Amitabh Bachchan took 8 yrs to realise soft drink hazards

Did it really take an eight-year-old to wake up Amitabh Bachchan's conscience on a brand that he was representing for eight years? Was he truly unaware of the long and complicated history of soft drinks, not just in India, but around the world, when he took a total Rs 24 crore from Pepsi-Co? If tomorrow, a nine year-old asks him about the questionable nutritional benefits of, say, Maggi Noodles, will he share those facts with the public and end his endorsement with them?

Is this really about the brand, the products or their ingredients? Did he really turn down Rs3 crore a year because of his personal convictions and having the guts to stand by them?

No chance. It's all about commerce. Celebrities, for the most part, do not endorse products they believe in. They endorse products that pay them the right price. In 2004, when reports alleged that worms were found in Cadbury chocolate, was Bachchan such a huge fan of the company that he felt compelled to step forward and make a public service announcement for the brand? No. He was hired to do so.

Whatever the perception of the product may be to an eight-year-old, after taking Rs24 crore from the Pepsi brand, it is unethical for Big B to make such damaging comments. But was this just a slip-up? An anecdote shared in the heat of the moment to a young, rowdy audience? Or was this a brilliant marketing plan to reposition his brand into the future?

In a country whose population is getting younger and younger, it could be very smart planning for a mature brand ambassador to reposition oneself as an 'endorser with integrity'.

An endorsement is most effective when the audience trusts the endorser. Will the next company to hire Bachchan pay a premium for the 'man with the most integrity'?

Whether a mistake, or personal repositioning strategy, Bachchan has opened up a 'bar of worms' for the industry. As reported by the media, the Central Consumer Protection Council (CPCC), under minister KV Thomas, has discussed the issue of celebrity endorsement.

Reports suggest that Joseph Victor, a CPCC member, has gone to the extent of recommending that celebrities, not just companies, who endorse certain products should also compensate genuine complainants.

What a disaster that would be. Imagine a Bollywood star held responsible for a, say, faulty brake line in the car that the star endorses? Or a cricket star sued because, maybe, the whitening face cream he represent was recently found to cause cancer?

For a simple commercial transaction, how can a celebrity be responsible for vetting, researching and confirming that every brand and every product they associate with is 100% safe, healthy and true to its promise? Isn't that the responsibility of the government bodies that give manufacturing licences, retail permissions and health and safety certificates to the companies that create these products for the market?

I would be interested in knowing the reference check procedures and quality assurance guidelines that Bachchan advises his son and daughter-inlaw to follow when representing a construction company, airline, bank or watch manufacturer. Instead of enjoying the fame and the fortunes of their success, which Bachchan has done for decades and decades, celebrities of the New Young India will be in a position of doubt and scepticism before signing any new multi-million dollar endorsement deals.And brands will be in a very tough spot to both convince, and subsequently afford, new ambassadors.

Bachchan has most likely, intentionally or unintentionally, damaged the reputation of a brand that he made money from him for a number of years.

He claims that he did not want to be associated with, what might possibly be perceived, as a bad product. However, his actions may have ensured that future brand ambassadors are held liable for everything they associate with. Instead of establishing himself as an 'endorser with integrity', he may have just made that position obsolete.

The author is Joint MD, Percept Limited.