1. Coca-Cola should have dropped Salman Khan from Thums Up ad much earlier, here’s why

Coca-Cola should have dropped Salman Khan from Thums Up ad much earlier, here’s why

Coke would have saved itself the blushes if it had offered any other reason than the one it did for dropping Salman Khan as the celeb endorser of its popular soft drink, Thums Up, that Khan was being dropped for being associated with a reality show that was sponsored by a competitor.

By: | Updated: October 24, 2016 11:34 PM

Coke would have saved itself the blushes if it had offered any other reason than the one it did for dropping Salman Khan as the celeb endorser of its popular soft drink, Thums Up, that Khan was being dropped for being associated with a reality show that was sponsored by a competitor. While, as an Economic Times report points out, there could be diminishing returns from having big-ticket celebs yoked to brands—Khan’s last contract with Coke had come for R18 crore—there is no denying that the company seems to have missed much stronger reasons to drop the actor.

Having first signed Khan on in 2001, the company continued with him till 2003 even though, in 2002, he was named in the infamous hit-and-run case that killed one and maimed four. To be sure, there could have been compelling reasons like having to wait for a contract to expire, but surely, the company would have benefited in terms of optics had it bought out the contract? Even so, the company signed him on again, for the second time, in 2012. The following year, a chargesheet was filed indicting the actor for the crime and, in May 2015, the actor was found guilty of all charges by a Mumbai sessions court. Coke missed both chances to end its association with him. It is true that in December 2015, the Bombay High Court acquitted Khan, but given it was more due to investigation botch-up—as is typical of cases involving the powerful, witnesses went missing or became hostile, crucial physical evidence and documents were lost and never found—than the actor’s innocence in the matter, holding on to him was always bad optics for Coke. Which is why, perhaps, the reason the company proffers seems so unconvincing to many.

  1. I
    Indu
    Oct 24, 2016 at 1:50 am
    They held on to him because his pority was not affected by any of these things. They held on to him because he was selling their product and giving it an edge in the face of tough compeion. As simple as that. You think company like coca cola doesn't understand where it is putting it's money?
    Reply

    Go to Top