NEED IN 15 HOURS or LESS

Review the "Marketing Excellence: Louis Vuitton" case study (ATTACHED) of your textbook. According to Interbrand, Louis Vuitton is ranked the 19th most powerful global brand. With this very important distinction, how is their recent use of celebrity endorsers risky for their brand identity? As demonstrated in this case, the use of celebrity endorsers can be risky for brand identity. Describe another brand that experienced some level of fallout with the use of a celebrity or sports figure as their endorser. What was the ultimate result? Make certain to use a brand that another student has not already brought forward.

ANSWER AND THEN REPLY TO MY CLASSMATE’S RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS AND EXPLAIN WHY YOU AGREE? (A MINIMUM OF 100 WORDS)

                                                CLASSMATE’S POST

Companies often use well known celebrities or athletes to market their products in hopes of inspiring consumers to achieve the level of status or recognition of those professionals by buying or being seen with the products they advertise. While many times this works well and is a boost for the company it is also risky as that product is forever tied to an individual and runs the risk of falling victim when the endorsers land in the middle of controversy.

For Louis Vuitton, I don't think that controversy or negative publicity necessarily caused fallout for the brand, but I would certainly believe that they took some risk in using personalities like Michael Phelps or Buzz Aldrin or are not typically associated with the level of luxury that the brand desires to portray. The recent endorsers seem to be a shift from those that came before them like Madonna or Audrey Hepburn.

Oakley is an example of company that once used Lance Armstrong and Oscar Pistorius to sell their famous eyewear to runners and cyclists who wanted to be as fast as the Olympian and Tour de France champion. In 2012/2013 the company decided to terminate their relationships with these athletes in light of the doping scandal by Armostrong and Pistorius' murder accusation and later conviction. While the situations are unsettling and reach far beyond a product endorsement, it certainly was not the positive media attention that Oakely would have hoped for when they agreed to pay the athletes to represent their brand. In the end, Oakley is still a leader in their industry and continues to provide all kinds of athletes with apparel and eyewear designed for the athlete. They may have lost a handful of customers that find it hard to get past the ties that Oakley once had with Armstrong or Pistorius, but I would think that a majority of the population understands that Oakley was not responsible for the actions of these two professionals and consumers will continue to support the company if their products are right for them.