The Finch Post

The Falling Star of Celebrity Endorsement - Part 4

Can You Hear Me Now, Catherine Zeta-Jones?

If you suffered a heart attack, you’d want an expertly trained Cardiologist at the helm of your recovery, not a glitzy hospital mouthpiece paid to look good while reciting medical references he or she probably doesn’t even understand. The same goes for purchasing products or services. Savvy consumers want to learn about the best and brightest from the best and brightest. Hence, the long-running success of Verizon’s “Can you hear me now?” campaign.

From 2002 to 2011, Verizon aired more than 100 TV spots featuring a bespectacled field tester asking a question familiar to many cell phone users, “Can you hear me now?” Test Man roaming across the country not only visually represented the strength of Verizon’s network, but showcased the spokesperson’s man-on-the-street appeal as well.

In stark contrast to Verizon’s employee endorser, T-Mobile hired starlet Catherine Zeta-Jones to plug the cash-saving benefits of the carrier. With her good looks, fame, and respectability, Zeta-Jones possessed all the hallmarks of a successful spokesperson. The problem, however, was that she lacked a convincing connection to the product she pushed.

In order for celebrity endorsements to be successful, consumers have to buy into the idea that their favorite actor or singer really does use that weight loss program or $5 lipstick. Watching the millionairess promote T-Mobile’s budget-friendly phone plan was as believable as Bill Gates shopping at Shoe Circus (see part 3 of this blog series), it just didn’t ring true.

Today’s audiences demand that A-listers be authentically in sync with the products they sell. This break from our star-struck tradition has celebrities nervous and businesses redefining their criteria for successful spokespeople. Perhaps Verizon should have texted T-Mobile and informed them of the importance of source credibility.

The Falling Star of Celebrity Endorsement - Part 3 of a 4 part series

Part 3: Syntax Error

Long recognized as an industry innovator, Apple Computers placed their unique corporate identity front and center as the star spokesperson of their highly acclaimed “Get a Mac” campaign. The move paid off for Apple and was so successful that in 2010 Adweek declared the series the best advertising campaign of the first decade of the new century.

Featuring then unknown Justin Long as a Mac personified, the advertisements pitted his unflappable wit against the schlubby, corporate, has-been PC played by John Hodgman. The duo entertained viewers for years with their playful exchanges and left Microsoft in desperate need of rebooting their brand.

Who did Microsoft use to champion this ambitious undertaking? A celebrity that’s synonymous with software of course, comedian Jerry Seinfeld. Designed to reintroduce Windows to disenchanted consumers, the ensuing ads got laughs, but for all the wrong reasons.

The first commercial, entitled “Shoe Circus”, showed Seinfeld helping Bill Gates buy shoes at a discount retailer. The second installment of Bill and Jerry’s excellent adventures chronicled the odd couple connecting with “normal people” as unwelcome house guests.

Microsoft tried to play to its strengths, namely the universality of its software, by unveiling a clever new slogan: PC—Perpetually Connected. However, the campaign failed to focus on its biggest selling point: the billions of PC users Gates boasts about bringing together. Shockingly, even with Microsoft’s CEO as Seinfeld’s sidekick, audiences couldn’t connect the comic with computers. 

The titans of tech finally got it right with their “I am a PC” campaign—a counterattack and homage to the “Get a Mac” commercials. Microsoft embraced the stigma Apple placed on the PC, repositioning it as a badge of honor. The renovated advertisements showcased diverse members of the global Microsoft community proudly proclaiming “I am a PC.” By using less celebrity and more reality, Microsoft positioned themselves as boundary breakers and a beloved fixture in billions of lives.

Although the folks at Apple and Microsoft fiercely differentiate themselves on and off the screen, they are both still techies at heart. Staying true to their corporate identity, they sent a clear message to appreciative audiences: we get it. With consumers growing increasingly savvy, credibility will always trump celebrity.

The Falling Star of Celebrity Endorsement - Part 1 of a 4 part series

Legendary art director, George Lois,  mused that “enlisting a celebrity to sell cat food, an airline, off-track betting, an analgesic, or a lube job would seem to be a delusionary strategy fraught with irrationality. But let’s face it, it’s a star-struck world.”

Sure, it’s a star-struck world, but with exorbitant high costs, bad behavior, and questionable credibility plaguing celebrity endorsements, is it any wonder that businesses are starting to look within to inspire campaigns and develop brands? 

This four-part blog examines the changing face of the spokesperson from gregarious celebrity to unassuming everyman, and how this shift in audience preference allows businesses to bolster their brand by celebrating the people behind their products.

Celebrity Losing its Fizz

 According to recent marketing research, one out of every four advertising campaigns in the US features famous faces. From magazine spreads to Twitter, television commercials to Facebook, the advertising industry is clogged with celebrity and is in desperate need of Draino.

Although most of us believe that our voracious appetite for celebrity is a relatively recent speedbump in social evolution, actors and athletes, musicians and models have been peddling products to eager audiences for centuries.

In ancient Rome, popular gladiators received handsome sums to endorse various products and services. In the 1700s, Josiah Wedgwood capitalized on the popularity of his products with royalty by promoting himself as “Potter to Her Majesty.”

At the height of the Cola Wars, PepsiCo also used ties to aristocracy to promote their carbonated product. The history-making partnership with the King of Pop made Michael Jackson the richest pitchman on planet Earth. With his unmistakable flair, Jackson touted the beverage to his fans as the choice of a new generation, resulting in Pepsi earning $7.7 billion in sales and edging out its competitor as the King of Soda Pop for 1984.

Throughout the ten-year commitment, Jackson earned tens of millions of dollars, while Pepsi enjoyed sole sponsorship of his concerts. Allegations of child abuse in 2003, however, burst the campaign’s bubble, and Jackson was quickly released from his contract.

Pepsi’s ill-fated promotion is one of many examples of star powered endorsements losing their shine. Although hitching an advertising campaign to a Hollywood cash cow can prove beneficial at first, it is wise for businesses to remember that if the spokesperson gets stuck in the mud, then so too does the brand tied to them.

5 Marketing Missteps

We’ve all done it—especially after one too many cocktails—promoted an idea that, in hindsight, is just as ill-conceived as drunk-dialing your ex. When companies exhibit questionable ad campaign judgment, we’re left with unfortunate (although often hilarious) results. Here is a list of our personal favorites:

 

1)      Receptacle-ready underwear from Bic

The throwaway titans at Bic are still scratching their collective heads over what went wrong with this launch. After all, the new product line was in keeping with their brand platform as a provider of disposable products ranging from razors to ballpoint pens. Moreover, as anyone knows who has ever spent time with or been a teenager, sometimes it’s simpler to just use a shovel to clear away and discard forgotten undergarments than painstakingly retrieve them from among the clutter and put them in the wash. Nevertheless, this idea never found a foothold in the market and, to the chagrin of Bic executives, the product wound up where it was ultimately heading anyway, straight in the trash.

 

2)      From Netflix to Please Fix

We wrote about this brand bumbling before, but it bears repeating. After first alienating many of its customers by announcing that the company would split its DVD and movie streaming package into two distinct services, Netflix swiftly declared their plans to create a new affiliated company. Like Smokin’ Joe’s 1-2 combination, this follow-up move left many consumers dazed and off-balance. The new company, Qwikster, would manage all DVD renters while Netflix would retain streaming video customers. After considerable customer criticism that the new model complicated the process and increased the cost for users of both services who would now need to maintain accounts on two separate websites, Netflix abandoned its plans. “We just moved too fast,” explained Steve Swasey, Netflix’s Vice President of Corporate Communications. This is a perfect example of how pursuing an idea without fully considering how it will be received by your customers will always wind up with you in over your head. Perhaps a more apropos name for Qwikster would have been Quicksand.

 

3)      Como se dice “cultural blunder”?

