Study - Celebrity endorsements no longer effective
David
Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money
Study Finds That Big Names Don't Pay Big Dividends
by Peter Daboll
As the most significant event in advertising grows nearer, it will be
interesting to see how many brands enlist the endorsement services of
celebrities during the Super Bowl. After all, popular wisdom asserts
that getting a celebrity endorsement is a tried-and-true,
simple-to-implement way to maximize advertising effectiveness. Sure,
it's expensive, but celebrities always yield stronger ties with
viewers and, ultimately, greater sales, right?
Wrong. Over the course of last year, time and time again we observed
incredibly low effectiveness scores of TV ads starring celebrities.
From Tiger Woods to Donald Trump, we found that with rare exception,
celebrity endorsements were largely ineffective and failed to yield
the benefits popular wisdom promises.
We set out to understand whether celebrities today are really worth
the significant investment that brands were making. We studied every
nationally televised ad for the first 11 months of 2010 and found that
celebrity ads performed either below average or merely equaled it.
Specifically, our study, 2010 Celebrity Advertisements: Exposing a
Myth of Advertising Effectiveness, 2010, showed that fewer than 12% of
ads using celebrities exceeded a 10% lift, and one-fifth of celebrity
ads had a negative impact on advertising effectiveness.
Why was this? Were celebrities losing their pizazz in influencing
consumers? Had the age of social media and consumer control ushered in
a new consumer that is not as easily won over by a famous face?
In fact, yes. Today's consumer is a totally different animal than the
consumer of even five years ago, meaning that what was effective and
influential five years ago is not necessarily so today, as today's
consumer is more likely to be influenced by someone in their social
network than a weak celebrity connection. Today's consumer is
informed, time-compressed, and difficult to impress, and they are only
influenced by ads that are relevant and provide information. They
don't want to have products pushed at them, even from a celebrity. In
fact, the data show that relevance and information attributes were key
missing ingredients from most celebrity ads.
2010's Worst Celebrity TV Ads by Negative Lift (Sink)
Celebrity Brand Ad Title Lift
1 Tiger Woods Nike Did You Learn Anything? -30%
2 Lance Armstrong Radio Shack No Emoticons -28%
3 Kenny Mayne Gillette Good Segment -28%
4 Dale Earnhardt Jr. Nationwide Auto Insurance Coverage at
the Right Price -27%
5 Donald Trump Macy's Making Timmy a Mogul -24%
Not surprisingly, Tiger Woods led the list of the worst celebrity
endorsements of 2010, along with other sports figures, including Lance
Armstrong and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Mired in controversy, Tiger's
sponsors chose to address his "mistakes" in their ads rather than the
products that he was supposed to be hawking.
As rationale for not being influenced by celebrity endorsements,
consumers overwhelmingly cited "confusion" about what product the
celebrity was endorsing and dislike of the celebrity, two obvious
catalysts to Tiger's poor performances, which were equally unpopular
across every demographic tested.
Lance Armstrong's "No Emoticons" ad for Radio Shack is another example
of this. The ad never actually mentions "Radio Shack" by name, nor are
there any prominent storefront, aisle or product shots. A typical
open-ended response from a viewer indicated that she "had no clue what
they were advertising until the Radio Shack sign comes up [at the end
of the ad]."
Likewise, one respondent remarked about Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s ad for
Nationwide Auto Insurance: "This ad was too silly and did not really
sell me anything. It tried too hard to be funny and missed the mark."
What all of this proves is that adding a celebrity to an ad with an
already poor creative message is like rubbing salt in the wound.
Instead of serving as a Band-Aid to bad creative, using a celebrity on
top of bad creative usually makes the ad even less effective and
confusing to viewers.
The bottom line is that good ads stand on their own, and this study
empirically shows that a celebrity has little to no impact on an ad's
effectiveness. In fact, regardless of gender or age, ads without
celebrities out-performed ads with them. (See graphs.)
Just because an ad is incredibly popular, funny and/or viral, that
doesn't mean that it is effective with consumers. The same rule goes
for celebrities. Just because a celebrity is incredibly popular and
achieves fabulous box-office returns and critical accolades does not
mean they will provide a similar boon to brands in advertising. In
fact, our report empirically demonstrates the very weak and sometimes
negative relationship between celebrities and ad effectiveness.
