Not too long ago, American rapper and record producer Snoop Dogg announced he was giving up on smoking, creating a stir on social media. Since his brand image and music were centred on smoking and his love for marijuana, the news came as a shock and spread like forest fire on the internet. Later the rapper announced his association with Smokeless Solo Stove, which explained his bizarre confession on smoking. The brand got so viral for the campaign that they then sold the product under the tag ‘The Snoop Stove’.

Closer home, Virat Kohli attempted to create a similar ruse on social media with apparel brand Puma. The cricket star sported a black eye, leaving viewers wondering what’s the tea. Puma and Kohli later turned an unexpected mishap into the central theme of the sports brand’s Black Friday campaign this year.

In December last year, his wife and actor Anushka Sharma also succeeded in pulling the wool over her fans’ eyes by getting into an online “feud” with Puma. After the brand shared a picture of the actor in a yellow Puma sports bra, she reposted the same with the caption: “Hey Puma? I’m sure you know that you have to take permission before you can use my imagery for publicity since I am not your ambassador. Please take it down!”

Many of Sharma’s fans were outraged by Puma’s “brazenness” only to feel bummed out when the brand announced that it was onboarding her as its brand ambassador.

The practice of celebs misleading their fanbase for announcing brand associations has not been received too kindly, especially since followers feel exploited. This myopic view of gimmick marketing may get the brand temporary eyeballs, but does it have any long-term adverse impacts?

Nisha Sampath, Managing Partner of Bright Angles Consulting stressed the fact that brands today aren't thinking long term but short term. Custodians of the brands should be mindful of the impact such moves can have on their image. For a day or two of virality, they don't look at the brand equity they lose that takes ages to build.

Lloyd Mathias, a Business Leader, Marketer and Strategist believes some brands like to thrive on a little controversy. So they want to build a negative narrative in the beginning which they can turn into positive later. It’s a slightly differentiated approach. Now whether that helps or not is a matter of the brand’s personality.

An industry expert added, “One man’s food is another man’s poison. So if one consumer thinks it’s cute and eyeball-grabbing, another consumer might think, ‘Oh I was cheated!’. It just depends on the consumer's sense of curiosity versus their sense of humour.”

Thinking from a consumer perspective, the next time any of the top-tier celebrities posts an important announcement, consumers might presume it to be a marketing stunt. Therefore, the reputation and consumer trust in the brand value of the endorser is impacted too.

“The impact of the controversy also depends on the celebrity. It can be expected from Urfi Javed or Rakhi Sawant since they wouldn't have to face long-term impacts. But someone like Rahul Dravid or Deepika Padukone will definitely be impacted,” highlighted Sampath.

Mathias opines it's all fun and games if the celebrity doesn't mind taking on some bold challenges. Last year, Cred did a campaign with Rahul Dravid which was totally unlike his personality. The idea again here was to provoke a controversy and most of the people knew Dravid wouldn't behave like that in real life. As long as brands aren't creating controversies with sensitive matters like religion or politics, it's all okay. The celebrity should be ready to take on the negative feedback of the joke as well.

The next concern that arises is, in the hunt for going viral, are brands blurring the lines between executing a strategy and a stunt? Well, yes there is a difference between the two.

Mathias said, “Brands presume that everyone has a similar sense of humour but there is a risk is a lot of consumers getting the joke. Of course, if the brand is confident that their TG will get the joke, then it's all safe.”

Another industry expert doesn’t believe there's a risk. “All that matters is what a brand wants to do. If they want to just grab someone’s attention then it wouldn't be a problem. Ages back there was an ad starring Pooja Bhat in a swimming costume on a hoarding. At that time it was never seen in India so it attracted all the eyeballs. Hence, grabbing attention is easy but what matters is what the brand wants to end up communicating.”For five minutes anything can give the brand attention, but what is the relevance they’re creating in the life of their brand?, questioned the source.

And lastly, as a tip to the brands skating on this thin ice of controversial marketing, Mathias suggested, “Be mindful that not everyone will get the humour and the joke and secondly, stay away from sensitive issues. As long as it is a casual issue and the brand's personality allows for it then well and good, otherwise, brands should play safe.”

Sampath said, “All I can suggest to brands is do not think short terms and be mindful of every action.”

The source added, “Keep it clear, what do you want to achieve- Two minutes of glory or long term relevance and therefore decide between short term and long term goals.”