Celebrity endorsement: The road to fame or the road to shame?
November 15, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Sometimes celebrity partnerships work out very well. And sometimes they can be a disaster. For example, In 2004 Glaceau VitaminWater recruited the rapper 50 Cent to help promote the brand. He created his own VitaminWater flavor and sales of the brand skyrocketed among young consumers. Nike's relationship with Michael Jordan is the stuff of legend. And Priceline has done well with William Shatner for over a decade; and lately Dr. Dre is using his own brand to help promote HP's Envy notebooks. These partnerships have worked out very well.
Of course, that’s not always the case. Tiger Woods’ personal issues became a fiasco for several brands – while allegations of drug use by Kate Moss led to Chanel, Burberry and H&M terminating their relationship with the model.
Do the benefits of working with celebrities outweigh the risks? Can a troubled celebrity seriously damage a brand that is being endorsed by them? What can brands do to protect themselves from negative publicity generated by celebrities associated with the brand? What’s the best way to structure such relationships? Which brands have done this well? When do brands drop the relationship and how?
We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please post your comments!!!
The benefits and risks depend, for the most part, on the celebrity and how they are used – pardon the double entendre. Someone as notorious as Paris Hilton did no harm to Carl’s Jr., yet Tiger Woods, who appeared a stable and respectable figure, certainly didn’t help his sponsors. It really is a case of observing the adage “slippery surface ahead, proceed with caution”. When choosing celebrities the strategy requires careful and complete due diligence, unless of course you are trading on their bad behavior. No Excuses jeans comes to mind.
Celebrity brand endorsement works best when they are kept at “arms-length” from the core brand image.
Branding’s entire reasoning in many instances is to create a human interface between product, service and consumer. The problem occurs when the celebrity becomes the very embodiment of the brand, as inevitably happens, where the mere image of the celebrity becomes that too of the brand itself.
And of course, the minute something detrimental happens to the image of that celebrity, this reflects badly on the brand. We must question to the impacts of this relationship- Gillette presented us with Tiger Woods, the very fabric of modern, masculine role model- wealthy, successful, a sports pro, a father, a husband. Without getting into the details, one wonders if the upkeep of this ‘brand image’ for endorsement purposes for so long lead to its catastrophic end.
The solution? Don’t become interdependent on one celebrity so much so that they AND the brand image can no longer be distinguished. Utilise them only once perhaps, avoid them all together or invent the perfect brand ambassador the likes of Aunt Bessie, Uncle Ben, M&M’s, the Michelin Man whose images will never be tainted by human temptation.
This, of course, is completely subjective to the product itself…
This sort of makes me think of how insurance companies must come up with measurements for a potential customer’s “risk factor”. With car insurance, for instance, they measure age, previous offenses, mileage, location (NYC vs smalltownUSA), etc. Great customers are those who have long histories of never getting into accidents, never getting speeding tickets, rarely driving, and paying on time. These customers are rare, and though their premiums are lower, they’re still money in the bank. Low Risk – High Reward.
Celebrities are like drivers, and they can be low risk, high risk, low reward, and high reward, with risk and reward being generally directly correlated. (low risk, low reward; high risk; high reward). In most cases, the more “famous” a celebrity, the more reward they bring to the table – as well, they may also pose more risk because they’re under more scrutiny than, say B-grade celebs. Anyway, why would Nike endorse a B-grade celebrity when they could afford the hottest celebs?
I think there are two main factors that brands should look at when considering celebrity endorsements.
1) Level and type of social conservatism associated with the celebrity, and therefore promoted throughout the celebrity’s and brand’s mutual fan-base.
2) Whether the product or industry the celebrity is promoting has any inherent controversy attached to it.
I think that Dr. Dre is a special case of Low Risk-High Reward because he’s never positioned himself as “squeaky clean”, like Tiger did, and his fan-base probably wouldn’t really be all that surprised to hear that he had a string of affairs- true or not, his public persona isn’t as sensitive as Tiger’s. I wonder about Michael Jordan – what is it about his persona that makes him less susceptible to social scrutiny? It is because he didn’t make the freshman basketball team? Or because he wears Hanes?
Tiger plays golf, a traditionally conservative sport. “He” wears pleated pants and turtlenecks, is an Ivy Leaguer, and drives a Buick. He’s every boys club’s wet dream. The fact that he’s a celebrity representing an elite social market, however, puts him immediately at the top of the Risk-Factor list. Social conservatives always fall hardest – even if the social conservatism only exists by association.
At&t’s use of Luke Wilson is a good example of a brand that’s played it safe. He’s not a controversial celebrity; he’s not promoting any social ideals, he represents “every guy”, and most people generally like him. There isn’t a whole lot of emotion attached to him, and I think that’s a great move for a cellular company.
I think that brands knowingly take risk in high profile celebrities, especially when they are brands with sensitive images- Rolex, Buick. Perhaps these brands can shift their own messaging platforms to be more inclusive of the “Everyman” in everyone, even in the elite. That way, when someone does inevitably slip up, the collateral damage is limited. Perhaps even over time, brands can play more of a socially responsible role in not promoting unrealistic images that will ultimately leave the public feeling disappointed, inadequate, and/or confused.