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:

If a celebrity is the “face” of a brand, should the brand be able to control what they do and say in public?

Poll not working? follow this link: https://economistfoundation.typeform.com/festival-poll

Write your choice in the comments below and don't forget to explain your answer. See if you can add an example too support your point of view.

Comments (250)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • 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.

    1. So do you think that they should have control at all?

      1. 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!

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

              1. 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.

            3. 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.

              1. 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.

          2. 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?

          3. 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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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?)

          4. 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.

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

        2. 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.

          1. 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?

            1. 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.

        3. 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.

          1. 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?

            1. 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.

            2. 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

          2. 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.

        4. 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.

          1. 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

            1. 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

            2. 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?

          2. 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.

        5. Interesting take, what sort of agreement between the brand and the celebrity would you consider reasonable/ethical?

        6. "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."

      2. 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.

      3. 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😃.

      4. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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?

      1. 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.

    7. 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?

    8. 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?

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

      1. 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.

        1. 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.

          1. 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.

    11. 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.

      1. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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 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.

    1. Do you think it makes any difference if the celebrity is being paid to review the brand?

      1. 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.

        1. A well balanced point of view -thank you

        2. 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.

          1. 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?

            1. 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.

      2. 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.

        1. 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?

      3. 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

      1. you make some great points thoughtful_peak. Do you think celebrities should only endorse products/brands they like?

    5. 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

      1. 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.

        1. 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!

        2. 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!

    6. 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?

    7. 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.

      1. can you give an example of how a brand might control a celebrity?

    8. 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.

      1. 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.

    1. 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.

      1. What would/ should the consequences be if a celebrity or brand breaks the agreement?

        1. 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.

        2. 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.

        3. 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.

        4. 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.

    2. But they are paying them, if they cant have a atleast small amount over the celebrity, what would be the reason to pay them?

      1. 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

    3. 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.