Colin Sims

Magic Johnson: Endorsements “After”…?

April 12th, 2019
A. Introduction and Summary
Magic Johnson began his basketball career in 1979 after being drafted first overall by the
Los Angeles Lakers. He lived up to this high draft pick by becoming one of the most prolific
basketball players of all time, an internationally recognized sports icon, and the second most
popular and appealing athlete of the late 80’s, behind only Michael Jordan, according to
measurements by Marketing Evaluations, Inc. This superstar appeal garnered Johnson
endorsements from Converse, Spalding, Pepsi, KFC, Nestle, and Nintendo.
These companies which endorsed Johnson found themselves with questions of how to
continue their partnership when on November 7th, 1991, Johnson announced to the world that
he had contracted HIV and would seek to become a spokesman for the HIV virus. Although
the public was largely sympathetic towards the beloved sports icon, a cure for AIDS was not
thought possible at the time and sponsors would need to quickly evaluate what would be
done with Johnson’s contract.
The questions surrounding Johnson’s ongoing endorsements were largely whether it was
worth the risk to the brand to keep Johnson as a spokesperson and whether the light-hearted
nature that Johnson had exuded in previous commercials could continue given the brevity of
his recent announcement.

B. Statement of the Problem

a. Magic Johnson’s recent announcement that he has contracted HIV has left his
sponsors with questions of how to continue their endorsement deals.
i. Symptoms:
1. Magic Johnson might lose his endorsements which generated him a
large amount of income.
2. Companies may face backlash if they were to cut Johnson due to the
severity of his illness.
3. Companies that decide to cut Johnson will need to find new sponsors.
4. Magic Johnson’s light-hearted ads may not feel the same after such a
serious announcement and as a result, companies might need to
revamp their ad campaigns even if they keep Johnson on.
ii. Root Causes:
1. AIDS was an extremely stigmatized and misunderstood disease at the
time.
2. There was no cure for AIDS at the time, meaning the chances of
survival were very low.
3. Johnson had accumulated endorsements from a wide variety of
brands meaning each brand marketed him differently.
4. Johnson’s time as an All-Star basketball player meant his
announcement garnered international attention.
iii. The sponsors who had been endorsing Magic Johnson at the time of his
announcement must decide how to continue or terminate their partnership
with the basketball star.
C. Decision Criteria and Alternative Solutions
a. An effective solution would seek to maintain the brands positive image, minimize public
backlash from the decision, and preferably not further harm or bring distress to Magic
Johnson in his already difficult time whether he be dropped from the endorsement or not.
b. Alternative Solutions:
i. An effective solution may be to simply cut all ties with Magic Johnson given the
stigmatizing nature of HIV during the time and the general public view of it being
an embarrassing illness. All brands would terminate their contract with Johnson
and distance themselves from the former representative of their brand.
ii. An effective solution may be to keep Johnson under contract but simply not
include him in any advertisements or public images associated with the company
for the time being until the initial shock of his announcement subsides.
iii. An effective solution may be to keep Johnson under contract as a representative
for the brand and discontinue the previous, light-hearted marketing campaigns.
Instead, the companies which endorse Johnson could revamp their campaigns and
seek to highlight the strength and courage of Johnson during such a difficult time.

D. Recommended Solution
a. An effective solution may be to keep Johnson under contract as a representative for the
brand and discontinue the previous, light-hearted marketing campaigns. Instead, the
companies which endorse Johnson could revamp their campaigns and seek to highlight
the strength and courage of Johnson during such a difficult time. This new line of
advertising campaigns would work for both the sports sponsorships as well as the non-
sports brands. A new campaign which reassure the public that the brands which had
previously utilized Johnson’s image to further their brand would continue to stand by his
side during this difficult time. The sponsors would feature Johnson in more serious,
character driven advertisements displaying his courageous nature in coming out as a
spokesperson for the disease. This new campaign would also include donations to the
HIV/AIDS charities and research centers growing at the time and would secure the
companies place as an early ally against the disease. This new campaign would avoid
pubic backlash from dropping Johnson in his time of need and would also overcome the
issue of his previous light-hearted commercials coming off as inappropriate. This solution
would also allow for the previous sponsors to seamlessly transition from wielding
Johnson’s sports image to positive PR resulting from taking a serious stance against the
rapidly growing concern of an AIDS epidemic given the startling frequency of cases in
the mid-eighties. The risks associated with the solution would be the public image of the
brands given the stigmatized nature of HIV and AIDS in the early nineties, with many
associating it as an illness which only affected the gay community which resulted in it
being considered a shameful thing to contract. This group who would look upon the
brands negatively due to their association with Johnson, now a self-identified spokesman
for the HIV virus, would be marginal as the disease was rapidly becoming more
understood and accepted as celebrities such as Johnson came out as HIV+ and tore down
the stigma against the illness. Overall, this solution would allow for the companies to not
only boost their public image as early, powerful allies against the disease by standing
with Johnson during his already difficult time, but would also allow for the companies to
do the morally right thing which would pay dividends in later years as the public looked
back upon the decisions of the brands to not drop Johnson’s endorsement in the face of
the shocking news.