INDEX

What is Advertising……………………………………………………………………….2

Need for Celebrities……………………………………………………………………….3

Celebrity Management………………………………………………………………..….10

Idea First…………………………………………………………………………………17

Risks associated with Celebrity endorsements…………………………………………..20

Celebrities ……………………………………………………………….........................22

Celebrity Endorsements………………………………………………….........................25

Endorsement Deals………………………………………………………………………30

Pretty Faces Ugly Truths………………………………………………………………...36

Selecting A Celebrity…………………………………………………….........................43

Product Match-Up Hypothesis…………………………………………………………...50

Celebrity Advertising Effectiveness……………………………………..........................52

Schema-Based Expectancy Theory………………………………………………………53

Decision Making Process And Purchase Decision………………………………………57

Non – Celebrities………………………………………………………...........................58

Celebrity Political Endorsements………………………………………………….……..60

Brand With Movies……………………………………………………............................63

Dead Celebrities………………………………………………………………………….67

Cartoon Endorsers……………………………………………………………………..…71

Religious……………………………………………………………………………..…..79

Ethical Issues………………………………………………………………….…………85

Cool Ads…The Ingredients………………………………………………..…………….87

Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….………….92

References………………………………………………………………….…………….93

What is Advertising
Generally speaking, advertising is the paid promotion of goods, services, companies and
ideas by an identified sponsor. Marketers see advertising as part of an overall promotional
strategy. Other components of the promotional mix include publicity, public relations,
personal selling, and sales promotion.

The New Age Advertising

Over the years advertising has come up with many strategies to market their goods to the
consumers. Companies want their brands to be on the top of all shopping lists. One of the
most effective methods of doing so has been celebrity endorsements. It helps to generate
interest in their brands in all demographics. Celebrities have certain qualities which
consumers feel a need to connect to and that’s why the attractiveness. Celebrities can sell
almost anything. They have been and will be used to sell all kinds of products over the
years. Big movie stars and sports stars have specially been advertisers favourite when it
comes to endorsements.
Celebrities are a hot property today. Everyone wants to be associated with a celebrity. The
ad world, not being an exception, is also cashing on the star value of celebrities. ‘Celebrity
Endorsements’ has become a visible trend in advertising where stars are trying to lure
viewers into buying product and services.
Why is this strategy so popular? Why is the ad world depending on celebrities so much?
Do they help in building brands? And more than anything else is it worth the investment?
A very valid reason to opt for celebrity endorsements is the ability of celebrities to make
people do what they will never do under normal circumstances. As compared to the
general public celebrities are wealthier and have a life style which people can only wish
for and more often than not they have the license to step beyond the conventional
behaviour. Hence people want to be like them and do exactly what they do. To look like
Kareena Kapoor use Lux, drink Pepsi and stay cool like Shah Rukh Khan, or perhaps
donate eyes and serve the society because Aishwarya Rai says so.
Celebrities help to sell a product because people trust them to the extent of making
“dummy-gods” out of them and idolizing them. The high attention grabbing power of the
celebrities make them a perfect medium to attract consumers towards their products.
Today celebrities are being preferred to advertise a product than using simple words or a
brilliant advertisement without a celebrity.
Need for celebrities

A client hits upon celebrity as a solution when his agency is unable to present to him a
feasible, exciting solution for his communication/marketing problem. He then feels that
the presence of a well-known face is an easy way out.
A client looks at a celebrity solution, sometimes, to follow competition. When attacked
with a celebrity, a quick response is to get another one to combat. The result is often, at
best, achieving equality.
A client expects a celebrity to brush the brand with his/her dependability and glamour
leaving it shining and making it stand out in the market filled with competition.

Positives about celebrity advertising

Quick sales: It gets cut through because of the star and his attention getting value.
Nerolac has ensured high sales for its brand with the inclusion of Amitabh Bachchan in its
advertising.
Quick connect: There needs to be no insight but the communication connects because the
star connects. Sachin Tendulkar or Shah Rukh Khan ensures an easy connection for Pepsi
with the youth.
Quick shorthand for brand values: The right star can actually telegraph a brand
message fast without elaborate story telling. Kapil Dev and Sachin Tendulkar seem to
have done that successfully for Boost in the early '90s, and helped to differentiate it into
the malted beverages market.
Quick means of brand differentiation: In a category where no brand is using a celebrity,
the first that picks one up could use it to differentiate itself in the market. Boost was the
first to use a celebrity in the malted beverage category.

Some successful celebrity advertising campaigns

• Taj Mahal Tea – Ustad Zakir Hussain : Zakir Hussain's association with the brand
has made Taj Mahal tea a household name. Like the brand, the Ustad stands for
excellence in his field. The rigorous practice by him on his tabla provides a perfect
match for the tea tasters, who, using intricate testing methods, select the right tea for
Taj Mahal Tea from nearly a thousand varieties.
This ad is one of the most successful campaigns since the Taj Mahal tea depicts class
and elegance which thoroughly matches with the personality of the Ustad. Ustad Zakir
Hussain has completed more than a decade of association with Taj Mahal Tea, one of
the longest in Indian marketing history.
• Pulse Polio awareness campaign – Amitabh Bachchan
Mr. Amitabh Bachchan is considered to be a brand within him. He has the highest
number of endorsements to his name. Mr. Bachchan is considered to be the “the voice
of the nation”, people actually listen to him when he speaks or conveys any message.
This ad is targeting the common man and even villagers aware of taking pulse polio
for children to prevent the spread of polio and who better to tell them than Amitabh
Bachchan. The target audience is reflected through the basic Hindi language that he
uses. It is a very effective strategy to make ignorant/illiterate people aware by
constantly using a celebrity of such huge mass appeal. This ad has actually helped
more and more people take notice of the request made by Amitabh Bachchan in this
public service campaign.

• Cadbury’s Perk – Preity Zinta

Over the years, advertising had built a greatly carved personality for the brand Perk, its
fun, mischievous, bubbly and simply “perky”.
This is a very good example of a perfect brand-celebrity combination. Preity Zinta’s
personality in the minds of the youth is also very bubbly, energetic and fun loving. It
clearly resembles with the youngsters and the youth of today. The product Perk, has
chocolate and wafer in it that is mostly liked by the teenagers. Preity Zinta therefore
helps in creating a very positive image in the minds of the people to which Perk
mainly caters.
Thus Preity Zinta connects with the youth and reinforces the brand's youthful,
spontaneous, energetic values.
• Omega watches – Pierce Brosnan
 Pierce Brosnan, better known as James Bond gels very well with the product, Omega
watches. As Brosnan is recognized around the world as James Bond, he is referred to
as the perfect gentleman with a class apart. The brand Omega just like Pierce Brosnan
or James Bond, symbolizes elegance, sophistication, class and precision.
The watches also cater largely to the upper class of the society and thus the projection
of Pierce Brosnan as their brand ambassador seems justified. The upper class and high
society people who believe in class and sophistication with style can connect
themselves well with this celebrity.

• Sachin Tendulkar – Boost

Boost is the secret of my energy, says Sachin Tendulkar – perfect!! It doesn’t seem out
of context. A very good ad for celebrities related with sports. The product is very well
advertised. Any malted beverage/heath drink can be best advertised by a sportsperson
and obviously Sachin Tendulkar tops the charts. He is one of the most recognized
faces of the country and since cricket is played in almost every lane in India, it is every
child’s dream to become like Sachin Tendulkar. Thus when he says something that is
good for growing children, more than parents, children are the one’s to follow first.

Thus the marketers can achieve their sales targets by using celebrities that gel with
their product.

• Yamaha – John Abraham

Need to launch a new bike? Get a young, dashing model. That is what Yamaha have
done, and what a perfect choice – John Abraham. The hunky actor is looked upon by
youngsters as an idol due to his young, vibrant and a manly personality. John Abraham
is exactly what almost every youngster desires to be. His personality matches with the
kind of bikes he is currently endorsing for Yamaha

Another reason for the choice of Yamaha being John, is that his actual love and
passion for bikes. It is not a make belief ad but truly John has a passion towards biking
which is very evident in the film Dhoom where he zooms around on his Suzuki
Hayabusa.
 As a matter of fact, the Yamaha sales have increased so much since the presence of
John Abraham, Yamaha has decided to make a custom designed bike just for John!!
Talk about a brand-celebrity rapport!!

• Films endorsing products

This is a special kind of endorsement. Usually the stars in the movie are already
ambassadors/endorsers of the brands used in the movies.

The fact is brands and popular cinemas have aligned well. Brands are increasingly
being associated with films. And companies are seeing big business in being
associated with films.

BR Chopra's film Baghban starring Amitabh Bachchan and Hema Malini among
others, had tied up with three brands - Ford Mondeo, ICICI Bank and Tata Tea and -
which figured in his _film. Besides that, Leo Burnett India, unleashed its latest major
joint TV commercial the movie brand positioning Proctor and Gamble's detergent
brand Tide. Ravi Chopra, the director of Baghban, admitted that the total benefit to the
producers from associating with the brands is in the range of Rs. 3 to 4 crores.

Thus advertising products in films works very effectively for the brand and also
ensures inflow of huge revenue for the film and the film industry.

Negatives about celebrity advertising

Many celebrity endorsements fail because they identify a celebrity like in an emotive and
un-researched manner, and then try to create advertising to force-fit the celebrity into the
creative concept.

A few reasons that force people to think twice before dreaming about using an endorser.
1. Improper positioning - Associating with a star, however big he or she may be, in
itself does not guarantee sales.

2. Brand-celebrity disconnect - If the celebrity used represents values that conflict with
the brand values and positioning, the advertising will create a variance in the minds of
the target audience.

3. Over Exposure of celebrity – It becomes very difficult for a particular brand to

survive if the celebrity used by that brand also endorses many other products.

4. Larger than life image – If a famous celebrity is used it may happen that the celebrity
overshadows the brand. Where the product is forgotten and the celebrity becomes the
brand.

Some unsuccessful celebrity advertising campaigns

• Hindustan Petroleum (HP) – Sania Mirza

What has a sport-star got to do with Petrol!! There can be no comparison or any link
made between the celebrity and the product. The very fact that a tennis player is
endorsing for a petroleum company does not gel at all.
The message that was wanted to be put across and what has been actually done are not
linked at all. A complete mis-match.

Alternative - I feel that any sports person other than those related to motor racing
cannot be used for such a brand. It is suicidal. Club HP could have instead used a
celebrity like Narian Karthikeyan, or they could have simply done without a celebrity.

• Toyota Soluna Vios – Britney Spears

 This is a bad choice of a celebrity for a product like the Vios. Toyota had roped in pop
singer Britney Spears for their sedan Soluna Vios. The trouble with using Britney
Spears is that she is a youngster, and Soluna Vios is a family car best used by family
men and women with kids, it’s a complete family car. Britney Spears could have been
used for a roadster or a sports car.
Thus interested people would also not have a positive attitude towards the car if they
feel that it is targeted for youngsters rather than a family.
The sales of the vehicle had suffered major set backs when it had been launched using
Ms. Spears as a celebrity for the product.

Alternative - If the vehicle is a family car they should ideally have firstly used a male
celebrity who is a matured man, someone with the likes of Robin Williams.

• Pepsi - Beyoncé Knowles, Britney Spears, Pink, Enrique Iglesias

This campaign made by soft drink giants Pepsi shows a sheer overuse of celebrities.
All the celebrities used in the ad campaign are much large that the brand itself.
Celebrities must add worth or bring justification to the brand’s image and enhance, not
overpower it.

This campaign seemed more like a music concert rather than an advertisement. The
stars will simply get more promotion than the brand itself. At no point of time I feel
that the brand should be threatened by the celebrities it uses, like in this case.

Alternative – Pepsi did a mistake by using excessive celebrities. It should have used
just one celebrity and not portray a larger than life image. This would give more
justice to the brand and the endorser as well.

• Mayur Suitings – Virendra Sehwag

“Just hiring celebrities won't make a brand outstanding”, that’s what I would like to
say about this. The celebrity and the brand fail to convey any message. Sehwag has
mostly been associated with products like biscuits, cell phones and band-aids. Like
most sportsmen Sehwag does not fit well to endorse clothing especially suits. People
 have certain perspective about the products that Sehwag endorses. It does not match
with him endorsing for Mayur suitings.

Altenative – Sportsmen and clothing endorsements don’t seem to gel quite well.
Instead of Sehwag, a well established film star could have been shown; some one with
the likes of Kabir Bedi if they wanted to show style and elegance which Sehwag has
failed to put forth. It would also ensure a rise in sales of Mayur suitings. It would also
have gone along with its tagline, “Stars ki pasand”.

• Hero Cycles – Irfan Pathan

Irfan Pathan is one of the hottest celebrities being roped in for endorsements today.
Like the brand, Pathan portrays speed, precision and style. The brand and the celebrity
seem to go along well, but however as far as the style part is concerned I am not very
sure about that.
Irfan Pathan is shown riding a traditional “doodhwala” cycle with children around him
in the ad campaign. The cycle does not go along at all with his personality. The ad
campaign failed to attract attention as children would not be interested in that kind of a
cycle.

Alternative – The ad could have done well without the celebrity in the first place. Now
if Irfan Pathan is being used, he could have been shown with a mountain bike or even
a racing cycle as a matter of fact. Children are mostly interested in mountain bikes or
fancy cycles.

• Celebrities Political Endorsements

Celebrity endorsements influence our day to day life - from buying a chocolate to
electing an MP.

Celebrity Political Endorsements can be defined as the use of celebrities for the
purpose of political activities, especially campaigning. Celebrity Political endorsement
has been become an important part of the campaigns of the various parties.
Celebrities are there all the way, be it Navjot Sidhu campaigning for votes in Punjab or
Smriti Irani (Tulsi) campaigning for female votes for the BJP.
 I feel that this act is unsuccessful eventually for the political parties because the
presence of celebrities’ definitely acts as a crowd puller, but it does not help in the
time of voting. People know that they have to vote for the candidate and not the
celebrity as it is the party that is going to work for the betterment of the people. We
may be inspired by the character portrayed by the celebrity and not by an individual.
However, this could have a very different result in many rural areas.

Celebrity Management: A Concept-Selling Challenge

In a world filled with faces, how many do you remember? Admittedly the ones that evoke
some kind of feeling in you, whether it’s humor, acceptance, appreciation or recognition.
These are the faces you’d turn to look at, the ones that would stop you in your tracks. And
that’s when you have more than just a face. You have personality. Personality that’s
reflective of your brand and promises to take it that extra mile. As existing media get
increasingly cluttered, the need to stand out has become paramount — and celebrities have
proved to be the ideal way to ensure brand prominence. Synergising personality with
product and message can create an instant breakthrough. Result? Brand buzz. People begin
to notice, opportunities come about. People want to be a part of the brand. Touch It. Feel
it. Experience it. ‘Celebrities as Brands’ is a concept-selling challenge, as the current
notion of celebrity management is far from ideal — it’s perceived as a business that
merely attaches the celebrity to the brand to get that added advantage. However, the actual
job is not mere brokerage — it’s about selecting a spokesperson whose characteristics are
congruent with the brand image.

So what exactly is the right personality?

It’s one which can personalise your brand, is in sync with the product/service and is the
perfect match for it. The one that puts buzz into your brand. Creates opportunities for
advertising promotions and events. And forms the fertile ground for clutter-bursting ideas.
Celebrity endorsement is a serious business, and if used effectively could have a lasting
impression on the brand, its activities and its image. Right from Kapil Dev’s ‘Palmolive ka
jawaab nahin’ to the most recent sensational association of Hrithik Roshan with
Tamariind, celebrities have done wonders for brand recall.

The rewards of using celebrities for your brands

Associating a brand with a top-notch celebrity can do more than perk up brand recall. It
can create linkages with the star’s appeal, thereby adding refreshing and new dimensions
to the brand image. It can also create media and promotion opportunities that sweep the
consumer off her feet.
Research conducted by Katherine Eckel, professor of economics at U.S. Virginia Tech,
has revealed that celebrities or ‘higher status agents’ can get people to make a better
choice but cannot influence ‘people to make a foolish choice’.
In India today, the use of celebrity advertising for companies has become a trend and a
perceived winning formula of corporate image-building and product marketing. This
phenomenon is reflected in the recent market research finding that 8 out of 10 TV
commercials scoring the highest recall were those with celebrity appearances. A few
examples: Sachin Tendulkar-Adidas, Sourav Ganguly-Britannia, Leander Paes and
Mahesh Bhupati-J. Hampstead, Shah Rukh Khan-Pepsi, Sushmita Sen-Epson and
Aishwarya Rai-Coke. The effectiveness of the endorser depends upon the meaning he or
she brings to the endorsement process.
There is a three-stage process of meaning transfer which involves the formation of the
celebrity image, transfer of meaning from celebrity to brand and finally from brand to
consumer. This is what leads to effective celebrity advertising.
The selection of a celebrity for a brand is done primarily on the basis of a marketing brief
prepared either by the corporate or the advertising agency. Once the relationship between
the brief, the brand and the celebrity is established, the association is accomplished. For
example, when S. Kumar was to launch its new range of readymade garments, Tamariind,
there was the realisation that one brand of apparel couldn’t be very different from the
others, and what would make the difference was the packaging. So in came teen heartthrob
Hrithik Roshan. The brand personality of Tamariind matches that of Hrithik — Tamariind
being a new brand and Hrithik the new heartthrob. The idea behind Tamariind is the
‘flavour you wear’ — a brand catering to the fun-loving and adventurous youth. And the
ambassador chosen is a successful and extremely exciting personality — a youth icon of
today’s times. So the marriage is apt and justified.
The best advertising comes from a deep understanding of the consumer and how he/she
connects with your brands. Therefore, the jhatka of Mirinda needs a personality with a
sense of humour. That’s Govinda and Amitabh for you.
However, there’s one fact that advertisers using celebrity endorsements need to keep in
mind — never let the celebrity become your brand. In doing so, one runs the risk of killing
the brand no sooner has the hype and hoopla around the celebrity faded. A classic example
of the above is Dinesh Suitings, where Sunil Gavaskar, the brand spokesperson, was
allowed to rule the brand, thus becoming bigger than it. No sooner had the association
ceased than the brand lost its identity, thereby creating confusion in people’s minds.
Therefore, the use of a celebrity must be proportionate to the objective.
It is also important for one to be completely clear about why a brand should use a
celebrity. Is it to boost sales or to boost image? Or is it just to keep the brand alive? If the
objective is increase of sales, the celebrity should be used for short-term promotions and
brand activities. (A classic example is the Rani Mukherjee campaign for Bata which is
believed to have helped boost sales for the ladies’ footwear brand, Sundrop, by a
whopping 500 per cent.) In the event of an image-building exercise, the celebrity can be
used for a longer period of time, so that the brand can derive the benefit of the celebrity’s
image on its own. The association of Sushmita Sen, ex-Miss Universe, helped the brand
Epson achieve instant recognition in the computer printer category, even with established
giants like Hewlett Packard and Wipro in the running.
To conclude, one must not rely too heavily on the fame of the celebrity. One must look
more for the genre of consumer that he/she represents, as eventually all celebrities are
what they are because of a set of consumers thinks they are that way. These celebrities
represent the aspirational values that the consumer wants to articulate. Last, but not least,
one must build the brand not on a transient celebrity but an enduring one.
So, the celebrities are here to turn your brands into celebrities. Are you ready for it?

There’s one fact that advertisers using celebrity endorsements need to keep in mind
— never let the celebrity become your brand. In doing so, one runs the risk of killing
the brand no sooner has the hype and hoopla around the celebrity faded. .
Sachin Tendulkar sporting Adidas.

Sachin Tendulkar, was officially signed up by Adidas India Trading Private Limited to
promote its products, on a six year contract. Announcing at the press conference,
Christoph Holland, Managing Director, Adidas India, said, "Cricket today is one of the
biggest events," Adidas India's managing director Christoph Holland said in Bombay.
"And we hope that by signing Sachin, we will be able to boost our sales in India."

Shah Rukh Khan endorsing for Tag Heuer.

Amitabh Bachchan endorsing for Pepsi

Yana Gupta sizzles in n 7’up advert

Pepsi has decided to welcome the summers in India (the season when the sale of
carbonated drinks is maximum) with a hot and spicy advertisement.
Pepsi has roped in Yana Gupta to do a Qawalli number.
To be directed by ‘Farah Khan’ and featuring 7up’s face ‘Fido-Dido’ the advert has Fido
trying to save his drink from Yana.
Fardeen Khan for Provogue. He was offered a years contract with Provogue India at a
price of 3 Crore Rupees.

