Celebs are a big waste of money for advertisers, a new study says.
Celebs are like So Great for ads! Unless you’re the advertiser.
Not a fan of Katy Perry’s war on zits? Apparently, you’re not alone.
A new study says celebs just don’t shill like they used to.
In 2010, TV ads featuring celebrities often performed worse than those that didn’t use a famous face-costing companies millions of dollars per campaign and leaving consumers with a general sense of “meh.”
Ace Metrix, which performed the study, thinks the reason for the drop in celebrities’ popularity among shoppers is simple.
“[Consumers are] informed, time-compressed, and difficult to impress, and they are only influenced by ads that are relevant and provide information,” Peter Daboll, CEO of Ace Metrix, wrote in Ad Age.
Which may explain why celebrity political endorsements are nonstarters as well. Another study found that celebrity endorsements either have no effect-or make you less likely to punch your card for the candidate, and coincidentally, more likely to want to punch them the face.
Proof? Just ask yourself which recent presidential candidate was endorsed by Heidi Montag.
How Do We Know All This? Cuz we’re brilliant. Also:
Wah-waaaah. Tiger Woods is one of the highest-paid, least effective spokes-celebs.
Here’s the bummer of an ad that earned Tiger that title. And judging by viewers’ comments, nary a Nike was sold that day.
In related news: Celeb endorsements are lucrative. Beyonce made more money on marketing campaigns in 2009 than she did doing that thing where she sings.
Study: Celebrities in Advertising Are Almost Always a Big Waste of Money. Gee, tell us how you really feel, Ace Metrix.
A cautionary tale for greedy celebs: the wrong endorsement can get you majorly sued.
-Erin Barajas, Serious Coin contributor
Photo credit: Steve Granitz/WireImage