humans beings love being in freedom and to take take that just feels wrong. It's essential for both parties to negotiate and agree upon these terms transparently to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts later on. Ultimately, it's a balance between protecting the brand's reputation and allowing the celebrity to maintain their authenticity and personal expression.
Thank you!
If the brand doesn't have any control over the celebrity and the celebrity does something against the favor of the public then it will have a impact on the reputation of the brand for sure. Having full control over the celebrity affects their freedom of speech and expression. And before becoming the face of a brand they will have a certain agreement with the company which includes some terms and conditions that they can't break. So too much control and no control is not good. Therefore I stand on the middle option that the brand should have some kind of control so that they can neither spill the beans nor it affects their speech and expression.
Thank you
Hey!
When a celebrity is the "face" of a brand, their actions and public statements can have a big impact on the brand's reputation. It's fair for the brand to have some control over the celebrity's public behavior, but they should also let the celebrity be themselves. They usually make an agreement that outlines what the celebrity should and shouldn't do, so that they can be sure that the celebrity is in line with the brand's values and goals. It's understandable for the brand to have some input on what the celebrity does and says, but they shouldn't be too controlling or they could come across as fake and upset both the celebrity's fans and the brand's target audience. If the brand and the celebrity have good communication and respect each other's goals, it can be a successful partnership.
I think that brands should have some control over the celebrity. Simply because it is their brand and they don't want someone going around messing up how the brand wants to promote themselves. But, the celebrity is a human being and will make mistakes and say something wrong. Also I think that if the brand chose the celebrity then they should have trust they won't say or do something that doesn't align with the brand. I don't think they should decide everything the celebrity does because they still need basic rights, but they should control some of what they do because the celebrity is a representation of the brand .
HELLO!
In my opinion the brand should have some control over the face of a brand. If the business have no control over the face of their brand. The face of the brand might betray them. But if the brand controls the face of their brand, the face of the brand might be pressurized and might leave the brand. that's why is better to have little control over the face of their brand.
THANK YOU!
I selected that the company should have some control over the celebrity. I chose this option, because I feel that the business shouldn't have all the say of the viewpoint of the person's POV. This would go against Freedom of Speech. Instead, the organization could still converse and collab with that celebrity, but slowly withdraw from them. While in the process of doing this, the company as a whole could decide on who they want to present the company. In addition to, the CEO of the organization could ask the celebrity politely to say that their opinion has nothing to do with the business itself. If the company is receiving back lash this could cause some of it to decrease.
In my opinion, the brand should have no control over the face over the brand says. This overturns their freedom of speech. The best thing to do in that scenario, would be to have them sign a contract to ensure their agreement.
I believe that the brand should have at least some control of the celebrity and what they say do or think about the products. After all they have to say what they think about the bottles and advertise them as they like and the company could have controlled what they say so they could earn money. But that also means that if they control what they say then they should be able to give them some of the money too because they have been enforced into saying that they're not forced but at least told to say it so they can earn the money but need from the product. So I believe that the brand should increase how some control of what the celebrity says, thinks or does with their product.
In my opinion, the brand should have SOME control over the celebrity. I feel like the brand should have some control over the celebrity because the celebrity is helping boost their company and if the celebrity says something that a large group of people disagree with, then it will be taking money out of the brands pockets not just the celebrity's. I also feel like the brand should have some control over the celebrity because what if the brand doesn't agree with what the celebrity said but everyone thinks that the brand does, then the brand will also receive back-clash.
I think that the celebrity of a certain brand shouldn't be controlled over the brand because if they are then they don't have a say in the company. they wouldn't speak for themselves. If the celebrity is controlled by the company and, company is doing a bad job at pleasing the people then the celebrity won't be able to tell people how bad the business is doing. Also if the company has full control over the celebrity, the celebrity would probably be forced to stay with the company. If the celebrity is not controlled then they could leave if the company is doing bad and make a change. The face of the company could tell people not to buy the products if they're bad. This is why i think that the face of the company shouldn't be controlled.
I think.. the brand should have only some control over the celebrity.. The celebrity should have their own privacy, and their opinion. The brand cannot just force a celebrity to say what they want them to say. If they have full control over the celebrity, they may excessively force the celebrity to do things to make the brand more popular, and in results, the celebrity may start to have problems with the brand because of that.
