Burberry Finds A Brit: Emma Watson

It seems as though Burberry has made the right choice with Emma Watson. A few months ago, Watson was selected as the new face of the traditional British company and their celebrity choice is more than fitting. The 19-year old Harry Potter star will be modeling trenches, scarves and handbags for Burberry's Fall line. In this ad campaign, Watson will step into the shoes of iconic models, like Kate Moss.

First, Emma's appeal lies in the fact that she's actually British. The ad is authentic because Emma Watson is connected to the traditional roots of the Burberry company. "Having known and admired the lovely Emma Watson for quite some time, she was the obvious choice for this campaign who like the images she fronts, has a classic beauty a great character and a modern edge," Burberry's creative director, Christopher Bailey, said in a press release, adding that Emma gives the ads a "true British attitude." In fact, due to the fact that Burberry has cast Watson, the ad campaign also embraces the classic British setting, shooting near Big Ben and Westminster.

Secondly, Watson is a credible Burberry customer, often seen wearing Burberry clothes or sandals on the red carpet. Due to the fact that Watson possesses a solid reputation as a company consumer, she has earned the trust of other potential buyers. It is evident that although Emma is rather famous actress herself that this was not the primary reason she was selected. She actually wears Burberry. In the official Burberry video, Emma further establishes the notion of tradition and consumer credibility when she states that her grandmother has been wearing the brand since she got married.

Emma has also established herself as a fashion icon, donning Chanel and Alexander McQueen on the red carpet. In fact, she starred in a twenty page fashion feature in Vogue Italy. She has also been seen at New York and Paris fashion shows. If not a fan of Burberry, Emma is indeed a fashion conscious celebrity. Emma has also started her own ethically responsible fashion line called People Tree. The clothes are not only made of organic and fairly traded cotton, but enable economically disadvantaged individuals from Bangladesh, India and Nepal to work. The production of the clothing line helps alleviate poverty in marginalized countries.

Emma Watson's fashion label, People Tree

Lastly, Emma Watson possesses star power in her own right as the leading actress of the famous Harry Potter series. The next film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, which is going to be released next summer, has not only kept Watson in the limelight throughout the years, but permits Burberry to target an adolescent audience.

This celebrity endorsement is successful because it equally harnesses her star power, while leveraging the trustworthiness factor, since she is British and an active consumer of the brand, as well as of high fashion.

Megan Fox, Not Foxy Enough

Megan Fox from a Cosmo Girl photo shoot

The hit star from Transformers, Megan Fox, has recently secured a one-year endorsement deal with Armani. In January 2010, Megan's Armani underwear ads will replace those of Victoria and David Beckham. While Fox seems to be a popular star with a pretty face, we've seen that this is not enough when companies screen for potential endorsers. While Armani seems to be content with the new deal, consumers don't share the same sentiments and this will probably affect company image and sales.

Victoria and David Beckham, Armani underwear ads

Among Internet bloggers, the new endorser seems to be a topic of interest and it seems like this is the case because Fox possesses the wrong image for Armani. Megan Fox, a breakthrough star from the Transformers blockbuster, doesn't seem to have much personal interest in fashion. She has been deemed "trashy" and in turn, will damage Armani's image of style and sophistication. The Examiner article states that this might be harsh judgement speaking, but I think this brings to our attention the importance of properly matching the celebrity to the character and reputation of the company and product. Who would have ever though people would have protested which beautiful girl gets to endorse Armani underwear?

Beyonce and Nintendo

While Nintendo and Beyonce seem to be an unlikely pairing, the celebrity is using her popular "Single Ladies" music video to get into the video game business. Beyonce recently expressed her plans to launch her own video game for Nintendo Wii. "I would love to do some kind of fitness game but incorporate dance and performance into it. I think a lot of women would enjoy that," she stated. While her game would be competing with Jenny McCarthy and Jillian Michaels, Beyonce already has a successful relationship with Nintendo as a spokesperson for DSi Game Rhythm. "And of course, she's Beyonce, a bigger name than all of those celebrities combined." Bingo.

