Famous people pitching products

Flagpole wrote:

CatLitterHotub wrote:

Yeah I've thought of the same thing but if it didn't work companies wouldn't do it.

I would like to see data on it. The thing is that when they choose a famous person to pitch, that's when they simply advertise a lot. I'm sure they have metrics on this, so there MUST be people out there who buy because a famous person is pitching it or pay more attention to the ad because a famous person is in the ad and therefore might be more likely to buy. I'm just not swayed that way by advertising.

I have been doing market research for 20 years. Everyone says they are not swayed by advertising and they buy products on their own merit, not because of who pitches them or how they are pitched.

But most companies, especially the big ones, track the impact of ads pretty closely to see what kind of ROI they are getting.

The biggest benefit of having a famous spokesperson is to create a halo effect for the company. Think about Michael Jordan and Nike. Kids did not necessarily say they wanted the shoes Michael wore (obviously, some did) but their overall perceptions and image of the brand improved. So they were more likely to choose Nike products in general. Companies track this as well, although it's a little harder to measure because other factors can come into play that may be hard to control for.

Of course when you tie your fortunes to a spokesperson it can backfire - e.g. Subway.

Yeah, I know how it all works. Advertising in GENERAL for me gets the name out there, so I know the product and would obviously consider it more than if they didn't advertise and I didn't know about it, but the whole celebrity thing doesn't work on me at all. A mid 80s' Markie Post could pitch a product and I wouldn't buy it because of that.

I just bought a Husqvarna lawnmower, and I bought it based on research and reviews. I don't even know if they have a celebrity pitch person.

Yep, it obviously doesn't work on everyone. Before I bought my last car I put together a detailed spreadsheet on every model I test drove to take the emotion out of the decision.

But most advertising is designed to create an emotional appeal, and it does work. Just look at any Presidential election for proof.

I haven't either. You and I are rare breeds of cat, however. Lots of weak-minded runners on this board. Not too many real men. I would chat with you. You seem like a cool dude.

Flagpole wrote:

Have any of you EVER bought ANYTHING because a famous person was the pitch person? I have never done that.

You can have bought something pitched by a famous person (hard to avoid that), but I mean, have you actually bought something BECAUSE they were pitching it?

Following up, using a celebrity spokesperson is actually a pretty lazy way of advertising. The best ads create some sort of emotional connection with the brand. But it's hard to make a good ad that does this effectively.

By using a celebrity that many people like or can relate too a company is attempting help create that emotional connection to the brand. But it is lazy, and does have it's risks.

If you're interested in this question, you're interested in the field of Consumer Behavior. A area that is studied tremendously by companies, psychologists, and academics at business schools.

When you say you've never purchased something because of celebrity spokesperson or celebrity enforcement, you're in huge company. Indeed when consumers are survived about this, "celebrity endorsement" ranks very low on impacting consumers decisions. The highest factors are things like reviews by experts (eg Consumer Reports) and recommendations from a friend (and, quite amazingly, consumers typically believe friends about the same as they believe experts -- which is totally irrational).

But, the truth is, celebrities enforcements DO WORK -- and actually they work pretty well. Celebrities are good for a few things, but two most importantly. First, they help elevate products into consumers consideration set. Humans can typically only remember 5 +/- 2 of any product in a product category, unless they're an expert in that product. Meanwhile, there are often tens, if not hundreds, of products that the consumer COULD choose from in that product category. Celebrity endorsements help elevate products into that 5 +/- 2 consideration set, which is a a huge advantage over the 90 other alternatives that didn't make be set.

The second thing celebrities are really good at is linking a product to the associations consumers have with that celebrity. For instance, there's nothing inherently "extreme" about Monster Energy Drinks -- I mean, what makes a beverage "extreme". But, its links to extreme athletes creates that association, which is important for the products positioning and the consumer it targets. The most important association with celebrities is LIKING them. Yes, believe it or not, in the not-immediately-conscious workings of our brain, we will take the products linked to celebrities we like, and actually associate with liking the products. One of the more curious illustrations of this is voiceover. Ever wonder why the commercials using voice over don't often say who the celebrity is? That's because it's actually most effective when you DON'T know the celebrity, but you recognize the voice. If you hear the voice, recognize the voice, know you like the things associated with the voice, but don't know who owns the voice, you mentally tag the product with an "I LIKE" association, and don't dilute that association with anything else about the celebrity. It's really quite fascinating.

TL;DR: Most people agree that they don't take celebrities enforcements seriously, but celebrity endorsements actually an effective marketing tool. You're more likely to remember and consider a product of it has a celebrity endorser, and you'll "subconsciously" tag your associations with that celebrity to the product.

Didn't buy / join up because of Sully ... still think its funny.

https://youtu.be/tosiPpRgdzg

Every Trump voter is buying (voting) for someone only because he is famous. It proves people are gullible enough to buy sand if it's painted gold...

Back at the beginning of 2014, when I had about $170k to invest long-term, FlagPole said that despite all the talk about the market being over valued that the market was still the place to be. Put it into vanguard's total stock market fund, and it's up about 25%. Thanks FP!

