He "doesn't always drink beer", but he always represents Dos Equis

Jonathan Goldsmith, the actor who is better know as Dos Equis' titled "The Most Interesting Man in the World", is causing a stir by throwing his clout behind Obama and hosting a fundraiser for the president.

This political activism is evidently upsetting some consumers, who in turn are taking it out on Dos Equis by posting their displeasure on the brand's Facebook page. An Ad Age article captured the following quotes: "Since you are supporting Obama you just lost a customer". . . "Mexican beer for Obama............bye-bye Dos Equis"

Dos Equis moved to distance itself from the controversy by releasing a statement saying: "Mr. Goldsmith's opinions and views are strictly his own, and do not represent those of Dos Equis."  But unlike some celebrity spokesman, Goldsmith's character is closer to a brand mascot. Therefore, he's not only the face of the brand, but also encompasses the full essence of the brand image/equity.  So, how can his views not represent the brand in consumers' minds?

There's no doubt that "The Most Interesting Man In the World" campaign has been a tremendous success, perhaps one of the best advertising campaigns in recent CPG history, but anytime you leverage a spokesman you turn over some control of the brand to them. It would be easy for Goldsmith to highjack the brand, but it doesn't feel like he's doing that here and hosting a political fundraiser for the sitting president is far from committing a crime. So, in this case I think it's more what you do about nothing versus a real brand concern at this point. Sure the brand may lose a few consumers, but it's just as likely to gain a few and in the meantime pick up a little free PR.  The big question it raises, is does Dos Equis have a longterm transition plan?  At some point the brand will have to move on from Goldsmith and that transition will need to be made slowly over time as not to confuse or upset consumers.