Listening to Bono

I recently wrote about Bono and I just came across his guest Op-Ed in The New York Times. After reading that Bono has backed both conservatives and liberals, I was skeptical about his motives to support so many politicians. However, his opinion piece is very thoughtful and articulate. I recommend that you read it.

Bono is skillful in his delivery. First, he is able to convince any American who has doubted Obama's Nobel Prize that the president is not only deserving, but that his award is indeed the beginning of our ability to promote international growth, stability and peace. By the end of the article, he makes you believe that it's not just Obama that we're talking about, but America's reputation and everything it stands for. It's America and its tried and true legacy as a successful democracy that will allow us to strive towards the eradication of "extreme poverty, extreme ideology and extreme climate change." His article becomes rather uplifting and patriotic, making it hard to disagree with him. He mentions America's good standing in the world and even adds in a little self-deprecation about celebrities:

"That’s why America shouldn’t turn up its national nose at popularity contests. In the same week that Mr. Obama won the Nobel, the United States was ranked as the most admired country in the world, leapfrogging from seventh to the top of the Nation Brands Index survey — the biggest jump any country has ever made. Like the Nobel, this can be written off as meaningless ... a measure of Mr. Obama’s celebrity (and we know what people think of celebrities)."

What does this all mean? I think Bono is not only able to continue to uplift his image with his inspiring words, but he seems to become the master of celebrity endorsers. He is able to shift from one political group to another, from politician to politician, and still remain an effective spokesperson. I think this is quite fascinating compared to the very entrenched politics of the United States and the inability for many high-profile government leaders to move from one side to the other with the ease that Bono does. Bono possesses the ability to move seamlessly throughout the political world because he does not attack sides. He possesses the mass appeal that is needed for successful celebrity endorsements. Even though he was endorsing Obama, his integration of the American legacy into his article enabled his message to hold meaning for many people.

In his support of various kinds of politicians, Bono is also constructive in his commentary and for that reason, people listen. It isn't about Bono, it's about what he has to say. I'm stressing this because this is another important aspect of celebrity endorsements. For example, in the past, Pepsi dropped both Beyonce and Britney because the celebrities received more attention than the product. Their celebrity detracted from the product so completely that they lost their delivery and in turn, lost their deals with Pepsi. Bono, on the other hand, is able to use his celebrity power, to truly deliver his message. When reading the Op-Ed, I forgot that the words were coming from a world-renown musician. This is what makes a successful endorser.

Miley and the FTC Regulation

In my last post, I described the new FTC regulation that will go into effect this December and it's actually having an immediate effect on celebrities. For some teen fans, it was an enormous disappointment to see Miley Cyrus quit her Twitter account a few days ago. Her family members and fans questioned why Miley deleted her account and she explains her reasons in a YouTube video, in which she raps an explanation for her actions. The video is painful to watch, might I add. The reason why I mention this video is that she offers countless reasons as to why she deleted the account, such as her need to live her own personal life and not for the entertainment of others. She also confirmed that no one else influenced her decision.

After this elaborate explanation, it turns out that Miley Cyrus decided to stop using Twitter because of the new FTC regulations to go into effect. Rather than having to disclose all of the products that she was being paid to endorse on her Twitter account, it was decided that it was better to close the entire account. The FTC requirement probably would have referred to every "just about anything the spoiled brat wears, eats or tweets about," as the author of the article kindly puts it.

I'm beginning to realize how many companies use celebrity endorsements without our knowledge. For those who followed Miley on Twitter may have seen her comments or observations about Wal-Mart, for example, without even knowing that she was being paid to mention the store. This is almost a form of subliminal advertising and a way for companies to reach consumers inconspicuously so that we do not tire of seeing/listening to ads. I'm interested to see how else this FTC requirement affects the power and meaning of celebrity endorsements.

You Better Not Lie, I'm Telling You Why...

Starting December 1st, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission is going to hold advertisers accountable to the content of their testimonials. According to Ad Age, testimonials from celebrity endorsers can't just say "results not typical." Instead, the endorser must report precisely how effective the product will be. For example, for products that aid in losing weight, promoting hair growth or reducing acne, the company is required to disclose how effectively the product works for the average user. Jared may have lost sixty pounds eating Subway sandwiches, but does the average Subway consumer typically lose that much? Probably not.

