But this begs an important question: if a consumer actually believes Tiger Wood drives a Buick, do you really want to count this brain-dead prospect as a member of your target audience? Thankfully, I believe the numbers are dwindling, and that fewer Americans are falling for this nonsense. (Though I admit this trend doesn't apply to youth marketing for cereals and toys, nor may it ever affect the creepy deification of logo-laden racecar drivers by NASCAR Nation. But I digress.)

In short, I think people today are savvier consumers than ever before, and so the chasm between celebrity testimonials and credibility is widening. With that in mind, Kate Moss's recent de facto testimonial for nose candy, and the p.r. firestorm it created, inflicted far less damage on her brand roster than it would have even a decade ago, as consumers are slowly waking up to the truth: celebrities have nothing in common with us, and their testimonials are a sham. With no accountability exerted on the famous for their actions (see also: Barry Bonds, Hugh Grant, and the rapper of your choice), the brands that the rich-n-famous are paid to love are merely winning free press -- and reinforcing what we already knew: dirty laundry sells, and consequences are minor.

Now, do I encourage H&M to run to Winona Ryder as a Moss replacement? No, but anything short of murder these days seems tantamount to being 'cool' or at least 'rebellious' in the eyes of consumers and their growing indifference to immorality, and worse, classlessness.

The behaviour by a celebrity does affect the brand... Negative or positive depends on the nature of behaviour. Behaviour which signifies rebellious attitude could be positve for a brand if the brand stands for such behaviour. Kate Moss snorting cocaine could be seen as such a behaviour; but on the other hand a boxer raping someone under the influence of alcohol or drugs would negatively affect the brand he is endorsing. A celebrity driving fast on a higway and getting a ticket for the same could be good for an auto/fuel/tyre brand he/she endorses but at the same time killing someone in the highway because of overspeeding can jeopardise the brand to a great extent.

Now the question may become simpler. Would publicly unacceptable behavior of an allied brand be harmful for your brand or not? Well, depends on YOUR brand’s phenotype. In science, a phenotype is represented by the simple equation:

Genotype + Environment = Phenotype

So really it depends on 1) how strong the value of irreverence is embedded into your brand at the time of its birth 2) what is the environment that your brand exists in.

If I could apply a model to whether an eleven-tattooed celebrity would add positively to a brand (a most non-model-applicable kind of question!), I would say, that an alliance with an irreverent brand or celebrity would have the most chances of succeeding if either both your brand’s genotype & environment have irreverence as a value or both do not! In the former, it is a requirement and in the later, a market disruption.

In case, only one of the two (your brand’s genotype or environment) has irreverence as a value, it probably won’t be a great idea to partner with an irreverent celebrity as it will only end up highlighting the contrast.

From this we can infer that if a brand is held in very high esteem, it would take an equally powerful AND negative event for the brand to be disastrously affected. In fact, according to the borrowed theory, a notorious celeb gains more by associating with a reputable brand than the brand loses from associating with notoriety.

Some brands that use celebrities in their advertising may increase the sales, but let’s face it, for how long? We can’t use the same person (either a celebrity or a lay person) over and over again, but if we change it too often it will confused the customers.

For example Sanath Jayasooriya, a local cricket hero in Sri Lanka, had been used as a celebrity to promote a milk brand, Lak Cow, but the product failed during the period when the cricketer was in out of form. Like wise there are so many international and local example could be posed to support this argument.

Thinking about Kate and some brands (Rimmel for example), Kate Moss is not a testimonial. It's not the testimonial. It's the brand. I do not mean to get into the fact itself and judge. It's not my business. I was just wondering what happened if a brand would just ignore the whole thing. Or better: what a stunt would be if a brand protected somebody like kate and stands for individualism rather than conformity?

Most celebrity endorsements have all the brand affinity of a large train wreck. Very compelling to look at, but mostly forgettable in the time.

In turn, celebrity brand endorsement works best when their is synergy between brand and person. Michael Jordan, cited through this discussion, mirrored Nike's brand values of courage, victory, honor and teamwork -- and athletes who shared in those values were more apt to choose Nike as a result.

The second part of story: H&M have done the right thing. They broke the agreement with Kate and have shown their attitude towards drugs. Those customers who got the story of the H&M decision, they probably will become more loyal to the issue. In this case Kate’s behavior just made an event, a media platform to discuss about the H&M, Kate and cocaine and we can only guess will H&M benefit from this or not. Let's ask H&M sales numbers.

One thing is true for sure: awareness of H&M brand and Kate’s brand increased. Almost free of charge.

Concluding I want to say, that celebrity is brand, firstly, a media platform, a symbol, a sponsorship vehicle for the brand to co-branded and there are always several possibilities what can happen: Everything goes smooth and is neutral, something amazing happens and surprises everyone, or something bad happens and provokes emotions. If truly, what's bad and what's good? Brands do have lives, stories, behavior as real peoples, also bad and good morning, days and weeks. Consumers will believe in true stories. There is no excellence. There is no good. There is no bad. There is just love, friendship, sympathy and there is real life truth.

Maybe for her career. How will her sponsors, like Nike, deal with this? Nike, the proud sponser of Tiger Woods, the hero to many aspiring young golfers... and consumers of Nike's products.

“Do celebrity actions negatively impact brand?” If brand has any connection to ‘authentic value’, if brand is a form of ‘open’ dialogue, if brand is not manipulation in disguise, then should a mishap arise ‘real’ value will override celebrity or circumstance.