Pizza Hut signs Zayed Khan as India's 1st brand ambassador

Zayed Khan, the hottest young star ruling the Bollywood roost will soon be endorsing the
world's best pizzas, only at Pizza Hut. In a landmark move, Pizza Hut today roped in
Zayed Khan, as its first ever brand ambassador in India.
The tie up is part of Pizza Hut's strategy to reach out to a broader customer base. Currently
acknowledged as an international brand with an Indian heart, roping in Zayed is a step
forward in establishing Pizza Hut's commitment to the Indian community. Pizza Hut has
an aggressive growth strategy in India, reaching out to a wider customer base by scaling
up its presence from the present 73 restaurants in 19 cities to over 100 restaurants by 2004
- end.
Said Mr. Pankaj Batra, Director Marketing, Indian Subcontinent, Yum! Restaurants
International (Pizza Hut's parent company), "India is one of the most important
markets for Pizza Hut and this association with Zayed Khan further reinforces our
commitment towards India" on the signing up of Zayed as brand ambassador.
Globally Pizza Hut has used international celebrities to represent the brand. With this tie-
up, Zayed Khan now joins the league of Pamela Anderson, Cindy Crawford,
Mohammed Ali and Mikhail Gorbachev becoming the brand ambassador of Pizza Hut.
Adds Mr. Batra, "Zayed is a perfect fit for Pizza Hut's brand ambassadorship. The
ultimate youth icon, Zayed is representative of youthfulness, energy and fun. This is in line
with the brand personality of being fun and friendly while offering the promise of the good
times over great pizzas."
Zayed is expected to kick start a new brand campaign that will be launched shortly. He
introduces Pizza Hut's new proposition to Indian audiences, inviting them to the good
times and great pizzas at Pizza Hut. At a later point of time, Zayed will take on additional
activities in the capacity of Pizza Hut's Brand Ambassador. Pizza Hut will be one of the
first brands being endorsed by the super star.
Commenting on his association with Pizza Hut, film star Zayed Khan said, "I am thrilled
to be associated with Pizza Hut, the ultimate pizza experts. Their commitment to quality
and value, coupled with international standards is why I opted to join hands with them.
Moreover, I love pizzas!"
The unrivaled leader of the Indian pizza industry, Pizza Hut currently has 73 restaurants in
over 19 cities. Having created a substantial presence across major cities in the country,
Pizza Hut is aggressively extending its customer base by entering newer and smaller
markets scaling up to 100 restaurants by the end of this year. In line with being relevant to
India, Pizza Hut has successfully localized its product offerings creating local flavours like
Tandoori etc. Located at Ahmedabad, Surat and Chowpatty, India is also home to the only
100% vegetarian restaurants in the world. Pizza Hut has also been adjudged as the 15th
most trusted food service brand in Brand Equity Most Trusted Brands Survey and is the
only Super Brand in the restaurant service category to be featured in the Super Brands
Book 2004.

Sonali Bendre, the brand ambassador for Omega watches, visits Omega retailers as part of
their campaign in Mumbai on Friday.
Idea First
Celebrity endorsements are very expensive. Therefore their use in an ad should be
justified. In other words, the message strategy for a brand should strongly warrant the use
a known face in an idea. Sadly, very often the celebrity is hired first and an idea is then
weaved around his or her presence. Khan stresses, “The important thing to remember is
that putting a celebrity in an ad is not an idea in itself. Unfortunately, this is how most
celebrities are being used in Indian advertising, where they just become a prop. Ideally,
there should be an idea that makes the celebrity relevant to the product and the consumer.”

A celebrity’s presence in the ad should be contextual. When Sachin Tendulkar declares,

“Boost is the secret of my energy,” it doesn’t seem out of context. Internationally, Nike’s
association with Michael Jordan is legendary and also logical.
Mendonza adds, “I think celebrity endorsements work best when the celebrity is not
introducing the brand. When the product already has a strong identity and a USP that is
well established, then a celebrity can come in and give the brand an added fillip and
generate some more interest value. However, what is of paramount importance is to find a
complete fit between the values of the brand and the values of the celebrity. One needs to
create a unique situation or story that links the celebrity to the product.”

When it doesn’t work

In the last decade or so, there has been a spurt in the use of celebrity endorsements. And
with it, there has been an increase in the number of instances of brands failing to take off
in spite of the biggest and brightest stars endorsing it and consequently leading to
speculation about the soundness of celebrity endorsements as a communication strategy.
According to leading management thinker Dr Seamus Phan, “Many celebrity
endorsements fail because they identify a celebrity they like in an emotive and un-
researched manner, and then try to create advertising to force-fit the celebrity into the
creative concept. Often, the finished advertising is at best contrived, and often, simply
laughable. In the end, the brand suffers from a mismatched concept and celebrity, and
millions of dollars are flushed away. If this company is publicly listed, imagine the
disservice the company has done for its shareholders.” [2]
There are several reasons why celebrity endorsements fail to produce the desired effect,
and each of them has to more to do with the core communication strategy and less with the
celebrity’s pull. “Celebrities cannot really be blamed if their endorsements fail to push up
the brand sales,” says Mendonza. Indeed, for it is important to recognise that celebrities
can create interest - whether that interest converts into sales depends on various factors
such as brand-celebrity disconnect, improper positioning, clutter of celebrities, or even
product life-cycle.

Five causes of letdown

It’s worth going over some of the reasons why celebrity endorsements may not work:
1. Improper positioning
Associating with a star, however big he or she may be, in itself does not guarantee
sales. The most it can do is generate interest in the product or create a buzz around
it. Take the case of Maruti Versa, which was launched amidst a lot of fanfare about
three years ago. In spite of Maruti signing up superstar Amitabh Bachchan and his
son Abhishek Bachchan as brand ambassadors for Versa, the brand’s sales
remained sluggish. To be fair, the Big B magic did work and the ads created
significant interest, drawing people into the showroom. But perhaps the positioning
itself was faulty as people were expecting a larger than life car, just like the
brand’s ambassador. Last year, we saw Versa being re-positioned as a family car,
with the core proposition being, “the joy of travelling together.” In the words of
Ravi Bhatia, General Manager of Marketing at Maruti, Versa has started doing
well and has witnessed an upswing since the new positioning. Last year, the
average sales were 80-100 vehicles a month. Now they are selling 450 vehicles a
month.
2. Brand-celebrity disconnect
 If the celebrity used represents values that conflict with the brand values and
positioning, the advertising will create a conflict in the minds of the target
audience who may reject the proposition. Take for instance Toyota, one of world’s
leading auto companies. Toyota chose teeny-pop singer Britney Spears for its
brand Soluna Vios, a family sedan, which is preferred by married men and women
with children. According to Phan, a youth icon like Britney would’ve been better
used by Toyota for a sleek sports vehicle and for Soluna Vios, Toyota should
choose someone like a mature man, Harrison Ford for example. [4]
3. Clutter Flutter
In recent times, there has been such a deluge of celebrity endorsements that it has
led to the very clutter that it aimed to break. For instance, Amitabh Bachchan
endorses or has endorsed Pepsi, ICICI, BPL, Parker pens, Nerolac, Dabur, Reid &
Taylor, Maruti Versa, Cadbury and a few social messages too. Bollywood badshah
Shah Rukh Khan endorses Omega, Tag Heuer, Pepsi, Hyundai, Clinic All Clear
and Airtel among other brands has to his credit more television commercials than
feature films since 1992. This over-exposure can be bad for the brand. Khan adds,
“We seem to have just 2 ½ celebrities in a country of 1 billion people which is a
terrible tragedy. Consequently, each celebrity is called upon to push maybe a
dozen brands or so. Which is great for the celebrity but I think it is pretty daft for
the brand because the impact of the celebrity reduces as the number of brands he
endorses increases.” Parmeswaran agrees, “Unfortunately in India, we have too
many brands chasing too few celebrities. And the recall value drops by a huge
margin when you move from an A Class celebrity to a B Class.”
4. Dissatisfaction with product quality/performance
You cannot sell an ordinary product just by making a celebrity endorse it. In fact,
if anything, the product will fail faster because the presence of the celebrity will
create a buzz and more people will know about the “ordinariness” of the product.
Parmeswaran says, “Unfortunately using a celebrity seems to be the easy way out
of a parity product situation.” Sachin Tendulkar’s endorsement of Fiat Palio was
quite a success initially. But as word about the poor fuel efficiency of Palio spread,
its sales took a beating. In this case, Sachin’s presence could’ve worked wonders
but for the poor performance of the car in a market that is highly performance
conscious.
 5. Confusion/ Scepticism
The use of celebrities can be confusing. Some viewers forget brand that a celebrity
is approving. Others are so spellbound by the personality of the celebrity that they
completely fail to notice the product/brand being advertised. The brand is
overshadowed in the overwhelming presence of the star. In some cases, a celebrity
can give rise to scepticism because it might be a bit too much for the masses to
believe that the celebrities who are rich and can afford the best in the world are
actually using a mass product being advertised on television. On the contrary,
people might speculate about such things as “how much did the brand pay to rope
him/ her in as the brand ambassador?”

Risks associated with Celebrity Endorsements

Fame is a fickle and fleeting companion and can ditch the famous at the slightest
provocation. Celebrities, being human, make mistakes. But their mistakes get as much
attention as their celebrity status and this can adversely affect the brands that they are
endorsing. There are a number of examples, both Indian and International, where scandals
and scams involving celebrity endorsers have caused embarrassment to the brands they
endorse. Companies have to make quick decisions when one of their endorsers comes
under fire or their own image could be tarnished. Guilty by association in a consumer’s
eyes describes it best.
Magic Johnson lost his endorsement deals when he announced in 1991 that he’s HIV-
positive. It wasn’t until July 2003 that he landed his first endorsement deal since the
announcement. [5]
It’s a tricky situation for marketers. If a brand continues with the celebrity, it may
adversely affect the image of the brand and consequently, brand sales. If the brand chooses
to distance itself with the tainted celebrity, the huge costs spent on roping in the celebrity
and making of the ads may go down the drain and even then the association of the brand
with the celebrity might by then be so ingrained that the damage is already done. “It’s a
two-way street. One way it shows the strength of the brand promotion. But it is also
fraught with risk if your brand ambassador fails to perform in the related field,” says
Reliance India Mobile (RIM) marketing head Kaushik Roy. RIM uses Cricket star
Virendra Sehwag as its brand ambassador. Roy added, “We want to try and avoid celebrity
endorsements as much as possible. Over-dependence on them will create problems in
future so we should stand on our own legs.” [6]
Hedging the risk
The first thing to ensure, when zeroing in on a celebrity, is to try and choose someone
whose record is impeccable. Having said that, it’s best not to depend on one celebrity, for
that can backfire. Instead, it’s better to use many celebrities who represent the same
values. Pepsi does this quite well. Capitalising on the popularity of cricket and films in
Indian, Pepsi uses several cricketers and film stars in their ads. So when Azharuddin and
Jadeja got embroiled in the match-mixing controversy, Pepsi’s severed its association only
with these stars, but its relationship with cricket continued.
So what’s the big deal?
Star endorsement deals are big in every way. They are big on expenses and can have big
implications on the brand’s fortunes. Celebrities have an enormous potential to shape the
destinies of the brands they endorse, albeit sometimes negatively. Therefore, marketers
who use celebrities must do so prudently, thinking through the concept of such
endorsements carefully before adapting it into the message strategy. Advertising Experts
concur that you must consider a celebrity endorsement if, and only if, the message strategy
warrants it, not as a cover for a poor idea or bad product quality. And last but not the least,
one should seriously consider the risks of associating with a well-known personality, and
hedge against a future scandal by not relying on just one celebrity and instead linking the
brand’s association with a broad theme represented by several celebrities. And if you can’t
afford many celebrities, then get your thinking caps on, and come up with a better, safer
idea. That will ensure that you’re in control of the brand’s destiny - not the stars!

Generally speaking, advertising is the paid promotion of goods, services, companies and
ideas by an identified sponsor. Marketers see advertising as part of an overall promotional
strategy. Other components of the promotional mix include publicity, public relations,
personal selling, and sales promotion.

Celebrities are a hot property today. Everyone wants to be associated with a celebrity. The
ad world, not being an exception, is also cashing on the star value of celebrities. ‘Celebrity
Endorsements’ has become a visible trend in advertising where stars are trying to lure
viewers into buying product and services, from cigarettes to life insurance.
Why is this strategy so popular? Why is the ad world depending on celebrities so much?
Do they help in building brands? And more than anything else is it worth the investment?
These are the few questions that need to be answered. And this is exactly why this topic
has been researched.

Over the years advertising has come up with many strategies to market their goods to the
consumers. Companies want their brands to be on the top of all shopping lists. One of the
most effective methods of doing so has been celebrity endorsements. It helps to generate
interest in their brands in all demographics. Celebrities have certain qualities which
consumers feel a need to connect to and that’s why the attractiveness. Celebrities can sell
almost anything. They have been and will be used to sell all kinds of products over the
years. Big movie stars and sports stars have specially been advertisers favourite when it
comes to endorsements.

While watching TV, one comes across a number of stars and enjoys the parade. But while
those ads are interesting, more interesting are the hidden facts behind them. It is
remarkable to know, how much analysis is required before a celebrity is chosen and used
to sell a brand. The journey through the world of celebrity endorsements is enlightening.
It helps to see the ads beyond the star value of the celebrity used.

This project has been carried out with a view to generate interest in celebrity endorsement.
Not that it needs a special research to generate interest. But interest not as just another
marketing tool, but as an intelligent way to make brands stand up in the market, a
glittering strategy all the way!

CELEBRITIES
“Bold and the Beautiful”

A person who is famous is a celebrity, it is quite obvious. Celebrities are people who are
recognised by the public for their attributes like attractiveness, flamboyant life style, and
special skills. But a celebrity needs to be understood beyond the evident characteristic of
being famous, though because they are famous they are a celebrity!
People generally become famous because they are good at something. Some people
manage to become famous merely because they look good; but most people who become
famous have some talent or skill which makes them popular. Celebrities are famous
because they are successful and because of the role they play in their area of expertise.
Their image in the minds of people, make them, their personality and their life style so
desirable. The celebrity before being famous is an achiever in his field.

An alternative meaning of a celebrity is a person who is famous for being famous and the
simple fact is that people accept the person and that’s why he/she is a celebrity, irrelevant
of the reason for fame. These so called stars have a place in lives of people because they
have a value in society. People can deny as much as they want….but ‘they are what thier
celebrities are!’ A person’s opinion is trusted when he is well-known and respected.
_
_Hence people who can be categorized as obvious celebrities are actors (Amitabh
Bachchan), sports stars (Tiger Woods), entertainers (Oprah Winfrey), pop stars (Madonna)
and less obvious people like politicians (Sunil Dutt) and businessmen (Bill Gates). But
celebrities can also be one-day celebrities (a police man who has arrested a gangster), one
week celebrities (a politician immersed in a scandal), one year celebrity (Miss India),
celebrities for a generation (Elvis Presley) or legends (Hitler).
CELEBRITIES AS ENDORSERS
“Star-studded Salesmenship”

Yesterday Gopi the local milkman saved a little boy who was on verge of being crushed
by a truck. He’s famous in the neighbourhood now. He’s become a celebrity….has he
really become a celebrity? Yes of course he’s famous now, but does that qualify him to
endorse Amul products now? The answer to this question obviously contradicts the
meaning of a celebrity discussed above. But when it comes to using a celebrity to sell a
product it is important to choose someone who’s famous in true sense….recognised by all.

In the world of marketing, media, advertising a celebrity is a film star, a sports person, a
politician, a business tycoon or anybody who has the capability to emerge as promoter of a
product or who is an idol for the people. According to Friedman and Friedman “A
celebrity endorser is an individual who is known by public for his/her achievements in
areas other than that of the product class endorsed.” So Gopi is a hero but will not work as
a celebrity for endorsement. So when it comes to defining a celebrity for celebrity
endorsement it cannot be ignored that these famous people should be famous enough to
carry the burden of a brand or product on them.

Celebrities help to sell a product because people trust them to the extent of making demi-
gods out of them and idolizing them. The high attention grabbing power of the celebrities
make them a perfect medium to attract consumers towards their products. Today
celebrities are being preferred to advertise a product than using simple words or a brilliant
advertisement without a celebrity. And image is everything…maybe not everything, but it
certainly plays a huge roll in getting a company off the ground. It's a crowded and
cluttered world. The only way to get noticed, to generate an excitement around the brand
is to get a celebrity to do the talking.

A very valid reason to opt for celebrity endorsements is the ability of celebrities to make
people do what they will never do under normal circumstances. As compared to the
general public celebrities are wealthier and have a life style which people can only wish
for and more often than not they have the license to step beyond the conventional
behaviour. Hence people want to be like them and do exactly what they do. To look like
Kareena use Lux, drink Pepsi and stay cool like Shah Rukh, donate eyes and serve the
society because Aishwarya says so.

In the early days when celebrity endorsement had just started growing, the celebrities’
preferred to keep a minimum association with the product. Appearing in the commercials,
make appearances during promotion were the only ways by which celebrities obliged the
brand, which did not have a great impact on customers. But now in the 21st century,
where celebrity endorsement is a fad, the scene is different. Celebrities and the company
enter into a contract where the rules are clearly laid down regarding the work that the
celebrity has to do.

A Celebrity is expected to rub the brand with his/her credibility and glamour leaving it
shiny and bright and making it stand out in the market filled with old and new names. The
Companies bank on celebrities to turn their products into celebrities. Superstar Rajnikanth
is popular amongst the people of Tamil Nadu. Philips took advantage of his popularity.
Instead of using Tendulakr also down south to advertise their brand their ads only said
“Enga Veethu Superstar” (superstar of the family). Without mentioning Rajnikanths name
or using his picture, just the word superstar which is synonymous to his name did the trick.
This is the effect that a celebrity has on people.

It depends on the company to decide how it’s going to cash the celebrity status. Either it
can make the celebrity a Brand Ambassador. The celebrity, in this case, whether an expert
or not, merely agrees to the use of his or her name and image in the promotion of the
product. Another way is Testimonials, the celebrity, usually an expert who has
experienced the product, attests its value and worth. Many marketers hire celebrity
spokespeople to try to boost the effectiveness of their advertising messages. Usually
cosmetics, medicines and other such products use testimonials to convince the viewers that
they are in good hands. Endorsements look like a new phenomenon, but they have been
popular since almost many scores. The history of endorsements is as interesting as the
present.

CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENTS
“A thing from the Past”

Celebrity endorsement may seem like a new phenomenon but it has been wooing people
into buying products since a long time. In advertising celebrities have been used for years
as a way to sell products. For nearly a century, celebrity advertisement has helped
consumers to feel safe, to feel connected with the product; they help to fulfill needs of the
consumers, and provide guidance. Today, the market for celebrity endorsements is more
competitive than ever.

The Start…

As early as 1899, celebrities were hocking off cigars and patent medicines for local
businesses. The earliest dated endorsements of products by celebrities may have even
happened by accident. Kodas Cigarettes began including baseball cards in their packs of
cigars; the baseball cards were intended as gifts to loyal customers. The most famous of
these is from 1910 of Honus Wagner, worth well over $500,000 in today's market. As the
packaging popularity rose, and people began buying the cigarettes for the cards,
advertisers realized the potential of this new phenomenon. In no time, celebrity
endorsements began to flood the United States. Up until the early 1930's, athletes were
among the biggest celebrity endorsers. By 1935, a new trend had begun. Celebrities had
actively begun promoting products and businesses No longer were their endorsements
merely that of an image on a card. For the next 15 years, until the inception of TV, athletes
dominated the advertising market.

The Kick…

Celebrity endorsements became quite popular from the 40’s. By 1945, celebrity
endorsements saw a switch from athletes to TV & movie personalities. Movie stars, such
as Charlie Chaplin, became the mainstream of American advertising. Movie celebrities
continued to be the popular choice of product endorsements for the next 40 years. Leela
Chitnis, who passed away recently, had her first role as a leading lady in Master Vinayak's
Hindi melodrama Chhaya in 1936. She became the first Indian actress to model for Lux,
which till then used only foreign models. Chitnis did her first Lux campaign in 1934, even
before the use of movie celebrities was evident. Since then Lux has continued the tradition
of using film stars to promote the soap.
_
_Then, with the rise of color TV in 1965, the TV celebrity saw a surge in popularity over
the movie screen celebrity. By 1975, the number of TV spots featuring a celebrity had
jumped to one in eight. During the 1970’s Brylcreem ads had Farokh Engineer as the first
Indian cricketer to model for it. It was also one of the first sports endorsements in India.
Eventually they even convinced Kishore Kumar to endorse for them early in his career, his
only endorsement ever. While the movie and TV celebrities were minting money through
endorsements, companies grabbed the opportunity to use cricket players to sell their
products in a cricket loving country.

