Analysis of failed brand characters: typical mistakes
Joe Camel: how a mascot brought a brand to court
The most indicative case in branding history — Joe Camel, created for the Camel cigarettes in 1988 year. The character turned out to be charming: sunglasses, leather jacket, irony in his gaze. The problem became clear not immediately — studies at the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1990 showed that children aged five to six recognize Joe Camel as well as Mickey Mouse. The mascot, created for adult smokers, became visually understandable and likable to an audience to whom selling cigarettes is forbidden by law.
In 1997 year, under pressure from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the company R.J. Reynolds removed Joe Camel from advertising. This is not a designer's decision — it is a consequence of nobody in the company asking in time: who else, besides the target audience, would like this character and what it conveys beyond the intended context. The mistake was not in the form, but in the lack of control over who actually considers the character theirs.
The character is created for the designer, not for the audience
A common trap is that the mascot becomes visually striking but fails to convey a specific brand trait. The audience remembers the image but cannot say what the character thinks about the product or why they can trust it. Development proceeds from aesthetics to meaning, whereas it should be the other way around.
- The character lacks one clear personality trait — copywriters invent new features for him from campaign to campaign, and the audience loses the sense that it's the same hero.
- Appearance matters more than behavior — the mascot is attractive, but nobody has thought through how he reacts to conflict, jokes, or criticism.
- The character is made "for everyone" — they try to please the widest possible audience and end up with an unremarkable image without sharp edges.
- The tone of the character does not match the tone of the brand in other touchpoints — a cheerful mascot against the backdrop of a dry corporate website looks absurd.
The character does not evolve over time.
Ronald McDonald was the face of McDonald's for decades, but by the 2010-s year of his appearance in advertising, his presence was sharply reduced — the clown image symbolizing fast food had become too closely associated with criticism of the company due to rising childhood obesity. The brand did not completely kill off the character, but shifted it to a background role, redirecting communication toward the product and ingredient quality. This is a managerial decision: the character must adapt to changes in public discourse, not remain a hostage to the image of the 1960-s.
A similar logic applies to Colonel Sanders in KFC advertising. Starting from 2015 year, the brand regularly changes the actors playing the colonel, including women and well-known comedians, transforming the static portrait of the founder into a living format for jokes and collaborations. This is an example of how a character can be updated without losing identity — the performance changes, but not the essence of the image.
Table: Typical mistake versus working solution.
| Situation | Typical mistake | What the brand does when it works. |
|---|---|---|
| The character appeals to the wrong audience. | Ignoring the signal, continuing to exploit the image. | R.J. Reynolds removed Joe Camel after proven popularity among children. |
| The image is morally outdated. | They keep the character in an unchanged form "out of respect for history." | McDonald's reduced Ronald McDonald's appearances, shifting the focus to the product. |
| The character is static and predictable | Afraid to change the presentation format in order not to 'ruin' the image | KFC regularly changes its character generals, preserving the essence of the character |
| Audience reaction to the scandal | Silence or sudden disappearance of the character without explanation | Mars temporarily suspended the use of all spokescandies in January 2023 year, including the repurposed green M&M (which was updated in 2022 year), and reinstated them in February 2023 year in the same updated form |
The character comes into conflict with the product
The error occurs less frequently but hits harder: the mascot conveys a value that the product does not confirm. A friendly and caring character against the backdrop of regular complaints about the service works against the brand — the audience perceives the gap between the promise and the experience as deception, specifically personalized deception, because the promise has a face. An abstract logo does not evoke such a reaction, but a character has a personality that people don't trust specifically.
There is no owner of the character within the company
A failure often originates not in the creativity but in the process organization. One agency creates the character for a launch, another connects a year later for a new campaign, and a third reworks the voice for social media — and no one tracks the integrity of the image. Without an internal document describing the character's traits, boundaries of acceptable humor, and responses to crisis situations, the character begins to contradict itself from channel to channel.
- Formally document the character's traits: three to five traits that must never be violated in any channel.
- Define what the character never says or does — this protects against accidental toxic jokes.
- Appoint an internal person responsible for coordinating any new appearance of the character.
- Regularly (not less than once a year) check whether the perception of the image has changed in the external environment.
- Pre-plan a crisis pause scenario — how to temporarily remove the character from communication without reputational losses if there is an acute audience reaction.
What ultimately distinguishes a failed character from a working one
The difference is not in the quality of the illustration and not in the campaign budget. A working character is managed as a brand asset: it has an owner, a document with rules, and a plan for crisis situations. A failed character was most often created once and left unattended — and during this time, the world, the audience, and the brand's reputation have had time to change several times.