Hi everyone!
I believe that a brand should have some form of control over a celebrity but this control should not exceed boundaries and affect the celebrity's personal life, I think brands should be able to control what celebrities say about them but the brand shouldn’t cross the boundaries and enter the celebrities personal life there have been some comments from celebrities like Zendaya who used to work at Disney and said the brand always put her against her co-actress and controlled what she ate.
Hi, My answer choice was B: the brand should have some control over the celebrity. I say this because celebrities are human beings that will say and do whatever they feel like doing or saying. If a brand had no control of their celebrity, they could post something online without permission (behind the scenes, plans, unreleased products, etc.) and could possibly risk being fired by the brand.
On the other hand, if the brand had total control over the celebrity, they might become frustrated by the lack of freedom they have. This may cause them to say something publically about the brand and potentially get the brand sued.
WIth that being said, I feel as if the brand should have some control over the celebrity. The celebrity has the freedom that need need in order to be happy but they also have restrictions of what they can or cannot say and post about the brand itself.
In my own opinion I should say that a celebrity can make a review on a makeup artist because he or she has studied about all the things that involve in makeup , so he or she can determine whether what a make up artist has done is good or bad
I believe if a celebrity is the face of a company the company should have some control of what that celebrity says because the face of the company should still have their own opinion, and still have a few good things to say about the company. another reason why I think the face of the company should still have their own opinion is because in some cases the company can make this celebrity lie about how they feel about their product, and that could backfire on the celebrities appearance to the world.
I would say that every company should be able to have control over a celebrity that is their spokesperson, but not complete control. If companies have complete control over celebrities, all celebrities would practically be treated like just object that are projecting a product with no personality. On the other hand, if companies have no control over their celebrities, almost all celebrities and spokespeople would be swearing in commercials as well as being able to say racist or discriminatory language in public without backlash. For example in my country (United States of America), a country singer by the name of Morgan Wallen had a video leaked of him saying the N-word without racial intent, but not many people saw it that way. He was drunk with his friends and he was singing a rap song(which usually contain swear words) when he accidentally said the n-word. When this video was leaked his songs would get less listeners, posts less views, and even him being on the news for being racist out of content. If a company had less control over this people would be raging about this now, but gladly a company as well as the public had a quite a bit of control over this, making it so that he would slowly get eased off from the backlash once everything was cleared up.
You have used a really great example to illustrate your point, and bring up an interesting question about celebrities being under more scrutiny for their behaviour because they are in the public eye. What do you think companies should or shouldn't be able to do to control a celebrity's image but still allow them to be themselves?
Thank you for saying that about my example since it is often found in the U.S.A that celebrities have said or done things that brands and companies don’t want the public to hear about. To answer your question, I think off of the importance of publicity in the U.S.A companies should and shouldn’t controls the things below:
Should control:
-A majority of the swears they can say or if they can say them at all
-What can be posted on their socials. EX: they would not be able to post extremely revealing clothing due to their innocent face of the business.
-Be able to go through what a celebrity posts or says and give advice to avoid words or sayings
Shouldn’t control:
-Who a celebrity dates
-Their political stance in elections or laws
-Whether or not a celebrity shows the world their children and their child(ren) name(s)
There are three things on each side of my answer to your question since companies must have some control over a bit of what celebrities. If they didn’t, the controversy of who is who and who a “better person” would be all over the place.
I think that the brand should not control everything the celebrities says but instead should have input about what the celebrities does , like they should take care about what the celebrities may say during an interview about their brand and affect it especially if the celebrity is so famous and affect in his or her fans also they may need a celebrity to promote their brand to become better and that’s how the people will buy stuff from the brand because sometimes people believe what the celebrity say
In my opinion I don't think a brand should control what a celebrity is saying, first of all the celebrity can say what they want (unless it's rude to fans) they can't have control of what they say. second they have their own right to speak,they can talk to people and it shouldn't be controlled by a brand. the face of the brand can maybe be controlled if it's in an advertisement. overall I don't think they should totally be controlled on what they say or want to say.
no because if they do the celebrity will leave and never come back there image will be bad and they won't get as much money as they want.
