article.
Through out the article Pringle looks at numerous cases were specific celebrities have endorsed products that are both relevant and irrelevant to the individual. The most relevant being David Beckman’s endorsement for Adidas as this is a sports wear brand and he himself is a sportsman ware as Ray Liotta an actor from good fellows is advertising Heineken, were is the relevance in this, is it just a gimmick? Doe this appeal to and target audience? Did they use the product before?
This type of star brings international recognition, which the brand wants to utilize for themselves, to go on and become world-renowned and sell in other market areas.
As the article continues it shows that celebrities who are at the top of there given profession such as sport, music, acting etc are more likely to be chosen to endorse a product as his or her quality’s are easily transferable to the brand and their product. Not only this but it also boost the value of the company in general having a successful star in his/her field. Celebrities can also create a new image for there endorsing product for example Wayne Rooney turned the ford ka from being just woman’s to woman’s and men’s due to his performance in euro 2004.
Pringle then goes on to look at other campaigns the have not used celebrities in there own right but have created them due to the success of there products. For example Howard from the Halifax avert and the 118 118 men are now a recognizable celebrity in there own right. I was slightly disappointed as this was only slightly touched upon and I think this kind of advertising should be merited more than what the article has addressed.
Over all the article shows the number of factors that are present if the brand, product and celebrity are to work properly and create a successful campaign. This is show in the case of the Monty Python actor John Cleese and his involvement in the “value to shout about” campaign for Sainsbury’s. This was seen as a failure as it alienated customers, however Pringle believes this to be the fault of the company itself due to the script they had written and the character they wanted cleese to play. I agree with his point here and find it amazing that this is people job to get these campaigns right but still they get them going off the boil, but doe this mean that the brand has somehow made cleese unpopular in his own market due to his unsuccessful marketing ability? Does this serve as a hindrance for him now?
There are many fascinating and brilliant points that have been gathered from many different positions and I believe all to be correct in some way or another and due to this he stays on the fence and stays true to the statement made at the start “celebrities are no more nor less likely to be successful than those which use any other creative techniques such as humor, side-by-side comparison, product demonstration, fantasy or slice of life.”
book
The tipping point by Malcolm gladwell is a book that shows how ‘ small things can make a big difference’ the book shows how psychology works in the real world with real example such as the rebirth of the hush puppy brand, this began with a handful of trensetters in Manhattan buying the shoes from thrift shops moving onto the catwalk then straight into the mainstream. The tipping point shows how the smallest of detail, actions, and words can somehow snowball and have a large effect. And once crossing that line/ thresh holed this will send a ripple effect across the globe/country. Gladwell uses an epidemic analogy to describe the subjects, referring to them as illnesses. This helps to show the rate at which these ‘ideas’ can spread and consume communities and that certain people ‘carriers’ have to be present at specific times. This is backed up by the historical event of Paul rever and his midnight ride, his word of mouth epidemic, led to victory in the American Revolution Ware as John midnight ride to the south was not a success and the message wasn’t receives, this was due to the fact rever was a connecter, knowing many people and a part of many clubs. Thus his message was carried further and faster. Gladwell describes the 3 types of people needed to start one of these epidemics; these are connectors, mavens and salesmen. At least one of the three types are present at ever ‘tipping point’ these are the people who start the trend, that then take hold of the main stream. For these trends to take over gladwell states there are 3 factors, the law of the few, the stickiness factor and the power of context this takes up most of the book.
The law of the few – this is were it take a select few people that go by the names mavens, connectors and salesmen to support this trend or product which in turn is more likely to help it take off, increasing sales, revenue and reach its tipping point with a success that no one could have predicted.
The stickiness factor- is the substance that makes you pay attention to an idea, product or concept such as Sesame Street. This factor is hard to define as it relies on the context that you evaluate it.
Power of context – this is a very large part as to or not a certain aspect, idea will take off and ‘tip’ and keep growing. The smallest change or shift in social groups communities help to forward new ideas and help them tip.
After these key pieces of information are dealt with gladwell then goes on to show examples of this through case studies this helps to bring the reader in and show how wide spread the theory goes.
No comments:
Post a Comment