# data[].attributes.body
In these cases, it's crucial to analyse the context and distance quickly if you feel the controversy might harm your brand equity.

In this glass box era, brands must communicate their stance on highly controversial and harmful subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
Pete Evans role as an ambassador was to champion good health, but also be a personality and a personal interface with customers. While some of his suggestions were not backed by any kind of research (or results) this would probably not be a deal breaker for a number of brands who possibly saw more value in his personality than his “lifestyle advice”.  One he started to share health misinformation he was not only stepping away from this, but actively choosing to make statements that could cause real harm to people. At this point I believe brands absolutely made the right decision to distance themselves from him. Any brand that is focusing on the good health of their customers would not benefit from being associated with someone whose actions are promoting poor health outcomes.

Johnny Depp’s case is a little different, in that he was not chosen to represent the brand on how to have a successful marriage, but rather to convey individualism and ruggedness. On top of this, the court case was based on allegations, not fact, and the outcome was that Depp was not found guilty. In that circumstance the decision to retain Depp does make sense. In addition the brand probably stands to benefit from a substantial amount of publicity as a result of the case and also public curiosity on how they would respond.

My company is very conservative by nature so I imagine we would take it very seriously if an ambassador became controversial. It would absolutely depend on the context of the situation.  Any ambassador relationship neurocare has would likely be with a leading neuroscientist or researcher. This means the value they bring to the brand is in terms of their factual and ethical research. If a controversy around them as a person emerged (e.g. they had an affair) it would be undesirable, but not impossible to work through. However if the controversy in any way indicated that they were not an excellent and impartial researcher, or put their ability to deliver scientifically-evidenced research in question we would take action.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the brands’ decisions to drop Pete Evans and stay with Johnny Depp. The nature of each controversy is different.

The extreme nature of Pete Evan’s posts caused alarm, concern for his mental health, and was the source of much derision and humour. The final straw was a post that supported a murderous totalitarian state. I was surprised at the time of the Nazi post because brands took too long to manage not only the damage that was being done to them in the lead up to this post, but also showed little consideration of the ambassador’s mental health. These brands for some time enjoyed the limelight with his extreme and controversial lifestyle hacks. But the writing was on the wall. This was a disaster waiting to happen in my view and he should have been pulled a lot sooner.

In regard to Depp V Heard this is still a divided and controversial topic. However, as Depp has not been found guilty of domestic violence and Heard appeared an unreliable witness in the recent defamation case they have decided to keep him. Dior have taken a stand to support Depp and may well consider that in the future, even if he actively breaks the law, or is found guilty of these or further allegations, the public may well experience amnesia on the issue anyhow. Also, as the Dior brand has high brand equity it could outlive any further negative sentiment. I’m sure there is already an exit strategy standing by though, just in case.

# data[].attributes.body
The saddest thing about the Depp situation is the +23% growth in the perfume searches. My personal values are ashamed of a society where fame trumps domestic violence.  However, the brand decision was a safe one based on a correct commercial assessment. Long term brand damage unlikely but slightly possible.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the opinion piece on Pete Evans, many brands turned a blind eye on his repeatedly poor behaviour. I refused to buy his products long before the meme incident. I used to go on his Facebook page and read the comments on his posts, where he would regularly advise people to go against professional medical advice and stop taking prescribed diabetes medication, for example, and simply adopt a keto diet.

The key difference between this and the Johnny Depp case was that Evans had a history of repeatedly spreading harmful health misinformation and controversial opinions. Johnny Depp was accused in one incident, although very serious in nature, there were always questions about the truth of the allegations. Many fans remained on his side and Dior were praised for staying with him when he won the defamation case against Amber Heard.

Unfortunately in a lot of cases it is better for a brand to drop a controversial ambassador and litigate risk, than it is to stand by them. The nature of the controversy does have an impact, and brands need to have a very clear idea of what behaviour they will and will not tolerate so they can react quickly and confidently in these situations.