Branding Strategy Insider

When The Brand Appeal Just Isn't There

This weekend, if the papers are to be believed, we might see the first British men's finalist at Wimbledon for more than 70 years. I am not convinced that Andy Murray will make it to an apparently inevitable final against Federer on Sunday, but, irrespective of his performance on the courts this week, the bigger marketing question relates to the potential appeal of 'Brand Murray'.

The concept has reached a peak in recent months, fuelled by both the player's short odds to win Wimbledon and his decision earlier this year to join 19 Entertainment, David Beckham's agency, which is widely portrayed as the epitome of brand-building expertise in relation to celebrities and sports stars.

A source close to the agency, quoted last week, confirmed that work on Brand Murray had begun: 'The ambition is global. The potential is enormous.'

Yes, and the bullshit is plentiful. Despite predictions that Brand Murray will soon be worth £100m a year, the harsh reality is that Murray is a fine tennis player, but a hopeless prospect as the next Beckham, no matter how advanced the brand strategy applied to his future career.

Let's start with a fundamental commercial limitation for Brand Murray - he is not exactly a looker. For all the talk of Brand Beckham, the fact remains that David was beautiful long before the agents and brand gurus came calling. Former Wimbledon champion and cultural diplomat Pat Cash got himself into a bit of trouble last week when he pointed out that Murray was not in the same league. According to Cash, Murray is 'never going to be eye-candy' and has 'the most boring, monotone voice in the history of the planet'. Cash went on to extol Murray's ability on court, but his comments highlight the importance of aesthetic appeal when you are up against the likes of Nadal and Ivanovic.

The Michael Phelps Endorsement Factor

Open the big book of celebrity endorsement scandals, it's time to make another entry. Swimming star Michael Phelps was just having a bit of fun last November while visiting his girlfriend at the University of South Carolina when, along with all the shots and beer he consumed at a house party that weekend, he also had a toke on a bong that was being freely passed around.

Phelps had probably forgotten all about this weekend until the photo of his bong hit appeared on the cover of the News of the World last weekend.

The reaction was immediate. USA Swimming banned Phelps from competition for three months and the media reported that his lucrative sponsorship deals would almost certainly dry up.

That prediction came true as Kellogg announced it would not renew its tie-up with the star. The reaction of Kevin Adler, founder of Chicago sports marketing firm Engage Marketing, was typical of the expert commentators. 'Athletes are brands. If you do something that runs contrary to your brand image, it will affect your ability to monetise that brand image. It really is that simple,' he concluded.

No, it really is not that simple. For starters, Phelps is not a brand. He is an athlete who, through association with brands, can confer meaning. People, no matter how famous, are not brands. Yes, they have symbolic meaning, but so do road signs and mythological gods, and no one is confusing them with brands.

It would also be a mistake to assume that Phelps' actions will damage his reputation.