Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I'll never understand why these supermodels get paid so much money. Is it because the clothes look so much better on them as opposed to similarly hot not-so-supermodels whose names you don't know? Is it because Kate Moss's name automatically means the product is high quality?
I don't think of it as being the same as other celebrity endorsements (unless you're talking about models being the face of a perfume). Jordan pushing gatorade on us makes sense because his performance is supposedly enhanced by the product. Tiger wearing a Rolex shows that if you have a Rolex, you can be like Tiger.
I guess it's kind of the same thing with supermodels. But I always thought that the real goal was to make the clothes look as nice as possible. Clearly I was wrong and it's mostly the face/name that sells the clothes.
Kate Moss looks great in photos. But there are thousands of models who are hotter than she is. If I owned a clothing line I would use someone just as hot who gets out of bed for less than $100,000.
But I would also cast all my films with talented no-names instead of drawing from the same Samuel L. Jackson, Julia Roberts, John Travolta, George Clooney, etc. well.
TM
|
How this aspect of advertising works is beyond me. The one time I could see it working is to give some legitimacy to something that might be seen as substandard. Say Cheryl Tiegs plugging for Sears- I could see where that might make it okay to buy from Sears.
The thing that is most extreme is when movie stars plug a product (double extreme when in another country like Bill Murray in Lost in Translation- I know that was fiction but it was based on real practice). Who gives a shit what kind of battery Robert Conrad thinks I should buy. At least a supermodel makes the clothes look good.
But it must work on some level or the companies wouldn't spend the money*.
Maybe it's the idea that when a face you recognize comes in an ad you at least pay some attention? Someone here must have been an advertising major.
*And while I agree with your reason why it makes sense to use sports stars, I can't imagine the company gets its money's worth on lots of it. Wasn't there some breakdown at the height of Air Jordan times that endorsement money was about $30 of the $40 the shoes cost. I played in Jordans, but, at least after the first pair, I knew it was something more than the shoes he had going on.
Threaded Mode