There’s a huge difference between brand ambassadors and brand pushers.

Hiring models or actors to stealthily pimp products should be eshewed by all marketers.

I like the term “ambassadors” to describe fans of a brand. The only term I like better would be “evangelists” ; )

Companies (and the world at large) are finding ways to skirt the desensitization of old-gen brandspeak and attempt to create a new language reflective of the culture we live in - words that provide a sense of community, belonging, transparency, sincerity, the same meanings as the old words, but with nuancy of exclusivity and trend setting capability. We want to reinvent words and ideas like they’re retro without them being called what they are.

As a former A&E writer gone brand, I’ve noticed a couple things (in my opinion) that makes the language of posmodern pluralistic high sensory culture most successful.

Words need to translate in two directions, from within and without. Despite my bad grammar, that’s what I mean. First, the language may be supportive of the brand culture (verbal presentation cohesive to the design and brand promise of your company) and ultimately the environment of your organization. So in your case, if brand ambassador fits the bill, is supported by the internal brandspeak at BOF, then step one is a go.

Second element is without, and in two ways - it needs to make a substantial affect & effect within your place if it disappeared from your brand lexicon. If people stopped saying it, would you notice? If so, you’ve got a keeper.

The second implication of without (which is a third constituency if you’re critical) is that it implies WITH and OUT. It goes with the organization, and it goes out the organization. It may make sense and be supported by your organization, but where does it go and far out?

Translate your example into Chevy’s Nova, which translated in spanish, which didn’t go, literally. It just depends on how far into the culture and environment around you that you intend on carrying the word ‘brand ambassador.’ If it’s to central greenville, then that’s great. If it’s world-wide or writing a new Rockport book, perhaps I’d consider it, but it’s worth a mention.

Language of the tri-fold generations of the neo-modern world is a bit tricky. There’s a desire for consistency by some, transparency and truth for others, and then a huge fear of commitment; in our actions we live as a narcissist, but when wronged like a Puritanistic preacher. It seems that our language has to form somewhere in the middle, be flexible by the expressions of its participants, but durable enough to mean what it says.

Even the word ‘brand’ has awkward connotations within circles where it is misunderstood. It’s both a verb and a noun, and something that people on changethis.com are trying to write a manifesto about. Perhaps specifically replace the word ‘brand’ with the product or company brand name you’re working with, and them combinations of true, yet durable and aurally pleasing caconphonic phrases together with Fiskars or whonot. And depending on where you want the focus, on the people or the product, changes the word you team it with.

Perhaps words like FACTOR take the focus off the people, and if you want ownership, that may be a null choice for alliteration.

I certainly like synonym.com’s words brought up to mean’ carrier / messenger. There’s some great one for play there.

Right, Wrong, or Regardless, Brand Ambassadors is more about how you care what other people think, and ulimately the success and effectiveness of creative program. If the result is increase in brand awareness, recognition, promise and product knowledgability, then Captain Morgain can be as good looking as he wants.

At that point you’re an energized brand and he’s not. I think that’s what counts.