Respondents were asked whether the presence of a celebrity in an ad makes them more likely or less likely to buy the product, or leaves them neither more nor less likely to do so. Just 8 percent said seeing the celebrity makes them more likely to buy the product, vs. 12 percent saying it makes them less likely. But a landslide 78 percent said it doesn’t affect them one way or the other.
— Read more at Most Claim to Be Unswayed by Celebrities in Ads at Adweek. (found via cosmeticnews)
25 Comments
Read more about commenting at Now Smell This.
That almost restores my faith in humanity.
Yeah, except that most of them are probably lying.
Ooooh Robin – a woman after my own cynical heart!
Or maybe not lying but simply not aware of the affect celebs – and advertising in general – has on them. Ads are both ubiquitous and mostly easy to ignore but I do think they affect our buying decisions whether we’re aware of it or not. Why else would it be such a big business? Or maybe I’m just easily suggestible. Show me a Kit Kat ad and you can be pretty sure I’ll be at the corner store before the day is out!
Well, Sharviss, chocolate is a special consumer category.
LOL! True but it’s not even like Kit Kat is good chocolate
I know, but I love ‘em too.
I can’t help but wonder how many people said “it depends on which celebrity”. I probably would have answered “makes me less likely to buy the perfume” … but my real answer would have been something more along the lines of “it depends upon whether I respect and like the celebrity, and it depends upon the manner in which the fragrance is constructed, and marketed.
For example, I think “Cumming The Fragrance” created by Christopher Brosius for Alan Cumming has a lot of good things going for it – a perfumer I like, an actor I respect (and who amuses me) and a light-hearted approach to marketing. And the juice smells good.
Don’t know, interesting point!
On the other hand, I recently clicked on an article somewhere online about Justin Timberlake shilling for the new Givenchy fragrance Play, and every single comment following the article was along the lines of “OMG, I love him so much, I’ll buy anything he’s selling, OMG, he’s so hottt.”
Personally, I just don’t believe that most celebs actually use the products they’re endorsing, so why should I use them either? I mean c’mon, Sarah Jessica Parker is REALLY doing her hair color herself, out of a box?!
As an aside, I smelled Play the other day and rather liked it. Couldn’t find an SA to make me a sample.
I don’t usually care who is hawking what. If it is a pretty ad, I’ll look at it, if it is obnoxious, I’ll skip it. But it doesn’t sway me to buy or not buy. Usually.
Yep. Also true that the study showed that the greatest effect was on young people, and that’s who most advertisers want to reach anyway.
fan girls were probably the only people who bothered to comment.
they probably didn’t run out to buy Play just because JT was in the ad either.
Whether the 78% is a true stat or not (as Mark Twain said, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!”), if companies believed it, that would be a lot of $$$ saved in celebrity endorsement fees that could be spent on improving the product (in our case, the juice). Although the money would probably just go to pad the bottom line.
LOL –perfect!
I’d almost have to say that the celebrity would influence my purchase…in this manner: if I was disgusted by the celebrity, I wouldn’t go anywhere near the product…so it would influence the sale (no sale) . On the other hand if I liked the celebrity, I might more readily give the frag. a sniff….as for purchasing —liking the celebrity would not increase the likelihood of a sale.
Apparently I’m just a problem consumer!
I think the word is “discerning”.
Yeah, they’d still keep the advertising budget & just do something else stupid with the $.
Even before I looked at the comments, I was thinking “ha – I’ll bet that most of that 78% is lying”. Companies aren’t stupid – if celebrity endorsement didn’t work, they wouldn’t keep shelling out the cash. Let’s face it – if nothing else, a celebrity endorsed fragrance is more likely to at least get tried, which is 90% of the battle in an over-saturated market.
Who do these people think that they’re kidding? Would anybody buy one of the Paris Hilton scents without her name? Granted, in her case, there are probably a large number of people who also avoid the scent like the plague. I’m afraid that I’m in the bunch who are less likely to buy something celeb endorsed – unless, like Proximity, it’s someone that I really like and respect and then I’ll at least try it, but I still won’t buy unless it’s good.
Yep, yep & yep. It works, and it will go on working.
Cyon’s Lollipop phone has its own annoying/catchy song sang by BigBang&2NE1 and if the ad was different I probably wouldn’t pay enough attention to it to know that the phone lights up with cute pictures when someone calls/sends a text message.
If it comes to America I want it… and I’d probably pretend I’m in the ad and sing the Lollipop song with it.
There are a few celebrities that would make me more interested but celebrities in general don’t.
But if someone had a Britney Spears and a Montale perfume put it front of them and were told to chose one, they might chose BritBrit because her name is familiar. People on here know Montale so the situation would be different.
Or, they might choose the Britney because it’s easier to wear than the Montale! Many of them are.
I think using a celebrity on a perfume ad works because it just helps you remember the product, so then the product sells just for being familiar. There are hundreds of very similar products for sale, say…for example crisps (potato chips), so anything that makes you remember a brand, such as in the UK we have footballers advertise Walker’s crisps, helps to sell it.
Celebrity perfumes are a different kettle of fish because perfumes are an aspirational thing and when you buy them, you have to not dislike the celebrity. So if a footballer like Beckham was advertising perfume, I’d run a mile (who wants to have a ridiculous high voice and be married to Victoria?!), but I wouldn’t rule out buying anything else like food etc if he advertised it.
Oops I seriously need an ‘edit’ function: that post was meant to say
I think using a celebrity on a NON-perfume ad works because…
Farah, good point.
Well said, Farah.
I do think perfume is an aspirational purchase for *some* consumers. But for juice junkies like us
it’s all about the juice!