The great news in all of this is that brands should not have to feel
compelled to shell out big bucks on a celebrity. Instead, they should
be charging their agencies with creating ads that have a strong,
watchable creative message (high on attention, relevance, information,
desire). Recent ads like Hewlett Packard's "Happy Baby" (Ace Score
over 110 points above the tech category's norm) and Sony's "Epic
Gaming For All" (Ace Score 124 points above Video Game norm) are great
examples of ads that hit the mark in creative messaging, scoring well
with consumers without the gimmick of celebrity endorsement.
Adam H. Kerman
>Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money
>Study Finds That Big Names Don't Pay Big Dividends
>by Peter Daboll
Were they ever worth the money?
tdciago
> Were they ever worth the money?
Probably back in the early days, before the public knew every last
disgusting detail about every "celebrity." There was once a certain
glamour and prestige about celebrities that was enough to prompt
viewers to want to smoke the same brand of cigarette.
Once people have seen the celebrity in a sex tape; have "friended" the
celebrity on Facebook; and have read his or her misspelled,
grammatically incorrect, and vulgar tweets, there's nothing much to
aspire to. Plus, everybody can get his 15 minutes now, and people
don't seem too picky about *how* they get it.
Stan Brown
> Over the course of last year, time and time again we observed
> incredibly low effectiveness scores of TV ads starring celebrities.
> From Tiger Woods to Donald Trump, we found that with rare exception,
> celebrity endorsements were largely ineffective and failed to yield
> the benefits popular wisdom promises.
My immediate reaction was "no wonder; I would feel negatively about
an endorsement from either of them." But the article later goes on
to say that Lance Armstrong and Dale Earnhardt endorsements suffer
from the same problem.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
"Children -- so adorable. In a way they're like people."
-- Veronica, on /Better Off Ted/
Mason Barge
Yes and they still are, unfortunately. The article is crap research. It's
journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
Just look at the commercials he cites. The first two have almost nothing
to do with the celebs, they were just the worst commercials possible,
i.e., it was almost impossible to even tell what product was being
advertised. Not that Tiger Woods was likely to be a big draw during the
heart of his divorce scandal.
#3 -- Kenny Mayne is a "celebrity"?
#4 -- Dale Earnhardt selling car insurance?
#5 -- Donald Trump selling Macy's?
Without doubt, having a well-known and respected "celebrity" endorse a
product and appear in a good commercial is worth some money. If you put
Dale Earnhardt in, say, a new-generation Mustang, show him driving it
around a track and then have him talk about how well it handled, it would
sell some cars.
Or, like, Lance Armstrong talking about how well some bicycle's gears
function.
I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial with
an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva Longoria and/or
Evangeline Lilly.
Obveeus
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes and they still are, unfortunately. The article is crap research. It's
> journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
Ads from 'celebrities' with largely negative current public opinions. Tiger
Woods, Donald Trump? Seriously?
> Without doubt, having a well-known and respected "celebrity" endorse a
> product and appear in a good commercial is worth some money. If you put
> Dale Earnhardt in, say, a new-generation Mustang, show him driving it
> around a track and then have him talk about how well it handled, it would
> sell some cars.
Mustang? Not likely. Jr. is likely going to hock GM forever.
> Or, like, Lance Armstrong talking about how well some bicycle's gears
> function.
Another 'celebrity' with a currently negative 'Q' as the shroud of doping
descends.
> I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial with
> an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva Longoria and/or
> Evangeline Lilly.
Agreed. There are lots of commercials with positive 'Q' celebrities doing
products like makeup, diet aids, clothing lines. Without knowing the
effectiveness of those commercials, this article's conclusions are
meaningless.
Mason Barge
>
>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes and they still are, unfortunately. The article is crap research. It's
>> journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
>
>Ads from 'celebrities' with largely negative current public opinions. Tiger
>Woods, Donald Trump? Seriously?
That's not what the article says. It says celebrity endorsements are
ineffective, based on negative reactions to Woods and Trump. It's like
concluding you're gay because you don't want to bone Whoopie Goldberg or
Sandra Oh.
>> Without doubt, having a well-known and respected "celebrity" endorse a
>> product and appear in a good commercial is worth some money. If you put
>> Dale Earnhardt in, say, a new-generation Mustang, show him driving it
>> around a track and then have him talk about how well it handled, it would
>> sell some cars.
>
>Mustang? Not likely. Jr. is likely going to hock GM forever.
Hahaha. I'm so proud I didn't know that.
