Hey, isn't that the Old Spice Guy?

Here's a brain-candy blog post. It came to me after watching the movie the Expendables on a guys-night-out. One of the guys said, "Hey the guy with the big gun, wasn't he the Old Spice Guy?" (There were many big guns in the Expendables but one gun was bigger than all others so we all knew what he was talking about.) Read on to see how this relates to marketing and brands...


Being an aspiring actor is a tough gig. The cliché is that aspiring actors move to L.A, take on minimum wage waiter/hostess jobs in order to pursue their acting dreams, and audition for roles- most of which do not materialize. Along the way, some actors are able to pick up some advertising gigs which provide relevant experience ahead of the camera, exposure, and money to pay the rent. In addition, ads help actors develop their network. A lot of the directors of ads become A-list directors and producers. (e.g. Ridley Scott, director of the famous 1984 Apple ad went on to produce blockbuster films like Robin Hood, Gladiator, Blade Runner, American Gangster; Michael Bay worked on ads for Dairy Producers, Nike, Budweiser/Miller, Levi's and Coca-Cola and before moving on to producing Transformers, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor and Miami Vice.) For the actor, ads can be an effective springboard to launch their movie/tv careers. How common is this? John Travolta started off in Band-Aid ads, a young DiCaprio pitched Honda, Wesley Snipes modeled Levis and repped Western Union, Keanu Reeves drankCoca-Cola, and Jodi Foster got her start as the Coppertone baby. But every once in a while, an advertisement connects with the public and the actor’s career becomes overshadowed by his/her performance in the ad. Below is a fun top-5 list of actors whose fame is intimately linked - and overshadowed - by the role they played representing brands.


#5 Tom Bodett. Here’s a guy who has done a lot of narration, but he’s most remembered for the folksy award winning radio ads for Motel 6 that feature the line, “We’ll leave the light on for ya”. Bodett allegedly ad-libbed that line during the commercial recordings. Evidently Motel 6 is now using Tom's voice for wake-up calls.

#4 Vince Offer. Offer is a comedian whose writing, acting, and directing skills did not earn him critical acclaim but he found his niche as a quirky, fast-talking, irreverent pitchman for Slap Chop and Sham Wow. According to Wikipedia, Offer is going to use his advertising celebrity to re-release some of his past film work - but he's been framed by audiences as the SlapChop Guy.

#3 Jonathan Goldsmith. Here’s an actor who has been working the tv/movie circuit since the 1960s. IMDB lists Goldsmith as having more than 100 different working credits - including a prominent role on Dallas - but his acting career is clearly eclipsed by his work as “Dos Equis’ Most Interesting Man in the World.” Check out the lengths that Jonathan goes through to say that he is not the most interesting man in the world - but rather the “the actor who plays the most interesting man in the world.”

#2 Isaiah Mustafa. Here’s an athlete-turned-actor whose career got a huge boost via P&G’s Old Spice campaigns. Although he has been cast in Jennifer Aniston's upcoming film "Horrible Bosses", it is likely that he’ll always be remembered as the Old Spice Guy. By the way, contrary to internet rumors, Mustafa was not cast in the Expendables, but Old Spice model Terry Crew was.

#1 Justin Long. Long’s had quite a few roles in feature films including Live Free or Die Hard and Dodgeball - but he’s clearly most known for the laid-back, casual likable guy that personifies Mac. A rep for Long confirms that Long's ties with Mac are over: "Justin’s a movie star, not a commercial guy."

I'm going to close this blog with a cheesy observation: Bodett, Offer, Goldsmith, Mustafa and Long share brand-characters who are anything but Expendable.

When Product and Celebrity Placement gets Dirty

Every marketer and student of marketing knows all about product placements- a type of advertising where brands are given cameos in movies, tv programs, video games, songs and literary works. The idea is that product placements are more stealth than more traditional ads and can powerfully convey brand associations into the audiences’ minds. (Think why so many brands line up to get secondary association spillover benefits from the suave, sophisticated, and exciting James Bond.) And, since most media is international, a movie or hit tv show can be a fast way to reach a global audience quickly. For the producers of the media, product placements are a nice way to co-finance their work and, at the same time, provide realism to the story (e.g. think of FedEx in Castaway). It is not surprising, then, that global brands plow money into product placements at a rate of 3.6 billion a year. By the way, a typical product placement is between $50,000 and $100,000 (Keller, Strategic Brand Managment P.253).

