In retrospect, the Chanel publicity team might admit that a perfume
advertisement starring Brad Pitt in the throes of what seems to be an
existential crisis is not exactly marketing gold. The commercial, shot
in black and white, features Pitt -- bearded and brooding -- alone in a
room. "It's not a journey," he intones, eyes downcast. "Every journey
ends, but we go on. The world turns, and we turn with it. Plans
disappear; dreams take over. But wherever I go, there you are: my luck,
my fate, my fortune."
The ad went viral -- but not in the ways Chanel executives might have
hoped. Mocked as pretentious and esoteric, the commercial has been
skewered by late-night talk show host Conan O'Brien, parodied by Saturday Night Live and made fun of by "basically everyone on the Internet," as The Huffington Post put it.
The ad, though, is just the latest in a string of marketing misfires
involving celebrities who were recruited to promote a brand -- sometimes
being paid large sums of money to do so -- only to have their efforts
scorned on social media, thereby denting the very brand they were
supposed to be elevating. Sometimes, it is the fault of a poorly
conceived marketing campaign; other times, it is the fault of
celebrities undermining their brand's message -- either inadvertently or
with bad behavior.
The pace and tenor of social media have made it more difficult for
brands to curate their image, and enlisting a celebrity spokesperson
adds a significant layer of risk, notes Patti Williams,
professor of marketing at Wharton. "Traditionally, a celebrity would
agree to be in an advertisement, and that was essentially the extent of
the relationship," she says. "Now, celebrities are encouraged to engage
with the [firm's] customers in other ways. This could be through the
company's own media or through the celebrity's own media, like a Twitter
or Facebook [account]. The nature of the celebrity endorsement is a 360
[degree] proposition -- and that's where many of the risks come from."
Take Jessica Simpson's reported $4 million deal to serve as a
spokesperson for Weight Watchers. The endorsement became a laughingstock
once her surprise second pregnancy -- which was speculated about for
weeks on the Internet before she confirmed it via Twitter -- put a crimp
in her weight loss plans. "In the past, the downside [of such
endorsements] was relatively limited: It might have been a failed ad
that a few customers might have mentioned to their friends," notes
Williams. "Today, when something goes wrong, it's no longer just a
failed ad -- the rejection of the message takes on a life of its own.
[The endorsement] can very quickly become an object of mass ridicule. It
might not hurt the brand permanently, but it can do short-term damage."
The Power of Celebrity
Celebrity endorsements are a time-honored marketing tool. The theory
is that borrowing some of a celebrity's star power will create both an
awareness of, and an interest in, a given product. Apparently, the
strategy works: A 2011 study published in the Journal of Advertising
that looked at athletes' support for brands found that such
endorsements produced a 4% growth in revenue (about $10 million a year
in added sales of the branded products), and a 0.25% rise in stock
returns.
"There are two schools of thought [on choosing the right celebrity for your brand]," says Barbara Kahn, director of the Jay H. Baker Retailing Center
at Wharton. "One is that you want to choose a celebrity who evokes
positive emotions in your target market. You want someone who has a
broad appeal, someone who creates buzz, someone who is likeable. The
second is that you want someone who is a good fit or has some expertise
with your product. This gives credibility."
To some extent, the rise of the Internet has accentuated the value of
celebrity endorsements. As marketers vie for a precious share of
consumers' ever-shortening attention span, a big-name spokesperson can
help a brand get noticed. "It's hard to get people's attention through
all this clutter and noise," Kahn says. "It was hard before, and it is
even harder now. Celebrities -- for better or for worse -- do get our
attention."
In the social media realm, celebrities have more cachet and influence
than brands. On Twitter, for instance, Justin Bieber has 34.5 million
followers, and Oprah Winfrey has 16.6 million. Reality TV stars also
have impressive numbers: Kim Kardashian has 17.3 million followers, and
Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi has 6 million. But brands -- even popular ones
that try to project a hip image -- tend to have far fewer followers.
Starbucks has 3.4 million Twitter followers, Rolling Stone magazine has 2.3 million and Gap has 177,000.
It's no surprise, then, that advertisers are increasingly leveraging
social networking and celebrities to attract consumers. After all,
Internet users spend more time on social networks than any other
category of websites, according to a report last year by Nielson, the
media measurement company. The report found that 20% of people's time on
PCs was devoted to social channels, and 30% of their mobile time went
to social networks. About 17% of consumers' PC time is spent on
Facebook, which remains the most popular web brand and mobile app in the
U.S., according to a report by comScore, which does digital business
analytics.
Celebrities are valuable to advertisers, but so are celebrities' fans
on social media sites, according to a separate study by Nielsen. The
study found that 64% of American adults who follow a celebrity online
also follow a brand, and that a celebrity follower is four times more
likely to follow a brand than the average U.S. adult online. The Nielsen
study also found that such fans are also more likely to offer advice
and opinions to fellow online consumers.
"A celebrity endorsement is a signal, or a trigger," says Mark
Bonchek, founder of Orbit + Co, a social media strategy company based
outside Boston, Mass. "People are looking for signals. If they see a
celebrity they like [endorsing a product], that sends the signal that the product is a good one. It's part of [consumers'] conversation around a brand or product."
While this kind of customer-to-customer conversation is sought after
by companies, it is also a risky proposition when it moves online:
What's said during a coffee klatch or over a water cooler chat at the
office is quite different from what's said on a social network like
Facebook, which is used by one out of every seven people on the planet.
