 |
Article Archive |
CELEBRITIES, ENDORSEMENTS
AND RETURNS
December 2007
Is it worth it?
Celebrity endorsement
is a bit like that. The concept raises more questions than it
answers.
Review of celebrity
endorsement is timely, given the fact that in 2006 below-the-line
expenditure exceeded that of above-the-line outlays in Australia.
Included in the former
subgroup are activities which centre on promotions, merchandising,
the hosting of events, product sampling and, yes, celebrity
endorsements. That is an issue which must rightly be addressed
and countered by the mass media channels of television, radio,
print and outdoor billboards, because of and their contribution
to the status of celebrities.
Much of the evidence
in support of celebrity endorsement is impressive. The use of
Paris Hilton by John Singleton, his son and their boutique brewery
in Sydney has established a new and growing market segment.
“Blonde” beer has been embraced by countless boutique
breweries throughout Australia.
The marketing professionals
of leading brand names must be convinced. Each year they hand
out significant funds to chosen celebrities. Take for instance,
Ricky Ponting, the captain of the Australian Cricket Team. His
annual income from endorsements exceeds his reported $800,000
salary by Cricket Australia by some 7 to 8 times. That must
sound sweet coming off the willow!
LASTING IMPRESSIONS
Bjorn Borg, five times
winner of the Wimbledon tennis crown was reputedly receipting
some $10 million (Australian) per annum, 10 years after his
retirement. No suggestion of tennis elbow there!
ROLL UP OR ROLL
OVER
Detractors of the
concept often focus on the difficulty of quantifying the benefits
and direct economic returns.
However, that does
not take into consideration the many different applications
of celebrity endorsement. Foremost among the more subtle uses
is product placement, popular in movies and some lifestyle television
programs.
James Bond did wonders
for the image and sales of Ashton Martin motor vehicles. “Big
Brother” telecasts feature conspicuous use of the products
of sponsors and program advertisers.
In such instances
the nuances of personal images and lifestyles are more influential
and effective than the detailing of product features, advantages
and benefits.
Fashion designers
appear to have an increasingly balanced, objective and detached
appreciation of the use of celebrities, as distinct from overt,
direct endorsement.
“Fashion Week”
events and new season fashion releases are experiencing mix
fortunes at present as support from recognised, desirable and
iconic brands is spasmodic, becoming increasingly an outcome
of discerning selections for involvement and promotion.
The key determinant
in fashion marketing decision making appears to be where and
at which events will the television and still photograph cameras
be. Hence, it may well be the red carpet rather than who walks
the red carpet that will determine a presence.
Value is now measured
by what is on the screen rather than what is on the “clothes
hoist”, the celebrity.
THE PURPOSE
Celebrity endorsement
is most effectively used in products and services which contain
high components of fashion, image and style. In short, subjective
assessments.
Most consumers are
generally reluctant to be pioneers or innovators. They seek
out and are reassured by the imprimatur of someone whom they
know, trust and admire.
Thus, the relative
importance and high income capacity of identities like Elle
MacPherson, Megan Gale and Sophie Hawkins.
Personalities and
celebrities whose profiles are founded on knowledge and expertise
can be and are able to leverage their public standings by endorsing
specific products. Don Burke, the compere of the former television
series “Burke’s Backyard” was the cornerstone
of a mass media campaign which centred on a new plant. Against
a background of drought throughout Australia and widespread
water restrictions, the product achieved garden centre industry
record sales.
Use of the ubiquitous
Wiggles by Boost Juice Bars introduced new young consumers to
the product range, together with a few Generation Y parents
and an encouraging number from Generation X. It was good for
the soul … and the bottom line, even on “Tiny Arse
Tuesdays”, a highly successful promotional campaign conducted
by the national franchise network.
CELEBRITIES BEHAVING
BADLY
The sad case study
of AFL footballer Ben Cousens sprinting from a motor vehicle
to avoid a random breath test highlights the dangers of associating
a brand, a product and service to the image, presence and behaviour
of a celebrity.
The German marque
which reportedly supplied the vehicle as part of a sponsorship
deal, quickly withdrew the vehicle and the sponsorship. Very
understandable. The public fall from grace of international
super model Kate Moss is another example of the potential pitfalls
associated with celebrities.
A contrasting consideration
is the financial failure of an investment vehicle which featured
in its advertising and marketing Olympic swimming legend Dawn
Fraser and television actor Paul Cronin. Their high profile
images were utilised to foster a sense of “peace-of-mind”
among prospective investors.
The investors and
the celebrities lost big time.
TREAD CAREFULLY
The selective use
of celebrities can overcome widespread ignorance and apathy
about a brand, a company, a product or service.
Endorsements can
effect penetration into new markets, capture the attention,
patronage and loyalties of those in differing segments and make
a statement about certain features and attributes which establish
perceived and possibly, real value.
However, prudence
should be a virtue in the selection of a celebrity, ensuring
that his or her image, lifestyle and values are consistent and
complementary to those desired for that which is being endorsed.
Celebrities can and
do attract attention, publicity and profile, good and bad. Hence,
quality control is imperative for the product, the service and
the celebrity.
|
