Celebrities are a popular and often effective means of promoting products. According to social anthropologist Grant McCracken's meaning transfer model, celebrity endorsers powerfully imbue products with the personality and lifestyle meanings that the celebrities have built up during their careers.

However, using celebrities can also be risky. Brand guru Kevin Lane Keller noted five potential problems:

• There can be a mismatch between the celebrity and the product
• Celebrities may endorse too many products, diminishing their value as an endorser
• The product may be upstaged by the celebrity so that consumers do not remember what they were endorsing
• Consumers may be sceptical about the celebrity's motives for endorsing a brand
• Finally, celebrities are human and can, and sometimes do, err. Allegations of impropriety by celebrities, whether proven or not, embarrass the brands associated with them. (The most recent example was Kate Moss, who was dropped by several fashion brands following allegations of drug taking.)

What is interesting about Reebok's involvement with the rapper 50 Cent to promote G-Unit branded trainers is that his 'bad boy' image predated it. So why did Reebok choose 50 Cent in the first place? In a pre-launch press release, Reebok reported that 50 Cent, along with National Basketball Association star Allen Iverson, had teamed up to launch "a street inspired footwear collection designed for young people who want the style of their gear to reflect the attitude of their life".

"Some complained the ad glamorised guns"

However, Reebok's subsequent advertisement, in which 50 Cent featured, drew 57 complaints, which were upheld by the Advertising Standards Association (ASA) and the advertisement was banned. Some viewers complained that the advertisement glamorised guns and might encourage or condone violence. Other viewers expressed concern that youngsters might perceive 50 Cent's violent background as cool or to be aspired to.

In their response to the ASA, Reebok explained that the aim of the 'I am what I am' campaign was to celebrate self expression, individuality and authenticity. The ASA stated that Reebok was responsible for its choice of celebrity and considered that the advertisement appeared to condone violence and implied that the star's life was inspirational for the wrong reasons. The ASA also considered that younger viewers were likely to be particularly influenced by musicians and celebrities and the formulation of the advertisement was unacceptable. The advertisement is described in the full ASA ruling.

What, then, are the possible repercussions of the ban? It is unlikely to damage either 50 Cent's or Reebok's reputations among their target youth audience. If anything, it will only have enhanced their street cred. In a similar way, the consensus appears to be that Kate Moss may still be attractive as an endorser for brands looking to represent themselves as edgy or rebellious. Whilst 50 Cent is likely to prove successful as a celebrity endorser for Reebok in the short-term, brands need constant updating and campaigns involving celebrities typically run for a limited time. Pepsi, for example, has associated itself as a brand with a long stream of celebrities at the peak of their popularity.

The long-term impact of the publicity surrounding Reebok's advertising ban may be less beneficial. The importance of its effects on other categories of consumers will depend on whether these represent important consumer segments for Reebok.

The BBC and the Open University are not responsible for the content of external websites

    next > Page 1 of 2

Content last updated: 26/10/2005

About our columnist

Fiona Harris is a lecturer in management in the OU Business School. Her research interests include social marketing and marketing ethics. She is currently working with colleagues in the Institute for Social Marketing on research into tobacco control, evaluation of a European anti-smoking campaign and the impact of alcohol marketing on adolescent drinking.

Comments