>> Or, like, Lance Armstrong talking about how well some bicycle's gears
>> function.
>
>Another 'celebrity' with a currently negative 'Q' as the shroud of doping
>descends.
Well, I didn't know about that. He's kind of not a real charismatic
charming guy though. But the biggest problem with his commercial is that
it was pretty much impossible to decipher any plot, endorsement, or even
what product he was supposed to be endorsing.
Obveeus
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes and they still are, unfortunately. The article is crap research.
>>> It's
>>> journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
>>
>>Ads from 'celebrities' with largely negative current public opinions.
>>Tiger
>>Woods, Donald Trump? Seriously?
>
> That's not what the article says. It says celebrity endorsements are
> ineffective, based on negative reactions to Woods and Trump.
They got negative reactions to ads with celebrities that the public has a
negative opinion of.
>>> Without doubt, having a well-known and respected "celebrity" endorse a
>>> product and appear in a good commercial is worth some money. If you put
>>> Dale Earnhardt in, say, a new-generation Mustang, show him driving it
>>> around a track and then have him talk about how well it handled, it
>>> would
>>> sell some cars.
>>
>>Mustang? Not likely. Jr. is likely going to hock GM forever.
>
> Hahaha. I'm so proud I didn't know that.
You are proud of a lack of knowledge?
Stan Brown
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
> >
> >Ads from 'celebrities' with largely negative current public opinions. Tiger
> >Woods, Donald Trump? Seriously?
>
> That's not what the article says. It says celebrity endorsements are
> ineffective, based on negative reactions to Woods and Trump.
No, it doesn't. Read further down and it lists other celebrities
like Lance Armstrong and says their endorsements also made sales
worse.
Adam H. Kerman
>>Were they ever worth the money?
>Probably back in the early days, before the public knew every last
>disgusting detail about every "celebrity." There was once a certain
>glamour and prestige about celebrities that was enough to prompt
>viewers to want to smoke the same brand of cigarette.
I have a theory that the commercials were of the celebrity discussing
the virtues of the product, and not just being a "personality".
Yesterday's marketing execs didn't take the same drugs that today's do,
leading to ad campaigns that waste their company's marketing budgets to
the tune of hundreds of millions at a time.
Adam H. Kerman
>>>http://adage.com/cmostrategy/article?article_id=148174
>>>Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money
>>>Study Finds That Big Names Don't Pay Big Dividends
>>>by Peter Daboll
>>Were they ever worth the money?
>Yes and they still are, unfortunately. The article is crap research. It's
>journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
>Just look at the commercials he cites. The first two have almost nothing
>to do with the celebs, they were just the worst commercials possible,
>i.e., it was almost impossible to even tell what product was being
>advertised. Not that Tiger Woods was likely to be a big draw during the
>heart of his divorce scandal.
Buick has had a decades-long association with pro golf. Tiger wasn't their
first celebrity spokesman among golfers. Some of his earlier campaigns
were ok, but the later ones were horrid. His non-scandal aside (as I
recall, he didn't murder anybody, or did I miss some terrible violent
crime he committed?), it was well past time to dump him.
I was a caddy as a kid. They had us work the Western Open; golfers had
their own caddies. It was still at Butler National in Oak Brook. Buick
provided a fleet of cars. Now, I drove or was driven in some of those
cars. We used them to shift workers from place to place. Various Buick
dealers sold them at a small premium after the tournement, although the
likelihood that any of them were used to drive any of the better-known
golfers around was practically nil.
>#3 -- Kenny Mayne is a "celebrity"?
>#4 -- Dale Earnhardt selling car insurance?
Dale wasn't much of a salesman, no matter what the product.
>#5 -- Donald Trump selling Macy's?
Macy's had an ad campaign featuring, what, 30 celebrities? It was a
terrible campaign.
>Without doubt, having a well-known and respected "celebrity" endorse a
>product and appear in a good commercial is worth some money.
I'd reverse that. Number 1, the commercial has to be effective.
>I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial with
>an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva Longoria and/or
>Evangeline Lilly.
Suave has sold a hell of a lot of shampoo over the decades using models.
And remember Breck girls?
I was a fan of the long-time print ad campaign featuring Selma Hyack. I
have no idea what cell phone service she was selling.
Tony Calguire
news:omdui6p9i5dje9tol...@4ax.com:
>
> I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial
> with an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva
> Longoria and/or Evangeline Lilly.
