Ad Age: Is The Tom Cruise Brand in Trouble?

Tweet

Joining a chorus that’s shaking its head over Tom Cruise’s his recent weird publicity antics, Ad Age [subscription] wonders whether changing his public persona from pretty boy to Scientology boy is damaging his brand.
“Mr. Cruise’s public persona has emerged — and it’s a doozy,” says Ad Age.
Cruise probably set the treatment of post partum depression back 50 years when he repeatedly attacked Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants instead of throwing her newborn baby out the window.
“That kind of thing can’t be good for somebody’s brand,” said Mark Lisanti, editor of Defamer.com. “He’s certainly not going to get an endorsement deal with Paxil.”
In a poll accompanying the Ad Age story, 92% said his brand has been damaged by his change in PR strategy.

Comments

1. Marianne Richmond says:

   July 18, 2005 at 10:05 pm

   I am not a Tom Cruise fan based upon what I am forced to know about his personal life…however that doesn’t prevent me from going to see one of his movies IF it sounds like something I would enjoy seeing. 92% of Ad Age readers might think his brand is damaged by his latest Scientology boy posture but most likely 92% of the people who went to see War of the Worlds could care less. And does he need an endorsement from Paxil? He could use a perscription perhaps. My kids put the whole thing in perspective for me this weekend…Andy Roddick was supposed to make an appearance at a sponsor’s tent before a tennis match that he was paid a significant amount of money to play in. He didn’t show up. Then afer the match, he let hundreds of kids wait in line for autographs while he showered and then was less than cordial to them. I started on a rant about contracts and hurting his image and so on and my kids both said…Mom, nothing is going to happen, he’s Andy Roddick.

   Reply
2. Emergence Marketing says:

   July 19, 2005 at 4:19 am

   links for 2005-07-19

   information aesthetics weblog Visualization of information (tags: technology UI usability) Podcasting Spurs a Media ‘Land Grab’ – Yahoo! News (tags: podcasting media) News Corporation to Acquire Intermix for $580 Million – New York Times MySpace socia…

   Reply
3. Komra Moriko says:

   August 8, 2005 at 9:44 am

   Tom Cruise is actually saying something important. He is also willing to put his reputation on the line, which is courageous. Do you really think that addictive toxic drugs are an answer to depression? Did you know there is no test that proves chemical imbalance in the brain? — Chemical imbalance being touted as the “reason” for depression by people who make significant profits from the sale of these drugs. Did you know that the diagnoses in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) are VOTED on, and not in any way medically proven to exist? And that once a diagnosis is in the DSM, a practitioner can now get insurance reimbursment for labeling a patient with that diagnosis? Did you know that Curt Cobain, Stevie Nicks and Judy Garland were all victims of psychiatric medication? And that Stevie Nicks, who survived, says that the psychiatric tranquilizer nearly destroyed her career? Think about this and take a hard look at what is being so sweetly sold to us as the answer to the difficulties we face in life.

   Reply
4. B.L. Ochman says:

   August 8, 2005 at 10:54 am

   The question was whether Cruise should use his PR appearance to promote his movie as a platform for his beliefs about psychiatry.
   He’s entitled to his opinions on psychiatry and psychiatric medication. I don’t think the public is likely to be looking to Tom Cruise for their information on this topic.
   When he, or any other actor is pushing a movie, I think he should stick to talking about the movie.
   However, if he wants to crusade against psychiatric medication, I think he should schedule a separate publicity tour to discuss it. If he can back up what he knows with research and facts, and without jumping on the couch, I’m sure people would listen.

   Reply