Recently read an article on afaqs and decided to write this to delve into the topic more. Have you noticed any similarity between ads of pepsi, LG cookie pep, goodknight, clinic all clear, airtel, Airtel DTH and likes? Apart from being endorsed by celebrities, these are brands that have been using two or more endorsers lately. 1. LG Cookie pep has John Abraham, Abhay Deol and Genelia D’Souza busy selling off Abhays cool stuff. Or rather, zap it. 2. Airtel DTH launched with Kareena Kapoor, Saif, some Indian cricketers and A.R Rahman. All at your home. 3. Clinic all clear is parading the zero dandruff scalps of Asin and Bipasha 4. Pepsi’s Youngistan ka Wow has Sanjay Dutt and Ranbir Kapoor playing some really dangerous games. Earlier a bunch of cricketers too were hitting a six off the boat for Pepsi. 5. Goodknight had Rani Mukherjee for less smoke coils and now Vidya Balan for their cream 6. Garnier had Aishwarya rai walking like a supermodel (you almost thought that she is gona slip off) in a shiny red dress with a fake accent and Chitrangadha Singh as well as Genelia D Souza faking a lot of innocence on her face. 7. Airtel has SRK and turns to Madhavan and Vidya balan when they need romance. These days, it is the other guy who calls his dad and tells that he wants money for his birthday. His name skips my mind. A lot of people believe the fact that ‘A known group of celebrities speaking about the product is much more effective and reaches out to wider audiences’. In fact, these are the words of LG s marketing head. Some think that having two people is better than one and three is better than two. At the same time people believe that Indian consumers have come off age and make informed purchasing decisions. Well the matter is much simple than all this. Too many cooks are spoiling the broth. Suppose, you have to classify the above examples into like or dislike. That is which of the brands do you think manage their multiple endorsers better than others. So what have you classified? I am sure most of us like the way Pepsi, Garnier and Airtel manage multiple celebs better than GoodKnight, LG or Airtel DTH. Right? And here lies the answer. According to me, a lot of people miss out on the fact that multiple celebs work better when the brands are associative in nature. As in you would not mind flaunting that or associating or being loyal to the brand when in midst of a group of people. Pepsi is associative and Airtel DTH is not. DTH as a service has not gained that much of ‘perceived’ differentiation over one another that make them associative but you clearly have people who either like Pepsi or Coke. Garnier is associative but Clinic all clear is not. Shampoos at least in Indian market do not have that much of differentiation. Especially, if it is the sachets. One wouldn’t mind shampooing with clinic plus if all clear is not there. Same is true for GoodKnight, will I go around showing that I buy only GoodKnight. Not exactly. When the brand is associative, it makes sense to go with a larger number of endorsers given that they have a commonality vital to the brand. LG roped in the three for the new ad. The commonality being youthful energy or whatever the guys in marketing thought was the underlying factor. Well here is the down point, LG mobiles as a brand is not associative enough, at least in India, and that is why the idea is less likely to cling on. Same is true for Airtel DTH. Sun DTH without any gung ho advertising is way ahead Airtel DTH and a little behind Tata Sky. Same is true for Goodknight too, not likely to succeed with vidya balan or rani mukherjee. Not only is there no commonality among them apart from the fact that there are better looking actresses than them but we all know that they wont exactly be battling mosquitoes when at home, too.
Tag Archives: SRK
Indians first had a dash of celebrity endorsement when cricket got transformed from dull white to Kerry packers pyjama cricket. Farooq Engineer was roped in by Sara lee’s Brylcreem . Soon Srinivas Venkataraghavan started endorsing Philips bicycle and Nescafe, Erapalli Prasanna ,Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi also followed .
A celebrity does wonders to the brand. Celebrity presence gets you the eyeballs irrespective of the ad quality and there is instant recall whenever you see the brand or the endorsee. The product gets that vital endorsee push that incentivizes the early adopters to try the product. The belief in the product is much higher than a non-endorsed product. If SRK is endorsing it, then it has to be good, goes the saying. There is always an informal buzz going around. Controversies help too.
Is that really everything? Is there more to Celebrity endorsements? Yes there is.
Brand endorsements are overpaid and uneconomical. There was a time when star testimony could do wonders to the image of the brand. Sachin said “boost is the secret of my energy” and boost was there at my home. Those times are over. Majority of the people now, do not get influenced by a brand endorsement. Those times TV had a special charm being the only entertainment source and anything broadcasted on the television caught attention.But the screenag era is different.