Agreed. The commercials they mentioned don't really seem representative of
what we typically see with celebrity endorsements. The Tiger Woods ad was
more of a stunt than a campaign, and I don't even think I saw the Lance
Armstrong ad.
I'd like to see them analyze the "wonderful pistachios" commercials, or the
Sony ads with Peyton Manning and Justin Timberlake.
Stan Brown
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:omdui6p9i5dje9tol...@4ax.com:
>
> > I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial
> > with an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva
> > Longoria and/or Evangeline Lilly.
That's about the only way to isolate the "celebrity effect". I teach
statistics, and the very first lesson spends time on the difference
between observational study and experiment. You can't infer
causation from an observational study, like this one, because there
are too many lurking variables.
Mason's suggestion could be a proper experiment, assuming proper
randomization.
> Agreed. The commercials they mentioned don't really seem representative of
> what we typically see with celebrity endorsements. The Tiger Woods ad was
> more of a stunt than a campaign, and I don't even think I saw the Lance
> Armstrong ad.
>
> I'd like to see them analyze the "wonderful pistachios" commercials, or the
> Sony ads with Peyton Manning and Justin Timberlake.
Or the ones with the cranberry guys. Suppose they put Alec Baldwin
in there instead.
Adam H. Kerman
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Tony Calguire wrote:
>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial
>>>with an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva
>>>Longoria and/or Evangeline Lilly.
>That's about the only way to isolate the "celebrity effect". I teach
>statistics, and the very first lesson spends time on the difference
>between observational study and experiment. You can't infer
>causation from an observational study, like this one, because there
>are too many lurking variables.
>Mason's suggestion could be a proper experiment, assuming proper
>randomization.
>>Agreed. The commercials they mentioned don't really seem representative of
>>what we typically see with celebrity endorsements. The Tiger Woods ad was
>>more of a stunt than a campaign, and I don't even think I saw the Lance
>>Armstrong ad.
>>I'd like to see them analyze the "wonderful pistachios" commercials, or the
>>Sony ads with Peyton Manning and Justin Timberlake.
>Or the ones with the cranberry guys. Suppose they put Alec Baldwin
>in there instead.
Then its humor comes from even more silliness of a celebrity standing in
a cranberry bog.
I thought Alec Baldwin as Hulu spokesman was a very effective commercial,
managing to talk constantly about exactly what it was selling, with
Baldwin providing decent humor. He did a similar character for an NPR
pledge drive radio commercial last year called Don't Pledge, but it wasn't
as effective.
Mason Barge
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:06:30 -0500, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:25:06 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >> journalism and fad-setting in the ad industry.
>> >
>> >Ads from 'celebrities' with largely negative current public opinions. Tiger
>> >Woods, Donald Trump? Seriously?
>>
>> That's not what the article says. It says celebrity endorsements are
>> ineffective, based on negative reactions to Woods and Trump.
>
>No, it doesn't. Read further down and it lists other celebrities
>like Lance Armstrong and says their endorsements also made sales
>worse.
That's partly correct. But the article's claim is that celebrity
endorsement are ineffective and it has statistical proof; however, the
statistical proof is crap. It counfounds at least two variables that have
nothing to do with whether or not celebrity endorsements are effective: 1)
The worst cases are "celebrities" who were suffering from a steep decline
in popular opinion, and I'm sorry, but this includes Lance Armstrong, who
was in the middle of a doping scandal at the time; 2) Some of the
commercials it uses, including the first two on the list, were downright
bizarre -- you couldn't even tell that they were advertisements for the
product or brand they were purportedly sponsoring.
The article fails to prove its claim and my guess is that it's actually
wrong.
Mason Barge
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
[...]
>>#5 -- Donald Trump selling Macy's?
>
>Macy's had an ad campaign featuring, what, 30 celebrities? It was a
>terrible campaign.
I'd say with one exception, Martha Stewart and her daughter in the
housewares dept. Martha is also a fallen star; however, her (well
deserved) reputation for good taste remains intact. Having her endorse
your sheets and fine china is, IMO, money well spent.
Which brings up a third variable that the author of the article ignored:
expertise. Martha Stewart is about the most credible person on earth for
judgment in home decor and gracious entertaining.
But what the hell does Tiger Woods know about cars or, for that matter,
basketball and running shoes? Or Lance Armstrong about electronics?
Imagine Donald Trump appearing as a spokeman for a stockbroker like
TDAmeritrade. It could be very effective.
