[e-v-elina]

well with celebs, for me it's really a hit or miss. if there is a celeb i like, i'll gladly support the brand (which hardly ever happens btw) but if there's a celeb i don't really care for, like eva longoria, the ad just kinda gets on my nerves. i dont know.

i dont really care for models either, but they are models. so they arent "all in your face", if you get what i mean. when i see eva longoria for loreal or whatever, i just wanna turn and walk away...

[BetteT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueorchid Personally, I always roll my eyes at celebrity endorsements for things like drugstore brands of makeup and hair dye. Just because you know that Sarah Jessica Parker doesn't dye her hair with Garnier or that Halle Berry wears Revlon foundation. With a model those advertisements are somehow easier to believe, not that they use them everyday but that what they are wearing in the ad is just an example of the products.

Hate to break your bubble ... but models don't wear the products in the ads, either. The makeup artist uses her own personal products from her kit ... various professional products that she prefers which are made for professional use. Rarely will an artist use a store brand, especially foundation and eye colors ... the products are just not aturated enough for high def photography.

And even when you see a make artist crediting a brand, such as "Mary Makeupdiva for Mac or for Laura Mercier", etc. ... they may have not used any of those products at all on the shoot. What they are doing is just naming a brand because they have an agreement with the company that they will get free product for doing that.

[blueorchid]

I know that, but that wasn't my point. I said it's "easier" to believe (like they're playing a "role"). Not that I believe it.

Who believes any ad?

[BetteT]

Ok ... I see your point.

But I think that most people do believe ads ... at least subconsciously. Ads would not exist if they didn't work.

Of course, we are talking about ads that may not work as well as previously thought ... celebrity ads.

Maybe society has changed so much that "celebrities" just don't hold the cache they once did. At one time, the studios would carefully orchestrate what the press put out about thier "stars". For example, Rock Hudson and Tab Hunter, who were both known to be gay by insiders and the press, but they were portrayed as macho and very heterosexual ... ladies men. People bought into that fantasy .. that stars were more or different that they really were ... that they were somehow better than the rest of us ... almost dieties.

Now, the press puts all the ugly and/or secret stuff all out there, the paps capture it all on camera. We see and hear about how easily celebrities fall into negative situations and how they seem to sometimes "sell their souls to the devil". So, we no longer idolize someone just because they are a celebrity. And we also know that endorsements are very highly paid so we are automatically sceptical that it means anything.

So ... a lot of celebs have lost their luster and their ability to entrance thier audience ... and the advertisers seem to be discovering that the sky high rates they must pay may be a waste of money.

Maybe we will see a major shift ... time will tell.

[ChrissyM]

i think it's important to note also... that the article in question here was analyzing television ads...
which can often be a different animal.

when they're talking about people like tiger woods and donald trump is it any wonder that the ads this year haven't been working??

seeing donald trump in an ad doesn't make me want to get my a$$ over to macy's...
if anything it provides further incentive to stay out of there

[Urban Stylin]

unfortunately a celeb endorsement is always a cash cow. Using Natasha Poly vs Gwyneth Paltrow to sell a hair care product will most definately have a bigger impact with the celebrity. Models always make an impact on people tht know fashion but celebritis sell it more to the general public.

[Urban Stylin]

it also depends on what celebrities you hire to promote your brand, sports celebrities are very 1990's when Mike Jordan ruled the court, Donald Trump? You gotta be kidding me....its as if these companies never do any research before hiring celebrities. I believe companies like L'Oreal, MiuMiu, Revlon and so many others benefit from casting the right celebrities otherwise if it was a failed formula they wouldn't be casting new models every time

[tigerrouge]

It would be interesting to know the effects of celebrity endorsement in terms of specific sectors.

Generally, I don't think it's necessary to hire a celebrity - some of the most memorable and successful adverts haven't needed to rely any sort of star power for their impact.

But in terms of mid-level mass market beauty products, you probably do get a great result from hiring recognisable names, which is why L'Oreal has a revolving door of famous faces selling its shampoos and lipsticks.

[thedanae]

Front page on tFS today - Forum Buzz: Are Celebrities in Ad Campaigns Bad for Business?

[juliahearts]

fashion is NOT about celebrities, fashion is about FASHION.
bring back the models!!

[KhaoticKharma]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueorchid Personally, I always roll my eyes at celebrity endorsements for things like drugstore brands of makeup and hair dye. Just because you know that Sarah Jessica Parker doesn't dye her hair with Garnier or that Halle Berry wears Revlon foundation. With a model those advertisements are somehow easier to believe, not that they use them everyday but that what they are wearing in the ad is just an example of the products. I guess I hate the "lifestyle" aspect about celebrity ads.

Hmm... I think it really depends on the ads for that one. For me, if anything, celebrities are a better choice for high fashion advertisements. Something tells me Jennifer Lopez and Pharrell Williams are much likelier to be able to lead and afford the Louis Vuitton "lifestyle" then, say, Lindsey Wixon and Garrett Neff. And I don't care if it's Dolce and Gabbana or Home Depot, all advertisements are trying to convey a certain lifestyle, be it one that you can relate to or an unattainable one.

[Eterna]

I read this in vogue and I remembered this thread

Quote:

BEAUTY TWEETS Some people upload personal pictures, other ask for suggestions, and some other people give advice. But are they sincere? 140 characters to tell about themselves to their followers. Celebs know this very well: totally in love with Twitter, they use it as an informal and quick way to communicate a different image from that conveyed by the tabloids. While Ashton Kutcher tends to photograph everything he eats, his wife Demi Moore often asks her followers for suggestions on what outfit to wear before a red carpet appearance. Among the most common uses of Twitter on the part of celebs, there is also the habit of informally reviewing restaurants, designers or products purchased. Just another way of sharing an opinion, of course, with an additional detail: often stars have hundreds of thousands of fans following them and stars are often paid for being the face of a certain product. That’s why an agency was set up, the Ad.Ly, that recruits celebs to advertise a given brand through the social networks. In most cases they are beauty products: makeup, serums and lotions but also supplements. So far, more than 5,000 celebrities have lent their keyboards to different brands. Top of the list, the super-popular Kardashian sisters (Kim has almost six million followers), but there are also other famous names like Lauren Conrad, Ashley Simpson, Mariah Carey, Paris Hilton, Enrique Iglesias. We were put in doubt when reading the almost identical and both enthusiastic tweets that Victoria Beckham and Sarah Jessica Parker dedicated to the Burberry Beauty line and to the creative director of the brand, Christopher Bailey. Not a good moment for beautiful Liz Hurley, who is going through a divorce and is now the target of the British Office of Fair Trading, a sort of antitrust guarantor that watches over the fairness of the market. The British actress, who has signed a contract with, and is the face of, beauty company Estée Lauder, has allegedly overused her Twitter account to mention a little too much the American brand. The OFT, actually is focusing also on other stars that behave in the same way. On the basis that they are seen as true advertising, also in consideration of their global diffusion, the tweets in question should be accompanied by a declaration stating that there is an economic agreement between the brand and the celeb. From now on, then, only sincere tweets. Hoping stars will be left with something to say. Marika Surace

vogue.it

[silk skin paws]

Celebrities usually win especially when the endorsement is done while famous or up and coming actors. I use to believe that using a well known face for a product kind of heightens the hype. Then again some consumers are tired of seeing a celebrity everywhere and could end up turning them off from trying or buying a particular product.