I'm kinda in the middle because if the celebrity is going to try and put out bad news about the brand, I think that they should have control over that. If the celebrity is not going to do anything wrong, then I don't think they need to be controlled.
Another reason that they maybe should have control over the celebrity if they are putting out bad news is because that could ruin the brand's image, which will make them look bad and ruin their brand.
In my perspective, brands should have some type of control over their 'face' of the brand but should allow them to have some freedom as well. The brand chose a certain person to be the 'face' of the business meaning they should have some type of trust in them when talking about politics or economic decisions in public. I believe that the brand should pick a celebrity or a person that represents their opinion on politics; this would avoid any conflict or dispute against brands and their 'face' of the brand.
I believe that brands should not have complete control over their brand's image. However, maybe there should be boundaries set for both the celebrity and the brand.This can improve and strengthen the relationship between the brand and the celebrity by setting boundaries. It can also make the partnership long-term as the brand understands the celebrity's limits, preferences, and boundaries.
It is morally wrong to control a person who has emotions. However, it is not necessarily bad for a brand to have some control over a celebrity.Overall the brand and celebrity should work together to grow both income and services.
I believe that companies can have some control over a celebrity if they are the face of the company. If you let a celebrity do whatever they want, they may say something offensive that you don't, or the public doesn't agree with. This can lead people to believe that your beliefs align with the face of your company. If you don't let celebrities do anything, people may start to think you are cruel. It feels as if you made them sell the rights to their own beliefs. You need to find a balance between the two.
Hello In my opinion, I'd say they can get some type of control of the celebrity. I wouldn't say they would have full control because they could do some bad things.If they had full control they would do bad things with the celebrity And the people would blame the celebrity and not the company Itself.And what If the celebrity doesn't want to do it but the company tells the celebrity to do It.so that's why I think they wouldn't have control of the celebrity.
zestful_dolphin what makes you think that if the company have full control of the celebrity they will do bad things . A company can not have full control of a celebrity .
I think that the company shoudn't have total control on what the celebrity says or does in public. Although he or she may be the ''face'' of the company they are still human beings with the human right to express themselves freely. In any case, there is always a contract drawn up between the celebrity and the company with the exact terms that both the celebrity and the company should sign.
I personally think the brand should have control depending on what their contract agreement states. This is because the contract states everything that the brand wants from the celebrity which can be accepted or declined.
If a celebrity accepts to a contract which states they have full control over them then the brand should have full control over them as that is what the celebrity has agreed too.
If the contract states that the company has less control over the celebrity then the celebrity has the right to show their individuality and authenticity of who they are and allows them more freedom with their ways of living as they are not under strict controls. This may make the celebrity more genuine with their interactions with people as it is their views they are putting across.
An example of a celebrity with less control put on them by the brand they collaborate with is The Rock (Dwayne Johnson). This is because in his brand collaborations with brands such as under armour (a sportswear clothing brand), ford (a car manufacturer brand) and Apple (a mobile phone brand) he has shown his own influence by his choices and actions rather than being told what to do and controlled by the brand. This gives them more geniality and relatability as it is the individual speaking their mind rather than the brand telling them what to say and do to create a specific reputation that they want.
I agree with placid_morning. I say so because the commencement of every deal is preceded by terms and conditions which must be clearly spelt out, discussed, reached and agreed upon. I strongly agree with the fact that the brand should have some control over what the celebrity does or says reason being that whatever the celebrity does or says has an impact on the brand which makes or mars the product in the long run. If some level of control is not set, the celebrity may project himself/herself as the focal point of attraction rather than the product thereby defeating the aim. On the other hand if the brand exerts total control, it may infringe on the rights of the celebrity which is totally out of place. Exerting some level of control makes the whole process to be set within limits of ethical acceptability.
Adding on the point you stated where if a brand has full control of the celebrity and may infringe their rights, whos fault would it be as the celebrity has granted the control for that brand to take control over them as it is in the contract. This level of control used could go against the celebrity to abuse their positions to make people more inclined to do something but could go against the celebritys comfortability within the company.
However nothing can be done if the contract states they have full control over the celebrity as the person has agreed for this level of control to be used.
