In recent weeks there have been several high-profile brand partnership debacles; none more so than Kanye West’s acrimonious split from Adidas following anti-semitic remarks; and an honourable mention for Kim Kardashian’s reported cold feet for Balenciaga following its shockingly awful campaign featuring children posing alongside sexual fetish gear.
The German sportswear brand’s decision in late October to sever all ties with West will prove costly for the brand, with estimates suggesting that the move could result in a £217 million ‘short-term’ hit to its finances.
Balenciaga’s issues however have been entirely of its own making, and its inability to realise that two separate campaigns involving children posing with BDSM gear would be inappropriate may cost it dear, with star partner Kim Kardashian allegedly on the brink of dumping the fashion house.
This week, Marketing Beat takes a deep dive into these ever-evolving controversies and how brands and individuals can best implement damage control when commercial partnerships turn sour.
This dude Kanye is a clown. @adidas what do you think about this? He seems to imply you’re okay with antisemitism.
pic.twitter.com/iGjLnMoPGL— Alexander S. Vindman (@AVindman) October 21, 2022
“Celebrities are humans, and humans err.”
The fallout from Kanye West’s erratic recent behaviour has led not only to his own personal brand becoming hugely devalued, with firms such as Balenciaga, Gap, JPMorgan Chase and even his talent agency CAA all choosing to follow in Adidas’ stead and sever ties with the rapper.
Fola Enifeni, a senior strategist at brand agency We Are Collider notes that although West’s action and choices are his own, Adidas must and will bear some responsibility for opting to collaborate with him so extensively over the years: “Vast responsibility lies with brands, who not only have more to lose, but generally and understandably more scrutiny to face. There is the simple fact that celebrities are human, and humans err.”
With Balenciaga on the other hand, the responsibility lies entirely with the brand and the upper echelons of its creative hierarchy – with its creative director, Demna Gvasalia even having to issue a personal apology for greenlighting the project: “I want to personally apologise for the wrong artistic choice of concept for the gifting campaign with the kids and I take my responsibility. It was inappropriate to have kids promote objects that had nothing to do with them.”
“Prioritising the bottom line can muddy the waters.”
Notably, these events also raise wider questions around the feasibility of celebrity partnerships and wider brand partnerships as a whole, although they can inherently have massive value – there also huge repercussions should a partner become a liability.
For Enifeni, when done right, celebrity partnerships are a “no-brainer”, allowing brands to “leverage the cultural currency of a celebrity and gain access to new audiences while enriching the experience of existing ones. She notes however, that brands must conduct “due diligence”, and should “extensively research the celebrities’ principles, values and ideologies.”
When push comes to shove, a responsible brand or celebrity must act quickly and decisively if it is to retain plausible deniability, a point echoed by social and influence director at creative agency TMW Unlimited, Olivia Wedderburn, who says: “If either party promotes dangerous or discriminatory ideas, the other has a responsibility to intervene. The line for this should fall well before being an actual, literal Nazi, and it’s both astounding and depressing that this is suddenly the point we’ve got to.
She also highlights that these agreements are not drawn out on the back of a napkin, and are a considerable amount of time in the making: “These partnerships aren’t conjured up quickly, and both parties should be able to terminate when the partnership is no longer mutually beneficial or compromises their values. But sadly, prioritising the bottom line can muddy the waters, and we’re left in situations like this one.”
the brand "Balenciaga" just did a uh….. interesting… photoshoot for their new products recently which included a very purposely poorly hidden court document about 'virtual child porn'
normal stuff pic.twitter.com/zjMN5WhZ0s
— shoe (@shoe0nhead) November 21, 2022
“If brands lean too heavily on a celebrity, they may not have a brand once the partnership ends.”
Whilst these partnerships can be immensely lucrative, brands can sometimes fall prey to an all-encompassing ‘ mega-partnership’ – the Adidas/Yeezy deal has certainly come to define the fashion side of the German brand’s business in the latter half of the 2010s. As Balenciaga has also found out, it now awaits Kim Kardashian’s decision with trepidation, with the next few weeks potentially make or break for the fashion house.
Wedderburn warns of the danger brands face when their image becomes overly associated with a celebrity’s, noting: “We often talk to clients about making sure that the brand partner doesn’t cannibalise the brand. After all, they’re meant to endorse the product, not become synonymous with it. Brands should be wary about how much weight they put on the partnership over the product’s longevity and quality.”
The recent scandals encapsulate precisely why brands must retain a healthy distance between themselves and their partners – as Enifeni points out: “partnerships should leave a healthy degree of separation between both entities. If brands lean too heavily on a celebrity, they may not have a brand once the partnership ends. Which in itself is a problem, even if the celebrity is scandal free.”
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest agency-related news sent straight to your inbox each morning
“As soon as [a] company excuses, supports or condones [negative] action, then they become culpable.”
If any brand is to survive an acrimonious divorce from a celebrity partner, it must at all costs act swiftly and decisively – brands must not be drawn in to defending or excusing unacceptable behaviour, they must not be blinded by the value that partnership provides – in the long run it is better to simply sever all ties.
“Up to a certain point, a brand can’t be held responsible for the action of any individual, but as soon as that company excuses, supports or condones that action, then they become culpable,” Wedderburn says. “For all of the hand wringing about cancel culture, most people don’t expect celebrities to be perfect – the fact that Kanye West has been a key brand ambassador for so long is evidence enough of that.
Concluding, she adds: “However, there are clearly certain behaviours that people are not willing to tolerate, and I would hope that all forms of discrimination and abuse are included in this. If brands disagree, and they prioritise their celebrity partnerships, then they shouldn’t be surprised if people no longer want to be associated with their products.”
