Celebrity Placement Paper

Susan Thompson
Curtis P. Haugtvedt, Ph.D
Advertising Management
21 February 2014
Celebrity Placement An advertising agency creating a commercial or advertising campaign tries to come up with a creative and persuasive message that consumers will respond to. Often these advertisements feature a celebrity endorser that the agency has decided fits the best with the product and/or the message that they are trying ‘sell’ to the consumer. But do they just simply think off of the top of their head who they believe will be the best fit for the campaign? Sometimes probably yes. But there are also models used to determine the appropriate celebrity for the job, and that is what my paper is going to be researching. “One of the most important variables
that seems to influence how persuasive a celebrity will be in any advertising is the appropriateness of the celebrity for endorsing a particular brand and product. This appropriateness may be defined as the natural linkage between personality and product category, regardless of how the celebrity is actually used in the ad” (Jones). There are many different models used to determine which celebrity is the best fit for an advertising campaign, such as the source attractiveness model, the source credibility model, the product matchup hypothesis, the co-activation theory, the cognitive source model (elaboration likelihood model), and the cultural meaning transfer. The next sections of my paper will be discussing these models in greater detail. First of the models I want to discuss are some that have been around for quite some time and were the bases of all of the models to follow. This model, the source model, is where marketers will rate celebrities on many different attributes when trying to place them into a commercial and “early attempts at understanding the influence of any source in the persuasive context suggested that an attractive, trustworthy, likable, or credible source facilitates the message-learning and acceptance process” (Jones). It was believed that you needed to determine in what context you want your advertisement to show and pick a celebrity that would align with this image. “...three factors contribute to the effectiveness of message. These are familiarity of an endorser, similarity of an endorser and liking of an endorser. Similarity can be defined as the extent to which the receiver (customer) finds resemblance between itself and the source (endorser). Familiarity refers to that how much knowledge the receiver (customer) posses about the source (endorser) And likability is the affection the receiver (customer) develops towards source (endorser) because of the physical attractiveness of the endorser” (Ahmed). That said, it seems as though likability relies a great deal on how attractive the celebrity is; I would say that familiarity related to trustworthiness, in that when you know someone well or have knowledge about them, then you are more likely to trust that said person. Going beyond just physical appearance for how you perceive someone, you also may view someone as credible. This person does not necessarily need to be a celebrity, but maybe someone who is well known for this certain area of expertise, or perhaps as long as the advertisement states the person’s credentials, you are more apt to believing what the person is selling to you. Being credible “holds that the effectiveness of a message is based on the perceived level of expertise and trustworthiness the customers have in an endorser...Expertise can be defined as the extent to which the endorser (communicator) is perceived to be knowledgable, skillful and experienced” (Ahmed). I believe that attractiveness identifies more with peripheral cues, while credibility aligns more with central processing cues. When someone is viewed as attractive, you may be more interested in the advertisement just due to your sense of sight and emotional cues, whereas when someone is credible, you are more cognitive in your analyzing and begin to think about the product’s attributes the communicator is telling you more so than just wanting to purchase the product because of the looks of that person. These are brought up again later when talking about the cognitive response model. The next model is “The Product Match-Up Hypothesis [which] states that there should be perfect match between the celebrity personality characteristics and brand attributes” (Ahmed). This model seems to be the most widely used of all of the models, as I found the most information and articles about it. “This theory was born out of the observation that using an attractive model is not universally effective for all products. They tend to work better for products that are beauty related” (Ang). The article goes on to tell us that this theory is used for other things besides beauty products as well, but many of the characteristics result the attractiveness-rating of a celebrity matched with a product that is either thought to be an attractive or unattractive product. “The product celebrity match-up doesn’t solely rely on just ordinary congruency but on the physical attractiveness of the celebrity as well. Attractive celebrities are more persuasive specially when endorsing the products that enhance the prettiness...” (Ahmed). One article tell us that this hypothesis is related to the balance theory in that, “when the celebrity’s image or attributes do not coincide with the known attributes of the brand, product, or service, incongruence results. This incongruence produces tension and generates forces in the reader or viewer to restore balance” (Jones). You need to find the correct celebrity to be able to create an attitude using the celebrity in the consumer that is consistent with their perceived attitude about the brand. Namely, “the message conveyed by the image of the celebrity and the message about the product ought to converge in effective ads...