The brand should have some control over the celebrity. If the brand had no control over a celebrity, the person could try and take advantage of how little control they have. If the brand has all the control over a celebrity, the person would be really confined and have absolutely no control over anything.
Hi Topical Talkers,i think it is reasonable for brands to expect their celebrity ambassadors to display certain standards that align with the brand's values...A study conducted by Nielsen proved that authenticity in advertising has a significant impact on consumers' trust with 92% of consumers trust earned media and nowadays celebrities are a big influence and the way they say can have a deep impact on the brand they support like Rihanna's collaboration with Fenty Beauty which promoted inclusivity and diversity with consumers and contributed to the brand's success...but,mistakes can lead to quick backlash as seen in the aftermath of certain celebrity controversies as we saw in the quiz that Nike stopped the collaboration with Kanye after he made some controversial comment..
Based on my classroom lessons,I would consider including 'social responsibility' as a key factor when selecting a celebrity..we also discussed the partnership with Colin Kaepernick who took a knee during the national anthem to protest police brutality against Black people which aligned with the brand's values of being a champion for social justice but also resulted in a 31% increase in sales and a 170% increase in online sales....So,brands should consider collaborating with celebrities who are advocates for important social issues that align with the brand's values as it can lead to increased sales and a positive brand image and also can create a compelling partnership in the eyes of other people...Thank you
I think brands should have total control because what if they can't handle everything a prouduser can start recording them and they will not be ready. For the record and they have to cancle the event because they can't handle it. That is why I think they should total control or else everthing going wrong
I don't believe that the company should have control because a person could be getting forced to promote something that they think is bad.I said this because what if this company is selling thing that are changing the earth in a bad way.Lets just say their selling spray deodorant and this leaves a hole in the ozone layer and somebody like ''The Rock'' says that it was okay to spray this.This is a big problem brands telling famous people to say that this product isn't hurting the earth.This is why I believe that people should not have control over ''The Face" of the company.
The brand should not have control of the celebrity at all. Celebrities are still human and have their own mindsets, its not like they are AI or some sort of technology. Also what if they want to drop out of the deal? Will the brand have full control over what the celebrities do? This would cause a lot of chaos and problems because celebrities still have a life.
I believe that the brand should have some control over what the celebrity says so that they won't say disrespectful things while broadcasting their brand. Celebrities might also want to promote the brand, so the brand in question should be able to help them with it. Although, if the brand was fully in control of the celebrity, and they have them say unexpected things for things like ads, it might not be a good way to reach out to the public. For example, if a brand like Adidas decided to use a celebrity for a commercial to promote their new shoes, and they have them say things that the celebrity would definitely not say often, that may cause some controversy in the public about Adidas and the celebrity.
okay.Well,i believe that the brand should have a little impact in the way that the celebrity is behaving outside of work, because he/she the face of a famous brand so if the celebrity dicredits then the brand will also be discredited a little bit.Futhermore the world will start not looking kindly on this brand. However , the celebrity should have his/her own opinion and it is good to express freely your thoughts and perceptions but since he/she will represent a brand then he/she should be a human being in the public
In my opinion a brand should have only some control over what their face says or does.I say this because if the celebrity goes out they would want to talk freely and not feel controlled,but the brand should have some rules.For Example in class one of my classmates said that the rule they should have is they cannot talk about the business in a negative way.
In my opinion the brand should have some control because the brand can't just take full of a person control.I think the celebrity should be able to say what they want to say but if the business has something personal or a new secret product the celebrity should not be able to leak it out to the public but thats why I say they should not have full control because people should have their own words too.
Thank you for listening to me.
I think the business should only have some control over the celebrity. I think that if the company had complete control over the celebrity, they would not want to work with the company anymore, because they'd feel very restricted. I think the company should only be able to control what the celebrity talks about publicly, but the celebrity should still get freedom of speech. A celebrity could say something that could make the company they represent look bad, and cause them to lose money. This is why the company should still have some control over the celebrity. In conclusion, I think there should only be some rules so the celebrity doesn't say something very risky for the company.
In my opinion, I say that the brand should have some control over the celebrity. Instead of having no control and having full control. I think this because if the brand were to have control in what the celebrity says it wouldn't be a good thing since they would pay the celebrity to say only good things or stuff about the brand.
