The phone number as a component of a branding strategy has decreased in importance over the past two decades as the web has become the first point of contact for most companies and organizations.  However, it remains an important element, especially in market segments with limited access to the Internet, such as the senior citizen segment, or where the nature of the business makes the phone number the logical first point of contact.

Many companies and organizations, in fact, use their phone number as the primary element of their branding strategy:

 

    

Note that while the domain names of 1-800-Flowers and 1-800-Got-Junk are Flowers.com and GotJunk.com, even if your phone number is a much less important part of your branding strategy, the value of your brand is enhanced by having a correspondence between your domain name and phone number. Such is the case with Comcast(.com), which can be reached via 1-800-Comcast, 1-877-Comcast, as well as 1-888-Comcast, and Best Western(.com), which can be reached at 1-800-Western.

              

Of course, it helps if your brand name happens to be seven characters long.  If the name is shorter (or longer) than this, the phone number is often presented with a mnemonic combination of numbers and/or letters, either using the brand name, or a word or words related to the brand name. Orkin, for example, uses two very effective phone numbers, 1-888-OrkinMan (in association with their most recent ad campaign) and 1-800-800-Orkin.

In another example, Super 8 Motel's phone number strategy illustrates a particularly interesting and ingenious tactic which uses a mnemonic yet meaningful string of numbers:

Others use a variety of tactics in their efforts to make their phone numbers more memorable than what would otherwise be a string of a 10 digits which only the cognitively gifted would be able to successfully store and later retrieve from long-term memory. The examples presented below represent an array of effectiveness levels.

            

                                      

                            

Although not usually thought of as such, celebrities are in themselves brands. They have equity which must be developed and managed in the same way that companies build and cultivate their products’ brands. The one key difference between product brands and celebrity brands, of course, is that celebrities are human beings whose actions can create dramatic swings in their own brand equity. Recent memory for celebrity events of the negative variety are readily accessible. Just this week Paris Hilton was sentenced to jail for a parole violation, O.J. Simpson was refused service at a restaurant because the owner found his presence repugnant, and a video of a drunken David Hasselhoff was made public . Last week a tape of Alec Baldwin surfaced in which he called his daughter an ungrateful pig, New Jersey Governor John Corzine's SUV crashed while speeding (the governor was not wearing a seatbelt), charges were brought against Richard Gere in India because he violated a decency law by kissing a Bollywood star in public, and Lindsey Lohan went to rehab. The week before that Don Imus’ radio show was cancelled by CBS and MSNBC because of a racial slur directed at the very accomplished Rutgers women’s basketball team. In fact, due to the public nature of a celebrity’s life, these events are occurring continuously because most of a celebrity’s life is documented by tenacious paparazzi, pervasive surveillance technology, and widespread use of cell phone camera technology. In the past year, many other prominent celebrities have been involved in events which have severely impacted their personal brand equity: actor Mel Gibson, comedian Michael Richards, actor Isaiah Washington, singer Britney Spears, actor Tom Cruise, cyclist Floyd Landis, socialite Nicole Richie, ‘American Idol’ judge Paula Abdul, singer Madonna, fashion model Naomi Campbell, singer Sir Paul McCartney and his wife Heather Mills, singer Jessica Simpson, actor Danny Devito, singer George Michael, Miss USA Tara Conner, actor Kim Basinger, actor Nicole Kidman, fashion model Kate Moss, actor Angelina Jolie, actor/model Pamela Anderson, etc…