Again, I'd look at Eva Longoria and Evangeline Lilly's L'Oreal commercial.
When they talk about beauty, they have a LOT of credibility (whether
deserved or not). If the guy who wrote the article had compared this to a
commercial using an unknown model, I'd give the article some credit.
>>Without doubt, having a well-known and respected "celebrity" endorse a
>>product and appear in a good commercial is worth some money.
>
>I'd reverse that. Number 1, the commercial has to be effective.
>
>>I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial with
>>an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva Longoria and/or
>>Evangeline Lilly.
>
>Suave has sold a hell of a lot of shampoo over the decades using models.
>And remember Breck girls?
Yeah, but the point is to quantify the difference that putting a celebrity
in the commercial makes.
>I was a fan of the long-time print ad campaign featuring Selma Hyack. I
>have no idea what cell phone service she was selling.
Well, that's true, too. Nonexpert celebrities can be effective. I
remember a similar commercial where Jessica Simpson, when she still had
that awesome-cute butt, saying "I don't know what it is, but I want it"
about Wireless N routers.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>>#5 -- Donald Trump selling Macy's?
>>Macy's had an ad campaign featuring, what, 30 celebrities? It was a
>>terrible campaign.
>I'd say with one exception, Martha Stewart and her daughter in the
>housewares dept. Martha is also a fallen star; however, her (well
>deserved) reputation for good taste remains intact. Having her endorse
>your sheets and fine china is, IMO, money well spent.
>Which brings up a third variable that the author of the article ignored:
>expertise. Martha Stewart is about the most credible person on earth for
>judgment in home decor and gracious entertaining.
>But what the hell does Tiger Woods know about cars or, for that matter,
>basketball and running shoes? Or Lance Armstrong about electronics?
>Imagine Donald Trump appearing as a spokeman for a stockbroker like
>TDAmeritrade. It could be very effective.
>Again, I'd look at Eva Longoria and Evangeline Lilly's L'Oreal commercial.
>When they talk about beauty, they have a LOT of credibility (whether
>deserved or not). If the guy who wrote the article had compared this to a
>commercial using an unknown model, I'd give the article some credit.
Donald Trump for Fastclips!
>>I was a fan of the long-time print ad campaign featuring Selma Hyack. I
>>have no idea what cell phone service she was selling.
>Well, that's true, too. Nonexpert celebrities can be effective.
It wasn't an effective ad campaign. I have no idea what she was selling.
Her image took up two thirds of the typical layout with some text underneath.
No one looked at the text.
>I remember a similar commercial where Jessica Simpson, when she still had
>that awesome-cute butt, saying "I don't know what it is, but I want it"
>about Wireless N routers.
Is she the one who does some hard-sell informercial about some skin-care
product? That's somewhat effective, although it's hard to believe her claims
of previously flawed skin.
shawn
wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:19:21 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>[...]
>>>#5 -- Donald Trump selling Macy's?
>>
>>Macy's had an ad campaign featuring, what, 30 celebrities? It was a
>>terrible campaign.
>
>I'd say with one exception, Martha Stewart and her daughter in the
>housewares dept. Martha is also a fallen star; however, her (well
>deserved) reputation for good taste remains intact. Having her endorse
>your sheets and fine china is, IMO, money well spent.
>
>Which brings up a third variable that the author of the article ignored:
>expertise. Martha Stewart is about the most credible person on earth for
>judgment in home decor and gracious entertaining.
>
>But what the hell does Tiger Woods know about cars or, for that matter,
>basketball and running shoes? Or Lance Armstrong about electronics?
It would have been much better to look at some of the other car ads
such as Mike Rowe doing the ads for Ford trucks. Given his work on
"Dirty Jobs" it seems to be a good fit. I noticed a new ad yesterday
with the guy that cuts up objects (on the Discovery channel I think)
doing a truck ad which also seemed a good fit since they had him
slicing up the vehicle.
Mason Barge
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 05:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Tony Calguire wrote:
>> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:omdui6p9i5dje9tol...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > I'd like to see the comparable effectiveness of a L'Oreal commercial
>> > with an unknown model compared to the same commercial with Eva
>> > Longoria and/or Evangeline Lilly.
>
>That's about the only way to isolate the "celebrity effect". I teach
>statistics
Oh that is so cool. I'm a total amateur but I think statistics is vastly
underrated in importance. The US government needs Department of Bullshit
that will grade every claim made by the media.