On the other hand if they were to have no control of what the celebrity says, they could be saying bad things about the brand or they could be saying false information or announce a product that is going to be released that was supposed to be a surprise. Which could all damage the brand.
Therefore, if the brand were to have some control over what the celebrity says they wouldn't be fully controlling them, but they also wouldn't be giving them the right to say anything about the brand.
I believe that B would be the best option for a brand. Having total control over the celebrity will lead to backlash and the celebrity being extremely limited to what they can do which would lead to them leaving the sponsorship. While that is bad, having no control over the celebrity at all would defeat the soul purpose of the sponsorship as it is designed so that the celebrity will bring attention to the brand. Having a balance of control over the celebrity would be the best option as it would bring attention to the brand and it wouldn't completely limit the celebrity to what they can do.
I think that brands should have partial control over the face of their business, only when it comes to saying things concerning the actual brand as at the end of the day every human should have the freedom to express themselves and if people then choose to not show interest in the brand for something a celebrity says would the brand really want an audience with that attitude ?
I think that businesses use celebrities to have more people use or buy their products. I think that business owners can and cannot tell celebrities what to say in public.
HELLO articulate_piano,
I agree with you because when you commented on businesses using celebrities to attract more customers that took me back to the munch it cheese balls that is a snack in my country. On that cheese balls the popular Nigerian celebrity Davido(Nigerian singer-songwriter) was put on that cheese balls. Guess what, after his photo was put there, a lot of kids started forcing their parents to buy it for them all the time.
I just say that businesses using popular celebrities is a good step for them because people will start thinking that it is as nice.This will also bring a lot of money fir that businesses so I think that businesses doing that will be a great idea.
THANK YOU.
No the brand should not be able to fully control what the face of the brand says in the public. If they have all the control of what the face of the brand saus in public than there is no need for there to really be a celebrity to be the face, of the brand there will only have to have any citizen. And either way if the company controls the face of the brand then no celebrity will volunteer to be the face of the brand.
THANK YOU.
Me personally, i don't think that the brand should control what the celebrity does and/or says. Even so, i don't think it's okay to control what happens. It's the celebrities choice, and they should know the punishment if they do something that isn't right. The brand should let the celebrity do what they want, even if they don't like what the celebrity is doing. I wouldn't choose what they did. They are a grown adult, so they should know all the consequences for their actions.
I honestly think that a brand shouldn't control a celebrity. If the celebrity wants to do something they can do it themselves and not ask the brand if they can do it, they have their own rights and their own mouth and lives. The celebrity is their own person. So I think personally, that it sounds wrong and is wrong that someone decides what they have to do.
I honestly think that the brands shouldn't have a right to control the face of their company because they should be able to be the face of that brand and also live their normal lives but if they do something that would make the brand look really bad then the company has every right to question it.
I think if someone is the face of a business they should be someone a lot of people like and agree with so people get stuff from the business also if it is not someone good they should not be the face of the business because then people would not like the business so the business would not be popular and people would not get stuff from the business.
Yes since the face of the brand could be doing something that could get hate on the company which wouldn't be a good thing .
i think that brands should not have full control but still have some control as they are paying someone to have the "face" of the brand. i think they should have control/ask the person to do something that the brand wants, and what they don't want them to do and like give them a script or they just tell the "face" of the company to do it their own and have their "own" opinion which has to be good or the brand will fail. But if the brand has full control they will make the "face" do thing that they don't want to do and make them lie about the company, and if the public finds out the "face" is lying about the company and then the pearson says what actually happened the company would have a great down fall and the company might go bankrupt.
In my opinion,the brand shouldn't be able to decide what the celebrity or "face" of the brand does in public.The only time i think it'd be fair for the brand to control what the "face" is saying in public is if they are speaking for the brand during an event or public speaking area.As the celebrity is still a regular person who should be able to speak up for themselves and act in a way they believe is right without being told what to do.So personally no, they shouldn't be told what to say/do.
If I owned a company and the face of the company said or did something in public, the people might get offended and this is why I personally think that it would be a better choice to cut ties with the celebrity. Not only would this make people feel better but this would also protect my company's public image and reputation. In conclusion, I think that it would be better to stop working with a celebrity if the public is against them.