Nearly three-quarters of social media users say they use social networks
to hear others' experiences with brands, according to Nielson. Of
those, about 65% want to learn more about brands' products and services;
53% wish to compliment brands, and 50% want to express concerns or
complaints about brands and services.
"Social media allows consumers to have a voice with other consumers -- this can be a positive or a negative," says David Reibstein,
professor of marketing at Wharton. "If you've got a good or funny ad,
or a really big celebrity, it could have a much broader reach with
social media. But there's a down side to it, too. If your ad [makes] a
faux pas, or you have a celebrity who is inconsistent or runs counter to
your brand, it could get more negative attention.... There's an old
saying that there is 'no such thing as bad publicity.' But that's not
entirely true. You do want people talking about your brand, but you want
[the chatter] to be positive or neutral."
A 24/7 Cycle
The rise of technology and the accelerated pace by which information
spreads has made it harder for companies to ensure that the conversation
around their brands remains "positive or neutral," however. A celebrity
spokesperson creates an extra liability, notes Reibstein. With social
media, "the potential public eye is greater," he says. "All it takes is
one person to snap a picture of that celebrity [at an inopportune
moment], and that exposure becomes part of the 24/7 [news] cycle."
Like the rest of us, celebrities have their frailties and errors in
judgment. Unlike the rest of us, however, these errors in judgment are
highly scrutinized. When the celebrities in question are also "brand
ambassadors," this bad behavior is especially problematic. Michael
Phelps, the most decorated Olympian in history, lost Kellogg's as a
sponsor after a photograph of him smoking marijuana appeared in News of the World. Tiger Woods lost his deals
with Tag Heuer, Gillette, Accenture, Gatorade and a slew of other firms
after it was discovered that he had extramarital affairs with at least a
dozen women. And most recently, Nike, Oakley and other big-name
sponsors dropped South African Olympic sprinter Oscar Pistorius
following charges that he shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva
Steenkamp, during a domestic dispute.
And once a celebrity makes the news, "social media feeds off the news cycle," says Jonah Berger, professor of marketing at Wharton and the author of Contagious: The Secret Behind Why Things Catch On.
"Everyone wants to know what's new and what's happening. In politics,
no gaffe goes unnoticed. And it's the same in advertising."
He notes the long tradition of American A-list celebrities starring
in advertisements overseas for products they don't promote at home. In
Japan, Natalie Portman has starred in an ad for a hair product, George
Clooney has pitched for Honda, and Brad Pitt has done an ad for
Softbank. Prior to social media sharing sites like YouTube, such
celebrities "didn't think those ads would affect their U.S. brand
equity, because no one over here would ever see them," Berger points
out. But now, "anyone with an Internet connection can find [them]."
Social media allow celebrities "more rope with which to hang themselves," says Americus Reed,
professor of marketing at Wharton. "It has leveled the playing field by
which people can spread information -- everyone with a cell phone has
the potential to be a journalist. And the story can be sustained and
live on for a much longer time."
However, missteps by a celebrity endorser don't necessarily hurt a
brand's image in a lasting way, according to Reed, who has done research
in the area of "moral decoupling," or how consumers justify supporting a
tarnished brand. "The knee-jerk reaction by consumers is not to blame
the company for a celebrity's misdeeds. But [the misdeeds] can give
quite a short-term dent to the company."
Reed and others say companies should actively prepare for the
potential of bad behavior from their selected endorser before it taints
their brand. Consider it "an opportunity to get ahead of the story,"
notes Reed. "It takes more to manage celebrity spokespeople today. It
requires the company to be more vigilant about what's going on, because
word about crises can spread faster. A lot of companies have 'social
media control rooms' where they monitor the blogosphere and can
intervene before something blows up. They can head off problems before
they go viral."
Another challenge of celebrity endorsements in the age of social
media is the difficulty of crafting a perfect marketing message. Off
notes are harder to overcome when "there's a constant 'second screen,'"
says Erik Qualman, professor of digital marketing for Hult International
Business School. "There's always commentary around the ads themselves
[via Facebook, Twitter and other channels]. As a brand, you're trying to
make sense of the chatter. A lot of companies are now posting their
Super Bowl commercials a few days before the game on YouTube. From there, they're able to see which ones get the best response. It's a smart move."
If the Chanel marketing team had tested the waters this way, perhaps
mainstream and social media would not have been given the opportunity to
mock the Pitt ad so viciously. In the past, the privately held company
had had success leveraging nontraditional media with various Chanel No
5"films" -- lush, minutes-long commercials starring the likes of Nicole
Kidman and Audrey Tautou. The fact that the ads were so well received
may be what leads to the mass rejection of the Pitt ad, says Wharton's
Williams. "The misfire ended up being amplified in social media, I
think, ironically because Chanel had previously done such a great job
with social media. Their success and social media currency made them
even more vulnerable to a failure."
Clint Eastwood's rambling performance during last year's Republican
National Convention is a similar case, she notes. During his speech,
Eastwood spent much of the time talking to an empty chair that was
supposed to be President Barack Obama. "In the past, the next day's
newspapers would have commented on it, and pundits might have
complained. Saturday Night Live might have spoofed it. But in
social media, it became a meme that took on a life of its own," Williams
says. "How fast did someone set up a Twitter account [called]
'Invisible Obama'? Social media makes this stuff ignite."
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu

No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario