Yes, Your Favorite Celebrities Have A Impact On Your Stocks And Stocks! – Finance Mag

When celebrities get rid of frustrations through an offensive tweet, the companies and brands associated with them feel the impact not only in the bad press, but also in volatile stock prices. Reality star Kylie Jenner tweeted that she was filmed While Snapchat and Jenner can’t move Wall Street in a simple way, the market is noticeable when it comes to talking. Snap Inc. and its shares fell 6% or more in trading after a tweet after losing $ 1.3 billion in market capitalization.

The question is: How dangerous are celebrities for your stock trading? The answer is that celebrities and celebrities can have a negative impact on stock trading. A Kellogg School study shows that the longer a media boycott covers a company, the greater its impact on a company’s stock price. Shares of a target company fell by almost 1% every day, especially in the print media. The target ally keeps any story alive in the headlines.


Boycott of companies affiliated with the controversial National Rifle Association (NRA), including technical giants apple and is backed by a group of celebrities including actors Amazon, FedEx and Roku, including Alyssa Milano and Debra Messing. Immediately after all the companies approved the boycott of celebrities, they saw their shares fall. While all stocks are recovering to a large extent, this story could gain momentum by having a greater impact on stock prices. Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Avis and Hertz cut ties with the NRA, and large companies moved away from the NRA. Omaha’s First National Bank has stopped issuing NRA credit cards. When it comes to fame, the pressure to take a stand against the NRA, the support of more companies or the withdrawal of ties, and any mass shootings reinforce this.


But you can be a good person to expose the unethical behavior of a famous, giant company. Over the years, scandals surrounding brand ambassadors such as Tiger Woods and Lance Armstrong have hit companies hard in places where they have suffered losses in terms of profits and reputation. In both cases, these athletes were legends in their field and were rewarded with lucrative sponsorship deals. Following Armstrong’s drug scandal involving performance-enhancing drugs, sponsors, including Trek Bicycles, Nike and Michelob, threw him out. Tiger WoodsIn 2009, betrayal and subsequent admission cut ties with the golf legend, sponsoring Gatorade, AT&T, Accenture and Gillette.

Sponsorship agreements

Nike, who signed for Woods in 1996, stood next to her husband and the player wears and introduces Nike golf clothes and shoes. Nike accepted Woods better than Armstrong because it did not receive a brand of deception, nor did its star success in the field of golf be questioned. Nike was hit by Woods’ loss of grace and loss of form and subsequent drop in the world rankings. Woods’ departure from the professional golf course in 2009 was estimated to reduce Nike’s sales by $ 30 million and reduce audience by up to 50%. Another study from the University of California suggested this tThe Woods scandal cost shareholders of the companies it approved up to $ 12 billion. Were it not for the work of Tiger Woods, the onset of reputational risk insurance may never have occurred. DeWitt Stern product coverage protects advertisers, brands, and corporate entities from losses due to penetration risk crises.

Leave a Comment