Boycott of the Brands: Should advertisers restrict who they associate their brands with?

As news breaks of the uncovering of phone tapping of senior politicians and celebrities by journalists at News Corporation a subsidiary of News International and its newspaper brand News of World, advertisers are considering their positions with the brand itself and questioning should they be associated with such a reputable brand such as News of the World.

According to the Newspaper Marketing Agency, News of the World costs just £1 to buy and attracted a readership following of just over 7.4 million per year in 2009 with a typical readership age of 35 to 44.

Likewise its sponsorship deals not only benefit the paper to make it a commercial success but also help the advertiser reach that captive audience which would have made it difficult to aspire to alone. This is what is known as an ingredient product. Furthermore it could be highlighted that the advertising schemes run by many organisations complement the newspaper. For example on its advertising website it states that readers of the Sun and the News Of the World redeemed 2.75m in vouchers worth £5 each in Tesco & Morrison’s. This suggests that people buy this paper not just to read about the daily news but also for incentives that it offers inside. Removing crucial advertisers such as Boots, Specsavers and Reckitt Benckiser could halt these readership figures.

In similar circumstances the Tiger Woods affair in late 2009 prompted a similar response by advertisers to boycott sponsorship deals with the golfing professional including Gatorade and Accenture all pulling ties. However key deals still remained including Tigers long term sponsor Nike. It showed a strong deal of character by the sports brand and only time will tell whether or not similar events will unfold in the News of The World’s story.

The brands that still associate themselves after the story has unfolded will be the ones that show a great deal of character and loyalty. Whether the uncovering of crucial information was intentional or not it could jeopardise the future of not just the News of the Worlds’ reputation but its sister papers too including The Times, The Sunday Times and The Sun.