Of course, it would be giving the Surgeon General's latest remarks an "F",
so there might be some tension.
> and the very first lesson spends time on the difference
>between observational study and experiment. You can't infer
>causation from an observational study, like this one, because there
>are too many lurking variables.
>
>Mason's suggestion could be a proper experiment, assuming proper
>randomization.
Right, except the pool would need to be qualified as consumers of beauty
products.
I count three confounded variables in this article:
1) The actual popularity of the "celebrity" at the time of the commercial,
which clearly skews the results. Three of the five "least effective"
commercials cited involved celebrities who were having credibility or
popularity problems, especially Tiger Woods (who is Exhibit #1).
2) The competency of the commercial itself -- the Woods and Armstrong
commercials were so patently awful that you couldn't even name the product
they were endorsing;
3) Whether the celebrity has a natural association with the product. I've
seen very non-expert celebrities who I thought were fairly effective in
commercials, but still, you'd suspect there would be a connection. I'd
rather have Martha Stewart endorsing my line of bed linens than my PC
operating system.
>> Agreed. The commercials they mentioned don't really seem representative of
>> what we typically see with celebrity endorsements. The Tiger Woods ad was
>> more of a stunt than a campaign, and I don't even think I saw the Lance
>> Armstrong ad.
>>
>> I'd like to see them analyze the "wonderful pistachios" commercials, or the
>> Sony ads with Peyton Manning and Justin Timberlake.
>
>Or the ones with the cranberry guys. Suppose they put Alec Baldwin
>in there instead.
Okay, how about we try Bobby Flay or Emeril or Rachael Ray endorsing Ocean
Spray instead of Alec Baldwin?
Or are you thinking Alec Baldwin would pretend to be a cranberry grower
and actually step into the shoes of the guy they use now? That might be
one specific area in which a celebrity would be a detriment -- where the
spokesman pretends to be a working expert in the field.
Imagine Donald Trump or Joan Rivers in a white coat, pretending to be a
doctor, talking about the effectiveness of Goody's headache powder.
Dano
"shawn" <nanof...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be81j61cde8s7f5ur...@4ax.com...
I love Mike Rowe...but the guy is a professional salesman...as I'm sure he
would not mind admitting. How do you think he got his start? I know he's
become a celeb...deservedly so...but he falls into a different category for
me. It's about his personality and salesmanship. Most celebrity types (non
actors that is) are used somewhat differently. There's a difference between
an actor like Rowe or Kiefer or Donald Sutherland...stars with great
deliveries...and celebrity spokespersons or spokesmodels. Even someone like
Shaq has become more of an "actor" than just a celeb. At any rate...I look
at all of these folks as sales people more than as giving endorsements. I
always wonder how much they'd like that rival's truck or luxury car more if
it were given to them instead of the one they are touting...gotta think I'm
not alone in my cynicism. But if the ad is even remotely
entertaining...I'll have a better feeling about the product. Not that it
would have a thing to do with buying it.
Mason Barge
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>I was a fan of the long-time print ad campaign featuring Selma Hyack. I
>>>have no idea what cell phone service she was selling.
>
>>Well, that's true, too. Nonexpert celebrities can be effective.
>
>It wasn't an effective ad campaign. I have no idea what she was selling.
>Her image took up two thirds of the typical layout with some text underneath.
>No one looked at the text.
The received wisdom on Madison Avenue is to the contrary. They say that
if you watch the commercial, you get name recognition that will influence
your decision if and when you buy the product.
Don't blame me!
Tony Calguire
news:igolju$fme$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> I'd like to see them analyze the "wonderful pistachios" commercials,
> or the Sony ads with Peyton Manning and Justin Timberlake.
>
I just thought of another one... ProActiv Solution. I think this stuff has
been marketed almost exclusively through celebrity endorsements.
Obveeus
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The received wisdom on Madison Avenue is to the contrary. They say that
> if you watch the commercial, you get name recognition that will influence
> your decision if and when you buy the product.
That is another point where this article's conclusions break down.
Consider, for example, the Dale Earnhardt Jr. ad for Nationwide Insurance.
Even if the ad wasn't really bad (a bunch of DE Sr. clingers talking about
how you should buy Nationwide Insurance because some guy who has been dead
for almost a decade told them it was good), there is still the issue of the
actual product. People seeing the asd might be prompted to call Nationwide
for a quote and it is that action that should determine the success/failure
of the ad/endorsement. After they call for a quote and find out that
Nationwide cost 50% more than State Farm, it wouldn't be fair to blame the
celebrity endorsement for the sales decline of the product.
