Stuart Baggs - The Brand

Below is Macdonald Henderson’s analysis in full:

Anyone familiar with the BBC television show The Apprentice will immediately recognise the infamous popculture quote, “Stuart Baggs – The Brand”. It was a succinct and readily identifiable way in which one of the show’s 2010 contestants (Mr. Stuart Baggs) projected himself beyond his competitors, demonstrating to his potential employer that he not only has the goods but that he is the goods. With a brand’s purpose being to convince a consumer to purchase or otherwise use the goods/service to which the brand is attached – Mr Baggs claim was a clever one with an appropriate application to the show at hand. Yet, on waking up Monday morning, it may well be that Mr. Baggs now wonders what went wrong, why it was that another candidate rode off in Rolls Royce AMS 1 to embark on a job with a six figure salary. Why did Stuart Baggs – The brand fail?

Interesting business lessons are to be found in Mr. Baggs’ claim and Mr. Baggs’ calamity.

Mr. Baggs claim was not that he was Stuart Baggs ‘a’ brand, but that he was Stuart Baggs ‘the’ brand. The TradeMarks Acts have long provided for the ability to register names, images and other personal indicia as registered trade marks (understood by most as the basic component of, or at least the legal embodiment of, a brand). John Menzies and John Lewis are examples of personal names which have been subject to registration. However, when you think of John Lewis, you do not think of an individual, you think of a lot more. To the same extent, a brand is much more than just a name or a registered trademark; it is the entire culture of a product, service or business delivered through a series of promises. The greater the realisation of these promises in the underlying product, service or business and the greater the singular representation of the promises in the graphical representation of the brand (in whatever format) the greater the effectiveness and value of the brand. So, in claiming to be Stuart Baggs – ‘The’ Brand, the anticipation, expectation, and hope that was on offer rested squarely on the sincerity, integrity and circumspectness of Mr. Stuart Baggs.

Now for those who missed the 2010 UK series of The Apprentice, Mr.Baggs made a series of promises. They were clear promises. They were impressive promises. They were prima facie believable promises based on the information he had applied in his application form and CV [resume for USA readers]. They were promises which enticed Lord Sugar (the potential employer for the UK show) not to disregard Mr. Baggs even until the penultimate challenge of thes how, so far so good for The Brand. Yet, this is where Mr. Bagg’s calamity occurred. In a series of interviews, Lord Sugar’s outside advisors found that Mr. Bagg’s CV was shown to have given the truth a little more latitude than thought acceptable. This in turn shook the credibility of each and every brand promise. There was no way back for Mr.Baggs who was evidently peddling an untrustworthy product. The consumer turned elsewhere.

Mr. Baggs’ example highlights one or two of the issues commonly associated with celebrity endorsement (e.g. Tony Hawk skateboards), personality merchandising (e.g. Dvband Intimately Beckham), and to a lesser extent, character merchandising (e.g.Doctor Who Lego). Like Mr. Baggs situation, it may be that after securing a deal to use a celebrity to promote a business product or service the celebrity’s reputation is crushed by a private, professional or other PR mishap. Just as previous contestants on The Apprentice are quickly forgotten about, the popularity of characters can be extremely faddish and subject to early redundancy by the next big thing. It is therefore that crucial that sound advice is sought (in advance) and contractual provisions are utilised to protect businesses against risks and ensure the rewards that such brands promise to bring are actually delivered.