Recent ad campaigns and publicity releases highlight a problem that’s at least as old as the 30-second TV commercial. It’s an issue that should be clearly recognized in the boardroom and on Wall Street. It should be apparent to brand managers and their advertising agency partners. It involves a practice that advertising agency pioneer David Ogilvy railed against years ago. And yet the practice continues, unabated.
While the problem may be most evident during the Super Bowl, that ad event is merely the tip of the iceberg. The 2003 Super Bowl featured commercials starring Celine Dion, Ozzy Osbourne, Jackie Chan, and Willie Nelson. These celebrities were paid to appear in commercials that on average cost about $2 million to air -- once. What brands did they promote? Does anybody remember? And does anybody care?
Advertising Age columnist Stefano Hatfield posed an interesting question that would probably perplex the staff at Jeopardy. Match the celebrity with the brand -- the brand whose stockholders are paying dearly for the “lift” that will supposedly ensue when a star is paired with the company’s products and services. Try it with the following well-known names: Cyndi Lauper, Kurt Vonnegut, Kiefer Sutherland, Courteney Cox, and Penelope Cruz. All are appearing in new ad campaigns this year for the following brands: American Express, Coca-Cola, Apple Computer, Nextel, and Nissan. Care to hazard a guess? Is this an investment in brand building, or is it a game of “Stump the Consumer”?
The beat goes on
The focus on celebrities is not just a phenomenon associated with the Super Bowl. Payless ShoeSource recently announced it would continue its relationship with Star Jones, airing commercials featuring her on such popular telecasts as this year’s Grammy Awards. Little Richard has been appearing in prime time commercials for Sprint PCS. Skyy Vodka has announced plans to feature John Leguizamo, among others, in its new print ads. Christina Aguilera has signed on to be “the new face of Versace,” and Serena Williams will be touting the advantages of Close-Up toothpaste.
Not to be outdone, Thomasville Furniture has announced plans to link its new line of products with, of all people, the late Humphrey Bogart.
From automakers to vodka marketers, from fast food to computers, companies are in what appears to be a desperate search for celebrity endorsers. It seems to matter little if the celebrities have demonstrated their brand-building capabilities or even if they are alive. It also doesn’t seem to matter much whether they’re clearly or credibly relevant to the product.
Ray Charles, Hall of Fame entertainer and sometime-endorser of Diet Pepsi, recently signed to appear in radio commercials. Can you guess the product? The brand? Answer: He will be appearing on the national “Got Milk?” effort. For those moments when Diet Pepsi won’t do?
Tony Hawk, noted skateboarder, has reportedly signed on as spokesman for two multi-million-dollar advertising efforts, not on behalf of skateboards, helmets, or sportswear, but for Frito-Lay snacks and for Hershey’s milk products. Of course, that must be because these leading marketing organizations have seen the strength of his association for the past three years with . . . care to venture a guess . . . Bagel Bites from Heinz.
Nothing against Humphrey Bogart, Ray Charles, or Tony Hawk -- or against Lauper, Cruz, Chan, Nelson, Vonnegut, or the others. All have achieved remarkably in fields requiring great talent and determination. But exactly what value do they bring to Hershey’s, Coke, Hanes, or Nextel?
Hiring celebrity endorsers is done in the name of entertainment and the need to break through the advertising clutter. Whenever a brand is thought to be unexciting or lacking great news value, advertisers may choose to call on the “borrowed interest” of an established star.
The brand purportedly benefits from hiring celebrities in two ways. First, the entertainer commands an audience and thereby heightens consumer attention to the brand. Second, because the brand is now linked to the entertainer, the brand supposedly takes on some of the established qualities and attributes of the paid endorser.
Or so the theory goes. But exactly how much interest is being borrowed? And at what price?
Dubious investments
What if the “celebrity” is largely unknown and unrecognized by the intended audience? What if the audience deems him or her irrelevant, with no apparent positive qualities to somehow link to the brand?
This issue is highlighted in a story that appeared in USA Today discussing a Toyota commercial featuring Sir Edmund Hillary. According to research cited by the paper, the ad did not perform particularly well. Compared to the “average” ad, considerably fewer viewers liked the ad or thought it was effective. While there may be arguments over the true impact of this commercial, Scott Gilbert, chief executive for Toyota’s ad agency, admits, “The campaign works even better if you know who he is.” Interesting comment. Isn’t one basic benefit of having a star endorse your product that you don’t need to explain who he is? Is Toyota borrowing “value” from Sir Edmund’s name recognition if there is no recognition to be borrowed?
But that’s hardly the core problem. After all, many celebrities are almost immediately recognizable. However, after having spent the money to hire a recognized star, create and execute a commercial, and air it in prime time, what if the audience remembers the celebrity, but can’t remember which brand sponsored the ad?
As the Advertising Age columnist pointed out, that’s not a rare problem. And as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, “most [Super Bowl] ads produced a negligible change in intent to purchase.”
This “borrowed interest” approach is not restricted to established celebrities. Rather than searching for a celebrity with specific desirable characteristics, some companies create a “personality,” a fictional character that embodies those important positive attributes. The created personality -- someone like “Josephine the plumber” or “Mr. Whipple” -- is then linked to the brand. Same result for less money? Not always.
Money down the drain
One of the commercials appearing during this year’s Super Bowl featured an actor playing a fictional football “linebacker” named “Terry Tate.” According to research reported in USA Today, it was the second most popular commercial among the coveted 18-45 year-old audience. It presented a funny and memorable story starring an attention-getting character who charges through a fictitious office, tackling anyone who violates company policy.
That’s great for the athletic shoe manufacturer who created the character and paid to air the commercial. They’ve executed a well-liked commercial, one slated to become the cornerstone of a $15 million advertising campaign. The shoe manufacturer and its ad agency are justifiably proud of what they’ve created and about all the water cooler conversations generated among viewers about their over-the-top football player.
One minor point. As the research summary acknowledges, “It may be hard to tell it’s for Reebok.” In fact, well over a third (38%) of those who watched the commercial guessed that it was for . . . McDonald’s!
As another ad agency’s creative director stated, “The spot is confusing, but [the character is] awesome.” And exactly what is the benefit to Reebok if they have created a memorable character who is almost as strongly connected to McDonald’s as he is to Reebok? What is the value of building an audience that focuses on the story and the character, but doesn’t even know what product or brand “Terry Tate” is selling?
Far too often, the development of “creative” and “memorable” stories or engaging characters fails to focus on the real hero: the brand. This is not a rare event. In fact, the problem is well illustrated by a question directed to Stuart Elliott, advertising columnist for the The New York Times. A reader of his column posed the following question: “I recently saw a commercial for a new cholesterol drug, whose name eludes me. It starred an animated banana doing a multitude of activities, and it happens to be the most entertaining prescription drug commercial I’ve seen yet.”
Entertaining, perhaps. But is it effective? Well, that’s a different story. If viewers are fascinated by the animated banana but can’t remember the brand name, something is clearly missing.
The actor who played Reebok’s “linebacker” got paid, and presumably paid rather well. So did the agency. The stars listed earlier were also well compensated, as were the ad agencies that created the commercials and the TV stations that showed them.
However, in far too many cases, the brand doesn’t benefit, and the sponsoring companies and their investors get shortchanged. Hiring a celebrity or creating a personality means nothing without a strong and memorable linkage to the brand. Without that brand linkage, it’s simply money down the drain. That waste represents an office management crime that “Terry Tate” may not be tackling, but a company’s CFO certainly should.