[it] is important because it allows for meaningful processing and makes it more possible for the brand name to be effectively linked and associated with the celebrity” (Jones). There have been some critiques to this model, however, brought up by Lawrence Ang. First of all, some celebrities ‘fit’ in some categories, but do worse on others (i.e. trustworthiness or likability) and there are many celebrities to choose from, so it is hard to pinpoint the exact right one for the ad at hand. Second, if you are trying to reposition a brand, you would not be able to use this theory because “a certain level of incongruity is necessary in order to change the perception” (Ang). Along with that, “the theory must also explain the phenomenon of reverse transfer. This means that the endorsed product can also influence the perception of the celebrity. A celebrity can lose his cache very quickly if he/she were to endorse a negative product” (Ang). It is also shown that this hypothesis does not explain what exactly “fit” means; it is more of a generic term according to this hypothesis, where as other theories go into detail as what “fit” actually means to them. Finally, this model does not explain any asymmetric effects. For instance, “if an attractive celebrity (e.g., Tom Selleck) is juxtaposed with an attractive product (e.g., luxury car), an image enhancement is seen for this attractive product more so than for an unattractive product (e.g., typewriter). However, for an unattractive celebrity (e.g., Telly Savalas) he/she does not in any way influence the unattractive product (e.g., typewriter) even though he/she matches this product better...” (Ang). In other words, attractive celebrities work well with attractive products, but it is harder to find a match for an unattractive product as attractive celebrities are not a match for these products, and unattractive celebrities still have no positive effect on these sorts of products. From these inconsistencies, other theories are found as to why this hypothesis still works and is still widely used. First is the social adaptation theory. “This theory states that a person will continue to process an ad until no new information is added; therefore it is the acquisition of new information that helps us adapt to our environment. Thus, an attractive celebrity is more effective for endorsing a beauty-related product because an attractive celebrity can add more information about the product than an unattractive celebrity” (Ang). This theory still has many questions linked to it, which brings us to our next theory proposed: the schema theory. “...the schema theory says that we possess a set of knowledge structures that guide our attention and behavior, and assist us in the reconstruction of our memories” (Ang). In other words, we already possess information that allows us to change our perceptions of a product through the matching of celebrities. Through these critiques of the product-matchup hypothesis, Lawrence Ang talks about another theory that he feels is a better framework for celebrity “fit”. This is the co-activation theory of dominant support. There are some assumptions that first go along with this theory. “Just like a brand, a celebrity possesses a set of associations. When a respondent sees a celebrity and a brand juxtaposed together, associations are spontaneously activated from the nodes of both entities. We call these co-activations. The dominant nodes from both entities are always activated first; the more dominant these nodes, the faster the activations” (Ang). The theory tells us that there are two different types of activations: “supporting” and “opposing” and “the greater the former compared to the latter, the greater degree of fit. When there are too many of the latter, negative reverse transfer occurs” (Ang). That said, you need to find a celebrity with more “supporting” activations for your brand (such as attractiveness along with beauty products), and less “opposing” activations (such as liposuction with a workout video). This theory was tested and there were many “supporting” activations found, but there were almost just as many “opposing” activations, as told by Lawrence Ang. For example, they used Tom Cruise to endorse different types of cars for their experiment, and many things were found. They used a Mazda as one of the cars and this gained many “opposing” activations; such things as Tom Cruise being too classy while Mazda is ordinary, Tom Cruise could have any type of car he wants, so why endorse Mazda and the fact that he is an actor is incongruent with the fact of him knowing anything about cars. That said, this theory, with extensive research done before the advertising campaigns come out, is a good way to decide if the celebrities are a good fit for the product or if there are too many “opposing” activations perceived between the product and the celebrity. Another model, the cognitive response model, also known as the elaboration likelihood model, indicates your level of motivation and involvement with a product. A high level of involvement usually leads you to use a central route for information processing, whereas a lower level of involvement allows you to use peripheral cues in order to determine if you are willing to buy the product or not. This is true of celebrity advertising as well. Companies use celebrities when trying to appeal to these peripheral cues, but this leads me to question why companies would use celebrities when advertising for something that people would normally have high involvement with when making a purchasing decision, such as cars. “...involvement levels may influence to what extent a celebrity or any other source is successful in being persuasive...under conditions of high involvement, the influence of the source is minimal and respondents ‘elaborate’ on the message itself (central-route processing) and diligently consider the information provided” (Jones). Consumers using the central route are much more likely to look past the celebrity because they are focusing more on the information in the advertisement rather