The bong hit that continues to haunt:
http://adage.com/article?article_id=134363
Michael Phelps loses an endorsement deal, what may the first in a line.
What is a celebrity's responsibility to the clients that hire him as a face for their brand? What is his responsibility to the public in general? How serious was this mistake? How seriously should he pay for it?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Kellogg Dumping Phelps
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It makes sense that Kellogg is 'dumping Phelps.' The article states that Phelps' recent behavior does not support their image. By deciding not to renew his contract, Kellogg is taking a stance against Phelps' illegal drug abuse. Thus, keeping their reputation in tact. Subway also has endorsements ready to go but the article says their will be delays in the commercials. It is a good idea to let the bong picture media die down before they air the commercials. They do not want the commercials airing side by side with Phelps' bad press, possibly bringing Subway's reputation down with him.
Phelps has a responsibility to his clients to uphold his end of the contract. If Kellogg's contract with Phelps said he needed to act with integrity then he has a responsibility to act with integrity. I do not think that this picture should ruin his career.
I don't think he has a responsibility to the public to act in any way. However, if he wants to keep a wide fan base and endorse brand names he must act accordingly.
I agree with Kendra that Phelps "has a responsibility to his clients to uphold his end of the contract," and I understand many sponsors not wanting to renew contracts. Kellogg is very centered on young people and positive images.
However, regardless of monetary contracts, Phelps NEVER said to Americans that he would be a good role model to their children. He never said he was anything but a swimmer.
I agree with Kellogg's decision to "dump" Phelps as well. Continuing to use him as a sponsor would simply be too controversial.
What I don't agree with is the way the media handled the situation. Members of the media are quick to criticize Phelps and call him a bad role model for our children, but they never seem to acknowledge the fact that, if they weren't covering the story, our children would never even know about his actions.
Right ^
It's the balance of a profitable story (what's going to get their attention?) vs. public interest.
People pay attention when a big hero gets caught doing something bad. Is that worth it? Alyssa makes a very good point. What is the cost of media attention?
Completely agree with all of the above.
At the same time, however, if the media were to sit back and pretend it didn't happen, say for the sake his younger fan base, the public would soon get word of it and wonder why they weren't informed. Lose-lose.
It was their responsibility to report what he had done. It was, in turn, his responsibility to abide by the terms of his contract with Kellogg and not give the media anything to report. If they can say his behavior doesn't support their image, then certainly there must have been something in his contract about it.
Looking forward to it all cooling down soon!
Although I can see the rationality in Kellogg's decision from a financial standpoint, I disagree with it. Phelps' pot smoking has clearly not interfered with his ability to be the fastest swimmer just about anyone has seen.
I also think it is interesting how other stars like Kate Moss can be photographed doing a more incriminating substance, cocaine, and she has never been "dumped". Obviously as an athlete Michael Phelps is responsible for portraying a cleaner, more family-friendly image than Kate Moss but this is arguably only because our society has set what appears to be an impossible standard for athletes.
He is young. He is going to make mistakes. I do not think he should be cut the same amount of slack an average 23-year-old would be, but a little would be nice.
Also I found an awesome rant in the link below that sums up my thoughts on the issue.
http://www.theagitator.com/2009/02/01/a-letter-id-like-to-see-but-wont/
Just because Phelps agreed to let Kellogg use his name and image in an attempt to help their brand make more money doesn't mean they own him or that he needs to serve them in any way outside of the promotional material he participates in, in my opinion. He should be free to live with the consequences of his actions.
The whole issue of role model concern seems a bit ridiculous to me.
A person is a bad role model if they consume marijuana, meanwhile, this society bombards itself with alcohol worship, a substance that is by all reasonable accounts a greater risk to public safety.
Hypocrisy is a much worse role model than Michael Phelps is.
Post a Comment