High-profile criminals are turning the perp walk into the catwalk.
Last week, Casey Anthony strutted to freedom with a Ralph Lauren Polo pony logo emblazoned on her chest. Yesterday, Norwegian madman Anders Behring Breivik arrived at court wearing a Lacoste sweater with tell-tale green crocodile.
Whether these sartorial selections are scripted fashion statements or just mere chance, designers are finding their iconic brands tarnished by association. Most experts agree, however, that the connection will be brief and any damage contained.
Simon Williams, president and CEO of Sterling Brands, a branding consultancy firm in New York City, said most companies are powerless to prevent these public-relations nightmares.
“We live in a free world,” Williams said. “If a terrorist wants to buy a $4,000 jacket from Hermes, he will do it.”
Williams said it would be unwise for companies to counter the bad publicity when their brands get tarred. He said customers don’t hold the unfortunate advertising against them.
“Do I think they should put a government health warning on their website stating, ‘We apologize for Casey Anthony buying our product?’ I think people don’t need unnecessary news.”
But if unsavories were to all pool together and don some accessory or outfit, that could cause contagion.
“If it happens that the next seven seriously evil people are all arrested wearing Timberland hats, then I think an issue begins to emerge. But this is random, and I don’t think you can legislate for randomness.”
Doug Berdie, a senior business manager at independent research firm Maritz, based in Fenton, Mo., did damage control in 2000 while researching Firestone after the company came under a torrent of scrutiny for manufacturing defects.
Bad press won’t indelibly scar a brand’s Boy Scout image.
“One thing I would take from this is when brands take a hit, it doesn’t last long,” Berdie said.
“Sometimes it’s a big hit. They can recover. So it might not be a permanent effect.”
Decision makers already shell out big bucks for product placement and positive endorsement deals to win the hearts and minds of consumers.
“That’s why you see happy people drinking beer,” Berdie said.
“You have the reverse here, where brands are being associated with something negative. That can have an adverse effect,” he said.
But the assumption is that consumers hoping to fill their closets with Izod’s preppy wares know the poisonous stain on the garment will rinse clean shortly.
“One would conclude at home that a crackpot is a crackpot and happened to be wearing Izod.”
That isn’t to say a company can’t be pushed on its heels when the notorious get their 15 minutes at a brand’s expense.
“Brands have been ambushed,” Williams conceded, citing luxury mainstay Burberry. The brand wasn’t necessarily smeared by one high-profile scandal but instead took a thousand hits as it was embraced by clientele outside the luxury market. Its reputation became a victim of its own popularity, in a sense.
“If you have a $4,000 jacket, you don’t want to sell it to people on Social Security,” Williams said. “That’s not your target.”
But Williams said companies rely on an audience’s short attention span. Toyota is still selling cars after a series of recall debacles. Johnson & Johnson endured 15 months of product woes, too, recalling everything from artificial hips to Tylenol, Williams pointed out.
“The result is that I think that brands — particularly in the fashion area — accept this as schizophrenia,” he said. “Memories are very short.”
Last week, Casey Anthony strutted to freedom with a Ralph Lauren Polo pony logo emblazoned on her chest. Yesterday, Norwegian madman Anders Behring Breivik arrived at court wearing a Lacoste sweater with tell-tale green crocodile.
Whether these sartorial selections are scripted fashion statements or just mere chance, designers are finding their iconic brands tarnished by association. Most experts agree, however, that the connection will be brief and any damage contained.
Simon Williams, president and CEO of Sterling Brands, a branding consultancy firm in New York City, said most companies are powerless to prevent these public-relations nightmares.
“We live in a free world,” Williams said. “If a terrorist wants to buy a $4,000 jacket from Hermes, he will do it.”
Williams said it would be unwise for companies to counter the bad publicity when their brands get tarred. He said customers don’t hold the unfortunate advertising against them.
“Do I think they should put a government health warning on their website stating, ‘We apologize for Casey Anthony buying our product?’ I think people don’t need unnecessary news.”
But if unsavories were to all pool together and don some accessory or outfit, that could cause contagion.
“If it happens that the next seven seriously evil people are all arrested wearing Timberland hats, then I think an issue begins to emerge. But this is random, and I don’t think you can legislate for randomness.”
Doug Berdie, a senior business manager at independent research firm Maritz, based in Fenton, Mo., did damage control in 2000 while researching Firestone after the company came under a torrent of scrutiny for manufacturing defects.
Bad press won’t indelibly scar a brand’s Boy Scout image.
“One thing I would take from this is when brands take a hit, it doesn’t last long,” Berdie said.
“Sometimes it’s a big hit. They can recover. So it might not be a permanent effect.”
Decision makers already shell out big bucks for product placement and positive endorsement deals to win the hearts and minds of consumers.
“That’s why you see happy people drinking beer,” Berdie said.
“You have the reverse here, where brands are being associated with something negative. That can have an adverse effect,” he said.
But the assumption is that consumers hoping to fill their closets with Izod’s preppy wares know the poisonous stain on the garment will rinse clean shortly.
“One would conclude at home that a crackpot is a crackpot and happened to be wearing Izod.”
That isn’t to say a company can’t be pushed on its heels when the notorious get their 15 minutes at a brand’s expense.
“Brands have been ambushed,” Williams conceded, citing luxury mainstay Burberry. The brand wasn’t necessarily smeared by one high-profile scandal but instead took a thousand hits as it was embraced by clientele outside the luxury market. Its reputation became a victim of its own popularity, in a sense.
“If you have a $4,000 jacket, you don’t want to sell it to people on Social Security,” Williams said. “That’s not your target.”
But Williams said companies rely on an audience’s short attention span. Toyota is still selling cars after a series of recall debacles. Johnson & Johnson endured 15 months of product woes, too, recalling everything from artificial hips to Tylenol, Williams pointed out.
“The result is that I think that brands — particularly in the fashion area — accept this as schizophrenia,” he said. “Memories are very short.”