than something that is appealing to the senses. Further, relying the Peripheral Route, the consumer does not pay as much attention to the actual product or brand as much as the celebrity in the advertisement, and eventually that is all they remember of the advertisement, “the attitudes the receiver forms (favorable or unfavorable) about the message are temporary (Ahmed). And, “the impact of the peripheral cue is lost when cues are no longer present--unless strong associations are built” (Jones). You need to be careful of this model, however, as you can sometimes use the celebrity too much and lose the main focus of the advertisement--your product! John Philip Jones did shed some light on this, “it is important that the use of the celebrity in the advertising is able also to bring some focus on the product. Often the advertising is remembered, the celebrity in the advertising is remembered, but the brand name is lost” (Jones). This is why strong associations are important to build between the celebrity and the brand or product. When we see a celebrity on a television show, we tend to think of them in how they are portrayed by their character on that show. Many actors/actresses, if they are humorous on their television show or movie, then we tend to think of that person in that way. “A celebrity, possessing a unique, ‘individualized and complex bundle of cultural meaning,’ may transfer that meaning to the product, and from the product, it may transfer to the consumer” (Jones). This is the Meaning Transfer Model. We view celebrities in a certain way, and “whenever a celebrity endorses a product, customers associated certain meanings with the endorser and eventually transfer it to the brand” (Ahmed). This may not work for everyone, however, as some actors are in multiple movies or television shows and have many different personalities throughout them, which could potentially create confusion in the consumer when seeing this person in an advertisement. Further, many characteristics, such as attractiveness, can be ambiguous and need to be further defined as to the way that characteristic fits that person. That said, “it is very important for the advertiser to measure what the cultural meaning of a particular celebrity is. Whereas early attempts were made to measure celebrities on source characteristics such as trustworthiness, credibility, attractiveness, and likability, McCracken proposes that these are not enough...It is not enough to know the degrees of attractiveness or credibility--the kinds of attractiveness and credibility must also be measured, and how these meanings serve the endorsement process must be better understood” (Jones). For example, two people can both be considered attractive and rated high on many other attributes, but can be perceived totally different just because of the type of people they are. You need to look beyond the fact that someone is “attractive” and determine what type of attractiveness they have (i.e. elegant versus sexy) and therefore determine the types of advertisements that they will be best associated with. Though there are many models that are used to determine the best fit between an advertising campaign and a celebrity endorser, nothing in marketing is perfect, and there are going to be pros and cons to using celebrities at all. Rick Suttle on Chron.com, a Houston based chronicle website with news, sports, business and entertainment, shares with us five advantages of using celebrities in small business advertisements, but I believe that they carry over into all types of advertising. First, is influencing consumer purchases; “The affinity consumers have for certain celebrities can greatly influence their purchases” (Suttle). Second, is to build awareness; using a celebrity to do this increases how quickly this happens. People are much more likely to pay attention and be interested in a brand that is marketed to them with someone well-known and liked, rather than just skim over the advertisement or zone-out during the commercial. Next, position a brand. Using someone who has a good reputation, falls into the right category of the consumer you are trying to position to and is someone who is looked up to by the target audience is important to positioning your brand they way you want it to be positioned. Fourth, attract new users. Many consumers either do not know about products or just do not think that it is something they need until they see someone they like and respect using that product; if someone likes a certain celebrity, and they see that celebrity showcasing your brand, they will more than likely perceive that they will like the product also and probably try it. Finally, breathe life into a falling brand. “The use of a celebrity to tout the benefits of the brand could help create new interest and excitement in consumers” (Suttle). Many celebrities also rate high on certain characteristics compared to a non-celebrity in the same ad, which may link the brand with these same characteristics. Things such as being “more believable, trustworthy, attractive, and likable” (Jones). When celebrities are rated highly on characteristics such as these, consumers tend to believe the products also rate high on positive traits. “There is a halo effect. Celebrities enjoy higher source ratings because they are stars” (Jones). Though it is not always the case, “the attitude toward the product is more favorable when the product is associated with a celebrity...[and] more positive scores have been found for brand attitude and purchase intentions for a celebrity ad compared with its noncelebrity counterpart” (Jones). There is a lot of research on this topic, however, and there have been findings of positive and negative impacts associated with the effects of celebrities being used in advertising. While these are pros, many of these things are becoming suppressed as consumers are thinking more for themselves and realizing the effects celebrities have on them are more affective than cognitive.