Adam H. Kerman
>Don't blame me!
I'm completely spacing out.
For one thing, it's Salma Hayek, but she was not the spokesbabe I was
thinking of.
Catherine Zeta-Jones did the T-Mobile print campaign. I think there were
tv commercials, but I really remember the full page newspaper ads. I do
subscribe to their service now, but at the time, I was not shopping for
a cell phone provider.
In any event, the ad campaign did a lot more to sell herself than the
service, so if she wanted to dump Michael Douglas in my favor, yes please.
But I do recall that Frank Sinatra was on the radio for Old Gold cigarettes
and Bob Hope for Pepsident. Spacing out on which cigarette Bing Crosby
had as the main sponsor.
tdciago
> Spacing out on which cigarette Bing Crosby
> had as the main sponsor.
Chesterfield:
http://www.goantiques.com/detail,chesterfield-cigarettes-bing,951905.html
Easy to remember when you associate the brand with your CHEST x-ray.
(And Gary Crosby died of lung cancer.)
Adam H. Kerman
>>Spacing out on which cigarette Bing Crosby
>>had as the main sponsor.
>Chesterfield:
Duh. Thanks.
Stan Brown
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:57:32 -0500, Stan Brown
> <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >
> >No, it doesn't. Read further down and it lists other celebrities
> >like Lance Armstrong and says their endorsements also made sales
> >worse.
>
> That's partly correct. But the article's claim is that celebrity
> endorsement are ineffective and it has statistical proof; however, the
> statistical proof is crap.
I must have missed the claim in the original article that the
evidence presented constituted statistical proof. I agree with you
that such a claim is doo-doo.
Mason Barge
Don't forget Jimmy Johnson and ExTenz.
Dano
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pfh3j6hh68krbu9n2...@4ax.com...
Or Bob Dole and Viagra. Couldn't get Clinton I guess.
Mason Barge
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>I was a fan of the long-time print ad campaign featuring Selma Hyack. I
>>>>>have no idea what cell phone service she was selling.
>
>>>>Well, that's true, too. Nonexpert celebrities can be effective.
>
>>>It wasn't an effective ad campaign. I have no idea what she was selling.
>>>Her image took up two thirds of the typical layout with some text underneath.
>>>No one looked at the text.
>
>>The received wisdom on Madison Avenue is to the contrary. They say that
>>if you watch the commercial, you get name recognition that will influence
>>your decision if and when you buy the product.
>
>>Don't blame me!
>
>I'm completely spacing out.
>
>For one thing, it's Salma Hayek, but she was not the spokesbabe I was
>thinking of.
>
>Catherine Zeta-Jones did the T-Mobile print campaign. I think there were
>tv commercials, but I really remember the full page newspaper ads. I do
>subscribe to their service now, but at the time, I was not shopping for
>a cell phone provider.
Yeah, now that was a celebrity endorsement that had it working. "Sex
sells" and this is not a recent discovery. Just look at any old Coca Cola
campaign -- they regularly pushed some impossibly gorgeous babe to the
then-current edge of decency.
http://www.antiquebottles.com/southeast/picOct/ToplessCokeTrayC.jpg
Of course, they *were* selling a drink laced with cocaine at the time of
that ad.
>In any event, the ad campaign did a lot more to sell herself than the
>service, so if she wanted to dump Michael Douglas in my favor, yes please.
>
>But I do recall that Frank Sinatra was on the radio for Old Gold cigarettes
>and Bob Hope for Pepsident. Spacing out on which cigarette Bing Crosby
>had as the main sponsor.
Oh, dude, I can actually still remember the words to the Marlboro
commercial Julie London did in that sexy low voice and sexy lowcut dress:
Why don't you settle back, for a full-flavored smoke?
Settle back, for a (unh) Marl-boro.
Make yourself "comfortable" whenever you smoke
Have a Marlboro . . . cigarette.
You've got a lot to like in a (unh) Marlboro,
filter, flavor, flip-top box.
I was, obviously, drooling all over the floor even though I hadn't hit
puberty.
Anim8rFSK
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>I was a fan of the long-time print ad campaign featuring Selma Hyack. I
> >>>>have no idea what cell phone service she was selling.
>
> >>>Well, that's true, too. Nonexpert celebrities can be effective.
