Advertisement

When I say Jared, you think Subway, right? Well, these days Subway would rather you not.

While Jared Fogle has become a household name over the past fifteen years as he’s submarine-sandwiched his way down 245 lbs via an all-Subway diet, the spokesperson that has amassed $15 million as the face of the fast-food chain made the wrong kind of headlines this week.

The 37 year-old plead guilty to allegations that he paid for sex acts with minors and received child pornography. In addition to the allegations of pedophilia, his charity – the Jared Fogle Healthy Lifestyle Nationwide School Grant Program – was found to have spent an average of just $73,000 annually between 2009 and 2013 and never issued a grant despite his publicized intentions to give away $2 million.

The sandwich brand’s response in light of the compounding scandals was swift.

“We have already ended our relationship with Jared and have no further comment,” they said in a statement via social media.

But it was little too late, with some public relations crisis management experts arguing the chain should have cut ties back in July when the investigation against Fogle was announced.

The fiasco draws parallels to Alexander Keith’s mutton chopped spokesperson, played by actor Robert Norman Smith who was arrested for possessing child pornography in 2006.

The beer brand released a statement right after the news broke.

“We are surprised to learn of these charges,” spokesman James Villeneuve said in a statement. “Clearly, we have decided not to run any future television commercials featuring this actor until this information is confirmed. If it is confirmed that this is the actor in question, our commercials and any further association with him will be terminated.”

But unfortunately, spokespeople, whether celebrity or made household name on account of their association with the brand, have a tendency to become tethered to a brand’s image, says Mary Weil, a lecturer on management communications at Western University’s Ivey Business School.

“The challenge is anything that person says or does, anything they tweet or posts on YouTube – it becomes synonymous with your brand because you’ve woven them into your brand,” she explains. “The risk is very real for companies who take on a spokesperson, especially if that person is distinctive; you own what they do and there’s no distinction between their personal and their corporate (identity), you assume all of this.”

But there are ways for brands to insulate themselves. She says one way consumer-facing brands can avoid risk is to use animated spoke-characters.

“You look at a company like the Royal Bank’s character, he is whatever the brand wants him to be and they can actually manage that because he isn’t out there doing other things or commenting on other topics,” says Weil. “ Similarly with Telus, they’ve gone big with animals in their ads and again, those animals are mute.”

Of course an animated character doesn’t always work or connect with consumers the way a human face can. Which is why brand often choose celebrities as spokespeople.

“We have to step back for a second and think about why brands bring in celebrity and non-celebrity consumers to ‘star’ in their marketing communications in the first place: the brands want an association to them that makes them seem authentic, trustworthy, credible, and worthy of being trusted,” says Antonia Mantonakis, associate professor of marketing at Brock University’s Goodman School of Business. “Any positive association that consumers have towards a celebrity will transfer on to that brand, sort of like a halo effect.”

And negative behaviour or spokespeople gone rogue can have the opposite effect.

“Just like an association to someone can lead to having a positive perception of the brand, it can also lead to a negative perception, very easily, even if the brand had absolutely nothing to do with the incident,” Mantonakis. “Now, for example, instead of thinking ‘Subway – Jared’ or ‘Jared – Subway’, consumers think ‘Subway – Jared – bad’ or ‘Jared – bad – Subway’.”

Most contracts for celebrity endorsements or roles as pitch-people include moral clauses – which allow a company or brand to sever ties if the spokesperson engages in conduct or behaviour in their private life that is decidedly negative – the wording needs to be specific, otherwise it can lead to drawn out divorces from their celebrity spokespeople. And they don’t really prevent the damage from being done in the first place adds Weil.

“Often with the moral clause, there’s not a lot of you can do because it’s after the fact,” she says.

Instead, the key to protecting a brand’s reputation from an outside alignments personal life lies in being diligent and having a thorough vetting process – interviewing, interacting with them beforehand and investigating their digital footprint before you hire someone, whether it’s a celebrity or a regular person.

“With something like this, it’s about continual vetting by checking in and asking, how is this working?” she says. “A lot of companies do this and look for danger signs coming up.”

For the most part, consumers will look at the Jared Fogle fiasco and know that, really, it had nothing to do with the sandwich maker. An incident like this, or any spokesperson fiasco, can be passed off as bad luck or poor vetting on the brand’s process.

A swift response is the best offense, she says.

“After something happens, cut ties and ensure you have a clause in your contact that says you can do so quickly,” says Weil. “Be open and apologize when it’s appropriate, be empathetic and be all the things people want to see.”