I think that this is an interesting proposition because many ads and their celebrity endorsers may lose their persuasive power if the products are portrayed to produce realistic, rather than dramatic results. Would women have signed up for Jenny Craig, for example, if they had known beforehand that they couldn't lose the same weight that Kirstie Alley did on that food and fitness plan? When a celebrity sells, he/she is usually selling a product that implies access to flawless beauty, untouchable popularity and quick resolutions to big problems. Will the endorsement have the same effect if the celebrity plainly says: "This Neutrogena product only clears the skin of 50 percent of those who use it" or "This weight loss plan only guarantees the average individual to lose up to 15 pounds," will consumers still feel compelled to buy? Aside from this, I think that the FTC plan definitely seems to answer our timeless question: Does the celebrity really use that product and to get those results?

In addition to this, the FTC mandates that companies are much more truthful about those who are secretly promoting their products, especially on blogs. There are so many people (including celebrities) who are speaking highly of certain products, but these "word of mouth" testimonials are actually being propelled by the company, not by product users who are sharing positive comments on their own free will. For example, we know that Tiger Woods starred in Buick ads, but if he happens to mention how much he loves his new Rolex on Twitter, then he has to be clear that he's an endorser for Rolex. I think this is a good policy. And perhaps I can now understand why Burger King makes their endorsers take live lie-detector tests.

Celebrity for a Cause

This week, Bono spoke at the Tory or Conservative Party conference in the U.K. The opinion article, entitled, "Why do politicians--including sadly, the Tories this week--fawn over Bono, a smug hypocritical, whining, tax dodging mounteback?" is rather humorous as Quentin Letts questions Bono's record number of public appearances and his peculiar involvement in political life. Over the years, it seems as though Bono has mastered the ability to skillfully maneuver the complications of partisan politics and put himself into good graces of George W. Bush, Obama, Nelson Mandela, Tony Blair...

Aside from absolutely taunting Bono and his political activism, the article brings up an interesting point. Celebrity endorsements are usually constructed with the desire to sell something. However, do these powerful political figures really need Bono as a selling point? Does Bono put himself in the spotlight to promote himself and his own music? Two years ago, Bono was one of the stars who worked to promote the RED campaign.

This brings about another dimension of celebrity endorsements. Yes, celebrities offer a face to a cause, whether it be political or philanthropic, but does it bring a great deal of rewards to the celebrity as well? Many celebrities are well known for the causes they promote. According to a BRANDWEEK survey, individuals were able to most easily recall Lance Armstrong's battle with cancer and his LiveStrong campaign, while others were familiar with the works of Brangelina. Brad Pitt helped rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, while Angelina Jolie is well known for her work with UNICEF. Other top celebrity causes include: Tiger Woods (The Tiger Woods Learning Center/Foundation), Bill Gates (for various causes), Al Gore (global warming), George Clooney (Darfur), Michael J. Fox (Parkinson's disease) and Peyton Manning (PeyBack Foundation).

I think that celebrity associations with causes are almost as common as celebrity presence in ads. In fact, the other day, I just saw Gwyneth Paltrow in a public service announcement, in which she calls upon viewers to volunteer in their community. In the ad, Paltrow says, "The biggest blessing in life is to realise your personal power. Community work brings families closer together. Doing good for others, doing positive action always comes back around and enriches your life. It's the biggest gift you could give yourself. Please join us in volunteering."

What does this all mean? I think that if the celebrity is promoting a good cause, then they automatically reap the benefits of possessing an image as a philanthropist (ie. Brangelina), but this might backfire as this is a rather transparent approach (which may have evoked such criticism of Bono in the opinion piece). It seems as though most people agree with this: 68.8% would only commit to the cause if the celebrity had been personally affected by the cause they were promoting. This must mean that celebrities endorsements for causes certainly help their image, but only to a certain point. That's right celebrities, we know what you're up to!