>
> >>It wasn't an effective ad campaign. I have no idea what she was selling.
> >>Her image took up two thirds of the typical layout with some text
> >>underneath.
> >>No one looked at the text.
>
> >The received wisdom on Madison Avenue is to the contrary. They say that
> >if you watch the commercial, you get name recognition that will influence
> >your decision if and when you buy the product.
>
> >Don't blame me!
>
> I'm completely spacing out.
>
> For one thing, it's Salma Hayek, but she was not the spokesbabe I was
> thinking of.
>
> Catherine Zeta-Jones did the T-Mobile print campaign. I think there were
> tv commercials,
Hundreds of them. Weird ones that looked like they shot her separately
and added her later. Wallpaper for your phone ...
but I really remember the full page newspaper ads. I do
> subscribe to their service now, but at the time, I was not shopping for
> a cell phone provider.
>
> In any event, the ad campaign did a lot more to sell herself than the
> service, so if she wanted to dump Michael Douglas in my favor, yes please.
>
> But I do recall that Frank Sinatra was on the radio for Old Gold cigarettes
> and Bob Hope for Pepsident. Spacing out on which cigarette Bing Crosby
> had as the main sponsor.
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
Anim8rFSK
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2011 13:53:08 -0500, Mason Barge wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:57:32 -0500, Stan Brown
> > <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > [quoted text muted]
> > >
> > >No, it doesn't. Read further down and it lists other celebrities
> > >like Lance Armstrong and says their endorsements also made sales
> > >worse.
> >
> > That's partly correct. But the article's claim is that celebrity
> > endorsement are ineffective and it has statistical proof; however, the
> > statistical proof is crap.
>
> I must have missed the claim in the original article that the
> evidence presented constituted statistical proof. I agree with you
> that such a claim is doo-doo.
Yep. Even if you hire CZJ and sales drop 20%, you can't prove that it
wouldn't have dropped 50% without her.
Obveeus
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, dude, I can actually still remember the words to the Marlboro
> commercial Julie London did in that sexy low voice and sexy lowcut dress:
>
> Why don't you settle back, for a full-flavored smoke?
> Settle back, for a (unh) Marl-boro.
> Make yourself "comfortable" whenever you smoke
> Have a Marlboro . . . cigarette.
> You've got a lot to like in a (unh) Marlboro,
> filter, flavor, flip-top box.
>
> I was, obviously, drooling all over the floor even though I hadn't hit
> puberty.
Be careful what you say/write. Someone might read that and decide that
anything with 'sex' in it is actually being targeted directly at kids.
Then, everything will get banned.
Obveeus
>
> Or Bob Dole and Viagra.
Not really Viagra, but Men's Health by Pfizer, same as with Mark Martin's
racing sponsorship a few years ago. Sure, we all know that they are really
selling a boner pill, but the guise was that they were encouraging men to
get checkups and to seek alternatives to old age impotence.
> Couldn't get Clinton I guess.
No one would have believed that he needed help in that department.
shawn
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2011 05:04:53 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>Oh, dude, I can actually still remember the words to the Marlboro
>commercial Julie London did in that sexy low voice and sexy lowcut dress:
>
>Why don't you settle back, for a full-flavored smoke?
>Settle back, for a (unh) Marl-boro.
>Make yourself "comfortable" whenever you smoke
>Have a Marlboro . . . cigarette.
>You've got a lot to like in a (unh) Marlboro,
>filter, flavor, flip-top box.
>
>I was, obviously, drooling all over the floor even though I hadn't hit
>puberty.
Then you will love this page and the collection of clips they include:
Mason Barge
LOL . . . actually, Stan is probably someone who could do just that, if
you give him a couple of hundred grand.
Mason Barge
You want to know something really REALLY weird. I read an article by a
scientist last week that said . . . AND I DON'T KNOW THIS FROM PERSONAL
EXPERIENCE!!! . . . that penis pumps actually can increase the length of
the human penis. :)
Unfortunately Jimmy J. was hawking the wrong product. The FDA is cracking
down on non-prescription medical claims, and I think that in the next year
or two we will lose these priceless bits of American culture.
How can we replace that semi-attractive brunette woman fondling a box and
talking in those pouty tones about "that certain part of the male
anatomy"?
Mason Barge
Thanks! I loved it!
Mason Barge
I'm thinking Barb May is actually Roseanne Roseannadanna in disguise.