Feature Article
February 13, 2006
http://brandchannel.com/start1.asp?fa_id=301

Brands Get Celebrity Exposure

A recent tidbit in the New York Daily News claimed that Starbucks laid out seven figures to actors Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner to nonchalantly promote its brand. Denied by both actors, Starbucks reps said the product placement was organic. Still, you couldn't help but notice that nearly every tabloid image showed the two clutching white to-go coffee cups with the telltale gree emblem.
 

Celebrity product placement is the oldest trick in the book. It’s a marriage made in heaven; marketers get their brand on the map and celebrities make a ton of additional income as living, breathing billboards. The celebrity may complain about the invasive nature of the tabloids, but more and more are playing the game, cashing in on those “opportune” moments when a photo is snapped, trends are launched, and brand owners see sales soar (while celebs see their Q quotient spike).

“We now live in a world of overabundant sensory input, and I am of the opinion that the paparazzi and the tabloids are now part of the zeitgeist,” says Gerrie Lim, author of Idol to Icon: The creation of celebrity brands. “Certain celebrities are more than happy to co-exist with certain brands and certain publications, and the trade-off is an obvious one—it helps enhance their visibility in the already overcrowded celebrity marketplace.”

If the Afflecks aren’t getting compensated for their coffee jones, it turns out they are in the minority. “We call it ‘gratis’ product placement,” explains Leo Kivijarv, vice president and head of research of PQ Media, a research and consulting firm serving the media and entertainment industries. “And it’s a rare thing these days, because the value of celebrity is now recognized by brands, deals are being done and everyone is out to get paid.”

According to reports conducted by PQ Media, 24 percent of all product placement deals were gratis back in 1975. These numbers have slipped to six percent in 1999 and are now down to a mere 3.4 percent in 2005—a rapid decline that proves Kivijarv’s point.

So it seems the oft-dysfunctional relationship between celebrities and the tabloids has in one aspect become a highly functional and highly profitable business arena for all parties involved.

“Celebrities offer the viewer or consumer an immediate shortcut to a branding message, with a visual immediacy [that] generates the kind of mass-market impact that marketers, publicists, and branding consultants usually dream of and drool over,” relates Lim.

Where the demand for celebrity endorsement is aggressively on the rise, the rare organic success story still exists. The Australian footwear and accessories brand UGG is a perfect example. A few tabloid shots of actresses like Kate Hudson and Cameron Diaz parading around in their UGG boots were instrumental in breaking the brand in the US market a few years ago; sales haven’t let up since.

“UGG is a great example of the power of how [gratis product placement] can work,” says Gary Mezzatesta, president and CEO of UPP Entertainment Marketing, which counts UGG as a long-term client. “It was an organic swelling of celebrities embracing the product, wearing it in public, and, because they are photographed often, it was a promotion that just happened as opposed to a paid situation. [UGG] might not have gotten where they are today without all that exposure in the lifestyle media, and they are still very successful—the short-term benefit has reaped long-term rewards.”

As this kind of bonanza is a rare occurrence, shelling out for celebrity favor and tabloid exposure can be worth it for brands, but measuring return on investment can be a challenge. “It’s hard to isolate the impact; however, the best way is the top line—sales,” Mezzatesta states. “The only way we can truly measure results is by estimating audience reaction by trying to equate exposure with hard, fast audience reach. With UGG, it was very clear that once celebrities embraced the brand and wore them publicly, sales increased dramatically.”

Some marketers are skeptical about the impact that fleeting, informal images featured in tabloids have on brand success. “Tabloid shots are only digested in a fleeting moment,” says Kivijarv. “Which is worth less than controlled media product placement, like if it’s on a show with positive exposure, or a sound bite.”

Whether or not your brand can be elevated through the power of guerilla celebrity endorsement strategies is dependant on a series of valuables: timing, budget, and above all, the right marriage of brand to celebrity. The results are hard to measure, but if the stars align with your brand and the paparazzi captures the moment, it’s a safe bet consumers are sure to follow.

And the Starbucks deal? Although the concept falls right in line with today’s favored product placement practices, Mezzatesta says it’s doubtful there’s any truth to the Affleck/Garner/Starbucks paid affiliation rumor.

“I would be very skeptical that Starbucks paid anyone anything. It’s really inconsistent with the Starbucks brand, and A-list stars like Affleck and Garner are more into building their own brands,” offers Mezzatesta. “The endorsements they choose, if any, have to fall in line with the brands they are themselves. They probably just really like the coffee. Who doesn’t? Besides, Starbucks is such an omnipresent, cool brand that if anyone is paying, it should be the other way around!”

Vivian Manning-Schaffel is a freelance writer who lives and works in Brooklyn, NY.

Copyright © 2006 brandchannel. All rights reserved.