Usually we hear of brands dumping their sponsored celebrities over an incident of wrong doing - so does the same rule apply if the shoe (or the undies) is on the other foot?
The recent news story that Pacific Brands, famous for the iconic Bonds range, is under fire for the decision to sack 1850 Australian workers and transfer those jobs offshore to China has upset many Australians, particularly as the company has received a reported $157m in recent years in government assistance.
As a result, tennis legend and former Australian of the Year Pat Rafter, and his fellow Bonds ambassadors, were urged to condemn their sponsor Pacific Brands for this decision.
Do you think it is appropriate for a celebrity to condemn or sack their sponsor? Just how responsible are they, as the 'face' of the brand, for the quality, ethics and standards of a product they are recommending by nature of their sponsorship arrangements?
(Consider the article here which outlines what the celebrity deal is likely to be, when forming your opinion).
No comments:
Post a Comment