A non-belief in celebrity endorsement

By Paul Flower on Apr 30, 09 02:52 PM

Regular readers, if there are any, will know that I have an interest in advertising. Without it I wouldn't be here as the website and newspaper would probably be economically unviable. I also make part of my living from advertising, rather than writing blogs that no-one reads.

Good advertising is great, a joy to behold. Bad advertising is an irritant, an intrusion, an unnecessary interruption to your viewing or reading. This week's essay is essentially about a sector of advertising that I've always reckoned runs too great a risk of backfiring - the endorsement ads.

You'll know them as any ad featuring a celebrity pushing a product. It's obvious why they're used - as the advertiser intends to instantly piggy-back upon your pre-held opinions of the star. The advertiser is buying the association, the glory and hopefully the transference of your feelings for the celeb to the product.

It's dodgy ground - particularly the beauty ads where you know that the star's glamour may have more to do with very expensive cosmetic surgery, hair extensions or even great genes rather than a ÃÂ£3 shampoo bought at Aldi.

There are other risks, particularly to the 'star' for taking the corporate dollar. I have already written about Iggy's Swiftcover foray here, so whilst I'm delighted that he's able to earn good money because he's a hero of mine I was a little perplexed at why he was chosen.

One of the ad executions spectacularly backfired because Swiftcover didn't swiftly cover musicians, in their favour they swiftly addressed that issue and with it gave an explanation of why Iggy was in the ads. It's apparently because he'd be recognised as having a fast-living-lifestyle.

I retain my concern as the small number of those who'd recognise him would be more likely to be appalled at him doing the ads than want to buy insurance as a result of it. The vast majority wouldn't have a clue who he was and therefore the point would be lost.

My greater concern of late is that endorsement or celeb appearances can have an effect opposite to that intended. For example keeping Kerry Katona in their ads might've seemed a noble move by Iceland given her documented troubles, but it possibly didn't do much for those of us who can't stand the sight of her. Personally I'd rather shop naked in Tesco than frequent a shop where the taint of her association would hang from you like the smell of de-frosted prawns.

Football sponsorship has similar issues for those of us who can't stand certain teams and would go out of our way to avoid manufacturers who might've given money to those sides. I still have friends who'll never buy Goodyear tyres.

I recently experienced the ridiculous effect of being worried about a product because of the endorsement associated with it. I was interested to read RJ Ellroy's book 'A Quiet Belief In Angels'. The reviews were good but there was a nagging doubt in my mind, and it'd been put there by Richard & Judy. I don't dislike R&J but I had the feeling that the books they were likely to recommend would not be the ones I'd want to read.

I, wrongly as it transpires, assumed that they'd be recommending books to fit their mass audience of large-ly female viewers. Things like historical romances and chick-lit fantasies or even the quickly spewed-out airport novels from the production line of James Patterson, et al. Whilst I admire their ability to turn out a novel, something I yearn to do, it doesn't mean I want to read them.

So R&J's endorsement almost prevented me reading the best book I've read this year (there have been 12 others, so it's not a small field) and one of the best I've read in many years. Put simply 'A Quiet Belief In Angels' is mesmerising in its use of language, a work of great prose and a joy to read.

I'm shamed that an endorsement kept me away from it for so long, but perhaps it guides me to the obvious clichÃÂ© - you can't judge a book by its......readers.

Here every week
Randomly here and there