Catherine Zeta Jones for T-Mobile

After reading so much about the use of celebrities in advertisements, I've found myself paying much more attention to commercials using celebs. T-mobile's decision to use Catherine Zeta Jones is one that doesn't make much sense to me. It's not that she has a negative image, but she's also someone I'd bet knows little about technology or cell phones.

One factor that crucial to analyze is whether or not the celebrity is credible for a given product or category. Sean "P. Diddy" Combs is a credible celeb for Ciroc vodka. Known for throwing some of the largest celebrity parties and his overall lifestyle, I'd trust him to know a thing or two about quality alcohol. Then there is Angelina Jolie for Louis Vuitton. I consider Angelina Jolie to be a style icon, so she is a quite credible source for the LV brand, and I'd trust that she'd actually wear their clothing.



In highly image-driven consumer categories such as fashion, perfume or liquor, celebrity endorsements can be credible. For sporting goods, endorsement by an athlete can work wonders. Look at Michael Jordan's success with Nike. However, categories that require more consideration, such as financial services or technology, a celebrity endorser isn’t likely to have much of a positive impact. This might be why T-mobile decided to drop Catherine Zeta Jones when her contract ended. It can also explain the decision of Carl's Jr. to drop Paris Hilton from their ad campaign. It can be assumed that neither of these women are credible sources for either of these products, leaving me to have a hard time taking these ads (or brands) seriously.

Celebs: A Big Waste of Money

Earlier this year, ad age wrote an article based on studies that showed celebrities in advertising don't pay big dividends. In other words, using big names to sell a product is a big waste of money. The study showed that fewer than 12% of ads using celebrities exceeded a 10% lift, and one-fifth of celebrity ads had a negative effect on advertising effectiveness (Daboll).

Does this mean celebs are losing their spark at influencing consumers? According to the author, that's exactly what it means. The article says that consumers aren't the same as they used to be. In fact, the same ads that influenced us five years ago would probably be ineffective today.

In other words, it takes a lot more than a movie star or rock star to sell us something. As consumers, we are much more informed, time compressed, and critical. There's not much we haven't seen, and we're difficult to impress. Having an enormous amount of ads thrown at us is annoying enough, and sometimes the idea of celeb pushing them makes it more irritating. In fact, the study shows that consumers want relevance and messages that contain quality attributes.

If you take a look at the worst celebrity endorsements of 2010, Tiger Woods was at the top of the list. Not just because of the controversy surrounding his scandal, but because marketers went about advertising the brand the wrong way. They focused on addressing his "mistakes," rather than the product he was supposed to be promoting. If an ad has bad creative, mixing a celeb usually makes it even less effective and more confusing to the viewer.

What it comes down to is adding a celebrity to an already poor creative message is like rubbing salt in the wound. Brands need to charging their agencies to create ads that have a strong, creative message that has a high level of relevance, information, desire and attention. Just because an ad is popular, funny and goes viral doesn't mean sales went up for the product. In the same way, just because a celeb is has dozens of box-office hits or platinum selling albums doesn't mean they'll be able to sell a particular product. The study shows that there is a negative relationship between celebrities and ad effectiveness.

Using Multiple Celebs & the Milk Mustache Campaign

Everyone can recall the milk mustache ads promoting the consumption of milk. Singers, actors, comedians, and athletes were all featured in the ads. What made the campaign so unique was that it a largely diverse amount of celebrities.

After noticing a significant decline in the consumption of milk, the marketing goal of the campaign was to change consumers attitudes toward milk and increase public awareness of its nutrition facts.

What made this campaign so successful? Was it the use of celebrities, the number of celebrities, or was it the specific marketing strategy? There's no doubt that the campaign wouldn't have been successful if any regular Joe was featured in the ads. To change the people's perception of milk, they had to see public figures with qualities that consumers emulated. The first milk mustache ads were targeted toward females, and used celebs like Christie Brinkley and Kate Moss. They then expanded their ads to include male celebrities, child celebrities, allowing the advertisers to widen its appeal to a much more diverse audience. Men were reached by using celebrities like Spike Lee and Matthew Fox. The campaign even appealed to teens when Britney Spears was featured wearing a milk mustache and the growth and development benefits of milk.