The celebrity boom had reached such a large hype that a new industry known as "celebrity
brokering" formed. These "celebrity brokers" still exist today; they are specialists who
help the companies to find the perfect celebrities. They are today integrated in the various
functions advertising firms provide. The largest such company at the time, Berg-Albert
Corp. in Beverly Hills, California.
During the 1980s, cartoon characters also became popular celebrity endorsers. But by
1985 the trend of the TV/movie star endorser began to fade. In 1984, Nike discovered the
strength and power of advertising in a young, highly talented basketball player hailing
fresh from North Carolina. His name was Michael Jordan. And the trend of using athletes
and sportsmen again dawned. They used “The image” Nike believed, which would push
them into the upper echelon of global brands. Since Michael Jordan became a superstar in
the NBA, advertisers have placed a stronger emphasis on the athlete endorser. In 1989,
Coke employed 59 different celebrities. Of those 59 celebrities, 48 were athletes. There
was also a flux of sporting goods companies and those products closely associated with
sports (i.e. shoes, clothing) that saw a surge in celebrity advertising. Nearly three-quarters
of all active/sports products were endorsed by athletes.

The trend of athlete endorsements has continued into the 21 century, though the TV/movie
personalities have seen reappearance in their popularity as official endorser of a product.
The newest trend to hit the market in the realm of celebrity advertising has been with the
public announcement of contracts with celebrities for advertising. Companies and
businesses have begun holding press conferences to promote the signing of a new
celebrity. The announcement served as a way to increase audience attention of the product
and celebrity before the ad campaign even began.

In the last few years, an even newer trend with respect to celebrity endorsements has
begun to gain in popularity. Celebrities’ characters are beginning to push advertisements
in their regular shows and movies. For example, in a Friends episode the cast members
buy their furniture from Pottery Barn, throughout the entire show promoting the product.

The Win…

From the accidental inclusion of a baseball card with cigarettes to the recent successes of
in-show advertising, advertisers have focused on the triumph of the celebrity
spokesperson. Celebrities flood the advertising scene and it is not uncommon to see three
well-known celebrities supporting brands in one commercial break alone. For as long as
people will buy Navratna Tel from Govinda or dial 26490000 because Smirti Irani told
them so, the popularity of the celebrity advertiser will continue to rise, new outlets will be
explored and old ones will be renewed.
Heroes, authors, entertainers, athletes, even preachers - all were employed to sell during
the 1800s and early 1900s and will continue to do so. Evidence of these high-profile
endorsements is found in a variety of formats.

__Trade Cards: The trade card, used most heavily as an advertising device between 1875
and 1900, was implied celebrity endorsement. The cards often featured the visage of the
famous individual, but no direct reference was made to the celebrity, nor was the celebrity
quoted. Lily Langtry, famed stage star, appeared on a trade card for Brown's Iron Bitters.
Actress Sarah Bernhardt's image appeared on a trade card for Carter's Liver Bitters as well
as on a larger cardboard sign promoting Climax Catarrh and Croup Remedy. Even P.T.
Barnum's famous elephant, Jumbo, was pictured on numerous trade cards. Willimantic
Thread Company, for example, used the ponderous beast in a whimsical trade card
illustration to demonstrate the strength of their product.

Because these famous folks from the past are no longer around, it is difficult to say
whether they gave permission for their names and faces to be used on ads. At least one
famous sports figure, Honus Wagner, is known to have stopped the use of his name and
visage on a baseball card which one Tobacco Company was inserting in its cigarette
packages. The official Honus Wagner Web site carries the story that Wagner was a non-
smoker who objected to being associated with tobacco because he felt it would set a poor
example for children. Because Wagner was such a great player, and because so few of the
cards survived once they were recalled, the Wagner card is today among the most desired
of all baseball cards. One of the few known examples sold on eBay for $1.1 million on
July 5, 2000.

Celebrity on packing: This is, was and the most common method of using a celebrity. Put
his picture on the packing and the jobs done! _One of the first success stories of such a use
was with the great author Mark Twain. His name and image appear on at least two cigar
boxes: Great Mark Cigars and Mark Twain Cigars. Mark Twain once joked that he bought
his cigars by the barrel. It is not known if he truly endorsed these brands, but someone
admired the famous cigar smoker and author enough to believe that _attaching him to the
product would sell cigars. Both box labels are attractive and colourful. The Great Mark
label featured vignettes from Twain's short story, "The Notorious Jumping of Calaveras
County." The Mark Twain label carried images of boys along the river, perhaps Tom
Sawyer or Huckle Berry Finn. Twain's image was further exploited by the Voigt Milling
company of Grand Rapids, Michigan, which used his picture on bags of its Mark Twain
flour.

Celebrity Testimonials: Celebrity testimonials have a long and interesting history. They
associate favourite people with a product, and people buy the product. Flawed as that logic
may be, the technique has worked well for a long time. Testimonials have been one of the
prime ways that celebrity endorsements have been the answer to many of the advertiser's
prayers. While many famous folks were apparently mum about the products with which
the ads associated them, at least two well-known Americans were quoted directly in patent
medicine advertising. One fellow was a Wild West hero, the other was a preacher.

Buffalo Bill Cody was a symbol of the frontier even before the West was settled. His fame
as a scout, sharp-shooter, and entertainer was known throughout the world, and his Wild
West Show perpetuated both the romance of the West and his own heroic image.
Kickapoo Indian Medicine Company used trade cards of Cody to promote their products
with his testimonial behind which was:

As remarkable as Buffalo Bill's testament may be, a man with a slightly holier definition
of testament gave his endorsement to a patent medicine as well. The man was Rev. Henry
Ward Beecher, a highly regarded man of cloth in his days. He was preacher at Plymouth
Church in Brooklyn, New York, from 1847 until his death in 1887.

It appears that the he suffered from hay fever. He was apparently moved to try Dr. M. M.
Townsend's Remedy for Hay Fever, Asthma and Catarrh. It must have done the trick. In
September of 1881, and again in October of 1882, Reverend Beecher wrote glowing
letters of praise to Dr. Townsend. The closing lines of the 1881 epistle tell Dr. Townsend,
"You are at liberty to make such use of this letter as may secure the relief of all Hay Fever
patients."
And use it Dr. Townsend did! Both letters are printed in full on the product box. A
package insert contains the full text of both letters a second time. A promotional post card
quotes from both letters. The bottle label splashes the name Rev. Henry Ward Beecher
across the very top. Surely, it is implied, if a famous holy man endorses it, it is good!
The ad world has used this strategy well. Over the years new and interesting means of
endorsements have come up and each of them are unique in themselves. The history has
been repeating itself!

ENDORSEMENT DEALS
“To all it appeals!”

Need to launch a new bike? Get a young, dashing model. Banking services? No one better
than an old respectable businessman. A new shade of lipstick? Make a popular film actress
show it off. These are the new mantras of the advertising world. And the simple reason is
because celebrity endorsement works! It works for all, the company, the celebrity and the
customers also seem to be positively affected by the association.

COMPANIES –“Using Stars To Turn Brands Into Stars”

So why do companies run around celebrities? From cars to cycles, soft drinks to liquors,
chyawanprash to chocolates everything is being sold by a celebrity. It seems the corporate
world cannot sell anything without them. There are different reasons for the favoritism
that companies shows towards endorsements, depending on the category in which the
brand belongs and the lifecycle stage in which the brand is.

The celebrities act as intermediaries and row the meaning that the producer wants to
convey to the consumers in the right direction. There are some obvious and some not so
obvious benefits that the companies derive from their stars.

Awareness and recall: Many studies have shown that celebrities create awareness about
the product. They capture the attention of viewers and make the ads memorable. The
celebrities pitch for the brand, making themselves heard loud and clear hence making the
brand visible and distinct in the herd of other brands in the same category.

Celebrities not only create attention but also maintain it and thus create high recall rates of
the commercial. Their attractive and likeable qualities are transferred to the product which
is being promoted, and they may develop and polish brand/product image. In the Shah
Rukh-Santro campaign, the organisation wanted to overcome the shortcoming of an
unknown brand, Korean at that. The objective was to garner faster brand recognition, and
association with the customers.
The Santro ad showed the highest recall amongst auto ads, despite average media spends
for the category. Even the ill-fated Home Trade had hits going up to seven lakhs a day
after their campaign featuring Hrithik, Shah Rukh and Sachin (though eventually it did not
work). The Swiss watchmaker known for TAG Heuer brand, has also signed on Shah
Rukh Khan as its brand ambassador. The company will involve Khan in creating and
testing new models of the top-of-the-line watches from its Tag Heuer stable.

Though there are times when celebrities endorse products they are least expected to but
that also creates a certain amount of recall for the brand (though for all the wrong reasons).
The consumers mind is filled with famous and not so famous names but the customer gets
excited when he sees a known face, and hence an effective demand is created.
Credibility aid: Using a celebrity is supposed to lend instant credibility allowing
companies to save time to build the credibility it has to into the brands. For instance, usage
of sports personalities in footwear advertising is a good example. The fans of Nike and the
followers of tennis did not think twice before buying Nike because “if he wears it, it must
be good”. Hence a celebrity with a good image passes on the same to the brand.

Zakir Hussain's association with the brand has made Taj Mahal tea a household name.
Like the brand, the Ustad stood for excellence in his field. The rigorous practice by him on
his tabla provided a perfect analogy for the tea tasters, who, using rigorous testing
methods, select the right tea for Taj Mahal Tea from nearly a thousand varieties. Ustad
Zakir Hussain has completed more than a decade of association with Taj Mahal Tea, one
of the longest in Indian marketing history.
Restore damaged image: The worm controversy left Cadbury India in a wriggly situation.
But their smart move of roping in Amitabh Bachchan for their Project Vishwas campaign,
where The Big B declares “I believe in Cadbury” got them out of the sticky situation. The
soft drink majors, to undo the damage done by the pesticide issue, chose big stars to do the
needful. Aamir’s Bengali family man act for Coke and Shah Rukh’s and Sachin’s “Kisne
kahan Pepsi safe hai” commercial were the need of the hours to kill the issue .A consumer
knows the endorser and hence trusts him around such sensitive issues.

AMITABH BACHCHAN’S ASSURANCE

"Mujhe aapse kuch kehna hai,
jis kaam mein manushya ki antar aatma uske saath na ho,
uss kaam ko karne se usse sab kuch mil sakta hai, man ki shaanti nahin mil sakti.

Isliye jab Cadbury walon ne mujhe kaha ki unki baat main aap tak pahunchaoon,
to pachpan saalon se Cadbury khaane wala main bhi thoda sa hitchkichaya.
Maine unse ek sawaal poocha, ki kya iske baad main chain ki neend so paoonga ya nahin?

To jawaab mein voh mujhe apni factory le gaye. Aur mujhe apni international technology,
apne kade quality controls aur double protection packaging dikhayi.
“Aaj kal mein badi chain ki neend so raha hoon."
Refresh the brands image: How can companies add excitement to a product category
characterised by low consumer involvement and depressed growth? Try to paint it with the
hues of fast moving consumer goods! In the case of Asian Paints, actor Akshaye Khanna
features in the new campaign for the luxury emulsions brand, Royale, which used Nawab
Pataudi in its advertising 10 years ago. Now his son, Saif Ali Khan has been roped in. For
a long time, besides Gattu there had been no one voicing the brand as such. It was time
that the company did something new to make the customers realize they are still there!
Though a company like Asian Paints may not need to but the brand Royale needed a
boost.

According to the company, Akshaye Khanna was a peg to draw the consumer to the core
brand idea of Royale enhancing the look of special possessions. In the ad, Khanna looks
for the perfect spot for a picture of him and his father, Vinod Khanna. The brand is
youthful, vibrant, contemporary and luxurious just like Akshaye. Or take Dabur India.
With the objective of infusing fresh life into the stagnant chyawanprash category and
staving off competition from various brands, Dabur India roped in Bachchan for an
estimated Rs 8 crore. The identification process happens quicker with a celebrity, and once
the idea is fixed, then it's easier to carry it forward even without a celebrity.

Pr Coverage: An invaluable benefit from celebrity endorsements is the public relation

opportunities. When two colossal entities, the brand and the star, embrace each other, the
media is never far away. In this age of celebrity obsession, every public activity of the
celebrity is news. What they say, talk, wear, eat, drink and how they behave is always
great copy. Signing up is news, advertisements is news, ground activity is news, breaking
up is news.

Most of the companies know that once the celebrity is associated with them the press will
want to know everything about the “marriage”. A standard example here is Coke, which,
till recently, internationally didn't use stars at all - in fact, India was a first for them. Even
here, they started by doing far more consumer contact/ PR related stuff than actual on-
screen advertising; their philosophy being that the product or brand should be the hero in
their communication.

Competition: Celebrity endorsement is a great way to get back to a competitor. If the

brand doesn’t surpass the popularity it will at least be equally on the customers mind.
While Hero cycle is using Irfaan Pathan to bold out Avon cycles, Avon is banking on
Parthiv Patel to hit a six instead (though not such a smart move considering Irfaan is more
popular). Celebrities magnify what a brand has achieved. While Nerolac had leadership in
industrial paints, it was lagging in decorative paints. So, the company thought that using
Bachchan might just help to bridge that gap in perception. With an iconic ambassador like
him there was premium brand recall hence increase in sales.

Good for Start Ups: New companies usually resort to endorsements for their marketing.
Soha Ali Khan Pataudi has been chosen as the endorser for Perfect Radiance (a new high-
end skin care range from Fair & Lovely). The Company believes her to be the right choice
for the campaign because she epitomises everything that the Perfect Radiance stands for,
apart from being beautiful, her noble demeanor and perfect etiquette add to her charm.
Though HLL needs no introduction but the use of a celebrity ensure the customers that the
new product is absolutely safe.

For a completely new company using a celebrity would be an easy channel to announce
that their product has entered the market. The consumers may find the brand to be new but
the moment a known voice speaks for the brand they want to try it.

Differentiation: A brand when successfully uses a celebrity unlike the other players in the
market the brand stands out. Kapil’s “Pamolive da jawaab nahin” is still remembered
today. Sridevi made the brand Cema Bulbs and Tubes shine as brightly as the product. The
celebrities gave the brand differentiation which wouldn’t have been possible without the
celebrity.

CELEBRITIES – “Bang For Buck”

Companies enjoy a lot of benefits due to endorsement deals. But what is in it for a
celebrity? Why does a Rani Mukherji endorse products? What does an Akshay Kumar get
from endorsing Thumb Up? This is why celebrities endorse brands:

Money: Molah is the most obvious one. This is a huge industry, with new products
coming up everyday and old ones being re-positioned. The bigger the celebrity the more is
his value. Sachin's endorsements got him $18million over five years. When Aamir first
endorsed Pepsi in 1995, he received Rs 17 lakh for it; his Coke commercials in 1999 got
him Rs 2 Crore. Hrithik Roshan in his high flying days reportedly made over Rs 20 Crore
in endorsements by 2001. The Indian cricket team earns roughly Rs 100 Crore through
endorsements. Tiger woods earned about US$ 70 million in 2002 and Michael Jordan
about US$ 50 million in 2003.

Some advertisers of course play it smart - Britannia earlier used fringe cricketers - like
Sadagopan Ramesh, Kanitkar and Robin Singh in the hope of catching them cheap before
they hit the big time. American pen brand Parker has signed Amitabh Bachchan for about
Rs 5 crore (just one of the many brands he endorsers!). But the biggest and the most recent
association is between Jackie Chan and Bajaj Auto. He has been signed on a contract of
Rs. 20 crore, the highest deal in India.
Life cycle of celebrity: Endorsements affect the life cycle of the celebrity in more than one
way. It may allow the celebrity to achieve recognition faster, increasing his growth. It may
also prolong the life cycle of a star in his/ her maturity phase After all, choice of celebrity
is a good indicator of who's in and who's not.

As a remedy/precaution: A lot of film stars now feel that as models are taking their place
in the film industry, they should take the aid of TV to keep their popularity alive. Hence,
the stars of the big screen are filling in the vacancy left on the small screen by the Lisa
Ray’s and Arjun Rampal’s.

Endorsement breeds endorsement: Not only does the star end up getting better offers but
the avenues in related and unrelated fields also open up. Most of the cricketers for
example have already been made to walk the ramp and a lot of models have already made
way into the movies.

So the celebrities usually await opportunities to be associated with a brand. If they get paid
for holding a can of cola drink why not?

CUSTOMERS – “Starry Eyed”

__Mrs Bhavanaben Mehta has been depressed because of her obesity problem. She dosent
trust the weight loss advertisements in the paper. The exercise machines look fake and the
slimming teas sound like a risk. While watching TV she sees an ad for the Sanjeev Kapoor
Tandoor. Her favourite ‘bahu’ Tulsi and her favoruite cook show host Sanjeev Kapoor
seems to trust the product. She believes them when they say ‘Tel nikale tapak tapak
tapak’. She places an order right away. That’s exactly why a customer buys goods
endorsed by a celebrity. To put the reasons clearly a customer buys endorsed products
because:

Recall: Messages delivered by well-known celebrities achieve a high degree of attention

and recall for consumers. ‘Mujhe Nirma Super dena…who Deepikaji wali’. This is
reaction that local general stores must have gone through when the famous ‘Sita’ started
asking for the same on TV. A still remembered line ‘Nimra super nili detergent tikya…
Daam, phir bhi kam!’ Celebrities tend to linger in the heads of the customer while they are
out shopping and recall the product.

Celebrity Expertise: Expertise refers to the knowledge that the communicator seems to
possess to support the claims made in the advertisements. A well-known face would
obviously be perceived to have more expertise than an unknown face. For example a
Reebok would always be better advertised by a Sachin Tendulkar than a Sachin
Deshmukh who plays cricket for the Mumbai team.

Celebrities are perceived to be Trustworthy: Trustworthiness refers to the customer’s

confidence in the source for providing information in an objective and honest manner.
People are more likely to trust the quality of a trustworthy celebrity endorsed brand over a
non-endorsed one.

Ambitious psyche: People ape the celebrities in their day-to-day activities and many even
dream to become like a celebrity some day. Some know they wouldn’t become as good as
the celebrities but sharing common belongings makes them feel better. ‘I don’t look like
Kareena but we share the same soap!’

Physical Attraction: Consumers tend to perform positive stereotypes about such people.
Physically attractive people are more successful in changing beliefs than non-attractive
people. This has been proved in many researches. How difficult could it be to have hair
like Karisma Kapoor…all that has to be done is use Dabur Aamla Kesh Tel.

PRETTY FACES UGLY TRUTHS

“All That Glitters Is Not Gold”

In case of celebrity endorsement one can say ‘All that shines is not a star’. Celebrity
endorsement looks like a good option, an option that can hardly go wrong. But like the
Chinese philosophy says every good has a little bad, celebrity endorsement is not only
good. An extreme usage of a celebrity is in what is typically called `lazy advertising’.
Celebrities cannot be a substitute for a powerful creative idea. To most the use of celebrity
advertising signals, at worst, the bankruptcy of a creative mind, and, at best, a creative
menopause. Lazy or overworked copywriters often resort to the shortcut of using a
celebrity.

A `Gestalt perception' means using a celebrity as a remedy. When a person is famous

people forget about what he looks like. As everyone knows the face, it is hard to judge
whether the person is pretty or ugly. The celebrity is a remedy to managers who run out of
ideas. Many see celebrity endorsement as nothing but an inadequate content masked by
usage of a celebrity. A celebrity is not an idea. A celebrity is just one of the option through
which an idea is put forward.

Consumers today are smart enough to decide about brands - with or without celebrities.
According to many critics of celebrity endorsements, if advertisers and ad agencies think
they can attract consumers through irrelevant celebrity endorsements, they are insulting
their own intelligence since they are also consumers in some or the other way.
Commoditisation of celebrities had ruined the real charm of endorsements since now
celebrities are willing to endorse anything for big bucks. The celebrity parade in
advertising seems to be just for gaining noticeability, bordering on sham and hypocrisy on
part of both the advertisers and celebrities.

Using celebrity means handing out big bucks. Even if the strategy does not work, and the
company makes a loss the only person laughing all the way to bank is the celebrity. Film
stars who endorse things that don’t work can quietly get away with it, count their pennies,
and never be the worse for having perpetuated fraud. The worst a brand can do is to
become a celebrity’s fan. Most celebrity-driven ads at present reflect that. One can almost
hear the brands giggling like teenage fans in the company of their idol.