Hindsight may be 20/20, but that sentiment provided little comfort to these companies that succumbed to the ultimate cultural language translation trap. Naming is arguably the cornerstone of branding. From these monikers consumers first begin to equate characteristics to particular products and companies. When businesses fail to account for regional differences, however, they often end up with some unintended implications, such as what occurred in English-speaking countries with IKEA’s release of the “Fartfull” desk. Other examples include:

• Gerber baby food, which you won’t find on the shelves in France, likely due to the fact that there it translates to “vomiting”, and
• U.S.-based Wang Computers’ “Wang Cares” campaign in the UK, where it was pulled after public consensus that it sounded too similar to the expletive “wankers”.

 

4)      Complex solutions for simple problems

There’s an old Cold War story about American ingenuity versus Soviet resourcefulness. In zero gravity standard ballpoint pens don’t work. After an exhaustive and expensive investment in research and development, NASA came up with a pen that writes in space. The Soviet Space Program’s solution? Use a pencil. Likewise, two similar products, the Xenote and the Sony E-marker, were launched to solve the age-old dilemma of hearing a song you like on the radio, but not knowing what it is called or who performs it. These devices would bookmark the song and match it to an auditory lineup. Who knew that someone would come along and put out radios that display song names, making the Xenote and E-marker obsolete?

 

5)      He who smelled it DELL-d it

Similar in concept to the Smell-O-Vision, the unfortunately-named iSmell was a computer peripheral device developed by DigiScents in 2001. Designed to replicate natural and man-made odors and emit “theme-appropriate” aromas when users visited websites or opened emails, the iSmell was recognized in 2006 by PC World Magazine as one of the 25 worst tech products of all time. Makes you wonder, though, what type of scent it would have produced for IKEA’s “Fartfull” desk.

 

Reality Sucks

“Reality Sucks”, and sometimes, so do marketing campaigns. General Motors, while targeting college students, managed to insult a rather large group of people. Besides being an insult to an ever increasing cycling community, an image that equates owning a bike to being a loser doesn’t so much evoke a desire to drive a car as it does to watch a teen flick from the 80’s. GM removed the ad after a bombardment of complaints, but one has to wonder how this ad even came about. With its tagline of “Stop pedaling…start driving” they’ve not only insulted those on bikes, but have ignored the environmental pleas that have been promoting the exact opposite.  According to the blog community of bikeportland.org the general college public viewed the campaign as an attack on the environment, fitness and everyone that rides a bike. (Full article found here)

Ads should speak about your product, represent your brand, and of course identify with your target market.  GM has wisely listened to complaints and has taken on the difficult challenge of apologizing to the World Wide Web community.  We can all be reminded of the issues which arise when a company thinks of creativity as a stand-alone tactic. The most successful creative tactics are those which fully account for your brand and all that encompasses, and embraces the mind-set of the intended market. While the impact of an ad may be powerful, it may not always be positive. 

Netflix tests the power of brand

All the missteps of Netflix have been interesting to follow if you’re in to watching just how fast a brand can self-destruct. We surely take no joy in any brand’s challenges; but we watch these things closely to hone our ever sharpening expertise on brand dynamics through studying real life cases. A few things to take from Netflix’s current events, and from this article in particular:

1. Building brand fanatics is obviously a brand’s most meaningful triumph. But, it’s also a tremendous responsibility and fundamentally undermining that relationship comes with grave consequences.
2. The turn on a dime, pivot mentality that is so essential to the emergence of an early stage company can become a liability at a more mature stage of life. Once you have customers to answer to, you better make sure their perspectives are understood before decisions are made.
3. In this article, the author writes, “…the move might have been good for Netflix, but not ideal for Netflix’s customers.” We go on record as saying the paradox of that sentence can never prove true (at least long-term). In the end, what’s good for your brand by definition must be good for your customers.
4. It turns out that Saturday Night Live can, in fact, still be funny.

Jack Who?

 
   

 

This artical from CBS Business Network tells the sad story of a mismanaged brand. It is chock full of everything we care about and believe in at Finch Brands. It perfectly highlights the relationship between brand management and financial performance, the difference between "creative" advertising and effective advertising (which may very well be creative), and the broad spectrum of what brand delivery includes. Viewing the world through your consumers' eyes is challenging, yes, but also critical; as Jack now knows all too well.