However, using a large number of celebrities is not always beneficial or necessary. The reason this particular campaign was so successful utilizing a multi-celebrity endorsement strategy was because the it was aimed at very large, diverse audience. Many products have a specific target audience that fits into a certain demographic, certain age group, gender, lifestyle, etc. The milk campaign needed to reach both men and women, all age groups, all lifestyles, etc. It was necessary to mix up the advertising message and target each of them to different audience members.

In addition, employing a number of celebrities can also help the advertiser build a sense of consensus and avoid audience boredom. It is important for the marketer to carefully manage the choice of celebrity and how it fits with the product. The goal is to appeal to the intended segments without confusing audience's about the product or the brand image (Chung-kue,McDonald).













Works Cited

Chung-kue Hsu, Daniella McDonald, (2002) "An examination on multiple celebrity endorsers in advertising", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 11 Iss: 1, pp.19 - 29

Celebrities Endorsing Diets

An article published in the New York Times in August discussed weight loss products using celebrity endorsements. One of the most famous weight loss companies, Jenny Craig, used actress Carrie Fisher to promote their program. Last May, Fisher showed off her 30-pound weight loss in People magazine. However, employing celebrities can be a "double edged sword" (Broddesser-Akner). Weight loss companies take the risk that a celebrity will either be unable to lose the weight or gain the weight after the weight loss program. If this happens, it makes the product look like it doesn't work.

One of the newest celebrity endorsers for Weight Watchers is Jennifer Hudson, who has lost a significant amount of weight. Marie Osmond is also an inspirational success story for Nutrisystem.

Using "regular people" to promote weight loss products doesn't quite have the same effect. Sure we see average people on weight loss commercials on TV, but we don't know if they gain the weight back or if they lost more weight after the ad was aired. Celebrities, on the other hand, play out their weight loss journey under glaring lights. For example, we all remember Jenny Craig spokeswoman Kirstie Alley disrobing on "Oprah" flaunting her new bikini body, only to return to the show dressed more conservatively and considerably heavier.

Some of the companies don't see their celeb endorsers failing on the program harmful to their brand. They insist that it doesn't mean the product doesn't work, it just means that the celebrities aren't sticking to the program.

Works Cited

Brodesser-Akner, Taffy. "When Dieting Becomes a Role to Play." New York Times. 2 Aug. 2011. Web. 16 Oct. 2011. .

When Celebrity Endorsements Hurt the Brand

Celebrity Endorsement Hurting the Brand

When a celebrity doesn't connect with the brand or product they are advertising, consumers lose confidence in the brand itself. If you see an ad and think, "They would never buy/use/ that," then you begin to focus more on the celebrity endorsing the product for the paycheck and less on the actual message of the ad.

A recent example is found in Jennifer Lopez's endorsement of the Fiat 500 car. There was no doubt that she'd be the face of some sort of ad campaign while she hosted American Idol, released an album, and divorced Marc Anthony, but the brand she chose to endorse didn't fit.

Another reason Fiat failed was that the ad focused on the celebrity and not on the car and why people should buy it. There failed to advertise the features of the car that encouraged people to buy it. The only message consumers walked away with was the promotion of her new song in the ad and that J-Lo was now single.

This is a perfect example of how a brand can use a celebrity endorser ineffectively.

I still don't know anyone who owns a Fiat 500.




Works Cited

Vara, Suzanne. "When Celebrity Endorsements Hurt the Brand." Business 2 Community. 11 Oct. 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2011. .

