Although this article is a bit dated, I feel it still provides relevant questions in the public relations world as it pertains to spokespersons. Over and over again we have seen celebrity endorsements go wrong. But one 'celebrity' not only damaged her personal reputation but her reputation as the CEO of her own company, Martha Stewart.
For those of you who don't remember, Martha Stewart was jailed back in 2004 for 5 months for conspiracy, obstruction of agency proceeding and making false statements to federal investigators. She was reportedly told by the assistant of her Merrill Lynch broker to sell her shares of ImClone Systems because the company was about to implode. Stewart jumped on the opportunity, sold her shares and was later arrested for insider trading. Had Stewart not sold her stocks, it would have barely made an impact on the empire she built.
In an article published in NY Magazine they reported that Stewart was reported saying "isn't it nice to have brokers who tell you these things." This statement is inevitably what got her in trouble.
This raises multiple questions but first, what makes a good spokesperson? The book, On deadline: Managing media relations gives six characteristics that represent a qualified spokesperson. A spokesperson must be knowledgable of the subject he or she is talking about. They need to have a detailed understanding of the organizations overall goals and objectives and they must be able to make a sale and have an overall desire to present the information.
For Stewart, it would have almost seemed silly to not have her represent her own company by becoming the face. It was an empire she built around her name, so why pick anyone else to be the spokesperson?
But as we have all seen in the past, celebrities are notorious for making quick, irrational decisions and having a bad case of word vomit.
This brings up the question
Is it more effective/practical to have a celebrity spokesperson who can make you cash fast with the chance they could possibly destroy your organization altogether
Or
Have a credible spokesperson, such as the CEO, who might not bring in as much revenue as quickly, but in the long run?
Even eight years later, Stewart, being as she was the CEO and face of her company, unfortunately still hasn't been able to repair her image or the company's.
Depending on the company or organization, I think it can be effective to have a celebrity spokesperson. In Martha Stewart’s case I don’t think there was really any other option, this was her brand and she needed to go off of her own successes and followers to build up her empire. While other organizations have the option to carefully select a spokesperson that will fit in with their brand. Overall I think with any spokesperson whether it is a celebrity or a CEO you run the risk of them causing problems and with either you can distance yourself from them after an issue by firing them.
ReplyDeleteThe Martha Stewart story is definitely one of a kind so it’s hard to judge whether having someone else be the spokesperson would be more effective or not. Personally, I think it just makes sense for her to be her own company’s spokesperson. Her actions (good or bad) will fall back on her and her company anyway, so go for it! I know this isn’t in the book, but I think an essential quality of a spokesperson is to be a good person; a spokesperson having basic morals and actions that promote the greater good will most likely end up being successful in what they do. It’s just common sense. If everyone had good ethics, these problems wouldn’t happen in the first place. As far as your question goes, I think it’s important to have a familiar face as a spokesperson, but I also think they need to be a thorough person that is taught how to act and react to certain situations. Not every company needs a celebrity spokesperson; however if they are the “face” of the company, I feel like they should be a household name.
ReplyDeleteYou both have valid points when stating that Stewart was the obvious choice when representing her company. While choosing a celebrity might benefit an organization in multiple ways, it also, like anything else, has its downfalls. Taking action and firing somebody who isn't well representative to a specific brand, hopefully will eventually allow for new growth. Vierra makes a good point in stating that a spokesperson should be a well rounded, genuine individual with good intentions. All these questions and thoughts are what allow for us as pr professionals to enforce a positive influence when choosing a spokesperson.
Delete