Fault in celebrity endorsements seems to be unthinkable especially when a big star is used,
but there are more than a few reasons that force people to think twice before dreaming
about using an endorser.

Mismatch: Sachin, the favourite celebrity in the market, endorsed Palio. But it’s hard to
believe that he would drive a cool green Palio while his red hot Ferrari is in the garage. It
is easy to believe a ‘dude’ will drink Pepsi because Shah Rukh Khan does so but will he
buy a Santro? Is it convincible that Mr. Sharma in Delhi sits down one evening to watch
his favourite television soap, happens to catch Shah Rukh zip away in his Santro, and then
adds `Buy car' to his shopping list for the next day? Naturally, not. The Hyundai Company
says they are just trying to magnify the image of the car and trying to create an equation of
Shah Rukh-Santro. However, most advertising agencies and their clients may not quite use
celebrities to represent the brands well.

Toyota, one of the most well recognized automobile brands, with a great track record for
customer service excellence and great vehicles chose teeny-pop singer Britney Spears to
represent the product Soluna Vios. The trouble with using Britney Spears is that she is a
young woman, and Soluna Vios is a family car best used by family men and women with
kids. Perhaps the synergy would have worked better if Toyota chose Britney Spears to
represent a sleek sports vehicle, or chose someone like Harrison Ford, a mature man, to
represent Soluna Vios. The other problem is that there is a possible mismatch between the
celebrity's life cycle and that of the brand. Owing to unavailability of dates, sometimes
long-term contracts are signed, but the celebrity's life might be over soon. At the end of
the day, it is about identifying a problem, and then finding the right solution to solve the
problem. Many endorsements fail because they opt for the wrong celebrity who is not able
to provide the brand the leverage it deserves. An idea is churned and then celebrity is
chosen keeping in mind factors such a popularity turning a blind eye on personality of the
celebrity and capability to look convincible. In the end, the brand suffers from a
mismatched concept and millions of dollars are flushed away.

Vampiring Effect: Now which brand of paint does Amitabh endorse? Nerolac or Asian
Paint? Sometimes even if the buyer has seen the ad many times he might just stop to think
for a second before answering the above question. That’s what Vampiring is all about. Use
of a celebrity sometimes becomes great advertising for the celebrity. But often the
presence of a celebrity can overshadow the brand entirely. The concept of a celebrity
becoming bigger than the brand is known as Vampiring. The customer ends up
remembering the celebrity but not the brand. But Amitabh has always been larger than
life. In advertisements, it seems, he dwarfs the products he is selling. Such advertisements
tend to be not so much about Pepsi, Parker or ICICI but just about Amitabh.

Back in the 1970s, Raj Babbar was the brand ambassador for cigarette brand Red &
White. This was long before he became a star and was offered the part simply because he
had the looks of the man on the street. The concept was a common do-gooder who
rewards himself with his favourite cigarette. With an evocative line “Hum Red & White
peene walon ki baat hi kuchh aur hai”, an unknown brand was lifted to stardom. So was
Babbar. The irony is later it led to a misconception that the brand is star-driven, and
hence, two other stars, Jackie Shroff and Akshay Kumar, were roped in. The result: Red &
White brand is still trying to recover from the attack of its video vampires.

The core of the problem is a limited pool of celebrities who can resonate with consumers.
This has to be prevented by means like short-term endorsements and constant change of
celebrities. The celebrity should thus never be allowed to become bigger than the brand or
else the company runs the risk of killing the- brand. For example, let’s consider Dinesh
Suitings. The brand used Gavaskar and let him rule. In the minds of customers, Sunil
Gavaskar was the brand identification for Dinesh. The endorser became bigger than the
brand. Brand spokesperson, was allowed to rule the brand, thus becoming bigger than it.
No sooner had the association ceased than the brand lost its identity, thereby creating
confusion in people’s minds. Therefore, the use of a celebrity must be proportionate to the
objective.

In many cases the stardom of the celebrity overpowers the brand being endorsed. Pepsi,
one of the biggest soft drink makers canned such celebrities as Beyoncé Knowles, Britney
Spears, Pink, Enrique. Pepsi officials said the celebrities were too big and the Pepsi brand
didn't get the promotion out of the ad campaign that the stars were getting. If Pepsi feels
threatened by its own celebrities it’s not hard to imagine what a smaller company would
feel like. Celebrities should add worth to the brand’s story and enhance it but not
overpower it.

Overexposure: The issue of `overexposure' of celebrities is an issue that has to be dealt

with all the time. It basically refers to the life line of the celebrity (when it comes to
endorsements). How long can the consumer stand Vivek saying “Wakaoooooo”? Even if
the celebrity is sizzling like water in oil, there is a constant need to change the ads and
even celebrities or get new celebrities for the same brand. When a celebrity no longer
appeals to the consumers emotions, they loose interest and unless new celebrities come
along from time to time, the current endorsers will start to seem stale and buyers will
become bored - both with the endorser and with the endorsement. Philip Kotler states that
overexposure of celebrity endorsers may come about:

According to him companies need to monitor both factors and identify any long-term
endorsements that no longer promote products. There is no point spending money on
trying to generate audience when the audience is not going to reward in the same intensity.

Celebrity Clutter/Multiple Endorsements: Celebrities here, Celebrities there, Celebrities

everywhere! The air in the advertising world breeds celebrity endorsement. Clearly it has
lost its uniqueness that made it so popular in the first place. The trustworthiness of public
figures, which celebrities intend to bring, is bound to disappear if a celebrity begins to
appear and endorse a brand in every conceivable category! Celebrity clutter confuses
consumers when a single celebrity endorses multiple brands.

There is unfortunately a limited pool of celebrities who can bond with consumers. So
when the same celebrity endorses several categories there is a fair degree of confusion and
little room for credibility (i.e. expertise and trustworthiness), and hence there is a possible
devaluing of the celebrity amongst customers. Researchers say that endorsement of as
many as four products negatively influences the celebrity spokesperson’s credibility and
likeability. These effects are independent of who the celebrity is. Shah Rukh and Sachin,
the apple of everyone’s eyes are completely over-exposed and sooner or later will become
“just other endorsers”. The logic is very straightforward. The effectiveness of the celebrity
can be diluted when marketing heads around the country discover that “Sachin is the
missing ingredient in their product”. If Tendulkar is the BIG IDEA, the plot could be lost.
While signing on Sachin may be a good idea, leveraging the endorsement effectively is the
key but starts like him or Bachchan or Khan might not be a fairly safe bet when the
endorsed brand is their tenth.

Companies like Lux are trying to use multiple celebrities to overcome the clutter. Using
heroines from Madhuri to Juhi, and Amisha to Kareena Lux has been able to create a place
in the minds of the customer where “Beautiful Heroines” mean Lux endorsers. So, when a
consumer sees Aishwarya they know that ‘Lux is one of the products Aishwarya
endorses’.
Cost: ‘Paisa bolta hai’ and when it comes to endorsements it talks people into talking for
others. This cost has to be weighed up against the return on marketing investment. If the
companies don’t have megabucks and major market share, they should forget it in the first
place. Besides, most often, celebrities end up selling themselves more than the brand itself.
So why should a client spend a hefty sum to sell a celebrity who does not even need
selling? In this sense, celebrities tend to be a liability to the brand.

Moral: Moral’s and Decency are the two fancy words that suddenly make celebrities want
to do the ‘right’ things by avoiding doing ‘bad’ things. Morals would be not doing bad
things like cigarettes, alcohol and decency is about doing things that are fun for the whole
family: cars, cosmetics, financial products. But not all celebrities weigh this aspect against
the bundle of notes. The moment a celebrity’s face pops up in an ad, parents know their
kids are going to drive them crazy to buy the product or the fear of their kids believing he
wrong to be right creeps in their minds. But the general wail is how do folks explain to
their kids that what the icon is endorsing is not exactly great for their growth?

Management of Celebrity: Like Anil Kapoor said ‘Stars in the sky, Zameen pe na aay’, a
celebrity is a celebrity and will continue to be one. It will be once in a blue moon that the
star will compromise and comply with the company. Take for instance a supermodel is
chosen to model a range of clothing from a famous retail fashion chain. After months of
negotiating for her presence on the shoot and the clinching threat of a court case, she
walks into the studio, takes a quick look at the clothes and departs with the acerbic
comment, “I’m not wearing that.”

The behaviour of the celebrities can make hundreds of entertaining stories. Suffice to say,
if a celebrity does endorse a product, it is wise to have a backup plan that can be
implemented at a moment’s notice, including bearing in mind that the loss of investment
on a pulled marketing campaign and the cost of launching a replacement campaign can
easily run to millions.

Personal life of celebrities: Salman Khan the king of bad publicity was used by Thumbs
Up to create a buzz for their ‘bado ka drink’. But he was dropped from the ads as soon as
he got caught in the web of controversies. Obviously, the company cannot afford to have a
negative PR. There have also been endorsement deals that have quickly soured when the
celebrity suddenly attracted the wrong kind of publicity. “The biggest risk is the celebrity
himself,” says Dr. Ying Fan, principal lecturer and marketing expert at the University of
Lincoln in England. Endorsements are all about the image of the celebrity transferring to
the product hence giving it a value. But for how long can the celebrity maintain his status
and generate sales for the brand.

The moment a celebrity is implicated in any kind of scandal it ruins the brand. Who would
want to use Michael Jackson to brand their product?” The 2003 Cricket World Cup also
threw up the Shane Warne incident, which caught Pepsi off guard. With the Australian
cricketer testing positive for consuming banned substances and his subsequent withdrawal
from the event, bang in the middle of the event, PepsiCo - the presenting sponsor of the
World Cup 2003 - found itself on an uneasy wicket.

Sometimes companies are quick to drop celebrity endorsers when the celebrity gets caught
in a sticky situation. Kobe Bryant's endorsement deals are up in the air while Michael
Jackson's latest legal issues will make it practically impossible for him to gain sponsors for
his tours and endorsements as well. Companies have to make quick decisions when one of
their endorsers comes under fire or their own image could be tarnished. Guilty by
association in a consumer's eyes describes it best. Magic Johnson lost his endorsement
deals when he announced in 1991 that he's HIV-positive. It wasn't until July 2003 that he
landed his first endorsement deal since the announcement.

Celebrity Trap: Once into a celebrity, it is hard to get out of it. If the brand has done even
moderately well after the break of a celebrity campaign, it becomes difficult to separate
the role of message and the role of the celebrity in selling the brand. And hence, the
celebrity becomes an addiction for the marketing team. And the task to find substitutes
becomes more and more difficult. Interestingly, celebrity is a disease that is seen to spread
across a marketing department. Once one brand manager gets into it, others tend to follow,
not wanting to be left behind! It’s an epidemic that cannot be cure and can only be
prevented.

Endorsements to rival brands: Another negative aspect is that a company may not be able
to get a celebrity to represent their product throughout. Sometimes celebrities switch to
rival brands. This happens frequently when trying to secure someone who is well-liked by
society and in high demand for product endorsements. It also sends a message to the
consumer that, "If the endorser has shifted to another brand, so can you!" Aamir Khan
created a lot of unrest when he shifted his endorsement loyalty to Coke from Pepsi.

Another case here can be that of cricket stars. Saurav Ganguly is the endorser for Coke,
but during the World Cup 2002 he appeared in Pepsi commercials since Pepsi was the
official sponsor. In such cases the recall of the brand the star actually endorses becomes
low.

Confusion: At times the consumers get confused. They associate endorsers with wrong
brands. Rani Mukherjee’s endorsement for Hero Cycles was one such victim. In one
survey the respondents though Rani appeared in ads of BSL. In such a case the though
attraction is attracted but in a wrong way. The objective of creating such ads with
endorsers becomes futile. Its almost as good as paying money to promote competitors
brand. Usually products where rival brands use celebrities are prone to such confusion.

Many companies are trying to break away from the image of being associated with
celebrities. One such company is Lux. The history of Lux and its association with
celebrities is the oldest. But gradually non-famous faces are being introduced in the ads
and are being given more importance than the star itself. Lux seems to be gradually
introducing the concept of non-star ads in the minds of consumers to ensure that they
would get acceptability minus the famous stars in the future.

It is difficult to judge which side of the coin is more soiled! It is very easy for a celebrity
to accept the endorsement deal given to them without understanding the implications of it.
Its difficult to understand, how hard can it be to evaluate what’s good or not good for their
fans and how hard can it be to live up to the expectations of people who trust them!

SELECTING A CELEBRITY
“Doing it the right way”

Celebrity endorsement is not a “one-size-fits-all” model. In this era of sound bytes and
channel surfing, there is a demand to capture people’s time and focus. The key for the
marketer is to get the message across effectively and embed it in the minds of his target
audience. A celebrity does help in increasing brand sales, but only if he/she is selected
carefully and used effectively. The personality of the brand and the celebrity have to
complement each other and the selection of the celebrity is, therefore, very important.
Once a company knows the disadvantages of using a celebrity they take extra care while
choosing one. Possible check list before a celebrity is chosen for endorsement is done:

Match between the celebrity and the product/brand?

The number of products the celebrity is endorsing?
How big is the celebrity?
The cost?
Is the celebrity strongly identified with another product or company?
Has appeared in a number of commercials or ads over his or her career?
Is identified with a trend or fashion style?
Is regarded as controversial?
Is likely to alienate certain market segments?
Has a track record of attracting attention or delivering an audience?
Has potential for becoming involved in an issue or cause that could reflect negatively?

But besides these factors there are a few others that the company can take into
consideration.

The nature of the category: Today there is a literal flooding of products in a single
category and hoards of categories of products. Durable such as electronics, automobiles,
FMCG products, services available in every possible category use celebrities. Each of
them needs to choose the right celebrity in sync with their category and kind of product.

FMCG categories by themselves are amenable to impulsive buying habits of consumers.

There is also a large category of consumers who may like to try out variety in a given
category while being loyal to a specific brand. For instance, a consumer may be loyal to a
brand of soap but may try out several other brands during the same period. Celebrity
advertising, whether for a national brand or a regional brand in such a category, would
need to have a clear-cut goal of initiating trials and the product would have to be superior
to other offerings to ensure those who try out the brand stay with it. Hence the initial ho-
hum that has to be created should be done right and there is no better way than having a
good celebrity uses his magnetic effect to attract consumers initially. Obviously then the
company has to use the right strategies to ensure that the consumers remains loyal.

The problem of using celebrity by a brand in the durable category becomes much more
complex as consumers may not invest a fortune in an expensive durable simply because
celebrities endorse a brand. While this is more applicable to several durable categories,
there may be an exception in the automobile sector. A topical celebrity would certainly
attract the attention of a prospective buyer, especially the segment of buyers who may buy
a brand such as Santro. At launch, this brand had Shah Rukh Khan and this ensured that
brand awareness was created in a market which did not even know the brand. The brand
was able to back the awareness created through celebrity usage with fine performance and
within a short time it established itself in terms of market share as well as positive word of
mouth. This was the stage when it introduced the second (an actress topping the popularity
chart) celebrity.

Palio, registered a rise in sales after the introduction of the famous and record-creating
Sachin Tendulkar. A durable would do well to choose a celebrity who has an `expert
association' with the product usage - a microwave using a celebrity known for his/her
expertise in cuisine. A washing machine brand using a cricket celebrity would offer little
advantage unless he has a charismatic presence in a specific region.
BPL probably gained a lot of mileage in the rural and semi-urban markets using an
extremely popular Amitabh Bachchan known for his tinsel image reflecting `Robin Hood-
like' goodness and Samaritan qualities. In the case of categories such as chewing gum or
biscuits, celebrity appeal has an impulsive impact on the consumers and could continue to
have this impact as long as the celebrity is a reigning one.

Services could open up a different line of thought with regard to celebrity usage - given
the intangibility and the complexities associated with services; it could provide credibility
to the brand by reducing the perceived risk associated with it. A number of insurance
companies have joined the competition against the well-entrenched LIC. Perceived risk is
a major factor which brands need to address and the use of an appropriate celebrity could
achieve the purpose. In the case of other services, for example, banking, which may
involve more frequent interaction with the organisation/brand, the brand should back up
the celebrity `assurance'(endorsement) through excellent service experience. Without such
a strategy, the celebrity appeal would only result in a negative word of mouth. Who can
forget the aura created by Amitabh Bachchan in the ICICI ads?

Equity of the brand: The equity and the heritage of the brand matters when celebrity
advertising is attempted. Omega a few years ago used a campaign with Cindy Crawford in
the Asian markets. The classic image of the brand may have little association with the
flashy image of the celebrity.

Coke uses a number of celebrities in several regions of the Indian market and it has also
used many film and sports celebrities over a period of time since its launch in India. The
higher the brand's equity, the more its immunity to the risks involved in using celebrities
who are big. Mistakes do not damage the brand much and it gets time to correct any it may
have made with regard to the celebrity route. Thumps Up, which has used many celebrities
(including Gavaskar) and which was not advertised for a while after Coke was launched in
India, still carries considerable equity. It is also interesting to observe that Thumps Up did
not start with a celebrity association, which it used later to create the `macho' association.
It was launched as a substitute for Coke when the latter made an exit from the Indian
markets. Hence in this case it was the brand which first became big and then used
celebrities to enhance the equity already established.

Several brands in categories of milk, footwear and soaps (regional brands) are also using
well-known celebrities and the objective in such cases could be to generate a short-term
demand for the respective brand. Hero Honda is currently using a celebrity from cricket
and it is unlikely that this celebrity, even if changed/substituted, would adversely affect the
image of the brand. Sunsilk, given its overall brand image, it can afford to have a
reasonable degree of flexibility to try out different celebrities.
_
_ Two very good examples and contrasting examples can be used here to illustrate the
equity importance. Over the years, non-celebrity based advertising had built a sharply
etched personality for brand Perk - fun, mischievous, bubbly and simply “perky”. The
marriage then, in 2003, with one of the original Perk models, Preity Zinta, who embodied
very similar values, has only further strengthened the brand’s imagery.
__However, when the star’s imagery is used to etch a personality for a brand from scratch,
there is a strong issue of the star overshadowing the brand itself. Nerolac runs the danger
of being known as the Bachchan-wallah paint and the fate of Reid and Taylor is also in the
hands of Big B. The identity of the brand can be subsumed by that of the star.

A new brand (without a brand heritage) using a celebrity may experience different
implications. When Videocon started its TV advertising in India, the brand used a cine
celebrity to launch its picture-in-picture model. While the model did not pick up, the
clebrity certainly enhanced brand recall. This recall occurred when the category itself was
developing durin g the Eighties - the same celebrity used in a similar situation would not
have the same impact in an evolved market. A celebrity has to be chosen in such a way
that the brand’s image in enhanced by the celebrity.

Brands position in life cycle: Celebrities can create tremendous awareness rapidly. But, a
celebrity plays a limited role if the time is not right. For example pre-KBC Bachchan was
no help to BPL in its mega bucks campaign. Obviously the star's personality should fit the
brand. Dharmendra is good for Bagpiper but not for Coca-Cola.

The celebrity should know how to act: It is important also to be realistic about what the
celebrity is doing in the ad i.e. can he/she emote and act (the awkward Saurav in the old
Hero Honda and the Pepsi lion commercials).

More than one celebrity: If the company has the money to spend they should balance the
risk of having only one star (for example a cricketer not knowing an ‘a’ about acting) by
having more than one celebrity.

New celebrity: Sometimes a company may use a new or not so famous person, who the
company thinks will be famous one day. At such a time company wants to grab the
opportunity to be associated with someone who’s completely new, raw and whose
credibility for endorsement has not been exploited. Such celebrities are safe when it comes
to threats of overexposure and multiple endorsements. Perhaps the biggest example of that
comes from the US where a high school student named Lebron James landed an
extraordinary US $90 million endorsement deal with Nike for a greatly anticipated future
basketball career.
These are some factors which are kept in mind before selecting a celebrity. Along with the
checklist mentioned above what needs to be done before choosing a celebrity is to try and
match or rather do a possible evaluation of the three vertices of the triangle here. The more
the similarity amongst the brand, celebrity and customer better our chances of the choice
being correct.

Erdogan and Baker say that once all aspects of celebrity-oriented advertising have been
evaluated and the celebrity is selected and the decision is made to proceed, the foundation
of a successful endorser selection rests in four concepts, known by the acronym FRED.
FRED stands for Familiarity, Relevance, Esteem and Differentiation, and was the result of
a $6 million study interviewing 30,000 people around the world to find out why brands
and their advertising efforts succeed and fail (Miciak & Shanklin, 1994).

