Disgrace Insurance: When good celebrity endorsements go bad
Dennis Rodman might require a different definition of "disgrace" than other celebrity endorsers.
(page 1 of 2)
How the mighty have fallen.
It’s a common term to denote someone who once held a lofty status in our society and now has fallen on hard times. It can refer to an actor, athlete, or any other type of celebrity who has suddenly taken a major PR hit. Think Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Alex Rodriguez, Paula Deen. One day they are riding the crest of fame, soaring high above the crowd like a majestic eagle. The next day the eagle turns into the Hindenburg and the celebrity comes crashing back to earth in flames.
The important question here isn’t so much who or why, but what is the collateral damage when a celebrity suddenly implodes. To hundreds of companies across the world, the damage comes in the shape of now having unwanted baggage adorning their footwear, spotlighted in their ads, and smiling from a million backpacks in every Wal-Mart coast to coast.
Companies use athlete endorsements to raise their profile, with the end result being increased sales, all put in place by multimillion dollar advertising campaigns. But there is risk involved, such as when cycling legend Lance Armstrong found himself front and center of a steroids scandal. In rapid succession, Armstrong’s sponsors and corporate backers bailed on him, companies like sunglasses manufacturer Oakley and Anheuser-Busch. Meanwhile food manufacturer Honey Stinger announced it was taking out a giant eraser and removing Armstrong’s image from its packages. Brett Favre’s texting scandal also brought reports of possible endorsement deal losses.
But you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube, and once the damage is done all many companies find themselves doing is living with the backlash once it goes public and watching the bottom line start to drown in red ink. So how can insurance agents help companies protect themselves?
The decision to sever ties with a spokesperson can be expensive, and many companies—by the time a scandal hits—have already sunk millions of dollars into commercials and print advertisements, some that may not even be aired. Now, some companies can elect to go the traditional route and sue the celebrity, but all that really does is further magnify an already ugly situation. This is why “Disgrace Insurance” has become more and more popular over the last few years in giving companies the financial flexibility to protect their most valuable assets—their name and reputation.
Disgrace coverage includes protection from unlawful acts and offensive statements by a contracted spokesperson whose image has been licensed on consumer items such as cereal boxes, footwear and other apparel, as well as insurance for a failed commercial campaign caused by a disgraceful act. In short, it serves as protection against the exposure of a celebrity spokesperson who might conduct themselves in a disgraceful manner.
This entitles companies to be reimbursed for:
- Money paid to the disgraced athlete or celebrity to secure his or her endorsement.
- The cost of hiring a substitute athlete or celebrity spokesperson.
- The cost of reshooting or reproducing the advertising material in question.
- The cost of removing the spokesperson’s image from product packaging.
For example, we recently placed coverage for a large clothing manufacturer that had a teenage television idol under contract and budgeted millions to have her image licensed on backpacks to be sold through major retail chains. The policy protected the company should the contracted artist do anything that would cause harm to the company that might require them to withdraw their inventory of products.
When a company is looking into taking out a Disgrace Insurance policy, there are a few important items to consider:
- If the spokesperson has a history of “issues,” it does not necessarily mean the company will pay more. A disgrace policy usually does not include coverage for an insured person acting within their public persona. So personalities who are known to live on the edge are usually good risks. It is the clean and wholesome images that are actually more risky. For example, if Justin Bieber is caught doing something or saying something crazy, no one should be surprised. But when “clean, wholesome, family man” Tiger Woods started to have his social life revealed, that was a sudden shock to the community at large.
- Make sure the policy’s definition of “disgrace” covers a wide swath. Like pornography, the definition of disgrace lives in a shadowy world where things aren’t always clearly defined. What is considered disgraceful antics by Alec Baldwin, may not be the same as disgraceful antics by, oh, I don’t know… how about Dennis Rodman? Make sure the policy clearly defines the term broadly enough to indicate any misconduct you deem will adversely affect the company’s reputation. A policy should have flexibility to match the morals clause in the advertising campaign contract.
- Be conscious of time limitations. A disgrace policy will only cover a length of period related to an actual contract between the policyholder and the insured person. Celebrity images on products have a very long shelf life, so if a company invests in a person, they want to make sure they are comfortable with their persona. This is especially true in TV ads that now feature disgraced celebrities, which live on forever in infamy thanks to YouTube. As one astute observer noted, “Hertz executives, no doubt, wish they had a time machine and could travel back two decades and take some disgrace insurance out on the once-beloved O.J. Simpson.”
- Small businesses big winner with reinstatement of Health Reimbursement Arrangements
- Insuretech startups Hippo, Lemonade on the attack against agents who sell homeowners coverage in California
- 4 industry trends to watch for in 2017
- Shopping up, enrollment channels shift for Medicare Part D as more consumers rely on brokers
- Why companies can’t get marketing right
- Optimism rebounding among independent P&C agencies; leads to aggressive growth plans in 2017
- Lessons from the U.K.’s bold new retirement initiatives
- Annual review of client needs only makes sense