Celeb advertising: Wats the sense in it??

MINDSHARE...MINDSHARE..MORE MINDSHARE...

These words are not alien to the discussion as this is the root of all branding..a certain space in mind with certain associations and pre-dispositions. We want it from our target segment – audience and want it more than our competitors with favorable dispositions of course.

Having understood this..let us move ahead to the topic of Celebrity Endorsements. Pepsi canned Beyoncé Knowles and Britney Spears, as they did not increase sales. Chrysler removed Celine Dion, again the same problem. There are many more such example, which some people have already quoted or surely will quote in their coming speeches. Now, this whole example quoting business is futile as the causes mostly lie somewhere else, In pepsi’s case it was bad message which they quickly changed in their next campaign. Chrysler was a case of thinking just having a celebrity would increase sales – what a logical fallacy. But blaming celebrity endorsement would be similar to blaming “entrepreneurship” and commenting that 95% fail. The reason they do so is because of poor business acumen or jumping into it without thinking and not because of being an entrepreneur. Thus, celeb endorsements gone awry is no more than a case of ineffective communication management and not something wrong with the concept of Celeb Endorsement.

Celebs do not work is another strong point of argument and an opportunity to throw in some examples for most teams. I would just like to counter question them – Do all ads without Celebrities work?? …A no Brainer.

But Ofcouse, your question still remains – DO WE NEED THEM AT ALL? Amul worked without celebs, Fevicol Brand worked without Celebs. I agree…if the debate topic was “Brands can work even without celebrities…I would completely and with all my heart and soul agree.” Unfortunately, it is not so. And we do need them is my stand which I would go deeper into in a while.

Another argument I love is that there is Clutter in celebrity space. First there was clutter in direct mailers being sent way back in 1960’s, then a clutter in Radio, then TV..then a clutter in Celebrities. Each time they see a space crowding up, they shout “CLUTTER!! CLUTTER!!” As if they are shouting “EUREKA!!EUREKA!!”. Now Direct mailers still work..Dominos is an example in case..remember the last time you ordered it because that flier was lying somewhere in your house, Radio is supposed to be going through a boom and is a method to avoid clutter now, and TV ad rates seems to be going up and up..touching as high as Rs.5 lakh for a 30 sec spot during matches. Clutter didn’t deter them..my argument is it won’t Deter Celebrity Endorsements. But obviously using Celebrities needs to be done a lot more thoughtfully. Just as ads are made much more thoughtfully today than just making weird jingles in an uncluttered space in the Ramayana Days of Dordarshan. To give an example According to Pooja Jain, Director, Luxor Writing Instruments Ltd (LWIL), post Amitabh Bachchan – the most cluttered of them all, Parker's sales have increased by about 30 per cent

And before I move back to where I started..Mindshares..my personal favorite …”Less focus on content”. Its like saying don’t get a beautiful wife..coz u will focus less on content..Uhmm..(Breath Heavy)..Interesting!!. The point is simple..content has to be focused and such excuses are ridiculous at their best.

Now going back to where I started: that if brands want mindshare and associations. What is the simplest way to do it? Grant McCracken’s “Meaning Transfer Theory” clearly states how consumers transfer associations from two closely linked objects. In effect, this leads to the theory of association which is essence of branding and is so logical and basic that refuting it would be a crime. Just think what associations transfers from John Abraham to Fastrack, or Hrithik Roshan to Tamarind, or through a series of bollywood queens to LUX.

Since associations transfer… be careful while choosing a celebrity

Use the FRED Model: F for Familiarity (target market is aware of him, finds him friendly, likeable and trustworthy); Relevance (which says that there should be a link between the endorser and the product as well between the endorser and the audience); Esteem (the polio endorsement, for example, is successful as the masses see him as a credible name-face-voice); Differentiation (in all his projections, he is seen to be one among the masses, and yet he towers above them. He is different His appeal is universal, lesser mortals merely cater to specific niches… )

Thus, it is a tedious exercise of chosing the right celebrity rather than a pure-glam task one of showing them off on TV or Print or any other medium.

I have maintained that management is about reducing probabilities of failure rather than a course on how to succeed – thus a risk reduction exercise which is also capable of giving excellent returns. Celebrity Endorsements are much the same and should be seen in the same light. By putting a sachin I reduce my probability of being unnoticed, I can get away with a little poor content, and an ad if successfully done can earn me bucks. Thus, it is an exercise of Risk Mitigation.

Having a celebrity sometimes also leads to lower ad spends than contrary belief that they hike ad spends. It’s a known fact that two biggest components of ad spends would be: Media Spot Buying and Celebrity Payments ..in that order. Now having a celebrity increases my chance to be noticed, works well for my recallibility allowing me to air fewer ads which cost me 50,000 to 5 lakhs per spot and thus save substantially. For example when S. Kumar's used Hrithik Roshan for their launch advertising for Tamarind, they reckoned they spent 40 - 50 per cent less on media due to the sheer impact of using Hrithik.

Signalling Effect is something we all have heard of. What do you think when SRK or Hrithik or Aamir comes for an ad … well…one thought process is that the company can afford them..which implies they are big..which normally in B2C environment is also equivalent to quality and therefore a value proposition. Now these linkages are easily formed in consumers mind, ITC sunfeast used SRK for same, Hyundai Santro used SRK for same and in the above case Tamarind used hrithik for same. It can even change stock markets valuation, both at dalal street and Wall Street. Home Trade is a desi case in example and going across to USA, when rumors of Michael Jordan returning to NBA in 1995, he was endorsing products of General Mills (Wheaties), Mc'Donalds (Quarter Pounders, Value Meals), Nike (Air Jordan), Quaker Oats (Gatorade) and Sara Lee (Hans Underwear). Study conducted by Mathur et al.14 associated with Jordan's endorsements shows that the anticipation of Jordan's return to NBA, and the related increased visibility for him resulted in increase in the market adjusted values of his client firms of almost 2 percent, or more than $1 bn in stock market value

Obviously certain situations and products are more amenable to Celebrity Endorsement than others. Product launche- in order to benefit from their familiarity with TG, Social Awareness Programs- to add glamour and make people interested in otherwise drab programs, Firefighting Situations – add credibility in firefighting situations like Amitabh in worm case for Cadbury , Aamir in Pesticide Case for Coke. What I am trying to say is ..CELEBRITY ENDORSMENT is A SERIOUS BUSINESS WITH A DEFINITE VALUE PROPOSITION but when used with thought and skill.

On an ending note on ..my take on Celebrity Advertising---à Yehi Hai right Choice baby ..Ah ha!!