They are also realizing that athletes, actors and other pop culture icons are only doing advertisements for the paycheck, which can deter people from looking further at a specific brand. Further, you need to be sure to use the right celebrity in your advertising, or the campaign may backfire if people do not feel they relate to that certain person or the celebrity is not someone who fits the brand in the way that they should and it seems as though it is a misrepresentation. This leads us into the cons that are becoming more prevalent with using celebrities in ad
campaigns. With so much advertising now days, it is often hard to break through all of the clutter in a positive light and many companies will do almost anything to be able to do so, but is using celebrities still an effective way to do this? Many consumers are becoming susceptible to the ‘usual’ types of advertisements and companies are beginning to have to be more creative in the ways they market to them. In a chapter from The Advertising Business, they talk about how the effects of celebrity advertising just aren’t what they used to be. The chapter states, “in a nationwide survey of 661 magazine readers, only about 1 in 4 (24%) respondents indicated agreement with a statement that celebrities appear in ads because they are genuinely interested in the products they endorse; 57% disagreed with the statement. An overwhelming majority (90%) of these respondents felt that financial and publicity reasons were very important to celebrities who appear in advertising” (Jones). Consumers are becoming more conscious of the motives of using celebrities in advertising. From Branding Strategy Insider we learn, “Today 's consumer is a totally different animal than the consumer of even five years ago, meaning that what was effective and influential five years ago is not necessarily so today, as today 's consumer is more likely to be influenced by someone in their social network than a weak celebrity connection” (Daye). The article goes on to tell us that people today are looking for relevant information that is time-permitting. I believe, too, that people are more capable of making decisions for themselves. While we still often look for support in our decisions, it is much easier to do this with today’s technology available to us. We can compare prices, look at statistics and see what other people more alike us are doing on social media. I feel that people do still look to celebrities for entertainment and certain things, but there is becoming a divide now that people are realizing we do not always need to be doing what the stars are doing. Another big con can be that if a celebrity is a main endorser for a brand or product, and there is some sort of scandal linked to that celebrity there could be negative effects on the brand they are endorsing. When a celebrity is endorsing a brand, they are in a sense giving their approval for the brand--saying that it is something they use or would use; in the same way, the brand is almost endorsing the celebrity (especially if it is a big brand like Nike or Pepsi) saying that the celebrity fits their brand and is someone they want representing them. When a scandal arises with a celebrity, this can become very embarrassing to that company linked to that celebrity through endorsements. Consumers, too, now know that celebrity advertising is more about the checkbook, and less about the actual affect that the celebrity has for the brand. One article put it this way: “In 1936 at the Berlin Olympics, when Jesse Owens laced up his Adidas track shoes, he did so because they represented a real advance in footwear. Today, athletes won 't put on sneakers or clothes until the check has cleared. Everyone knows this. Consumers are not dumb. Every 13-year-old knows the only reason that Shaq wore Reeboks was because he was being paid millions to do so. Today 's athletes have become nothing more than human billboards” (Shevack). When consumers begin to realize things like this, they are deterred from just relying on that celebrities endorsement and begin to make decisions for themselves and start looking more centrally at the products. There are many pros and cons to using celebrity endorsers to ‘sell’ your product to consumers, but if you are able to find the right ‘fit’ between a celebrity and your brand, then it can be very effective! Using the models listed above can help your firm or agency to determine the appropriate celebrity to represent your product and/or message you are trying to get across to your target market. A company that I think does a very good job with using celebrities in their advertisements is Subway. They choose well-known, well-liked athletes and celebrities that are in good shape and seem to fit what Subway is trying to prove--that their subs are healthy and fresh. Their ads are simple, showing the ingredients and having the celebrity say they eat their product (which is also believable), and if a professional athlete is saying that they eat their subs, then you will believe that the subs are healthy because an athlete--such as Michael Phelps is going to know whether these subs are healthy or not. They do a good job on the attractiveness level, likability, and expertise. As you can see, even though there are cons to using celebrities in advertising, there are still some companies that can pull it off. And using the models to determine which celebrity is going to be the best for your campaign betters your chances of having a successful advertisement!
References
Ahmed, A., & Mir, F. A. (2012). Effect of Celebrity Endorsement on Customers ' Buying Behavior; A Perspective from Pakistan. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(5), 584-592. Retrieved April 20, 2014, from http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf27_28/pdf/2012/B647/01Sep12/83574900.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=83574900&S=R&D=bth&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeqK44v%2BbwOLCmr0uep7JSsK64SrOWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMPGuslCuq7JNuePfgeyx44Dt6fIA
Ang, L., & Dublelaar, C.
(n.d.). Explaining celebrity match-up: Co-avtivation theory of dominant support. 378-384. Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/ap07/12968.pdf
Daye, D. (2011, February 18). Celebrities in advertising: A marketing mistake? Branding Strategy Insider. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2011/02/celebrities-in-advertising-a-marketing-mistake.html#.UXbR_o7T021
The hazards of celebrity endorsements in the age of twitter. (2013, February 27). Knowledge Wharton. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3191
Jones, J. P. (1999). Celebrities in advertising. In The advertising business: Operations, creativity, media planning, integrated communications (pp. 193-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Shevack, B. (1998). The brand should be the star, not the athlete. Brandweek, 39(37), 26. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=8ed76ab6-66a3-461b-af6f-c544fabf7d56%40sessionmgr110&vid=7&hid=9&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=1158725
Suttle, R. (n.d.). What are five advantages to using celebrities in advertising? Chron. Retrieved April 19, 2013, from
http://smallbusiness.chron.com/five-advantages-using-celebrities-advertising-34394.html