50 Cent--too many endorsements?

It's been a while since I've actually heard a song from 50 Cent on the radio. However, that doesn't mean he hasn't been pulling in hundreds of millions of dollars. A September 2009 BusinessInsider.com article talks 50 Cent's "massive $150 million business empire." According to BusinessInsider, it was smart business moves more than anything else that propelled the rapper to where he is today. For example, 50 Cent did more than just endorse Vitamin Water on TV. He also negotiated a stake of the parent company for himself, which "netted him $100 million."

1. Vitamin Water
50’s best known and most lucrative recent revenue stream is his endorsement deal with Vitamin Water. After signing on to shill for the brand’s Formula 50 beverage, 50 got a stake in parent company, Energy Brands. When Coca-Cola bought Energy in May 2007, 50’s stake netted him $100 million. Vitamin Water also utilized his "Anger Management" concert tour with Eminem, in which they promoted Vitamin Water at each show.

2. Reebok
Reebok paid him $20 million in 2003 to license a G-Unit sneaker line. Reebok's reportedly sold more than 4 million pairs at $80 a pop, which means Fiddy's shoes have made more than $320 million in revenue.


3. Pontiac
He also had an endorsement deal with Pontiac, which sponsored his 2007 tour of New York City's five boroughs to promote his album, Curtis. 50 helped design a bright red G8 sedan and was also sponsoring an El Camino-like G8 pickup, which he unveiled at last year's New York City auto show.
4. Jacob & Co.
50 Cent is also the new face of Jacob & Co. high-end watches.

With so many endorsements going on at one time, it makes me wonder if one face representing so many brands can have a negative effect on the product. According to Hamish Pringle, who wrote Celebrity Sells in 2004, "There is research to show that consumers lose confidence in celebrities who do too many things. Consumers understand that celebrities are paid, so why should they be believed?" (Stromberg).

I believe that if one celebrity is advertising products that are in different brand categories, then there won't be a negative effect. 50 Cent's endorsements fall under beverages, cars, jewelry, shoes. None of these brands are in direct competition, and may even benefit from the rising popularity of other products. For example, if 50 Cent has the power to make Reebok shoes the coolest, desired sneaker, then it may make sales of Vitamin Water increase because consumers associate the rapper with a certain level of desire and prestige.










Works Cited

Angelova, Kamelia, and Hilary Lewis. "50 Cent's Massive Business Empire." Business Insider. 16 Sept. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. .


Stromberg, Dawn. "Do Celebrity Endorsements Really Persuade Consumer Buys? - Web Extras." The Globe - Point Park University. 21 Dec. 2009. Web. 8 Oct. 2011. .

Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty

Dove's decision to launch their "Real Beauty" campaign was risky. Founded on a message that forces us to reevaluate what society has deemed "beautiful," Dove used only real women in their ads--fat, wrinkles, cellulite and all! I remember when I first turned the page in my magazine and saw Dove's two-page ad with overweight, naked women. I was a little taken aback. I don't think I had the reaction to the brand that they'd hoped. However, their television ads, which showed how media's unrealistic definition of beauty is negatively affecting women and self esteem, were emotionally moving and changed perspective on the entire campaign. The next time I saw one of Dove's print ads, I appreciated the message more.

Within six months, sales of the products featured in the ads increased 600 percent in the first two months. The Campaign for Real Beauty exceeded company expectations, and global sales surpassed the $1 billion mark in 2004.

It wasn't just the campaign's empowering message to women that made it successful. And it wasn't just that it ventured away from celebrity endorsements into using "real women" in their various ads. I think what made this campaign so successful was the way it was packaged. It was the creative element.

For example, instead of calling their products "anti-aging," they pushed the idea of "pro-aging." The idea that aging was beautiful and should be embraced is what resonated with women, and made them remember the ads more.

This shows that an ad campaign doesn't have to include flawless celebrities to sell products. They need to truly understand their market--and advertise accordingly.




Works Cited:
http://www.marketingprofs.com/articles/2007/2259/the-real-story-behind-the-success-of-doves-campaign-for-real-beauty#ixzz1cJgL6ELP