Of course, product placements have been around for a long time. Wiki reports that the first product placement was in 1873 (Jule Verne's classic book Around the World in 80 Days) - and the success of the Reese’s Pieces in Spielberg’s ET ushered a new demand for product placements. Since that time, product placements have evolved and “celebrity placements” have grown in popularity. A lot of star (and starlets) are paid to “be seen” with certain brands (ie. celeb placement). Miss Sixty and Rock & Republic pay celebs to sit in the front row of their fashion shows. (Rihanna gets $100k to attend a fashion show, Beyonce $90k, Kim Kardashian $40k, for example). New York Daily News and Brand Channel speculate that when Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner nonchalantly pose for the paparazzi with their Starbucks cups or when Kate Hudson and Cameron Diaz parade about the town in their Uggs- they are getting well compensated from the brand. The going rate appears to be around $100k. The point is this- brand presence around celebs is often orchestrated by the brand.

But it appears celeb placement has evolved. One of my readers who has his ear to the ground on new marketing trends sent me a beat on celebrity placements with a twist: negative product placement and negative celebrity placement. The rumor is that some luxury brand companies are sending their competitors' products to celebrities who they think will create a negative associations with the brand. The flagship example involves certain luxury brands that are “aggressively gifting” “undesirable fashionista” Jersey Shores star Snooki with competitor products. The idea is that Snooki has terrible fashion sense and if she is seen with a brand, then the brand will suffer. Since bad is stronger than good and consumers weigh relevant negative associations stronger than positive associations (there is a lot of evidence about this and I will have a blog entry about this in the upcoming weeks), there is the potential for a lot of fast damage to the brand.

Some might think this negative celebrity placement is a good competitive idea, but I’m going to argue that this is a big mistake for two main reasons. First, there may be legal (and certainly ethical) implications if a firm of the competitor can prove that the competitor maliciously sought to damage its trademark. Second, and more importantly, negativity can damage the entire category. This argument sounds like this: If you hit me, I will hit you back harder. We've seen this before in politics. When campaigns go “negative” the result is increased voter cynicism, apathy, and ultimately lower voter turn out. Luxury brands watch out- it is a dangerous game you are playing that can quickly backfire.

Tiger was the king of the endorsement jungle

I didn't really want to weigh in on this, but I can't resist a few musings.

The idea behind a celebrity endorser is that the celebrity's halo transfers over to the endorsed brand. In brand jargon this is called "secondary association" transfer. In the case of Tiger Woods prior to the scandal, Woods had extraordinary universal marketing appeal. His records on the golf course enabled him to halo "performance" and "champion" on to a brand that he endorsed. As the king of golf, a game about honesty, sportsmanship, sophistication and integrity, Tiger's celebrity could also transfer these desirable associations to a brand that he fronted. With such a winning combination of associations to transfer, it is not surprising that execs from Nike, Gatorade, Gillette, Tag Heuer, Accenture, Electronic Arts, Disney, Asahi Beverages, Buick, Wheaties, and American Express lined up to have their brands have their brands linked to the King of Endorsements. And line up and pay out they did. Over his career, Woods has had a revenue stream of more than $5 Billion - the lion's share coming from endorsements. He is the first billion dollar athlete and has been called the world's most marketable athlete.

So as the Web, TV, and tabloids further saturate with Mr. Woody's sexcapades, "silence monies", and nasty talk about Mrs. Woods, we can make some educated guesses regarding how much of a financial hit Tiger will take- at least from an endorsement perspective. In other words, which brands are most likely to dump Tiger and which brands are most willing to hang on to him. Here, I argue that the brands most likely to dump Tiger are:

1. Brands which used Tiger for "honesty, sportsmanship, sophistication and integrity" endowments
2. Brands that have a family orientation.

Alternatively, the brands most likely to stick with Tiger are:

1. Brands that have the most to lose from him going down (translation: those brands that have invested the most in him (e.g. Nike $30million per year)). Incidently, Nike stuck by Bryant after his alleged rape.
2. Brands that use him for the "championship" endowments, assuming Tiger continues to perform.

What are your thoughts on this? How much of a fall will Tiger take on endorsements? Would you continue to use him to promote a brand?