I feel the company should have a little control over them in order for the celebrity not to drag their name into the mud. Eventually I am confident that before the celebrity got into the contract, I am sure that he or she must have signed an agreement stating that the company might or might not have full power over the celebrity. I also equally feel that he or she should not be controlled because the person would just be painting a black lie white. Eventually if the truth comes out the celebrity would be praised if he or she said the truth or the celebrity would be hated because he or she lied.
i think they can not control the celebrity 's life, but they can control the advert by showing him or her the script
Hello Every one
I believe On one hand, having a well-known personality endorse a brand can significantly increase its visibility and appeal to consumers. However, this association can also be a double-edged sword.
When a celebrity is the "face" of a brand, their actions and statements reflect on the brand itself. If the celebrity engages in controversial behavior or expresses unpopular opinions, it can damage the brand's reputation and alienate consumers.
While brands may want some control over the public image of their celebrity ambassadors to protect their interests, there's a fine line between guidance and censorship. Overly controlling a celebrity can backfire, as it may come across as inauthentic and could lead to backlash from both the celebrity and the public.
Ultimately, it's essential for brands to strike a balance between allowing a celebrity's influence and maintaining the authenticity of their brand image. This can be achieved through clear communication and collaboration with the celebrity to ensure that their actions align with the brand's values and resonate with consumers.
Overall, I believe that brands cannot control a celebrity but can influence them by their values.
Thank you.
Yes and no.
If a celebrity has made an agreement with a company to be the face of that company then there should be boundaries to what the celebrity can say in public but only when they are at events hosted by that particular company.
On the other hand, if the celebrity is simply going about their daily life he/she should not he restricted on what and what not to say because it has no direct relationship to the affairs of the company.
However,this mainly depends on what the company and celebrity have agreed on personally. It varies from person to person, this is simply my opinion.
What could be the impact of the celebrity expressing controversial opinions in public on the company?
In class, we have participated in a debate amongst us. We were given roles such as customer service, money service etc... each role had a main focus. We thought about questions such as : if a celebrity was the on the cover of someone's brand then people turned away from them should or should they stay as they are.
I think the brand should have some sort of control of the celebrity because, sometimes people may like the product but only for the sake of who's made it. For example Rihanna, who is a very successful singer and brand owner. Some people may only purchase Rihanna's skin and makeup products (fenty beauty or fenty skin) only because its Rihanna. Although the way i see it is, if Rihanna was publicly shamed for something bad shes done then people would stop purchasing her products as it would be promoting her.
I think the brand should have some control as to what the face of the brand does and says in public since it might have a direct impact on the profitability of the business but along with that the business should respect the decisions and privacy of the celebrity because in the end, they are the ones in total control of their lives. The business can advise the celebrity but the final say should be of the face only.
I believe that the brand should have at least more than half control over their 'celebrity', because otherwise there's nothing stopping the celebrity from saying something wrong about that particular business that their working for. By 'control' I don't mean they can tell them what to do like some sort of hypnotised minion, I mean more that there are boundaries that the celebrity can't cross. The brand can't command them to give them all their money, but they can say stop don't do that.But, the problem is, the celebrity is a vital part of the business, because it makes it more famous, so the celebrity could threaten the company by saying they would leave unless they were payed more money.
I think that brands should have some control over the celebrity that is the brand face because they are representing that brand.This is because if the celebrity says something controversial or wrong that will affect the brands image, stock prices and sales.This was not necessarily related to the brand or a product from it.I also think that the celebrity should also have some control what they want because it's their face that is being used and they have the right to a say for there own face and how it is used.
Hi,
I reckon that the brands should not take control over the celebrities. I believe this because if the brands keep taking it over, the celebrities will have no say in anything and the brands will say it all and represent them even if its a controlled, fake version. I feel as though the brands should still be there because they do help represent but, just without fully taking over.
Thank you.
I think that the brand can have little control on what the celebrity is saying in public about that brand but not on the celebrity’s life because they’re also human. They can do whatever they like and no one can take control on them like a doll. But if the face of the brand says something bad about the brand then it can lead to big loss for that brand. So they can take some control what the celebrity is saying in front of the media.
