Future product and licensing managers will learn an important lesson from H&M’s handbook on “why you shouldn’t release celebrity-branded fashion without the full consent of the celebrity”.
Swedish clothing company H&M launched a range of Justin Bieber-branded items including a pink hoodie, t-shirts and accessories such as iPhone cases and tote bags. The company undoubtedly followed the correct protocols for the license agreement, but seems to have forgotten that there was a real person behind the contract. In this case, singer Justin Bieber, who also happens to be a co-founder of fashion label Drew House and may be expecting to sign off on the final design.
H&M failed at Marketing 101
Contracts are contracts, but Bieber enjoys the attention of 270 million Instagram followers on social media. Significantly more than H&M with ‘only’ 38.4 million followers. Legal obligations aside, Bieber’s reach far surpasses that of H&M, and when a celebrity’s popularity can eclipse a brand, the marketing team must consider all the associated aspects before launching a product.
Bieber made no secret of his dislike for the merch. “The H&M merch they made me is rubbish and I didn’t approve it. Don’t buy this,” he posted on Instagram.
H&M then took the collection out of the stores and online shop. “As with all other licensed products and partnerships, H&M has followed the relevant approval processes. But out of respect for the collaboration and Justin Bieber, we have removed the garments from our stores and online,” the company said in a statement on Wednesday.
The star as capital
In licensing deals, the celebrity is usually capital, with the star contractually obligated, for example, to make a certain number of posts on social media or to publicly display the product. There are often contractual safeguards for the brand that protect the company in the event that the celebrity breaks their end of the bargain.
Celebrity endorsement deals continue to go awry, some because of lax contracts, others because the companies don’t have comprehensive licenses. In 2015, singer Rihanna successfully sued then retail giant Topshop for £3.3 million ($3.4 million) over the sale of merchandise bearing her likeness, which she had not consented to.
The partnership between soccer player David Beckham and hair product Brylcreem is also a prime example. David Beckham shaved his head while the contract was still running. However, the contract did not contain any information on hair length, so Beckham could not easily be fired as an advertising face and sales of the product collapsed by 25 percent.
While the retailer’s losses from H&M’s licensed Bieber products may not be too severe, public perception could be seriously damaged. When a retail chain like H&M tries to capitalize on celebrities to sell products, it can also hamper future collaborations. Figures of a certain status and income level may not want to be associated with a fast fashion retailer, especially one that struggles with sustainability and human rights issues in its extensive supply chain. And on top of that, it doesn’t even seek the approval of the main player in every licensing deal – the star.
This translated and edited post previously appeared on FashionUnited.com