Familiarity: It is the first essential component of an effective endorser. The target market
must be aware of the celebrity, and perceive the person as friendly and likable, and
trustworthy. Recognition by the intended audience is more important than being known
worldwide.
Relevance: There should be some link between the promoter and the product, as well as
between the promoter and the audience. An example outside the world of sport effectively
illustrates this point. Using an international model to promote a brand in India for a
product used by common mass will never be successful. It important for the audience to
identify with the celebrity.
Esteem: Consumers must have the utmost respect for the celebrity in order for the
commercial or promotion to be credible.

Differentiation: It is the final component of FRED. The public must see the endorser as
different from all the rest. If there is no perceived difference among celebrities, then the
strategy is not worthwhile. Michael Jordan is an example of a celebrity that stands apart
from the normal athlete, one of the contributing factors to his success as an endorser.

These FRED principles are not guarantees to success, but can serve as guidelines when
selecting a spokesperson. Each organization and its objectives are different, and should be
evaluated on an individual basis. There are many models which have been developed to
identify and select the right celebrity.

Source Attractiveness Model

This model holds that the acceptance of a message is determined by its attractiveness of
the source, i.e. the celebrity endorsing the product. A central goal of advertising is the
persuasion of customers, i.e., attempt to change or modify consumers’ attitude towards
brands. In this respect, the credibility of an advertisement plays an important role in
convincing the target audience of the attractiveness of the company’s brand. Pursuing a
celebrity endorsement strategy enables advertisers to project a credible image in terms of
expertise, persuasiveness, trustworthiness, and objectiveness.

Source attractiveness refers to the endorser’s:

Physical appearance: How the celebrity looks.

Personality: The obvious traits of the celebrity’s personality that can be seen.
Likeability: Likeability is the affection for the source.
Similarity: Similarity refers to the resemblance between the source and the receiver of the
message.
Familiarity: It is the knowledge of the source that the celebrity has, and also how
familiar is the target audience with the celebrity (as in FRED concept)
These are the various dimension under the influence of which (one, combination of few or
all) the consumer buys the product. While research seems to suggest that an attractive
celebrity enhances attitudes towards advertising and brands, they can also create purchase
intentions (Erdogan, 1999). This points to the importance of matching celebrities images
with product images

With physically attractive communicators having proved to be more successful in

influencing customers’ attitudes and beliefs than unattractive spokespersons, the use of
attractive people is common practice in most Medias. This behavior mainly leads to a halo
effect, whereby persons who perform well on one dimension, e.g. physical attractiveness,
are assumed to excel on others as well, e.g. happiness and coolness. Each source has
different effects on consumers’ brand perceptions. It is better to pursue a systematic
strategy of celebrity selection.

Product Match-Up Hypothesis

This hypothesis suggests that the message conveyed by the celebrity image should match
with the product message. It highlights the importance of the match between celebrity
endorsers and products, and focuses on the level of perceived fit between brand and
celebrity image. Several research studies have examined the congruency between celebrity
endorsers and brands and results show that a number of celebrity endorsements proved
very successful, whereas others completely failed even though a celebrity was used.
Simply assuming that a person just has to be famous to represent a successful
spokesperson, however, would be incorrect, with a considerable number of failures
proving the opposite.

Attractive spokespersons are more effective in terms of attitude change when promoting
brands and enhance its attractiveness. Though a popular and an attractive person’s ability
to create awareness and initial interest for an advertisement is more than an unattractive
and a not so popular celebrity, many researches have also concluded that this may not
necessarily change consumer’s attitude toward the endorsed brand. For celebrity to be
truly effective, they should be knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified to talk about the
product.

However, this hypothesis does not identify and measure which dimensions are valid for a
particular product, and hence there is a general dissatisfaction with its failure to explain
important factors that should go in selecting a celebrity for endorsement.

Meaning Transfer Model

McCracken (1989) had given this model which explains the effectiveness of celebrity
spokespersons by assessing the meanings consumers associate with the endorser and
eventually transfer to the brand. It attempts to explain the endorsement process. It holds
that celebrity endorsement involves a general process of meaning transfer, in which there
are three stages:
The formation of celebrity image
Transfer of meaning (image formed) from celebrity to product
Transfer of meaning from product to consumers.

They are explained in detail below:

Meaning Acquisition: The attributes of the celebrities which can be associated with the
products are determines. In the figure role 1, role 2, and role 3 are the various roles played
by the celebrity which determines the value of the celebrity i.e. the meanings that may be
passed on to the product. Celebrities contain a broad range of meanings, involving
demographic categories (e.g. age, gender, status), personality and lifestyle types.

Madonna, for example, is perceived as tough, intense and modern women, and is
associated with the lower middle class The personality of Pierce Brosnan is best
characterized as the perfect gentlemen, whereas Jennifer Aniston has the image of the
‘good girl from next door’. McCracken emphasizes that a famous person represents not
one single meaning, but expresses a number and variety of different meanings.

Endorsement: The meanings attributed to the celebrity are now actually passed on to the
product i.e. the celebrity starts appearing in the advertisements, promotional events etc.
and becomes associated with the brand in the consumer’s mind.
Consumption process: Finally, in the consumption process, the brand’s meaning is
acquired by the customer. This stage of the model explicitly shows the importance of the
consumer’s role in the process of endorsing brands with famous persons.

Celebrity spokespersons are useful in marketing because they provide a “set of

characteristics” that supports consumers in evaluating the presented brand. In contrast to
anonymous endorsers, celebrities add value to the image transfer process by offering
meanings of extra depth and power, what is complemented by their lifestyles and
personalities (McCracken 1989).

Research suggests that this theoretical concept is replicable in real life and the transfer
process can be observed. For example, symbolic meaning of being attractive, healthy and
independent could be transferred from a celebrity to a health product and then to the
consumer. Now, research on using celebrities may still be far from being adequate for
informing the industry what exactly may be used as criteria for identifying and
differentiating meanings that celebrities may pass on. At least, however, the above models
may help understand and analyze the utility of celebrities.

Having determined the brand’s symbolic features by considering consumers’ needs, the
advertising company has to select the celebrity who contains the appropriate set of
characteristics, and who will best be able to produce the most favorable response from
consumers. It is better if the marketing/advertising firm first determines the symbolic
properties sought for the product and then consults a list of celebrities and the meanings
they make available, and taking into account budget and availability constraints, choose
the celebrity who best represents, the appropriate symbolic properties.

A study by Jennifer L Aaker titled ‘Dimensions of a Brand Personality’ gives an insight

on the traits that a brand should have to emerge as a favourite. She says that brands which
are in congruence with human characteristics are preferred. As it has been given in the
Meaning Transfer Model that the dimensions of the meaning of a celebrity is transferred to
the product her study can be applied as a food for thought, and some general
characteristics that a celebrity endorser should have can be laid down.

CELEBRITY ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS

So, now the question that begs an answer is, do they work? Does Govinda help sell a
thousand Rupa banians? Does Preity Zinta launch a thousand requests for Cadbury? The
companies which use celebrities say this strategy works just fine, when the celebrity is
used consistently with a product, when there is a `fit' between the two and when the film
star is able to create a fetish for the commodity.

It depends on how well or how badly brands use celebrities. But what about when there is
an overexposure and multiple endorsements by the celebrity? It is not that the consumer
gets tired or confused about the same star endorsing various products. If an ad is told well
with a differentiated story, it works. Otherwise, it doesn't. It is as straightforward as that.
Having a congruent image between the brand and celebrity does not actually guarantee
any positive effect on consumers' brand preferences. The fundamental question is what a
brand image really does to consumers? In today’s market all products are not special. But
a celebrity provides that image to the products and gives information to a larger extent
about the kind of people who use the product rather than what is the product all about.
This view is echoed by Feldwick (1991) who has suggested that the subjective experience
of using a brand can be different from the subjective experience of using an identical
product without the brand reassurance. Hence even though a celebrity may not guarantee
sales most of the time it is effective.

For a celebrity to add value to a brand and be effective there must be a relevant and
recognizable match of values of the celebrity and the brand as perceived by consumers.
This suggests that the image of the celebrity must fit or be congruent with the product (as
already mentioned in the previous chapter). As the congruence is considered one of the
major factors in celebrity advertising effectiveness, this issue is now examined from
theoretical perspective.

Schema-Based Expectancy Theory

Before going ahead with the theory one needs to understand the complex concept of
schema. A schema is a theoretical, cognitive structure that represents some stimulus
domain e.g., a person, place, event, or thing. It is organized through experience and
consists of a knowledge structure, i.e. a representation of the attributes of the stimulus
domain. It determines what information will be encoded or retrieved from memory. They
enable generation of expectancies and hence in turn give way to perceptions. Schemas are
concepts which give face to those areas of human mind which help in encoding,
interpretation, retention, and retrieval of information. When new information is received,
individuals will tend to use existing schemas to process the relevancy or congruency of
this information, i.e. the fit with the existing schema.
In the case of well-known celebrities, individual would typically have personal relevant
schemas (person schemas), acquired over time. People see celebrities; they absorb the aura
around the celebrity and keep in mind the attributes that the celebrity reflects. This
representation of the person, in terms of the person's abilities, physical appearance, public
characterization, etc., is then a set of abstract attributes that might be used to describe this
person (Hamilton, 1981).

When a celebrity endorses a brand, the characteristics of that celebrity may be compared
with the advertised attributes of the brand by the audience for congruence or fit with their
available person-schema. The degree of congruence between the new information (the
brand attributes) and the existing information (the celebrity's characteristics) may then
influence the level of recall of the new information. Several studies in social cognition
have found that generally congruent information is remembered better than information
incongruent or irrelevant with existing schemas. Hence a product where the schema of the
personality is in relation to the band attributes there are better chances of the celebrity
being effective.

A very good example here can be of Sunny Deol and his endorsement for Farmtrac
tractors. The company Escort wanted to move away from the tried method of tractor
advertising and wanted to try endorsement. After finding out how the customers perceived
the product and after asking them who could symbolize a product like that, it was
concluded that power and style, the two attributes customers were looking for could be
fulfilled by Sunny Deol. With a personality like him and a tough image, he was the perfect
choice. He has a son-of-the-soil image and a macho persona which compliments the brand
and product. The endorsement _worked to the extent that a limited edition was introduced
on his name and tractors had his autograph. The attributes customers had about the star
matched the product.

_Yet other theories and studies have had contrary findings. They use the schema concept
but differ in findings.

Associative Network Model

Unlike the above theory, this model suggests that information or the meaning acquired
from the celebrity by the product and then to the consumer, if is inconsistent with the
individual's schema, the information received may be quite significant and therefore, be
attended to more closely and be processed more deeply. That is to say that because there is
mismatch between the existing and new schema the information is remembered and this
information would be conceptually linked to a larger number of items in the memory,
compared to a piece of information that is consistent with the schema. Thus, incongruent
information will be processed more extensively and remembered better than congruent.

Take the new ad of Navratna tel. It is quite a surprise to see Amitabh Bachchan endorsing
the brand after the dancing and singing item Govinda presented in the ad which gave the
product an image of ‘mass product’. Amitabh Bachchan, his wisdom, his persona and his
classy image and the other real and perceived attributes don’t match a product like a bottle
of oil. Though it may be for all the wrong reasons but for the audience which these ads are
targeted to seems to work well!

Schema-Pointer + Tag Model

This model proposes that consistent or typical items are encoded in terms of a "pointer" to
a generic schema that contains the typical components and relationships for that particular
knowledge domain. The unusual or incongruent items are, on the other hand, encoded with
a rather distinctive "tag" and stored as a unique, separate unit. This leads to higher ability
to remember incongruent items than typical items. In simpler words, the expected and
obvious information is stored in the usual schema whereas the unexpected and unusual
information is stored in a separate unit. The item "tag," however, tends to decay over time,
such that after a week or two, the item may not be readily accessible in memory. Thus,
incongruent information will be remembered better.

As a result of the contradicting findings, Misra and Beatty (1990) conducted an empirical
research testing the effects of congruence in terms of recall and affection with the above
different theories as bases. The results indicate that recall of brand information is
significantly higher when the image of the celebrity is congruent with the brand image.
This is true for recall measured immediately after exposure to the stimulus ads, as well as
for recall measured after a 1-week delay. The results also indicate that when the image of
celebrity is congruent with the brand, a transfer of affection takes place. However, when
the image of the celebrity is incongruent, or irrelevant, the transfer of affection does not
appear to take place. In addition, brand affection was found to be significantly more
positive in the congruent condition than in the incongruent and irrelevant conditions.

With reference to the research above, it can be concluded that it would be worthwhile to
select a spokesperson whose characteristics are congruent with the brand image. Although
this point seems fairly obvious, many advertisers don’t carefully evaluate their choice of
celebrities to ensure that the celebrity's image matches the desired brand image. Instead,
they may make the selection on some other basis, e.g., popularity.

Identification Processes

The identification processes of social influence explain various related aspects of the
effectiveness of celebrity advertising. The identification process occurs when influence
from the celebrity is accepted as a result of a desire to identify with such endorsers. This
process has been strongly linked to the use of celebrity in advertising, because consumers
like to be associated with their images.

According to Kelman (1961), identification is said to occur when an individual adopts a

behavior or opinion derived from another person because the behavior is associated with a
satisfying self-defining relationship to the other. That is to say, the relationship between
the individual and the other person is beneficial to some portion of the individual's self-
concept. In other words a person relates to the celebrity in terms of the persona of the
endorser such that he wants to be like the celebrity and identifies with him. For example,
when the source of a communication is attractive, attitude change is mediated by this
process of identification.

This process strongly affected by characteristics such as likeability and attractiveness of

the celebrity endorser. Thus, individuals accept influence from an attractive/likable
celebrity because of a desire to identify with this person. It should be noted that even
though celebrity images can be transferred to consumers and affect their preferences
through identification process, the relevance (or involvement) of the products/services to
consumers is equally important. The effect of the identification process discussed above is
derived with an assumption of high product/service relevance.
Decision Making Process And Purchase Decision

Decades ago, John Dewey (1910) conceptualized decision-process behaviour as problem

solving, thoughtful and reasoned action focused on satisfying needs. As Ajzen and
Fishbein put it, "Human beings are usually quite rational and make systematic use of the
information available to them...people consider the implications of their actions before
they decide to engage or not to engage in a given behaviour." A lot of marketing research
has shown that consumer decision follows a particular sequence. The sequence can have
variations, from one situation to the next in terms of the extent to which each of these
steps is followed.

There are two types of decision making processes defined:

Extended Problem Solving: In extended problem solving, thinking leads to feeling, which
leads to action. The very nature of the decision often necessitates collection of information
that is processed and stored. Various product attributes are weighed and evaluated.
Celebrities and brand image have a relatively insignificant impact on the consumer's
purchase decision if the product/service involves extend problem solving.

Limited Problem Solving: In limited problem solving, consumers will simplify the process
by sharply reducing the number and variety of information sources and alternatives
considered. The celebrities along with brand images of product/service that involves
limited problem solving will have a more significant impact on the consumer's purchase
decision.

In the end it has to be understood that the question about whether celebrity endorsements
work is not so much a question about celebrities, but about the advertisements themselves.
Today the public is constantly assaulted by the endless flow of the sales pitch: and yet, in
those multitudes of messages crowding their thought waves, there is information that
manages to get across, there are lifestyle imprints that manage to stick, and products that
manage to get sold. The point, therefore, about celebrities in advertisements, is that
everyone does it, and done right it works wonders.

NON – CELEBRITIES
“Unknown faces, known impacts”

Celebrities are not always necessary. Sometimes, non-celebrities serve advertisers better.
Who is a non-celebrity? A person who is not as famous as a well-known celebrity can be
considered as a non-celebrity. Someone who has been appearing on TV commercials but
is not considered as someone who would attract the crowd on the trust factor is a non-
celebrity.

The media is full of advertisements. Though most of them have a big or small celebrity
but there are a huge number of products/brands which are selling like hot cake minus a
celebrity endorsing it. Why would Pepsi need a Beckham if they could bend things just as
well without using one? (Referring to the Pepsi commercial which used a Sumo wrestler).
When companies think they can do away with the ho-hum of using a celebrity they settle
for a non-celebrity. Nothing can beat a good idea. Whether or the not the image of the
person being used in the ad is worth millions or not, it is the ad as a whole which makes
the impact.

Usually small companies prefer steering away from the celebrity clutter because they
don’t want their midget products getting lost in the market. There are quite a few justifies
reasons for not using celebrities.

Better Match: Using non-celebrities, advertisers may gain a greater control over tailor-
made or unique characters they create. The created characters may match well with their
promoted products and target audiences and the characters are linked solely to the
promoted product, rather than a diverse varieties of products with which a real celebrity
may be associated.

Less Hassles: With non-celebrities, there is no need to worry about the popularity of the
celebrity will fade. Once an ad has caught up with the customers’ liking it cannot affect
the product in a negative way unlike when a celebrity is used. Whether or not the model
used has appeared in 20 other commercials, it’s never an issue.
Cost: Obviously not using a celebrity means less cost and sometimes the same result. In
the competitive world cost plays an important factor to get that edge and if use of a Hrithik
Roshan can be done away with why not?

The Hutch Hi Campaign has proved that good ideas don’t need celebrities. Whether or not
a brand uses celebrity the core of the matter lies in the fact, as has been proved, is that the
product should sell. There are times when a good celebrity and bad idea ruin the image of
the product but a good idea can never let the brand down with or without a celebrity.

__There are some companies which are using celebrities but are concentrating on using
their qualities as a ‘non-celebrities’ than their stardom. They may too fall in the non-
celebrity category. A very interesting example of using celebrities without the intention to
use their fame is of Apple Computers. It introduced its anodized Aluminum range of
PowerBooks, the 12-inch and the 17-inch models, with actor Verne Troyer (from movie
“Austin Powers” as “Mini Me”) and Houston Rockets center player Yao Ming. The
general perception would be that Apple has simply engaged two celebrities to brand their
laptops, but that is not right. They have engaged a very tall person (Yao Ming) and a very
short person (Verne Troyer), to contrast the size of their small and large PowerBooks, by
having Verne Troyer use the 17-inch PowerBook, while Yao Ming uses the miniscule 12-
inch model. The net result is more hilarious, and more impactful than having the
celebrities as centerpieces. So why use celebrities when a non-celebrity will be as
effective?

Despite these potential advantages, it is safe to argue that celebrity endorsers are more
effective than non-celebrity endorsers in generating all desirable outcomes (attitudes
towards advertising, and endorsed brand, intentions to purchase, and in fact actual sales)
when companies utilise celebrities whose public persona match with the products and
target audiences and who have not endorsed products previously.
To conclude, there is little doubt that using celebrities is a good strategy. Yet, the strategy
is not a key to all successes. On the contrary, success depends on how the strategy is
implemented with or without an endorser. Also, the success of using celebrities has a lot to
do with the design of the commercials, and depend on how the strategy is integrated with
audience characteristics and other elements in the marketing mix. Bottom-line if a non-
celebrity can do as well as celebrity the opportunity should be grabbed.
CELEBRITY POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS
“An Honest Marketing Strategy”

“India Shining” campaign has created uproar. Well, it is difficult to say India is shining or
not but the political parties are definitely shining with an array of stars in the political
galaxy. Most of the political parties are glittering with star celebrities. Whether it is film
celebrities or sports celebrities over the years the politics has exposed a lot more than just
scamps and corruption. Big celebrities from Hema Malini to Navjot Singh Sidhu have
given the precious tickets to endorse the political parties and their ideologies.

Political Marketing has always been the buzz word during the election season. Politicians
and political parties apply the best of marketing strategies and plan their promotional
campaigns to gain maximum voter share. There is no harm in using celebrities to
market/endorse the parties. The equation is simple. Treat the parties and its members as
products. So when endorsements are used to market goods and services why not political
parties also? When chocolates to health drinks, motorcycles to cars all are being endorsed
by celebrities it simply justifies the use of celebrities in politics.

Celebrity Political Endorsements can be defined as the use of celebrities for the purpose of
political activities, especially campaigning. Usually stars are used but people from other
fields can also be used like experts from the field of business, sports. For the purpose of
Celebrity Political Endorsements the endorsers can be categorized in two ways.

Internal: An internal Endorser is a political endorser say Atal Bihari Vajpayee making an
appearance in Hyderabad endorsing the ideologies of Telgu Desam Party at Andhra
Pradesh.

External: This is when a celebrity is used for promotion of the party. Bill Clinton used
stars like Barbra Streisand for his presidential campaign in 2001.

