Shah Rukh Khan might have been forgiven almost anything by Kolkatans thanks to his ownership of the Kolkata Knight Riders, but his signing a contact with the manufacturers of Lux innerwear was beyond their patience and acceptance.
One of the members of the family that owned Lux has been accused of murder most foul and the thought of the Lux logo on the KKR kit jarred.
Jarred to the extent that KKR fans threatened to take out protest marches and pressurise Shah Rukh into cancelling the deal.
Which he has done.
All's well that ends well, one might say.
The important question is, what possessed the Shah Rukh Khan think tank to even explore the possibility of such an association?
That the brand was tainted was a fact known to all and sundry.
Despite the knowledge, if team SRK when ahead and finalised a deal with Lux, the decision smacks of arrogance and a complete disregard for his fans.
Celebrities have a responsibility (which increases as their popularity goes up) to ensure that they choose their associations with care and diligence.
Any endorsement by someone like SRK is a certification of the brand he associates with.
And the reverse.
SRK has taken the risk of losing out on his brand equity by even coming within sniffing distance of a brand like Lux.
We've seen this before (and few will remember this) when Sachin Tendulkar got into a deal with Home Trade many years ago. The company sank without a trace. Luckily, brand Sachin was largely unaffected.
In this instance, brand SRK would have been affected -- because one of the owners of the company which owns the brand was known to be accused of murder.
In Sachin's tryst with Home Trade, it was almost impossible to predict that the company would tank.
Foreknowledge was out of the question.
When a celebrity is flirting with a brand that is known to be tainted, that act is unforgiveable.
As much as a man is known by the company he keeps, celebrities are known by the brands they endorse. Sign up one bad brand and all the others get tainted as well.
.jpg&h=268&w=401&q=100&v=20170226&c=1)