Joe Camel: how a mascot brought a brand to court
The most indicative case in branding history — Joe Camel, created for the Camel cigarettes in 1988 year. The character turned out to be charming: sunglasses, leather jacket, irony in his gaze. The problem became clear not immediately — studies at the end of 1980 and the beginning of 1990 showed that children aged five to six recognize Joe Camel as well as Mickey Mouse. The mascot, created for adult smokers, became visually understandable and likable to an audience to whom selling cigarettes is forbidden by law.
In 1997 year, under pressure from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the company R.J. Reynolds removed Joe Camel from advertising. This is not a designer's decision — it is a consequence of nobody in the company asking in time: who else, besides the target audience, would like this character and what it conveys beyond the intended context. The mistake was not in the form, but in the lack of control over who actually considers the character theirs.
The character is created for the designer, not for the audience
A common trap is that the mascot becomes visually striking but fails to convey a specific brand trait. The audience remembers the image but cannot say what the character thinks about the product or why they can trust it. Development proceeds from aesthetics to meaning, whereas it should be the other way around.
- The character lacks one clear personality trait — copywriters invent new features for him from campaign to campaign, and the audience loses the sense that it's the same hero.
- Appearance matters more than behavior — the mascot is attractive, but nobody has thought through how he reacts to conflict, jokes, or criticism.
- The character is made "for everyone" — they try to please the widest possible audience and end up with an unremarkable image without sharp edges.
- The tone of the character does not match the tone of the brand in other touchpoints — a cheerful mascot against the backdrop of a dry corporate website looks absurd.
The character does not evolve over time.
Ronald McDonald was the face of McDonald's for decades, but by the 2010-s year of his appearance in advertising, his presence was sharply reduced — the clown image symbolizing fast food had become too closely associated with criticism of the company due to rising childhood obesity. The brand did not completely kill off the character, but shifted it to a background role, redirecting communication toward the product and ingredient quality. This is a managerial decision: the character must adapt to changes in public discourse, not remain a hostage to the image of the 1960-s.
A similar logic applies to Colonel Sanders in KFC advertising. Starting from 2015 year, the brand regularly changes the actors playing the colonel, including women and well-known comedians, transforming the static portrait of the founder into a living format for jokes and collaborations. This is an example of how a character can be updated without losing identity — the performance changes, but not the essence of the image.
Table: Typical mistake versus working solution.
| Situation | Typical mistake | What the brand does when it works. |
|---|---|---|
| The character appeals to the wrong audience. | Ignoring the signal, continuing to exploit the image. | R.J. Reynolds removed Joe Camel after proven popularity among children. |
| The image is morally outdated. | They keep the character in an unchanged form "out of respect for history." | McDonald's reduced Ronald McDonald's appearances, shifting the focus to the product. |
| The character is static and predictable | Afraid to change the presentation format in order not to 'ruin' the image | KFC regularly changes its character generals, preserving the essence of the character |
| Audience reaction to the scandal | Silence or sudden disappearance of the character without explanation | Mars temporarily suspended the use of all spokescandies in January 2023 year, including the repurposed green M&M (which was updated in 2022 year), and reinstated them in February 2023 year in the same updated form |
The character comes into conflict with the product
The error occurs less frequently but hits harder: the mascot conveys a value that the product does not confirm. A friendly and caring character against the backdrop of regular complaints about the service works against the brand — the audience perceives the gap between the promise and the experience as deception, specifically personalized deception, because the promise has a face. An abstract logo does not evoke such a reaction, but a character has a personality that people don't trust specifically.
There is no owner of the character within the company
A failure often originates not in the creativity but in the process organization. One agency creates the character for a launch, another connects a year later for a new campaign, and a third reworks the voice for social media — and no one tracks the integrity of the image. Without an internal document describing the character's traits, boundaries of acceptable humor, and responses to crisis situations, the character begins to contradict itself from channel to channel.
- Formally document the character's traits: three to five traits that must never be violated in any channel.
- Define what the character never says or does — this protects against accidental toxic jokes.
- Appoint an internal person responsible for coordinating any new appearance of the character.
- Regularly (not less than once a year) check whether the perception of the image has changed in the external environment.
- Pre-plan a crisis pause scenario — how to temporarily remove the character from communication without reputational losses if there is an acute audience reaction.
What ultimately distinguishes a failed character from a working one
The difference is not in the quality of the illustration and not in the campaign budget. A working character is managed as a brand asset: it has an owner, a document with rules, and a plan for crisis situations. A failed character was most often created once and left unattended — and during this time, the world, the audience, and the brand's reputation have had time to change several times.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