Celebrity Political endorsement has been become an important part of the campaigns of
the various parties. The whole strategy is formulated under which the celebrity (ies) is
chosen, the medium through which the message will be passed is chosen i.e. through
rallies, newspapers, appearances and then the voter gets influenced by these celebrities and
cast their vote. It is just like Meaning Transfer Model.

Govinda, a favourite of companies who want to reach the masses proved to be the best
endorser of a part to the extent that the party gave him a ticket of ‘Virar’ in Mumbai. The
party believes that he can connect well with the voters there and his aura, his “common
man” appeal, his “good by heart” nature will lure the voters. And the election result
proved it. BJP made a smart move by taking the support of singer-composer Bhupen
Hazarika for influencing he voters in the east side.

So what is the issue here? It seems that the endorsement deals are doing just as good in
political world as in business. But again like the question of “do celebrities really
influence the consumers to buy?” a similar question can be asked here. “How influential
are celebrities towards voters opinions?” it has been concluded that there may or may not
be able to affect the voter directly but some buzz is created. It’s as simple as imagining a
situation where Amitabh Bachchan is standing next to Mulayam Singh Yadav in
Lucknow. even if the voters come only to see the ‘Big B’ but the target is achieved. This
enables them to gather crowd so that the ideas of their parties can be conveyed to the
voters and this might get them into voting for the party.

“Atal ji ko dekha to aisa laga” is what Kumar Sanu was singing when he was used to
promote the party. Star celebrities have a higher potential to communicate their message to
the public because the public feels attached to them, trusts them and for them they are
always right. This is the general perception that is seen. There are basic three ways by
which a celebrity can give leverage to the party.

Attention-creation due to the high exposure value of the celebrity.

Trust reinforcement due to the credibility and integrity of the celebrity.
The expert status of the celebrity.
The parties choose a voter after concluding the kind of influence they want the celebrity to
have on the voters. Basically there are 3 key areas where the voter can be influenced.

Belief system
Attitude
Behavioral Intention.
So when the Samajvadi party wanted to have an behavioral impact on tis voter they chose
Jayaprada for Rampur and gave her a ticket. While, to influence the attitude of the people
of Punjab Navjot Singh Sidhu was taken. Smriti ‘Tulsi’ Irani helped the party to get voted
of the women.

All these look like smart moves. But where can a party go wrong? Celina Jaitley being
used to influence the public; that can be an unrequired and an unintelligent move. Todays
voters are smart, they know their rights, duties and have a lot of information and there is
no way that they will vote for a party just because a glamorous heroine is saying so. The
attractiveness factor does not apply to endorsements in case of political parties. Political
parties are not to be treated a lipstick which will require a Yana Gupta. The fact that they
will attract crowd stands true but parties seeking endorsements strategy want a lot more
than just attraction.

A very interesting case gives a better insight in the fact mentioned above. In 1982, the BJP
organdies a meeting in Nizam College where Vajpayeeji was expected to speak. The
Congress as a counter attack, invited Telgu Stars in their meeting. The result, where
Vajpayee and his oratory merged as winners, just proves that Indian people know the

One question that might pop up here is that most of he celebrities have actually joined the
parties and hence they are not ‘just’ endorsers. But the answer to this dilemma lies in
itself. A new trend of merging the “political offering” and “poltical celebrities” to bring
about a representative of the party in true form has been prevalent especially in the 2004
elections. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Govinda are becoming the political products and
endorsers combined.

Political marketing is becoming more professional and Celebrity Political Endorsement is

a very important instrument. So while choosing a celebrity emphasis should be liad on the
credibility and trustworthiness and not attractiveness. Though the external celebrity does
add glitter to the party but end of the day it is the internal celebrity who is the real star. It
will be inappropriate to think that party has won because of a Amitabh Bachchan or a
Govinda. With likes of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Man Mohan Singh parties do not really need
to bank on stars.
BRAND WITH MOVIES
“When Products are the Actors”

It is hard to ignore the big star bandwagon of Subhash Ghai’s film Yaadein. The actors of
the movie were Hrithik, Kareena, Jackie Shroff and……Coke, Hero Cycles, Pass-Pass and
cdguru.com. Many critics have disliked the idea of promoting a brand in movies. But the
fact is brands and popular cinemas have aligned well. Brands are increasingly being
associated with films. And companies are seeing big business in being associated with
films. The makers of films feel that their brands connect on a more emotional level with
the audience if placed in a film.

Win-Win Situation
This is a special kind of endorsement. Usually the stars in the movie are already
ambassadors/endorsers of the brands used in the movies. There is tremendous advantage
to be gained by associating with film stars and even more so if the stars happen to be
ambassadors of their brands. Officials at PepsiCo, which associated with the Shah Rukh
Khan-produced Chalte Chalte, say: "Our presence in the film is because Khan is our brand
ambassador and we have an ongoing association with him. Chalte Chalte was Khan's
home production. Therefore, Pepsi had a presence in the film." Similarly, Hyundai Santro
was a prominent fixture in the film and it is not a mere coincidence that Khan is the brand
ambassador for the car. Khan was also paid a huge sum for using Castrol engine oil in his
vehicle.
The latest marriage between a movie and brand is Close-Up with Kyon! Ho Gaya Na. But
in this case the product does not have much footage in the movie like it has outside.
Speaking on the association, Debjit Rudra, marketing manager, HLL's oral care group,
said "Our tie-up with this movie provides us with a great opportunity to connect with the
youth and movie audiences. This may not be considered as an actual endorsement deal but
associating with a movie which has Aishwarya in it is a smart thing to do.

A company which never believed in brand promotions made its own road in the world of
film promotion. Yes, Tata Engineering also hit the road with its brand Tata Safari,
literally. In Ram Gopal Varma’s Road, Safari-the sports utility vehicle from Tata
Engineering stable, was used almost through the entire film. Though in this case none of
the stars were endorsers of the brand but the effect that it creates is the same as an official
endorser would. The cross-promotions helped Road getting ads across mainstream
channels and Tata Engineering got a glamorous association at the right time when the
SUV (Sprots Utility Vehicles) segment was getting hot on competition. It’s a win-win
situation. Most of the publicity done for Road could be done in subsidised slots
specifically reserved for them. But the new promotion took them into prime time slots,
places that just a film, definitely couldn’t have afforded.

Cross promotions are not new in the ad world. Thums Up signed on the entire star cast of
‘Kaante’. And while all the six stars of the film sipped Thums Up in their own special way
through the film, the cola company put out these ads across channels and during
commercial breaks in the cricket match telecasts. This gave the movie and the brand a
boost which cannot be ignored. Such ads can appear at prime time television slots or even
during commercial breaks in news.

And if still in doubt that what’s in it for the company? There was no better way that
Provogue could have got people singing its name if it wasn’t for Fardeen Khan being the
ambassador for the brand. The song from Khushi has Fardeen singing his early morning
prayers chanting “Im dressed in my Provogue shirt”

Clean Finance
Companies wanting to connect better with their audiences and faced with huge rates
charged by leading print publications and television channels feel that association with
movies is not a bad idea at all. And what more, the producers of the movies also are happy
because they are paid a fat sum of using the brands in their movies. For the cash-strapped
film industry, getting some amount of clean financing from the corporate sector is a whole
lot better than dealing with dubious underworld dons. Films gained industry status two
years ago and there was much hope that banks and financial institutions would enter into
film financing in a big way. But this hasn't really happened. Financial institutions and
banks tend to lay huge conditions in front of film producers before sanctioning finance.
With film making a hugely risky business and producer unable to furnish the kind of
guarantees required, bank and corporate finance has been hard to get.

Hence the growth of such advertising has been tremendous. Two to five years ago the
amount paid for such ad placements was in the range of a few lakhs while the sums being
talked about now run into a few crores. Advertising in films is becoming big business for
film producers, advertisers and ad agencies, and the trend is being witnessed all over the
world.

One cant ignore Subhash Ghai-produced and directed blockbuster Taal, which had this
very romantic scene featuring Aishwarya Rai and Akshaye Khanna sharing a bottle of
Coke. The scene became more romantic for Ghai because Coke India dished out Rs 1
crore for placing the product in the film. Coca-Cola India vice-president (marketing)
Shripad Nadkarni says "In-film is a great way to connect with the consumer in their
environment." And there can be no better company than Coke who gets an A on making
these kinds of associations.

BR Chopra's film Baghban starring Amitabh Bachchan and Hema Malini among others,
had tied up with three brands - Ford Ikon, ICICI Bank and Tata Tea and - which figured in
his _film. Besides that, Leo Burnett India, has unleashed its latest major joint TV
commercial the movie brand positioning Proctor and Gamble's detergent brand Tide. Ravi
Chopra, the director of Baghban, admitted that the total benefit to the producers from
_associating with the brands is in the range of Rs 3-4 crore.

For liquor companies faced with dwindling avenues to advertise their products such
placements are being looked upon with a positive glee. American beer company Stroh's is
said to have paid Rs 15 lakh to the producers of Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge for a 15-
second scene in which Shah Rukh Khan mentions the brand name while downing a canned
Stroh's. The BSA SLR bike featured as a hero of sorts in the film Jo Jeeta Wohi Sikandar
and TI Cycles is said to have paid producer Nasir Hussain some lakhs of rupees.

The producers say that this kind of advertising helps them recover some of the costs of the
film. In any case in our films we need to show film characters driving cars, using mobiles,
drinking tea or coffee and using a number of other products, so why not benefit out of it.
The sponsoring company also benefits as their brands get associated with film stars.

_In Hollywood films such ad placements have been around for quite some time. From
liquor to cigarettes and menswear to cars, James Bonds films have them all. When
Smirnoff ended its association with Bond's film Die Another Day, rival Finlandia
promptly filled the gap. And how can one forget Bond's favourite cars, which ranged from
the BMW to the Jaguar, with due credits being given to the car manufacturer in each Bond
film. RayBan associated itself with Men in Black while the film You've got Mail featuring
Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan had as its real star of America Online (AOL). AOL reportedly
received between $3 million and $6 million with added visibility for AOL's signature
smiley-face logo. Cast Away showed Tom Hanks as a Fed-ex employee!

And The Public…

Well the companies seem to be getting a lot of positive reactions in form of increase in
sales. But it has been noticed that too much of such advertising gets on the nerves of the
audience. The way the advertisements have been embedded into the dialouges like in
Yaadein was just too much for the viewers to take. The 5 second fame that Tata Tea gets,
when Hema Malini snips its green packet open in Baghban and the camera is focusing on
it, is too much exposure for a tea brand.

Such ad placements, without a doubt, could become a source of part-financing for films as
big budget films are likely to attract more advertisers and producers would also charge
proportionately higher charges for placements but such in-film ad placements need to be
carried out with finesse and could work against a film also if done for the heck of it. The
constant mention of brands, excessive exposure can all work against the brand and the
film. There is agreement among advertisers and producers that advertising of this kind
needs to be as low profile as possible. One bad placement can undo the work of 10 good
ones.

Ghai in most of his movies has done exactly what is mentioned above. It was as if he was
insulting the audience’s intelligence with five-minute long candy advertisements in the
middle of a film, and repeatedly declaring that a cola helps you think, or connect with a
dead loved-one. It now seems the public is paying to watch advertisements on the big
screen. Ideally the film makers should disguise the products a little - but in most of his
movies even in the most heartfelt of moments, the camera quickly gives you a close up of
Coke, his favorite brand it seems.

The fact is that the public sees enough of these ads on TV, when they go to see a movie
they don’t really want to see the same products instead of stars. Probably while watching
an Aishwarya Rai movie one might be reminded of Nakshatra Diamond ads but it doesn’t
justify the act of mentioning the brand again and again in the movie. The entertainment
industry in India is getting increasingly corporatised and somewhere along the way certain
brands are becoming associated with the film personalities. Endorsements like in the ad-
mad world are also becoming popular in filmi jungle of Hollywood and Bollywood.

Cola drink brands like Coke and Pepsi, and miscellaneous bathing soaps have from the
out-set been associated with film stars. More and models are turning to acting, and it looks
like film advertising is in the natural progression of things. With the large number of
brands being showcased in movies one cannot deny the advantages that can be gained. It’s
an ‘all win’ situation if done right. A very funny comparison of such an act can be made to
moles. A few of them makes the person look pretty but too many can become an issue!

DEAD CELEBRITIES
“Pave to the Grave”
Ekta Kapoor’s ‘K’ serials have always managed to get their Mihir’s and Bajaj’s back after
a horrendous accident. In show business, everyone loves a comeback story. Film stars take
a break for some time and then make a grand appearance in a block-buster movie,
sportsmen are advised to stay at home maybe because of a broken leg but the next game is
The Game for them. But what about the stars and celebrities who have gone to a place that
no one comes back from?

Advertising world has been known for doing the unthinkable. And that’s precisely what
has happened in case of using dead celebrities for endorsements. What do the heirs of a
dead rock musicians, screen idols, sports men and health gurus have in common? A
chance to earn millions by allowing the advertisers to use the image of the celebrities.
Valuable personal rights that are often overlooked or underdeveloped by artists and
celebrities during their lifetimes, leaving their heirs to wonder what is left and how they
might be exploited, especially as the artist or celebrity grows more legendary by the day.
That’s where the hiers have to begin the difficult, time consuming and fascinating task of
assembling, bit by bit, the intellectual property rights belonging to the artist or celebrity,
and the search for marketing and merchandising opportunities for those rights.

And why should someone do this to the poor dead? Money, money and more money! An
estate owner of the dead celebrity can earn millions form his famous relatives good-
dooings (or bad). There are more dead celebrities working today than ever before.
America, for one has been using deceased celebrities for their image and power to still
influence the living. India has not yet realized the benefits of using The Dead as yet but
maybe, after getting influenced by the dead we might just see Kishore Kumar endorsing a
car saying ‘Chalti ka naam gaadi’.

But economically speaking, what does this do to the unemployment rate of living
celebrities? There are new stars raring to endorse a product. What kind of message is
being sent to all these new stars out there struggling to find work today? That their
opportunities for employment are better if they were dead? Regardless of the money that a
dead celebrity’s estate makes, would the celebrity endorse such a product if they were
alive that they are being made to today. Given the fact they're not here to speak for
themselves, it's difficult at best to decide whether or not product and pitchperson are an
appropriate match. But there are some rules as to what is and is not appropriate. The
legendary Fred Astaire (an actor) must be twisting and twirling in his grave since he must
have come to know what he has been endorsing lately. Dirt Devil vacuum is his latest
dancing partner.

When he was alive he had beautiful ladies to show off, but it is hard to tell if he would
love to dance with a vaccum cleaner who can be compared to neither Ginger Rogers nor
the lovely Rita Hayworth. Deborah Holtkamp with whom he danced all his life. Director
of advertising for Dirt Devil, said that the client loved the agency's concept of using
Astaire. "What better way to show how easy our products are to use," she said, "than to
put them in the hands of Fred Astaire, who made everything - even the most difficult
dance steps - look easy."
More than 25 years ago, Elvis Presley went never to come back. But it is the vitality of his
recordings and the power of his persona that Elvis never did vanish from the pop culture
landscape. His music and image have been featured in Disney's Lilo & Stitch, and he's had
a No. 1 single overseas: a spiffed-up remix of a song from the '60s called "A Little Less
Conversation” by the Madonna. The new Nike commercial is also using his song. In fact,
a quarter-century after his death at age 42, Elvis has been earning more per year than he
ever did when he was alive.

Death, it seems, was just another phase in a career that featured so many different indelible
incarnations: The hip-swiveling hero of the '50s - the grinning sex symbol of '60s - the
jump-suited Vegas legend of the '70s - and now, the eternal icon of advertisements, selling
everything from pizzas to state lottery tickets. Yes, the King of rock 'n' roll has become the
king of dead celebrities, endorsing products - and earning millions - from beyond the
grave. He possesses near-universal appeal. All that has to be really done is to make the
connection between Elvis and the audience which is not such a difficult job after all.
Goddess of glamour Marilyn Monroe might have only made one commercial during her
lifetime, but her image has been alive and pitching everything from fine wine to French
perfume and Japanese pantyhose - plus a credit card to pay for it all.

Right now, the coolest dead celebrity is Steve McQueen. His chase scene from the film
Bullitt was technologically tweaked by Ford in Europe to market a new car. Why was an
action star who's been gone for more than 20 years such a hit? “Because he sells” is what
his wife, his estate owner has to sell. According to her he has a believable personality and
he was the coolest guy around. He even has a clothing line in his name being introduced,
and in the meantime, McQueen's currently working for Tag Heuer watches - and again for
Ford.

If’s and But’s…

From Marilyn Monroe to Albert Einstein, John Wayne to James Dean, a fistful of long-
gone greats are beating time and achieving a kind of digital immortality through
commercials. The estates of the deceased get a paycheck and they sign off on every ad see
on television. Why utilize the image of a person who hasn't even been breathing for many,
many years? What's wrong with the stars of today that still live and breathe and walk the
city streets? Living legends are one thing - but why would a brand choose to associate
with dead ones?

Nothing really! Probably using the images of these legends is just another trend in the
advertising world. Or maybe dead celebrities don't argue, demand raises or give
photographers a hard time. Perhaps also because their history has been recorded, and their
achievements and their value set understood and packaged. They're a safe bet. There will
be no surprises. The impact that maybe an Elvis has to a product, a living celebrity might
not have. But care should be taken that a star shouldn't be used in any advertising that
could - however remotely - remind viewers of their manner of death. Celebrities such as
Princess Diana may be a lucrative option but are unlikely to be successful as ad
spokespersons if they are "a little too fresh in the grave".

But one can’t forget their estate owners. There are many legal issues that come in the
package of using a deceased celebrity to endorse a product. Protecting the endorsement
rights of celebrities has become a serious business. The reason? Simple economics.
Whether the characters are dead, alive or exist only on paper, in most cases, their selling
power is legally recognised as a valuable asset which has to be protected.

Sometimes, estates and their representatives are criticized for indiscriminately slapping a
deceased celebrity's face and name on a product or service. But most of the agencies who
use dead celebrities and the estate owners deny that they do all this for “just earning
money”. For example, Coors got the license to use John Wayne in a very successful
campaign where he was associated with beer. But most importantly, seven figures [went]
to the John Wayne Cancer Institute at St. John's Hospital in Santa Monica. … the family
has no qualms about being associated with that at all.

But if death sells, not everyone's buying. An icon's image can be so close to the fans hearts
that to see it used in an ad campaign rubs the public the wrong way. One ad for a
communications company used footage of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream"
speech - and the advertiser was accused of trivializing a great moment in American
history.
Some justify the use of the late celebrities by saying that it is a way to protect their image
but it is more than that according to others. It is exploiting them. Is anything sacred and
beyond the greedy grasp of commercialism? If its all done in a spirit not meant to harm
anyone even Jesus should be advertising for Cross Pens, promising a cross that is "easy to
bear!" Where is the line drawn between those who can be exploited and those who can't?
Who isn't and can never be for sale? Albert Einstein can be seen advertising Apple
computers and poor Ghandhiji has been made to come back from the dead to say a word
or two about them as well. Come on now. Who's next? Mother Teresa endorsing chocolate
chip cookies? Although it may be difficult to gauge the level of outrage a commercial will
cause, some imagery must be left untouched and above commercial exploitation.

Using dead celebrities is one of those things where, if it's good, it's good, and if it's bad,
it's bad - it's about that simple. It depends on the idea. It's a field more lively than one can
imagine. While some celebrities go to heaven, and some celebrities may go to hell, others
are going straight to the bank!

CARTOON ENDORSERS
“Not just for kids”

Cartoons are for kid’s doesn’t stand true anymore. They are as popular and favourite as
any other celebrity in flesh. These characters have gained popularity over the years. And
like the advertising world is known to do the unthinkable, the bright idea of using cartoons
as endorser was thought of, which was very successful. There have been ads where special
characters have been created just for them like GATTU of Asian Paints, Goody of
Nerolac, Louie of Chocos Cereal and the very famous Joe Camel of Camel Cigarettes. But
the use of cartoon characters picked up from cartoon shows has been a tried and tested
strategy from 1960’s. Kotler rightly calls them ‘spokescharacters’.

The Flintstone, star show of Cartoon Network has been entertaining people since the 60’s.
This animated series was a prime-time show, considered adult fare in 1960. With a large
audience of small children tuning out and youngsters tuning in at 8:30 pm the series was
used to promote Winstons brand of cigarette. Viewers could watch the main characters
smoking Winstons at the end of the show and they could also be seen selling beer in
commercials. After it was announced officially in 1964, that smoking was injurious to
health and after Pebbles was born in 1963, the Flintstones were no longer pitching
Winstons... they were selling Motorola and Welch's grape juice. The Peanuts comic book
characters, created by Charles Schulz in 1950, appeared and still do on a multitude on
products, from toiletries to candy to insurance (Metropolitan). Owen-Corning used Pink
Panther to endorse their insulation products. The most popular of them are the
2Simpson’s. Bart Simpson promotes Butterfinger candy bars.

