In the long-term analysis, what is more important to your brand: loyalty or share price? If you are the increasingly-under fire Martha Stewart, doyenne of the gracious lifestyle and “good things,” you should be very interested in the answer to this question.

You would have to be living in a cave not to be aware of the brouhaha surrounding Martha Stewart these days. She has been on the cover of Newsweek, been the subject of leading articles in many of the big papers--The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., been a constant topic of interest on the national and worldwide newscasts, radio, and so on. But is all this attention good for the brand?

It is my opinion that Martha Stewart is the brand; she is not a celebrity endorser-type, nor just a name (i.e.—Lillian Vernon and her ubiquitous catalog, or Liz Claiborne and her clothing line). She oversees a vast media empire under the Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia company: the Martha Stewart Living magazine, the Martha By Mail catalog, the “Martha Stewart Living,” and “In Martha's Kitchen” TV shows, her regular segments on US morning shows, her many books, her paint line, her Kmart line … it never ends! She is a one-person empire, and she is the entire brand.

As I have said before, a brand is a promise, an expectation, and in that sense Martha Stewart is the brand. People follow her advice expecting their devotion to the “cult” of Martha to make their lives more like hers: gracious, perfect, and polished. Any product that is sold under her brand name sells less for the quality of the actual product (sheets, towels, paint) and more for the illusion of quality and the imprimatur of Martha's O.K. that she offers. People buy Martha because of the expectation that by buying this product, or by following her advice, they will make their life more like Martha's. It is the Holy Grail promise of her brand's end result that keeps the Martha Stewart enterprises afloat, and growing.

Since the ImClone scandal came to light, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia has lost about half its value. That is quite a hit, but is it only financial? Has the scandal really damaged the brand? Many snippets of interviews I have seen or heard with Martha disciples has them thinking she is being unfairly targeted since she is a successful businesswoman. I have heard more than one person say that if this was a man, in no way would it be as big news. Additionally, she is, and always has been, a lightning rod for opinions – you either love her or you hate her. The dedication to, and belief in, the Martha way of life has led to Martha fan clubs and people willing to acknowledge they are followers of her message. However, at the other end of the spectrum there have been varied parodies published of her media properties, and skits mocking her and her message. From checking out Internet message boards, to listening to interviews, to asking her fans, to checking out her subscription and sales numbers, one thing seems clear to me – at this point, the controversy has helped reinforce the brand, at least among her core loyalists. The loyalists are circling the wagons around Martha.

But can it last? Is this just an initial bump of good feelings drawn down from a reservoir of loyalty, and will it disappear if it is clearly proven that she did act illegally, or at least unethically? After all, Martha sells perfection, neat and tidy, and this alleged behavior flies in the face of that perception. She is the brand, and can this brand--or any brand--weather this type of controversy without a negative effect on it? The strength of the brand is Martha Stewart, a one-woman show. But could it wind up being its weakness as well? After all, it is virtually impossible to separate Martha Stewart the businesswoman and person from Martha Stewart the product. What muddies her muddies the brand too.