Thank you!😊
Hello everyone!
As “the face” of the brand, there’s usually a contract or agreement in place that sets out the rules and expectations for the relationship. It’s essential that both parties have a clear idea of what’s expected of them.
While it’s important that celebrities have the freedom to express themselves and move around freely, it’s also essential for brands to maintain their image and brand reputation.
The brand should have a certain degree of control over the statements and actions that are DIRECTLY related to the brand. This helps to ensure consistency with the brand’s messaging and values.
In the end, it comes down to finding the right balance between a celebrity’s personal style and how the brand wants to be perceived.
It’s important for brands and celebrities to communicate and come to an agreement on how much control is appropriate and fair for both parties.
I think that a brand should not have any control over what the "face" of the brand says (aka celebrities that works with said brand). The celebrity is their own person and can say what they want. It doesn't matter if they work with that brand or not they have the freedom of speech. The company may not like what they say, but if they don't, it doesn't matter! They can just cut ties with them if they don't agree with something they said or did. That is really all they can do in this situation anyways because they don't have control over that person. This is my reasoning.
In my opinion, businesses should have some control over the celebrity that is their "face". I believe this because, If a celebrity says something the public doesn't like the business might fail due to what the "face" said. The business might lose money and customers. If the business doesn't make money to pay the workers, the workers will most likely quit and the business would soon have to shut down for either a temporary time or the business might have a shut down permanently. However, If the business has total control over the "face", they might feel uncomfortable without having the freedom to say some things they want to add that they think won't hurt the business but the business denys, leading to the "face" dropping the business. Therefore, businesses should have some control over what the "face" says but not everything they say because some of their ideas might benefit the business as long as they discuss it and the business agrees.
In my opinion, the process should be perceived as a mutual understanding rather than who's the one controlling. For example, Business Z wants to undergo a rebranding process. As part of this process, the marketing team is on the look for a celebrity to become the new face of their brand. This has multiple benefits to it of course, like the increased popularity and profitability, however, by choosing the wrong celebrity, the risk becomes too high. For this reason, if I were to choose a celebrity to be the face of my brand, I'd choose one who has an understanding of my brand or at least has been confronted with it, so that they automatically know what to say, do, post and what not. Also, sticking with a celebrity that doesn't have any sort of (negative) controversy around them is essential in order to eliminate the risk mentioned above. In conclusion, it's the picking/choosing process that matters, and not the control itself.
It is obvious a brand shouldn't have completely control over a person even if they have a contract or deal with them. Let me explain, even if a business wanted a celebrity to be the face of their brand then that shouldn't make the person unable to speak freely since that Is a human right. They should be able to contribute in what the person posts though, because it will not only affect that person but the company aswell. If the celebrity wanted to post something that could be considered controversial then they should check it over with the company, now not every post should be checked but the ones that are more complex or talking about opinions it should be discussed with the company or board to avoid people forming ideas about said company that aren't true (as this could be bad for business and make them lose customers). The celebrity shouldn't have their thoughts and opinions muted simply because of a deal or contract. But if telling people their opinions and thoughts affect people like the company, people who work for the company, and customers then they should consider what they are saying and how that could affect others.
I think that the company should have some control over some of the celebrity behaviour because they hired that celebrity to represent their brand and if they said something controversial it could potentially damage the brand. If the brand stayed with that celebrity that said or did something to make them unpopular, the fans of that brand could think that the brand agrees with the unpopular behaviour. For example they could be able to control what the celebrity posts on social media by using a contract that says the celebrity has to send the brand what they are going to post and the brand has to approve it first.
I believe that the brand should be able to control what the celebrity says to a certain degree as if said celebrity wants to share their problematic views while working with the company, it can easily ruin the companies reputation, and change the public's view on them. Though, I believe that the brand should not have total control over the celebrity as it can change how the public view the celebrity, which could ruin their carees.