The latest and a very successful association between a fictional character and a brand has
been between American Express Cards and Superman! Seinfeld (sitcom star) is a huge fan
of the Superman, and has mentioned him numerous times during his NBC shows. So,
Amex combined the two, putting the highly paid, boyish comedian side-by-side with an
animated Superman in a commercial for its credit cards in 1998. Due to decline in TV
viewing it was decided to make the ad an internet only ad. Email addresses of the people
who wanted to see the ad was collected. A number of internet ads have been created by
Amex since and all of them have been able to generate the required reactions.

It is easier to work with stars who can’t speak for themselves and even better when the star
will say what company wants it to say. Ofcourse there are copyright and IPR issues, but
done right such strategies can be lucrative without any if’s and but’s! Obviously cartoon
characters are a great choice when it comes to products made for kids, but more often than
not cartoons have been used to endorse things which appeal to adults. The reason for this
has not really been understood. Maybe using fictional characters helps to capture the
audience on their lighter side which is easier to convince. Such campaigns are one of the
most refreshing examples of ‘advertainments’. And the major benefit that they provide as
endorsers is they never age and are never involved in negative publicity. What more can
brands ask for! An endorser who will never let them down.

ISSUES IN CELEBRITY ENDOESEMENTS

LEGAL
Using celebrities can be an effective marketing tool but a legal minefield. As simple as
these deals may look there are a lot of factors that need to be kept in mind before the
celebrity is used for endorsements.
Legal traps in celebrity endorsements are an unwanted by the celebrity and the company
using them. As lucrative as the deal may look, it’s possible for such issues to creep in
because of the idiocy of the company or the celebrity leading to unwanted losses in terms
of money and image for either of the party. The problem is that the truth of the before’s
and after’s of such issue are not know. The media does talk about them but how magnified
the issue being presented is from the original, cannot be really known. And worse still the
parties involved too usually are hush about it.

And what does the law have to say about it? There are some countries that have laid down
laws regarding endorsements like Australia but in India there is no statutory law expressly
directed towards the legality of celebrity endorsements. But the contracts that the parties
get into are the major determinants of the do’s and don’ts of the deal. In India hence laws
of The Contract Act (1872) apply to celebrity endorsements but otherwise it’s up to the
company and celebrity involved to put down the rules.

There are 3 major factors on grounds of which legal issues can emerge.

1) Validity of the contract: It is important to specify for how long the celebrity will be an
official endorser of the brand. Using the celebrity even after termination of the contract
would mean trouble for the company. The celebrity can take legal actions against the
company and can claim a huge compensation. If a company wishes to use the celebrity it
can always renew the contract.

Recently there was a case where Coca-Cola was accused of using ads that were shot with
Sunil Shetty after the contract had ended. The article on the next page gives the details.

SUNIL SHETTY TO SUE COKE

Sunil Shetty is gearing up for a case against them.

“Yes, I am taking action against oca-Cola,” says Shetty but remains tightlipped about the
details.
All that an official spokesperson from Coca Cola is willing to say is, “The matter is sub-
judice and will be dealt in court.” Shetty had signed up for the Thumbs Up endorsement a
few years ago. According to sources close to Shetty, four years ago the contract expired
but the Coke guys didn’t stop using his face to endorse their products on billboards and
hoardings despite his repeated requests to stop doing it. In these four years Shetty’s grouse
is he has not been paid any royalty by Coke nor has his contract been renewed.

Amount: As it has already been mentioned that money is one of the prime reasons that a
celebrity agrees to do endorsements. It is better to clearly lay down the amount that has to
be paid and it should be duly paid to the celebrity to avoid any dispute. Last year was
involved in a major case where her parents were accused of using the underworld to get
the dues (2 crores) that she was supposed to receive from Prafful Sarees for the ads she did
for them.

Other Contents: The rest of the content of the contract can be as subjective depending on
the company, celebrity and the product. One such special clause in the contract can be
regarding the use of rival’s products. This can be biggest sin that the celebrity can commit.
Britney Spears jeopardized her relationship with Pepsi, after being photographed holding a
near empty bottle of Coke at Sydney Harbour. The pictures were flashed and uproar was
created but the matter was quickly hushed. Pepsi did not take any legal action against
Britney but dropped her like hot potato from ads and did now renew the contract from
which she was earning millions.

A breach of contract can also take place when the stars image is used for purposes other
than mentioned in the contract. Britney Spears and Skechers sued each other for the same.

OOPS! SPEARS SKATES INTO LAWSUIT

The pop princess has filed a $1.5 million federal breach-of-contract lawsuit against
Skechers USA, saying the deal she signed with the footwear manufacturer got off on the
wrong foot when the Los Angeles-based company improperly used her image to promote
its regular line of roller skates instead of her signature collection of skating merchandise.

The suit, claims fraud, trademark infringement and breach of contract after Skechers
allegedly violated its agreement with Spears by failing to hire a middle-man business to
manufacture her Britney Brands Inc. skates in a timely manner and then not publicizing
the products.

The 21-year-old popster is seeking $1 million in compensatory damages for the lost
merchandising sales and an additional $500,000 for Skechers breach of their tour contract,
not to mention attorney’s fees.

For its part, Skechers says it's not going down without a fight. The manufacturer says that
Spears is the one who violated the contract and the company is already drawing up a
countersuit against her. Skechers claims Spears dragged her heels when it came to
approving designs and manufacturers for her line of skating clothing and other
accessories. That in turn meant Skechers couldn't have the Britney line in stores by the fall
season, cheating the company out of millions of dollars in lost sales.

"She torpedoed the agreement," Skechers attorney Daniel Petrocelli tells Bloomberg
News. He claims that Britney Brands was aware that Skechers intended to sue the singer
and raced to the courthouse first in "a publicity stunt."

According to Britney’s lawyers, the shoe company misled customers by using Spears in
ads to drive people to buy Skechers existing designs while Spears had agreed to endorse
skates and accessories being her signature collection and using her name. This diluted
potential profits she would've earned from hawking her own hot wheels. Skechers also
dint pay Britney bonus royalty fees for unrealized sales and broke a separate written
promise to sponsor her 2001-02 concert tour, according to the suit.

Given the huge dollar value attached to well-known personalities the question arises, what
happens when a marketer uses a name or image without the owner's consent? Interesting
legal issues arise. Can Smriti Irani sue a company using her image of ‘Tulsi’ without her
consent? Can Hrithik sue a company because his look alike has been used? Can a celebrity
sue a company because his/her name is attached with the product just because they use the
product?

The answer to these questions is ‘Yes’. A celebrity can sue the company and claim
compensation if someone "cashes in" on their goodwill and implies a connection between
the chim/her and the product without permission. Catherine Zeta Jones sued a cosmetic
company for same.

ZETA-JONES SUES COSMETICS COMPANY

Catherine Zeta-Jones is going after a French cosmetics firm with a vengeance - a $15
million vengeance.

In a lawsuit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the dark-haired beauty and wife of
Michael Douglas claims the Caudalie company committed fraud when it used her name in
online product advertising with claims such as, "The skincare line has made believers out
of beauties like Catherine Zeta-Jones."
Court papers also claim that even the president of the company was quoted as saying
publicly, "Catherine Zeta-Jones was spotted buying the complete range of skincare."

Zeta-Jones is starring in a new movie with George Clooney called "Intolerable Cruelty."
That doesn’t quite describe Zeta-Jones personal reaction to Caudalie’s alleged actions, but
she does accuse the business of engaging in fraud that has done damage to her image.

Zeta-Jones is also going after the Nieman Marcus department store for allegedly joining in
the online exploitation and a Caudalie spa in Las Vegas for allegedly doing the same.

What is more interesting is a situation where the star gets trapped between two rival
products. This usually happens in case of sportsmen who are a part of a national team
which is sponsored by a particular brand but as such are individual endorsers of a rival
_brand. This is where Ambush Marketing concept comes. A similar dilemma was faced
by Sourav Ganguly who is the ambassador for Coke but had appeared in Pepsi
commercials since it was the official sponsor of The World Cup Cricket. In such cases the
companies which pay heaps to the endorser to promote _their product (like Coke) have to
bite their tongue. They cannot do anything about it and though there are obvious
disadvantages of such advertising it’s a part of the game!

Another star who has been trapped in the web of endorsements is Yao Ming. NBA
phenomenon Yao Ming has wowed the world with his lucrative and ubiquitous
endorsements: Visa, Apple, and Gatorade. He foind himself caught in a similar situation
like Sourav Ganguly.

THE BATTLE OVER YAO MING

In a statement to a Chinese news agency, Yao writes, "I have never permitted Coca-Cola
to use my image to promote their products. I require Coca-Cola to withdraw all the
products bearing my image."

But Coke says sorry Yao; it has the right to use him because of its association with the
Chinese national basketball team.

Coke responded with, "The package design has been reviewed and approved by China
Sports Management Group, the official marketing agency of China Basketball Association
and is in full compliance of the contract."
Pepsi plans to one up them with its own Yao assault. In the coming months, it plans to put
him on cans, posters, and TV commercials in China. The company also has the option of
using him here in the States. The whole issue assumes that Yao gave his rights to the
Chinese team, but sources tell that it may not be true. Also, Yao is planning to take action
against Coca-Cola.

A very interesting endorsement battle was fought between Sushmita Sen and Coke. Sen
had been roped to endorse Coke's largest brand Thums Up. Apparently it was thought that
the former Miss Universe has run into contractual problems with the soft drinks major,
with her lawyers sending a legal notice to Coke. But eventually the truth appeared in white
light.

Coca Cola India was said to have terminated their endorsement contract with Sushmita
citing lack of professionalism on Sushmita's part. But she claimed that the termination had
nothing to do with her professionalism. She alleged that Coca Cola was terminating the
contract because she had rejected sexual overtures of a senior Coca Cola official. She
immediately filed a sexual harassment case against the company. According to recent
reports, Coca Cola has paid Sushmita Sen a sum of Rs. 1.45 crore to buy her silence in the
case. But Coca Cola denied the charges.
COKE PAYS SUSHMITA RS 1.45 CR, SETTLES DISPUTE
Coca-Cola India said on Tuesday its _ HYPERLINK
"http://www.rediff.com/money/2003/jul/01coke.htm" \t "new" _dispute_ with brand
ambassador Sushmita Sen was only with regard to 'celebrity engagement' contract and not
on any sexual harassment issue and that both parties had reached a mutually agreed
settlement.
Certain media reports had alleged that the settlement was for an alleged sexual harassment
case against a senior Coca-Cola executive.
"This was the dispute between the company (Coke) and its brand ambassador with respect
to celebrity engagement. Lawyers from both sides were working on it. This was settled for
a mutually agreed consideration," Coca-Cola India vice president Sunil Gupta said.
Declining to confirm the Rs 1.45 crore (Rs 14.5 million) amount Coke has reportedly
paid to Sen, Gupta cited the confidentiality clause and chose to remain silent.
Asked again for what purpose or dispute the settlement had been made, Gupta said:
"Contrary to media reports this consideration relates only to terms of celebrity engagement
contract. (It has) absolutely no relation to so-called allegation of harassment."
Gupta said Sushmita Sen had been signed as a brand ambassador for Thums Up in
February 2001 and her contract was valid till January 31 next year.

There are certain precautions that companies take while dealing with endorsements.
Companies, to avoid winding up in court, should never use the celebrity's likeness or
image without the express consent of its legal owner. It is also the duty of the celebrity to
follow the contract. Besides that the celebrity should ensure that the product he/she is
endorsing is actually what they say it is. In countries like USA a customer can sue the
celebrity if they think that the celebrity has misled them in anyway. So it’s very important
to get the support of the public as it can affect the outcome of a legal dispute.

Contract is a very important aspect of celebrity endorsements. It is important that the two
parties agree with the content of the contract and no gaps and loop holes are allowed.
Recently Beyonce Knowles signed a 2.6 million pounds contract with L’Oreal. The
contract says that if Beyonce puts on weight or her appearance changes then the contract
will be cancelled without notice. As binding the contract may sound but such contracts
leave less chance for legal issues to stem.
The Government's decision of levying an 8 per cent service tax on celebrity brand
ambassadors caused ripples in the corporate and ad worlds. At stake is endorsement fee
that ranges between Rs 5 crore and Rs 10 crore per celebrity per contract. This had lead to
the dilemma of who will pay the tax!

Usually the contracts are made in such a way that they either exclude the aspect of tax
because they pay for it or mention in the contract that the tax burden will be borne by
them. On the other hand, some companies such as Dabur India generally frame their
contracts inclusive of the tax agreement. In other words, the tax liabilities are generally
borne by the celebrity.

It is better to convey to the celebrity what is expected out of the celebrity as per the
contract and what will be the consequences if the contract is breached by either party.
Laws are meant to be broken…but only if one want the fate of Britney or Coke!

RELIGIOUS
Taking a trip towards the source of the Ganges, near the town of Rishikesh, one can see
boulders near the riverside. From a distance, they appear to be painted with venerable
religious inscriptions. Holy men dressed in orange robes gaze at the water and ponder
about what their next incarnation will be. It is a peaceful, unworldly spot. Is it? Closer
inspection reveals the boulders are painted with a well-known corporate logo. The words
"Coca-Cola" loom into view. In case one missed them in English, they are also written in
florid Hindi.
The fact that Coca-Cola has taken to advertising on boulders alongside India's holiest river
is a symbol, its critics say, of its increasing anxiety. Here the ‘It’ doesn’t refer to only
Coca-Cola! Today the market has become a cluttered place and companies are making all
the efforts required to make people aware about their brand. No one wants to miss any
chance…so why spare the religious destinations? It has been seen time and again that
events such as Kumbh Melas have always been a target in the world of marketing. From
Lifebuoy to Tiger Busicuits, all have tried to hog the lime light of the God’s.
India has always been a sensitive country when it comes to religious issues. Riots seem to
break out at the drop of a hat. Which God’s home is it or how can a Hindu and a Muslim
get married, religious matters have always fenced issues leaving no chance for entry of
rights of a person a human or exit as a child of god and not a Hindu or a Muslim. No doubt
the marriages between companies and stars have also become a religious matter.
Corporate battles have always been in the news. Alongside religious issues have also,
always been the first page news. But who would have thought that both of them together
would fuse to generate the biggest reaction ever!? Coke and Pepsi have always been rivals.
From celebrity snatching to poking fun of the rival’s endorser they have done it all. The
last thing that these cola giants want to do is wish for their advertising strategies to work
against them and be a cause of a religious uproar. The news article gives the most bizarre
and world's most entertaining corporate battles

LET THEM DRINK COKE!

The rocks are just a small salvo in what is shaping up to be one of the world's most
entertaining corporate battles. Over in Bollywood, far away from the serene Ganges, the
war between Coca-Cola and Pepsi in India has taken a sharply comic twist. Two months
ago, Coca-Cola hired Bollywood's latest sensation, the rippling Hrithik Roshan, to front a
new advertising campaign.\

Pepsi was quick to respond. It released its own ad, starring Shah Rukh Khan, India's
answer to Tom Cruise, poking fun at the muscle-bound Roshan. In the Pepsi commercial a
Roshan lookalike wearing ugly braces on his teeth makes a brief appearance, only to be
rejected by a pretty girl who kisses Khan instead. This, in itself, is something of a risque
departure for Indian advertising.

This merry opera bouffe then took a more sinister turn. On June 22, the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh

(RSS) - a powerful Hindu nationalist militia with close links to India's rightwing
government - launched an attack on Khan and his equally famous actor brothers, Aamir,
Salman and Saif.

It claimed the Khans were part of a Muslim/mafia conspiracy to keep Hindu actors out of
Bollywood, adding that the Pepsi ad poking fun at Roshan was an "ugly attempt" to
discredit the Hindu actor. The RSS then suggested that cola in India was being drunk
along communal lines: with Muslims choosing Pepsi and Hindus Coca-Cola. Both firms
dismissed the RSS intervention as ludicrous.

So what did the companies have to say about this? Each of them thought it was better to
maintain a dignified silence rather than adding fuel to the fire. T he fact is that the uproar
has been created for all the wrong issues. One would expect the religious groups to object
the use of a scared place as a battle ground for marketing strategies. As servants of God
one would expect the “Guru’s” and “Sadhus” to object the tarnishing of holiness of these
places, as if pollution of the holy water of Ganga was not enough!

Neither the companies nor the celebrities would have in their wildest dreams thought that
the ‘fun’ they were having would work against them. When the star in question, Hrithik
Roshan himself is taking the ad in good spirit it is beyond ones understanding why
religious groups would create an unwanted chaos. Back at the Ganges, Coca-Cola is busy
scrubbing off its advertising from the rocks; the work, the company says, of a renegade
local distributor. Soon the boulders will look like they did at the beginning of time, before
advertising and cola were invented.
SOCIAL
When icons talk, all sit up and listen. A few key words may fly by when one listens, star
struck, to a Richard Gere or an Amitabh Bachchan. Stars have that effect on people. But
do people really need someone to tell them that AIDS kills? Apparently yes, not to
“know” but to “register”. That’s Celebrity power.

There are many celebrities around the world who have lent their voice without the effort of
asking the public to lend them their ears. Hollywood stars to Bollywood actors everyone
has made efforts to endorse their voice for social cause rather than endorsing only
consumer goods. If one sits to list down the celebrities who work for various social
groups, the list will be an infinite one. It doesn’t make sense to count how many have used
their true rights as humans, but logically, it is more sensible to see the difference that these
celebrities make and how effective are they.

Anuradha Sawhney, chief functionary Peta (India) says, “It’s very simple, when a
celebrity talks or sets an example, people respond. Just last year a campaign had
international super model Marcus Schenkenberg freeing a bird with the tagline- Let bird’s
fly free. A cage is a prison”. We got many letters and emails from all over India, asking
how they could help and asking for advice on what they could do to stop the local trade in
birds.” The Eye Bank Association of India has tasted success with endorsements from
Aishwarya Rai, Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan. It is due to the efforts of these celebrities
that such organisations get enquiries, which even turn into donations and help in some or
the other way.

True Heroes
During her long and successful career, Shabana Azmi has been recognized both in India
and abroad for her social activism, particularly on behalf of slum dwellers. Azmi, one of
the best known faces in Indian film, was the first celebrity to appear in a public
information campaign promoting HIV/AIDS awareness at a time when AIDS was still a
taboo subject. Her message that ‘AIDS doesn’t spread by touching’ was heard loud and
clear by everyone.

When it comes to power, Amitabh Bachchan has enough of it. From endorsing a bottle of
oil to requesting people to bring their children to polio booths and the latest being, his
power to free the Indian truckers from the captivity in Iraq, he has the magic. His
contribution to such causes cannot be ignored. UNICEF approached the Big B because of
his enormous popularity, credibility and appeal as a genuine humanitarian. As a UNICEF
ambassador he has spoken on issues critical to the lives of children, such as HIV/AIDS,
polio eradication and the need for all girls to have an opportunity to go to school.

The UNICEF representative in India Maria Calivie added, "Mr. Bachchan’s tremendous
appeal to young people makes him an ideal Goodwill Ambassador. When he speaks,
people from all walks of life, from the youngest to the oldest, listen carefully. Our hope is
to leverage Mr. Bachchan’s powerful connection with the people of India to make a
difference in children’s lives." According to statistics 92 per cent cited the Bachchan ads
which had an influence on their decision get their child immunised. Only 164 polio cases
were reported in India in 2003 the lowest number ever recorded. This was a significant
turnaround from the polio outbreak in 2002 in which 1600 children contracted polio. ”I am
extremely pleased to accept this responsibility. I hope that by adding my voice to the cause
of children, it will make a difference in the lives of boys and girls here at home and across
the region," said an elated Bachchan. But with a personality like that, he need not ‘hope’.
One big event that took place lately in India was ‘A Time for Heroes (India)’. It was
organized to raise funds for AIDS awareness programmes, for which Richard Gere came
down to India. Gere had earlier joined Vinod Khanna and Shabana Azmi to launch an
AIDS awareness campaign in 1998. The Mumbai event replicated ‘A Time for Heroes
(Los Angeles)’ which roped in stars like Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Jennifer Connelly,
Cindy Crawford and Jennifer Love Hewitt. The whole of Bollywood turned up at the
Mumbai carnival.