Bernie 2020 wrote:

Back at the beginning of 2014, when I had about $170k to invest long-term, FlagPole said that despite all the talk about the market being over valued that the market was still the place to be. Put it into vanguard's total stock market fund, and it's up about 25%. Thanks FP!

Gulp! Please don't take my advice unless you take all of it. I'm glad you made money there, but generally speaking I'm not a fan of putting in huge lump sums at once.

I am more ok with it if:

1) You are debt free including owning a house outright.

2) If working you still are contributing at least 15% to retirement accounts.

3) You can afford to lose any huge lump sum like that that you invest.

Flagpole wrote:

Bernie 2020 wrote:

Back at the beginning of 2014, when I had about $170k to invest long-term, FlagPole said that despite all the talk about the market being over valued that the market was still the place to be. Put it into vanguard's total stock market fund, and it's up about 25%. Thanks FP!

Gulp! Please don't take my advice unless you take all of it. I'm glad you made money there, but generally speaking I'm not a fan of putting in huge lump sums at once.

I am more ok with it if:

1) You are debt free including owning a house outright.

2) If working you still are contributing at least 15% to retirement accounts.

3) You can afford to lose any huge lump sum like that that you invest.

I asked about dollar cost averaging at the time, but you recommended putting it in all at once. 1) still owe $38k on house. Probably owed about $65-70k back then. No other debt then or now. 2) contributed about $27k towards retirement accounts each of the past few years. 3) if the market went to zero, I'd be in trouble. Had a net worth of about 1.5 mil at the time.

What are you recommending for fixed income investments?

You must have provided other info that made me say that.

1) Seems you are in a good position.

2) If the market goes to zero, we will have Mad Max, so the world will be in trouble. That will not happen.

3) If on a fixed income (which is somewhat of a misnomer, because if you have invested properly you can arrange for your withdrawals to keep up with inflation, and Social Security will also adjust for that), then you need to have a strategy that is many-pronged:

a) You should be and plan to stay debt free. Greatly limiting outgo is a HUGE part of being able to have a nice retirement.

b) Take 4% max from your investments. If you don't NEED that much from your investments (due to social security income or other reason) then take less, especially in the first few years of retirement).

c) Have a very strong emergency fund that is liquid. Can be cash or Money Market Account. You can make money on it if you want, but that is not the goal. The goal of this money is to use it if the market tanks. I plan to have 3 YEARS of expenses saved liquid before I retire. I plan to do that because I want to still be 100% in stocks in my investments (no bonds), but you could opt for some bonds in there and not have to have such a large emergency (liquid) fund.

d) Right now about 25% of my holdings are in Income stocks (those that give big dividends). I will likely bump that to 50% in retirement. Many retirees will put all their investment money in those dividend-giving stocks. I still want some diversity even in retirement, so about 50% will be it for me. The rest will be in growth and aggressive growth stocks.

So, that's what I would suggest -- or something like it. There is no perfect situation, and everyone's situation is different. If I had $100 million upon retirement, then I would likely do something different.

Long story short, I bought a Lincoln Continental after seeing a Matthew McCoughney Lincoln commercial. I was looking for a new car at the time and had always liked the style of Lincolns. Saw a commercial with McC (they were still relatively new ads at the time), and said screw it--I'm sold. Call me a sucker if you want, but I love the car.

Credit cards only destroy the lives of people who aren't responsible enough to use them.

Jeff Albertson wrote:

The worst are the celebs pushing credit cards. Seinfeld, Samuel L Jackson, Jennifer Gardner.

I recently paid off all of my credit cards and burned them all in a magnificent fire. Celebrities that endorse these things that literally destroy individuals and families should be ashamed.

Flagpole wrote:

Have any of you EVER bought ANYTHING because a famous person was the pitch person? I have never done that.

You can have bought something pitched by a famous person (hard to avoid that), but I mean, have you actually bought something BECAUSE they were pitching it?

A celebrity in an ad would catch your attention, I know when I saw that running as for Nike with Mo Farah in it, I watched the commercial for a few seconds to see what it was. Or if one of my favorite baseball players just popped up on the screen, I would be more inclined to watch the ad for a few seconds. Plus like others have said it just allows you to remember the brand easier.

Then when watching the ad you might think the product was good and then you are researching it online. The celebrity wouldn't make you buy it, just because they are being paid to say it's good. If you buy something that a person you don't know personally says is good, and only for that reason, then you are an idiot.

I understand the theory...it just doesn't work on me at all -- not celebrities.

It works on you on the subconscious level though. You just don't realize it. Brand recognition and association, my friend.

The Id wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I understand the theory...it just doesn't work on me at all -- not celebrities.

It works on you on the subconscious level though. You just don't realize it. Brand recognition and association, my friend.

Nope -- not on me it doesn't.

Flagpole wrote:

The Id wrote:

It works on you on the subconscious level though. You just don't realize it. Brand recognition and association, my friend.

Nope -- not on me it doesn't.

Yes. It does.