Published in the New York Law Journal
Brand partnerships are designed to borrow trust to promote a product or service. A company gains access to a partner’s audience, cultural relevance and credibility; the partner gains scale, commercial support and the reassurance of a familiar name. But that transfer of trust also transfers risk. When the partner’s content misfires, the public rarely pauses to distinguish who filmed it, who edited it and who posted it. It asks a much simpler question: whose name was on it?
Callaway Golf’s recent controversy with Good Good Golf illustrates this sharply. A co-branded driver advertisement showed a male golfer shoving a female golfer to the ground after she tried to use his driver. The spot drew swift criticism for its depiction of violence against women; it was swiftly removed. Crucially, Callaway CEO Chip Brewer said Callaway had approved the video before publication: “That approval should never have happened.”
That statement matters. It moves the story beyond an influencer or agency error and into a harder corporate communications question: how did a high-risk concept survive the approval process of a public-facing brand? For companies, boards and outside counsel, that is the more durable issue.
Read the article in full here (subscriber-based).