However, notice that while all of the above celebrities were involved in at least moderately extreme negative events, many of them either benefited from them, or recovered -- after a period of retreat in their equity – to a level of fame much higher than before the event. For example, a few weeks ago Paula Abdul appeared on a number of talk shows under the influence of (apparently) pain medication (view one of these interviews).  She slurred her words, kept moving in and out of the camera frame, and rambled extensively in her responses. While this would appear to be an event that would be extremely detrimental to her career, it was in fact just the opposite. She was suddenly in great demand on news and talk shows, who wanted desperately to discuss the issue with her, and many people undoubtedly tuned in to ‘American Idol’ that week specifically because the events of the week had made her relevant and even more fascinating. She received incredible amounts of press across the board, making her more visible, more famous, more marketable, and more valuable to the producers of ‘American Idol’. However, in the case of Floyd Landis, who tested positive for steroids after winning the Tour de France, the opposite effect was observed. After achieving the status of national hero as the come-from-behind Cinderella victor of the most grueling cycling race in the world, he became a national disgrace and an embarrassment to his sport. He tried to do damage control by making the talk show circuit and refuting the charges against him, but the results of the drug test appeared to be accurate, and his image could not recover. He fell from public view, lost his endorsements, and has not competed in any significant professional races since he tested positive. Landis can redeem himself and rebuild his image by winning more races and generating positive press, but this can only be achieved if subsequent drug testing reverses the original results. Landis continues to fight for this, and has written a book entitled “Positively False” in which he makes a case for his exoneration.

So why were the responses to Abdul and Landis so different? I researched this topic with two of my colleagues at the University of Washington (Therese Louie and Robert Jacobson) and our results suggest that the critical factor in these events is ‘blameworthiness’ (view a synopsis of this research on MarketingProfs.com). That is, if the general public perception of the event assigns a high level of blame to the celebrity, then the celebrity’s image will likely be damaged rather than enhanced. So in the case of Abdul, blame was assigned to the pain medication rather than to her, absolving her of any serious repercussions. Landis, however, (allegedly) cheated, and was wholly to blame for the very serious events that transpired after his win at the Tour de France.

Since the direction of blame is largely a matter of public perception, many of these situations can be managed by publicists and agents by responding to the events in a way that deflects blame away from the celebrity and toward situational factors. For example, when Britney Spears left rehab and went immediately to a salon to have her head shaved, the general perception seemed to be that she had “finally gone crazy.” Blame was assigned to her, very seriously tarnishing her public image. The correct response from her publicist should have been to deflect blame toward recent uncontrollable difficulties in her life, such as her divorce and subsequent problems with alcohol. In a similar set of circumstances, Miss USA Tara Conner almost lost her crown after developing a reputation for a hard-partying lifestyle, including allegations of substance abuse. Responsibility for her actions could easily have been assigned to her, harming her reputation and likely leading to the loss of her crown. However, she was very contrite, admitted she had problem, and promised to go to rehab. All these actions deflected blame away from her, and toward her ‘problem’, the control of which she was not responsible.

Nevertheless, the examples of Spears and Conner illustrate the potential ineffectiveness of public relations efforts as one cannot help but wonder if society would have blamed Spears and sympathized with Conner regardless of their damage control efforts. Certainly, statements released by the celebrity and their publicists have an impact on the public perception of their actions, but these efforts are often but a small ripple in the massive undulations of societal consciousness. And it seems that as the severity of the event increases, so does the futility of the celebrity’s response. One of the most egregious and difficult-to-defend types of events is one that involves racism. Some celebrities recently involved in such events include actor Mel Gibson, comedian Michael Richards, and radio host Don Imus. These celebrities’ images now indelibly include racism as a central element. Even though Mel Gibson and Michael Richards went to rehab and Don Imus emphasized his long history of philanthropic endeavors in the community, it was almost impossible for the celebrities to deflect responsibility for the events. Michael Richards could simply state that he was sorry, but had nothing on which to blame is own thoughts. Similarly, Imus’ words were his responsibility and his alone. Following Gibson’s rant with police about how “the Jews were responsible for all wars”, many found it critical to ask if his thoughts were because of his alcoholism or just encouraged by it. In short, it was important to know if blame should be assigned to Gibson’s alcoholism, or to Gibson himself, before a judgment about the star could be made.