The common defense for brand endorsements are that it automatically translates into wider reach and recall is more than a normal ad. But what is the use if there is reach but no impact? A smaller viewer base does not necessarily mean that the impact is less. Impact of an ad over a period of time shapes the future recall. Sustained impact is the most important aspect. Vodafones ZooZoo have succeeded in doing that. Fa has roped in Bipasha Basu as their brand ambassador but who do you think will impact more? Fa advertisements or axe adverts that do not rely on a celeb strength but highlight the product usp of naughtiness. Even when they used a celeb, Ben Affleck for axe click they made sure that he was not bigger than the theme.Infact he was nowhere close to distracting. That is the way to go.
The problem with brand endorsements is that the endorser often becomes larger than the brand. The ads are woven around the brand ambassador rather than the endorser being a part of the ad. Many advertisements simply have been low on creative quotient. Their impact is just orgasmic. Lasts for a few seconds and forgotten. Many times, the brand image plummets along with the star. Sreesanth is a great example for the same. He endorsed a well known group called Muthoot. Now people laugh at them for having him represent the group. Brylcreem too have Sreesanth and whenever the ad comes people are busy telling how stupid he is rather than remembering the brand.
However, its not the end for the brand endorsers . Beauty products still need brand endorsements. The same goes for sports goods also. Infact while writing this post in between itself I have realized that it is not that they have become impotent but the fact that brand endorsements need to get a change, provided that they will still be there in some form or the other. One is bored with the audience being taken for granted. The lack of creative flow is passed on to the audience with a celeb sewn on to a tattering script. Nike and Adidas break the clutter and are hence noticed.
Better than spending on brand ambassadors it is much more fruitful to hire a powerful creative agency that could provide you with an excellent theme that resonates with your product. In fact, a brand can create differentiation just because it is not endorsed by anyone. Winner ads are those that resonate with the target audience.
Recall the ads that you like. How many of them are Celeb endorsed ?
The Vodafone Zoozoos shot 30 ads in ten days.Do I even need to talk about SRK here?
Zoozoos have no tantrums.We know how unfussy the Brand ambassadors would be.
People did not have to wreck their brains to understand why the Zoozoo ad was made.I just feel sad for us, who see SRK ads.What a waste of time and ad space.
Zoozoo comes, People smile even after the ads, yearn for more. SRK ad comes and people play the zoozoo commercials buffering on Youtube.
A Zoozoo wont advertise for Airtel.SRK surely will go to Coke(sprite) and thats when you realise that his deal with Pepsi is over.Too old for Youngistaan? Well he surely takes “Seedhi baat, baaki all bakwaas” to his heart.Clear hai?Not clear.
Zoozoos make us feel that life is simple.SRK ads make me wonder if engine power is proportional to mileage or not? What the heck.
The first thing that strikes when you think of Zoozoo is Vodafone. SRK, I can think of Emami,Himani,Hyundai,Tagheur ,Pepsi (correction : Coke) and others that I dont bother to recollect.Then why did the other companies hire him if I cant remember his ads nor care for what he sells?
A Zoozoo does not charge close to 5 crores per 3 day shoot,a very minimalistic approximate.Infact 30 zoozoo ads were done in 10 days for 3 crores.But we certainly know someone whose crore figures are more than days per shoot.
A Zoozoo will not make you change the channel.Neither will SRK , not worth that effort for an SRK ad, anyways, he will be there in other channels too.
Zoozoo does not need to say anything.Even the incoherent mumblings are pretty effective.Well, SRKs effective speech is as good as incoherent mumblings.Buy Belmonte,Buy Emami, Buy Hyundai.You just wish that he shuts up.Well, he does.The only ad he keeps quiet is for Tagheur and because it is a print ad.
They dont make the Zoozoo talk.They have to make SRK talk, squeeze out every ounce of money they spent.That again is not worth it.
Zoozoos are on-screen for 30 seconds and the message is conveyed.SRK is on-screen for one , one and a half minute and the message just gets lost while he keeps on turning and zipping Santro and other Hyundai toys in the ads.
Vodafone’s, Zoozoo won millions of hearts, this IPL.SRK’s Kolkata Knight Riders won one game.
And the last one, Zoozoo’s can be many but there can be only one SRK!