Mukti an NGO headed by Smita Thackrey holds an annual AIDS show which is the
biggest concert organized in India for the cause of AIDS and brings together top film stars
and celebrities. There are many celebrities who contribute immensely towards aking a
better world without any expectations. Like, Raveena Tandon also lends her voice to Peta.
She was also the ambassador of the voluntary group CRY for 2003. After her stint with
CRY she has two adopted daughters. Sushmita Sen too has an adopted daughter and works
for orphans. Her love for children shows. She did not need the responsibility of a child;
but she chose to shoulder the responsibility. Fashion designer Hemant Trivedi refused to
be a part of a leather fashion event as he was against the idea of using leather. Late Nafisa
Joseph used to call up authorities whenever she used to see animal abuse. The list can go
on and on.

Is It Because They Care?

Now from the Celebrity’s point of view. Those who do it do it because…………?
Because they CARE. Celebrities know that they will get a patient ear and might be able to
make people see what they want them to. It is also about speaking up for those who
cannot. That probably explains the popularity of children’s and animals’ causes. Then
again comes the issue of do they really care? Do they have to time to care? Do they mean
it?

Most of the people don’t believe that a celebrity does all this for a selfless reason. One
can’t blame them for not believing the stars. It sounds far fetched that they will give a hoot
for anything that does not get them publicity. There haven been times when celebrities
who claim ‘I don’t wear leather and I am vegetarian’ are draped in leather nibbling non-
vegetarian stuff at parties, and when questioned they mumble about needing proteins. The
latest being Cindy Crawford. The American supermodel, famously posed alongside Naomi
Campbell, Kate Moss, Elle Macpherson, Claudia Schiffer and Christy Turlington for the
1995 ‘I'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur’ campaign. The campaign had been hugely
successful. It has been featured in nearly every major newspaper, including The Wall
Street Journal, and The Washington Post. And major magazines and television shows were
inspired by the campaign to do stories about the anti-fur movement. But the article below
has something different to say.

CINDY’S BIG BLOW TO PETA

Supermodel Cindy Crawford has dealt a blow to the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) movement by becoming the spokesperson for fur giant Blackglama.

Ten years ago, the model posed for PETA's "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign,
but she has followed in Naomi Campbell's footsteps by wearing fur again.
Edward Brennan, CEO of American Legend, the marketing cooperative behind
Blackglama, told Women's Wear Daily that Crawford modeled five coats for their recent
campaign.

By fronting the Blackglama campaign, Crawford is following in the illustrious footsteps of

Rita Hayworth, Bette Davis, Lauren Bacall and Marlene Dietrich.

And what does the star have to say about it? Crawford claims (via her publicist) that she
never agreed with PETA's credo. Crawford had only been "really nice" to PETA and never
consented to being a PETA, anti-fur role-model or spokesperson. Crawford had simply
posed for a photographer who was an animal activist and that the PeTA logo has been
added through Photoshop. So what kind of message would her fans and people who
believe in stars would get by this? This is a visible case, but what about those cases where
stars specifically do things, which they say they don’t, behind closed doors.

Everyone knows what a popular name can do. But the treatment that such issues get all
depends on the celebrity and the media. It’s a vicious cycle. If there is no media attention,
celebrities do not touch the cause; again if a celebrity is not attached to the cause, the
media pays no heed. One cause gets all the funds and support just because it provides the
right photo-options, where as another equally commendable cause goes unnoticed because
it cannot attract glamour.

But not everybody thinks it is a sham, though. Most people do not go back and forget the
pledges they make in public. It is the cause that chooses the person, not the other way
around. One has to feel it deep in their heart to be able to commit to a cause. Have feelings
strong enough to get up and do some thing. The names mentioned and not mentioned
above cant all be hoax. There has to be some integrity for which celebrities do what they
are doing for the world. The only expectation that someone has from these celebrities is
that they would never compromise their integrity to endorse in such an industry if they did
not feel for the cause in some way and when they do it they do it for free.

The argument can go on. One can’t make judgment calls here and demean anybody. Why
point fingers at celebrities. What is it that a common man is doing? If not, why not? After
all the whole point of having a celebrity to do something is to make others get up and do
their bit. They are just catalysts. The true power is in “everyone”.

ETHICAL ISSUES

Shah Rukh Khan says he won't do a movie (like Baazigar, Darr) which could influence his
tender kids to do something wrong. He means to say till his kids were born there were no
‘tender kids’ in the world? So when a celebrity says “I’m just endorsing a harmless cola
drink’ it is minus the fact that the only benefit the consumer is going to get from the cola
is paying Rs 5 instead of Rs 10. Everyone wants to endorse a cola drink because the
prestige accorded to one who's picked to endorse big-time colas, has become synonymous
with success, but don’t these celebrities realize what this sugar water can do. So while the
celebrity fills his pocket the customer lightens his own, just because their new best friend,
the celebrity has told them ‘You should try it, because even I did’.
Celebrities who want to make it big make naïve decisions in their early career years. For
instance, action hero Akshay Kumar who is a fitness freak recently said how he actively
believed in spreading a no-smoking message. But an old cigarette ad that the actor did
when he was young stands like a dark shadow against the message. Probably he did the
campaign because he needed the money and he had no clue that one day he'd be a role
model to millions of impressionable young minds. But what about grownup, mature, well-
heeled celebrities who are aware of their responsibilities, who acknowledge that a word
from them can change lives?

Mr Shatrughan Sinha, our ex-health minister was the brand ambassador for Bagpiper
Whisky for a long number of years in the past! What a brilliant endorsement to use for
Bagpiper!! The Honorable Health Minister himself endorsing the dark fluid! Introduced as
a cigarette for women, Ms created a ruckus in the India when it was launched in 1990.
Women's organizations and civic groups strongly protested against it. The ads campaigns
were quietly withdrawn though reports say that the cigarette was being sold in India till
1998. The famous actress Deepti Naval was a part of the controversy.

When it comes to enacting a role it's difficult to draw a line and say where dramatics and
flexibility end and where an actor's social responsibility begins. But surely if badminton
champ Gopichand could say, 'No, thank you' to a lucrative cola deal because he didn't
want to influence kids to drink what he himself doesn't guzzle, Sachin Tendulkar who has
a much fatter bank balance could also be a more conscientious icon! If Gopichand’s
conscience didn't permit him to sell what he considered unsuitable for kids, surely a whole
lot of other celebrities could also think before giving preference to big bucks over what's
ethical as role model icons?

AAMIR KHAN’S ASSOCIATION WITH COKE

“Thanda ya Garam?”

Aamir Khan, one of the finest actors in the industry today, has created a buzz in the
country. The extra fizz that he has added to Coca Cola has left a tinkling effect on his fans.
Aamir’s association with Coke has been of a long one now. He has managed to push Coke
a number of steps up the ladder to help it capture the Indian market and fight against its
competitor - Pepsi.

The Coke and Pepsi war has become one of the biggest battles in the corporate world.
Aamir, who used to first endorse Pepsi shifted his loyalty to Coke, evidently because of
the extra ‘rupiya’ he was given. Aamir has done that for Coke, which no other star could
do. His latest ads have been a charmer and have lured people towards Coke. So what is so
special about Aamir? Is the association between the two giants (Aamir may be small in
height but the gigantism achieved in other fields cannot be ignored!) here to last?

It’s high time that some one finds out answers to the above questions. In the whole
festivity of the success of the marriage between the two, the consequences cannot be
ignored. Aamir became the endorser for Coke in 2000. Until now the journey has been a
smooth one. From his first few ads, one with Jyotika, where he manages to impress the
girl with the help of coke to his “kya aaj somvar hai”, in 2001 all his ads have been loved.
And then came the “thanda” ads after the success of Lagaan. So what’s actually working?
The idea of the ads or the fact that Aamir is in those ads?

One cannot deny that the Coke ads and Aamir have added new dimensions to the
advertising world. This is one of the rare cases where a personality has got so closely
associated with a brand. Today Aamir reminds of Coke and Coke reminds of Aamir. What
more could a brand ask for? Aamir has proved to be a true brand ambassador of Coke. He
has been used so well in promoting the brand that the fact that he did a few commercials
for Pepsi is forgotten.

Cool Ads…The Ingredients

Since Aamir Khan swaggered into a rundown restaurant and demanded ‘thanda’, things
have really looked up for Coke. But there is more to the story. Prasoon Joshi, national
creative director, McCann-Erickson India, Coke and Aamir were working upon ideas for a
new Coke ad. That’s when Aamir suggested that they create something along the lines of
the tapori Munna, of Rangeela fame. Now once the ‘tapori’ idea started taking the shape of
a script, the tapori dialect became critical, as the essence of the character lay in the way he
talked. While writing the script and the dialogues, the agency chanced upon the
possibilities hidden in the word ‘thanda’, which had crept into the dialogue.

‘Thanda’ is a very north India-centric phenomenon. “Go to any restaurant in the north, and
attendants would promptly ask, ‘thanda ya garam?’ Go to meet someone and they will ask
“Aap kya lenge, kuch thanda-garam”, whatever the expression may be, ‘Thanda’ usually
means a cold drink (including nimbu paani or lassi) ‘garam’ is essentially tea. What was
intended is to equate Coke with thanda, thus making ‘thanda’ generic for Coca-Cola.”

The ads had a very logical sequence. The first ad (Tapori) stressed the thanda-Coke
connection pretty strongly. Aamir and the dimwit restaurant waiter, literally drummed-in
‘Thanda matlab Coca-Cola’ in an A-for-apple manner, leaving little room for doubt. The
second ad (‘Hyderabadi’) was different from the first in the way it pitched ‘thanda’ and
Coke. While in the first ad ‘thanda’ was equated with Coca-Cola, the second equated Coke
with ‘generic thanda’ (girl asks for Coca-Cola, but Aamir tells her to simply ask for
‘thanda’). It is difficult to spot the subtle difference but it is present. Also, with the second
ad, the campaign shed some of its tutorial ‘Thanda matlab Coca-Cola’ stance, with only
one verbal reference (from Aamir) to the phrase.

In the third ad even that was dropped. It is just almost whispered at the end of the ad. The
ad very smartly showed the similar liking of the urban and the rural consumer-Coke.
Three young girls stranded under the blazing sun somewhere in rural Punjab, looking for a
thirst-quencher. They stumble upon this smooth-talking farmer and ask him for ‘thanda
paani’. But Aamir, playing the role of a farmer yanks out a pail of Coke bottles and leaves
the girls amused. The latest Nepali ad and the Bengali ad are equally well executed and
have left viewers waiting eagerly for the next in the series.

Why are these ads so good? These ads are winners simply because of the way the idea has
been taken forward in every department. The situation, the narrative, the execution, and
the performances… everything about these ads are so natural. So what role does Aamir
play in these ads?

Hot Aamir…The needed ‘Tadka’

So what is it about him that stands out? Aamir has always been a professional. With the
kind of versatility and personality he portrays he cannot go unnoticed. Aamir Khan stands
out in any venture he takes up. And the fact that he is choosy about whatever work he does
has always worked in favour of people being associated with him. His fans, consumers,
the masses trust him to do the right things and do things right. Aamir has his own
personality whether as a bhaiya or an ordinary person. If anybody sees a new Coke's
Aamir ad, they will definitely say, "WOW, Aamir's new Coke ad". How can the equation
between 5 crore worth Aamir and Rs 5 Coke be explained!

Aamir has done a fabulous job in these ads. Who could think that a star of his stature
would pass as a ‘Bihari babu’? But Aamir’s superb acting, dialogue delivery and his
flawless portrayal of the different characters he plays hit hard. The reason being, Aamir
though a super star, has not been used in the ads as Aamir. He has played a common man,
whose very real, he shows the same attitude that a local dude would show and he has the
same dilemmas which seem very real. Getting Aamir to behave like a typical endorser
would have done injustice to his importance of being a representative of the masses, and it
would have robbed the ‘Thanda matlab…’ campaign of its down-to-earth feel. Unlike
most of the endorsers who are used for their face value and the star image they posses,
Aamir has been used and has showed all this and definitely much more. He has captured
the audiences not just because of the ‘star’ he is but because of the perfectionist he is and
his capabilities to reach the audience as a person.

Sample This:
It is hard to imagine any other star do what is shown in the ads and get the same reactions.
It is difficult to imagine some other star saying “Paaaaaaaanch” with the same perfection
as Aamir did. A star like Shah Rukh could pro bably carry these ads off but it is hard to
say if they would have the same impact. This implies that the after effects of Aamir’s
performance are so influential that imagining any other face in these ads is not even
thought of.

Aamir played a very important role in helping Coke regain its lost image. Saying Coke is
safe is one thing. Getting the star endorser to say Coke is safe is also a most natural thing
to do. The same Aamir who, over the past few years, has so thoroughly convinced the
consumer of what real thanda is and is seen doubting the drink and then discarding those
doubts, enforces his credibility when he says he trust Coke’s.

Aamir – The ruling king?

So is Coke becoming too dependant on Aamir to sell their product? If that were the case
Vivek and Aishwarya wouldn’t be doing ads for Coke! Is ‘dependent’ the word? Isn’t it
the idea that’s supreme in all these ads? The only thing that Coke is doing is cashing in on
the popularity and consistency of Aamir. The theme of the ads is more attractive. Aamir
adds the special touch to them and there is nothing wrong in that. So the dependancy on
Aamir does not come into question.

Parsoon Joshi himself said “They could have been used even without Aamir as the
concepts were so powerful.’’. The brand Coke is the king and the way the creative ideas
have been given shape is even more powerful. Though it can never be doubted that both
Aamir and Coke have equity of their own and they compliment each other and not
dominate. It is evident that the actual applauses were received by the brand only after the
thanda matlab commercials. If it is alone Aamir who has leveraged the brand then how is
it that until recently the brand was not that popular, though Aamir has done enough ads
before?

In a nutshell, Coke is dependant on powerful ideas and contexts and these could change
overnight. Endorsers, more often than not, are dispensable. The ideas coupled with some
brilliant acting have made the difference. Though, like stated before, it is difficult to
imagine some other star in place of Aamir Khan but probably a Shah Rukh would have
done a great job too provided he was the endorser and then the question would probably
be is the brand too dependant on Shah Rukh?

As of now, Coke is not lost in its galaxy of star but it should be careful. It dosent take time
for a star to shift loyalties. There is no doubt and never will be under the current context,
that it is the ideas which are top of the mind, despite the fact that Coke is using current
rage stars like Vivek Oberoi and Aishwarya too. Interestingly when compared with the
Aamir’s ad, the ads made with Vivek and Aishwarya have not received great acceptance.
Their ads have been targeted to the young ‘Yo’ generation audience but these ads don’t
pass as real, though some of Aamir’s ads are also far fetched (like pulling bucket of Coke
bottles from the weel) but the ideas do the trick.
Coke and Aamir, both depend on each other and will till the power of creative ideas fuels
this relationship. If a different strategic need were to emerge, a different idea and a
different star could drive that forward.

Without a star…

The ads working without an Aamir as the celebrity seem impossible but how about the
idea of ads not having a star at all? The concepts of the ads are so strong that probably a
non-celebrity or an unknown celebrity could have again carried it off….but the impact of
seeing a heart throb play such characters is definitely an absolute winner.

Coke as a brand, even after many years of being in the market could not show its impact.
Initially Coke did not use any celebrities. But eventually the power of celebrity
endorsements was realised. Probably some of the old ads of Coke could work as well
without a celebrity. Like the rain ad with Jyotika and Aamir, a couple of Aishwarya’s ads
but when it comes to the latest Aamir ads it can be said firmly that without a celebrity,
though the ideas were good, the impact wouldn’t be the same.

Consumers, as mentioned time and again, are looking for opportunities to be associated
with their stars. And using a product that their favourite star uses seems to be the easiest
way. For a product like a cold drink, which is a product for masses, a star would be an idle
choice. The recent ads of Coke showed Aamir minus his star image, hence bringing him
closer to the masses, which were more powerful in influencing the consumers rather than
an unknown face. It helps to get responses which only God would get if he were to come
down to earth as a human!

Thanks to the great ideas that the creative minds come up with and thanks to Coke who
have very crisply shown Aamir for what he is and can be. Life would be a lot less pleasant
and the hero worshippers so much sadder without an Aamir lustily singing “Thanda peene
de bahane aayi!!”

Executive Summary
So finally its time to answer the simple yet important question, “Is celebrity endorsement
worth the investment?” And the obvious yet logical answer is YES.

Today the advertising world has gained a strong identity of itself. Advertisements have
come to be heroes in themselves. A celebrity’s visibility today hinges not so much on the
number of films he has recently acted in, as on the number of advertisements he has
starred in, and the frequency of exploitation of his star value. People talk about the new
ads as if they are new mega hits from Karan Johar or Subhash Ghai, and even watch it
with the same curiosity.

Adman Piyush Pandey says “Celebrities can add value to an idea provided you have one”.
The visible and not so visible demerits of celebrity endorsements are all up to how the
endorsement is handled. Sometimes, a good brand uses a celebrity ineffectively, and there
are times when a smaller brand does extremely well with good use of a celebrity endorser.
It is not fair to blame the celebrities for the failure of endorsement deals. It all boils down
to the strength of the idea which constitutes the ad and how well has the celebrity been
used to add spice to those ideas.

Whatever the reasons, the reality is that celebrities can - and do - play a role in building
brands. A good celebrity coupled with a great idea can never go wrong. Making the right
choices in terms of personality, values, associated emotions and code of conduct is critical.
The wrong choice could be lethal.
Star endorsement deals are big in every way. They are big on expenses and can have big
implications on the brand’s fortunes. Celebrities have an enormous potential to shape the
destinies of the brands they endorse, albeit sometimes negatively. Therefore, marketers
who use celebrities must do so carefully, thinking through the concept of such
endorsements carefully before adapting it into the message strategy.
Advertisers agree that you must consider a celebrity endorsement if, and only if, the
message strategy warrants it, not as a cover for a poor idea or bad product quality. And
last but not the least, one should seriously consider the risks of associating with a well-
known personality, and get around against a future scandal by not relying on just one
celebrity and instead linking the brand’s association with a broad theme represented by
several celebrities.
And if you can’t afford many celebrities, then get your thinking caps on, and come up with
a better, safer idea. That will ensure that you’re in control of the brand’s destiny - not the
stars!

In India today, the use of celebrity advertising for companies has become a trend and
a perceived winning formula of corporate image-building and product marketing

Associating a brand with a top-notch celebrity can do more than perk up brand
recall. It can create linkages with the star’s appeal, thereby adding refreshing and
new dimensions to the brand image. .

REFERENCES

ARTICLE WRITER SOURCE Spot world's dawn of the living dead _ HYPERLINK
"http://www.findarticles.com/p/search?tb=art&qt=%22Kathy+DeSalvo%22" _Kathy
DeSalvo_ _ HYPERLINK "http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DUO" _Shoot_ -
_ HYPERLINK "http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DUO/is_n16_v39" _April
1998_ Constituents of Brand Personality Nita Mukherjee Sunday Times of India –
February 1999 A star-studded marketing campaign Kimiko L. Martinez
Entrepreneur's Start-Ups magazine - May 2001
Is celebrity advertising effective? Madhukar Sabnavis Business Standard – Decemebr
2003 What the stars stand for. S. Madangarli USP Age – Decemebr 2003 Celebrity and
the Name Economy Brian Moeran Case Folio – January 2004
The Celebrity Endorsement Reckoner

Naval K Bhargava
Case Folio – January 2004 Celebrity Endorsements Shrisha Reghani Case Folio –
January 2004 The mad world of celebrity endorsements - Free Press Journal -
February 2004 Celebrity Political Endorsements Neelika Arora
Advertising Express – May 2004
Celebrity endorsements are a thing of the past and present
Steve Ketcham - Do Celebrities Create Brands?
Ramesh J. Thomas -
Companies Ditch Celebrity Endorsements
Apryl Duncan, - When celebrities sell
Achal R. Prabhala - Celebrity Endorsement K. C. Li -
Celebrity Endorsements: Advertising Managers Perspective B Zafer Erdogan and
Michael J Baker -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books:

Marketing Management – 11 Edition : By Philip Kotler (Page No. 431, 596)

Newspapers:

Times of India
Mid-day
Business Standard

Websites:

_ HYPERLINK "http://www.agencyfaqs.com" __www.agencyfaqs.com_

_ HYPERLINK "http://www.magindia.com" __www.magindia.com_
_ HYPERLINK "http://www.hinduonnet.com" __www.hinduonnet.com_
_ HYPERLINK "http://www.google.com" __www.google.com_
_ HYPERLINK "http://www.indiatimes.com" __www.indiatimes.com_
_ HYPERLINK "http://www.yahoo.com" __www.yahoo.com_