Hi,
Personally, I think that a celebrity being the "face" of a brand is quite interesting as companies and business can gain more customers and make more profit from selling products that many would buy. Celebrities being a face of a brand could be highly helpful to the brand as it makes the company well-known and to the celebrity themselves! Customers will find this persuasive and buy the product immediately in which leading to the company to expand and sell more products whereas their business will grow significantly. Nevertheless, if the celebrity says something or does something that others magnificently don't agree with, the companies business will drop to a low rate in profits. This will cause major hate on the celebrity and the brand causing problems to a significant amount of people. Many will immediately stop buying products which will end in causing business failure. The final stage for the brand would be to close the business and put an ultimate stop to the brand which means there will be nothing heard but how the business dropped intensely. Fortunately, a simple way to prevent all of this unnecessary hindrances, is that the brand can inform the celebrity and get permission from them to fill or sign a contract including certain terms and conditions. Things should change and companies should introduce a new law involving contracts otherwise many tragic events could take place.
Thank you
I do not believe a business should control their „face‘s“ actions. But they should draw consequences if the „face“ in question does something controversial since it could damage the business‘s reputation and let them loose customers.
For instance, Kanye West‘s contract with Adidas was terminated after his numerous antisemitic remarks. These are statements that should be made after such actions. They do not need to officially speak up about such issues. Of course they can but it is not necessary in my opinion. I think such consequences speak more than words.
I chose the opinion B because I think even a celebrity that is the "face"of a brand should not be too controlled for what they do and say in public by the brand.I mean the brand can do an advertisement about he but they can't have the whole control of him.He can do anything he wants to but he can be encouraged by them.He can make the brand go really well like when you see LeBron James wearing shoes that are Jordan by Nike you are gonna like so much them and you are going to buy them.. That is a very good explanation about the buying of these shoes.They have already gone global. In Larisa there is a store that is called Cougar and it has The Rock for an advertisement and I think that is a very good example.
I will believe that companies shouldn’t have total control over the celebrity because of what the citizens of the country will be saying about the person for example a celebrity is the face of a business and did something wrong and the fans of the brand do not like the celebrity because of what he or she did , The company might loss customers and it will affect the company for example a celebrity is the face of a brand of the world ranking brand like apple company and people do not like the celebrity it will affect the brand .
I feel as if the brand should have some control over what the celebrity says and does because if they say or do something that is crazy and reckless they could put the business in jeopardy however if the brand has complete control over what the celebrity says and does then the brand would be taking away the celebrities basic right to say and do as they please.
Hello!
When a famous person becomes the "face" of a brand, they usually have a contract with the brand. The brand might have some rules about how the celebrity should act and what they should say in public, but it all depends on the contract and the agreement between them. However, we should remember that celebrities are their own people with their own lives, beliefs, and the right to express themselves. Even though they have to do certain things for the brand, they still have some control over how they present themselves and the choices they make.
Thank you!
I think that brands should not have much control over what the 'face' says because that would very obviously controlling their freedom of speech we hold so dearly, it would soon become a monopoly dictatorship. I think one example of such a thing is where Apple funds people who make movies to not let bad guys have an Iphone or any other apple product.
When a celebrity becomes the "face" of a brand, it means they represent that brand to the public. In some cases, brands might want to have some control over what the celebrity does and say in public. This is because the celebrity's actions and words can affect how people view the brand. Imagine you have a friend who always wears the same hat, and everyone recognizes them by that hat. Now, if your friend starts doing things or saying things that others find not so great while wearing that hat, people might start associating those actions or words with the hat and, by extension, with your friend. Similarly, brands might worry that if a celebrity they work with behaves in a way that goes against the values or image of the brand, it could hurt the brand's reputation. So, some brands may have agreements with celebrities to make sure they align with the brand's values when they're in the public eye. However, it's also important to remember that everyone has the right to express themselves and have their own opinions. Finding the right balance between a brand's interests and a celebrity's freedom can be tricky, and it often involves negotiation and agreement between the two parties.
I think that the brand shouldn't have total control over celebrity because celebrity are helping their brand to be more popular, used and loved by every costumer. Celebrity are face of brand so they shouldn't be control by brand , they should get freedom. But in another hand, If brand will give them fulll freedom, they will not be serious about the work. At conclusion, I think that brand shouldn't control the celebrity nor give them extra freedom.
Hello tropical talkers,
I suggest that the brand should not tell them to say something or do something because don’t you think that’s a little extra and kinda dramatic.