In the world of branding, imitation may no longer be the highest form of flattery, it could be a Public Relations (PR) landmine.
This was made clear when Ecobank Ghana recently came under scrutiny after social media users noticed the uncanny resemblance between one of its campaign characters and Ghanaian music icon “Sarkodie”.
The alleged use of his lookalike has stirred conversations around branding, ethics, and a potential breach of unspoken industry codes.
While Ecobank is yet to issue a formal statement on the matter, the public discourse has drawn an unexpected comparison to one of advertising’s most memorable and cheeky moments: Pepsi’s classic “cola war” stunt, where a boy used two Coca-Cola cans to reach a Pepsi button. The ad ended with him walking off happily with his Pepsi, leaving the Coke cans behind. It was bold, humorous and clearly a dig at the competition.
Brand conflict, consumer trust, and the power of influence
At the core of this whole Ecobank-Sarkodie-lookalike situation is a bigger issue that often gets overlooked: how powerful influence and trust are in advertising and how brands sometimes walk a fine line when trying to leverage them.
Using a lookalike of such a prominent figure, who is publicly associated with a competing financial institution, risks more than a public backlash; it creates a potential conflict of interest and could strain inter-brand relationships.
According to the concept of Trust and Influence in Advertising, people are more likely to engage with or trust a brand that’s connected to someone they admire or feel emotionally tied to. It’s why influencer marketing works so well because we trust the people we follow, and by extension, we trust the brands they represent. That’s why brand ambassadorships matter: they’re built on credibility, consistency, and mutual benefit.
Sarkodie is a trusted voice, a cultural powerhouse, and currently the brand ambassador for First Bank. So, when Ecobank put out a campaign with someone who looks, talks, and moves like Sarkodie, then we can’t just call it a creative decision because it comes with serious implications.
The average person scrolling past that ad might not pause long enough to notice it’s not actually him; they will just assume Sark’s involved. That’s where the problem begins.
For First Bank, this could create brand confusion and dilute their positioning. Sarkodie’s image is part of their unique advantage. If people start to associate him even wrongly with a competitor, it takes away from the clarity and strength of their partnership.
In industries such as banks, where trust is everything, playing with public perception is a risky business. You don’t get to casually “borrow” someone’s influence, especially not someone who’s already tied to a competing brand.
If the goal was to get people talking, then yes, the campaign worked, but not in the way that builds long-term brand love. The moment the conversation became about whether this was ethical, the actual campaign message got lost. The trust you were trying to tap into? Now people are questioning it.
At the end of the day, influence goes beyond visibility rather values. And in this case, it feels like the strategy may have skipped a few important steps.
Whether intentional or not, the close resemblance leads audiences to associate the campaign with Sarkodie himself. And in the world of PR, perception is everything.
Even if he wasn’t involved, his image, likeness, and influence carry weight, and that weight has now been seemingly used to promote a rival bank.
This raises ethical concerns: Shouldn’t a brand seek consent before using someone’s likeness, especially when that person is tied to a competing entity? At minimum, it’s a matter of professional courtesy. At most, it’s a serious brand misstep.
Has the strategy backfired?
Some have argued that the resemblance was a calculated move, a conversation starter. If so, it worked. People are indeed talking. But the tone of the conversation has shifted: from intrigue to critique.
In attempting to ride on the image of one of Ghana’s most recognisable personalities, Ecobank may have unintentionally diverted attention from the campaign’s actual purpose. Instead of discussing the brand message, the public is focused on the ethical implications and disrespect to Sarkodie. The original campaign goal has been overshadowed.
PR, respect, and responsibility
In marketing, bold moves can yield big wins but only when executed with precision and respect. Borrowing influence from a public figure without their involvement, especially one under contract with a direct competitor, blurs ethical lines and can damage public trust.
The lesson? Visibility should never come at the cost of credibility.
Do you disagree?
I am ready for a debate.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
