If I Were a Politician, I’d Crave Charlie Sheen’s Approval Ratings

Of course, the goal is not to self‑destruct in endless escapades with porn actresses, alcohol, and drugs that are far from doctor‑approved. The actor’s wild parties are well known; even so, he shows up to work on time, and his employer doesn’t seem to care what he does off the clock.

Our reality blurs the line between public and private life. Whether we deliberately tear down that boundary or unwittingly merge it—thanks to social media, journalistic snooping, or the ingenuity of those of us who manage brand images—the same channels used to vilify famous wrongdoers are at the disposal of ordinary people to make themselves visible.

Today it is impossible to show only one side of the coin and expect the public to ignore the rest. Greatness and infamy come with flip sides; every compelling story has its antagonist, and even the bleakest news carries a glimmer of hope. That is why friends, consumers, and voters alike start from the premise of seeing the full picture and default to distrust.

A brand is the sum of everything known that interacts with the unknown—a proportion destined to shrink and lose value over time, save for a few exceptions.

Actors and politicians pursue different kinds of fame, yet the actor’s brand seems to defy that erosion, unlike the brands of our leaders—take Álvaro Uribe, his protégé Iván Duque, or the Centro Democrático hangers‑on Andrés Pastrana, Alejandro Ordóñez, and César Gaviria—who prove the point emphatically.

The difference lies in context and meaning. Both the actor and the politicians try to sell us something; what changes is the “product.” Sheen likely wants only to sell himself, whereas politicians attempt to sell us far more, arousing voters’ suspicion and sabotaging their own goals.

The more we learn about the actor, the more coherent his brand becomes; conversely, the more details we discover about politicians, the more our perception of them crumbles. It is true that mayors, senators, comptrollers, and even former IDU directors have made more money than Sheen, but—from the standpoint of a sustainable brand—it is preferable to be Charlie Sheen. Still, neither of these two archetypes is particularly useful as a model for personal branding.