Celebrity Endorsement Found Dead

!±8± Celebrity Endorsement Found Dead

Vanity is a mortgage that must be deducted from the value of a man" - Bismarck

Received wisdom proclaims the death of jazz, opera, and other "high-art" forms. As if not disturbing enough AdWeek now reports a sponsored internet survey that infers that celebrity endorsement is at best irrelevant and at worse dead. If true the secular forces in play may be the same. Primary is the fragmentation of media channels, and pari passu the consumer's attention, all of which seem to be changing exponentially, to wit even rumors of Twitter's death now abound. To be sure this fragmentation co-varies with demographics rendering optimal media planning a challenge. So the putative irrelevance of celebrity endorsement is to be expected and perhaps embraced.

AdWeek asked nearly 4,800 consumers whether a celebrity helps influence a purchase decision, or not. A surprising 78% answered it has no effect while nearly equal numbers either were turned off or encouraged by their inclusion. While overall 12% were inhibited by celebrity endorsement the rate rose to 24% with older consumers (>55yro). The proportion who were more likely to purchase a product due to celebrity endorsement declined steadily as a function of age, while men profess more celebrity purchase inhibition than women. If true, the value of male celebrity endorsement is at best gratuitous, or at worst potentially damaging to trial.

Licensing executives seem to agree with consumers. When asked one Manhattan guru reported to us that male celebrity endorsement is a non-starter: "no man wants to smell like another man; men do not seek to imitate other males with the single exception of top-ranked sports stars". [Quick! Name one product a male celebrity currently endorses who isn't a top athlete.] Women on the other hand are more susceptible to female celebrity endorsement in a joint quest for shared style or à la mode glamour.

First case: Sunglasses....a quick scan of the aisles demonstrates that many designer lines use the name of a female celebrity as their mark. Few, if any, carry a male celeb's name, even Oakley's vaunted sports lines. One recent attempt to interest a sunglasses manufacturer in a male celebrity failed for lack of relevance to the purchase demographic.

Second case: Last week P&G announced a deal with the NFL to exclusively promote 13 P&G brands. Think of this as "dual bundling", that is P&G buying access to 32 teams and 1,700 players while the NFL is endorsing 13 brands. So this deal supports the premise that male sports stars are indeed the exception particularly when the cost of the endorsement is spread across many individuals and brands so it's cheaper and less risky. On the contrary single-player deals assume risk that the brand will be tarnished if a sports celebrity is raided, traded, faded, or otherwise compromised. This exclusive P&G deal is smart in that it dilutes risk and manages cost while it adds tremendous marketing flexibility. P&G's latest effort is another step up from its "Champions" male grooming campaign which featured four top athletes from four differing sports.

Third case: Compare P&G's approach to Icy Hot's single celebrity endorsement by the NBA's Shaquille O'Neal. Although this too fits the accepted notion that a super star athlete is the best candidate to appeal to males that is also the point. Given AdWeek's data not only will the majority of users not be readily influenced by any celebrity but further any mismatch between the celebrity's appeal, the product positioning, and the demographics of the brand's users can only serve to further reduce purchase interest by mainstream users. In this case if one assumes that topical analgesics are often purchased by women, elderly arthritis sufferers, and older run-of-the-mill back pain sufferers then the endorsement by an intimidating male athlete, while perhaps appealing to a sub-segment of male weekend athletes, will distort the brand's positioning and narrow trial.

If male celebrity endorsement is dead then the good news is that the bulk of advertising seems to do fine with no-name actors doing jobs the consumer needs done. Arguably there is an advantage to that since actors bring no baggage, no risk, and a lower cost with them. Besides the average user will relate to them. While beauty care consumers will always be influenced by female celebrity the male of the species will remain somewhat disinterested and unfazed by what his male competitors are up to, or even how they smell.