Liquidated this Wednesday (21) by the Central Bank as an extension of the liquidation of its controller, , became the newest member of the list of banks that have already gone bankrupt, but with a difference: the recent advertising campaigns with personalities known to the Brazilian public – who now see their image linked to a liquidated institution.
Despite being created in 2017, the campaign that made Will Bank better known began in 2022 and involved the actress and influencer Maisa, the comedian Whindersson Nunes, the doctor Thelma Assis, who became the winner of Big Brother Brasil 2020, and the singers Simone Mendes and Pabllo Vitar.
In 2024, Brazilian athlete Vinicius Junior became the bank’s ambassador and singer Belo starred in an advertisement for the brand. In 2025, it was singer João Gomes’ turn to star in the institution’s campaign about a financial organization tool for self-employed people.
Opportunity with security!
Furthermore, since April last year, Will Bank was one of the official sponsors of the Domingão do Huck, the Sunday show on TV Globo presented by Luciano Huck.
Now, the question that remains is: What is the impact of the Will Bank liquidation for all these artists and influencers who lent their image to the brand? For professor Marcos Bedendo, specialist in Branding and Marketing at ESPM, the relationship between brands and celebrities is always a two-way street – and involves calculated risks.
“There really is a cross-association,” explains Bedendo. “The influencer lends prestige, audience, relevance to the brand. But the brand also gives something back to them: an aura of credibility, of professionalism, of greatness. That’s why many people who want to be influencers start promoting certain brands for free, to look like they’re being sponsored. They do this just to give the impression that they have big brands alongside them.”
According to Bedendo, the movement shows how important it is “for the right brand to be with the right person” – something that applies to digital influencers as well as football players and other athletes who often wear or consume specific brands to reinforce their high-performance image.
Read more:
Whose responsibility? Company x influencer
Historically, the biggest concern has always been on the side of companies in relation to the celebrities they choose for their campaigns, precisely because individuals are more susceptible to image crises. In the case of Will Bank, however, the situation was reversed: the brand collapsed, not the influencer. And then the question arises: to what extent is it legitimate to hold those who participated in an advertising campaign responsible?
Continues after advertising
“It is less common for the company to have a problem and the influencer ends up involved, but it happens”, says the expert. “In these cases, it is very common for the person to claim that they did not have access to the company’s management, that they were hired only to do publicity work and that, at the time, they were unable to identify any problems in the company”.
For Bedendo, this defense is, in many cases, legitimate. “We are talking about real companies, which existed, sold a product, had operations in the market. It is not possible for a person to guess that a bank, five years after an action, will fail and become involved in a financial scandal. There is no way to predict.”
Still, this is a type of risk that could be mapped. “There is no such thing as a sudden crisis. They all start from a social construction, from a risk”, explains Cilene Victor, a professor at FGV LAW who teaches the Risk Communication discipline. “People think: ‘I’m an artist with a solid name. Does it make sense for me to associate myself with a relatively young brand, with no tradition in the financial market? What kind of risk am I taking here? Not every brand is solid. If this brand gets involved in a scandal, what would I lose?”, he asks. And he adds: “This type of questioning from artists and advisors is lacking”.
Continues after advertising
Additionally, the expert emphasizes the opinion leader’s responsibility to the public. “In these cases, the one who loses the most is the consumer, who trusts a new brand, because an artist, an athlete, a broadcaster lends their credibility to this institution, which subsequently collapses. How many became bank customers because of these campaigns? It is necessary to understand and assume your responsibility as an opinion leader”, he points out.
Also read:
Should an influencer speak out when the brand is in crisis?
In light of the liquidation of Will Bank, another practical question arises: is it worth it, for the influencer, to speak out publicly about the bankruptcy of a company for which he was the poster child?
Continues after advertising
For Bedendo, from ESPM, the answer depends, first and foremost, on the context – and, mainly, on whether or not there is a direct provocation from the public or the press. “As this is a negative association, I understand that the celebrity should not initiate this contact. She should not be the first to talk about it, unless the issue already involves her directly”, he states.
In the teacher’s opinion, if the influencer is not being charged or questioned, the best path is silence. “If she is not provoked, there is no need to raise this issue. She did work, which was published and passed. If no one is talking about it, it makes no sense for her to bring up the issue and ‘raise a ball’ that is not currently under discussion. Now, if there is a provocation, then it is worth speaking out. An official publication, an advisory note, explaining that she provided a service, that she was not aware of the problems and that she has no connection with the company’s management is appropriate.”
Victor, from FGV Law, thinks the opposite: proactive positioning, detaching yourself from what happened, regretting losses that people may suffer and even admitting that, in today’s society, we are all subject to a situation like this, is the best way out. “The omission helps to avoid a crisis at that moment, but it does not reduce the reputational risk on your personal brand. If, unfortunately, the name of these celebrities appears in another episode like this, the consumer will remember and may start to relate them to situations of this type, which would represent even greater damage to the credibility of these personalities”.
Continues after advertising
Read more:
Risk always exists – but it can be greater or lesser
In the context of current hyperconnectivity, institutions’ concern with crises has diminished, in Victor’s view, because there is an expectation that the next scandal will break out soon and will attract all the attention of the public, who will soon forget the controversy involving his company.
From a branding point of view, Bedendo explains that any association between a personal brand (such as that of a celebrity) and an institution involves risk. “Any brand association is a risk”, summarizes Bedendo. “Of course, when you advertise for a large, established bank, the chance of an extreme crisis is much lower than when you associate with companies in morally contested sectors, such as betting.”
According to the professor, extra care needs to be taken when it comes to smaller, little-known companies or “more sensitive” markets, even when legalized, as is the case with betting shops: “It is a legal sector, but morally very contested, like tobacco, soft drinks, ultra-processed products, etc. We know that encouraging excessive consumption of certain products has a social cost, not a social benefit”, he says.
What brands and influencers should check before joining
When consulting for companies, Bedendo states that the first step is to be clear about the positioning, brand identity and the message you want to convey. From there, the recommendation is to create a careful “marriage” between brand and influencer:
- Check whether the celebrity communicates the same values that the brand wants to convey;
- Analyze whether this communication is consistent over time;
- Do a kind of due diligence: examine posts, relationships, other brands the influencer has already associated with and the history of controversies.
According to the professor, there are now factors that many companies already treat as an automatic “red flag”: involvement in illicit activities or activities that border on illegality and, increasingly, intense political exposure, which can polarize consumers and generate boycotts.
“The recent case of Havaianas, for example, only gained strength because Fernanda Torres is a figure who exposes herself politically. This applies to both those on one side and the other of the spectrum”, he recalls.
On the influencers’ side, the reasoning should be similar: “They also need to be clear about their values and understand whether the brand that is looking for them is aligned with what they defend in front of their own audience. Otherwise, it will be inconsistent”, says Bedendo. “It’s important to ask: does this brand hire trusted celebrities? Is it present in appropriate places? Does it convey the same message as me?”
