Wish upon a star

Star light, star bright. Can a star elevate your brand? Well, it might.

Creatives aren’t just responsible for art. We are responsible for story telling and brand development. Sometimes that story simply comes through a cohesive tone and style in a campaign. But other times it is developed with the help of celebrity endorsements. But, how do we know when is the right time to use them? Well, here is you unbiased guide to help you decide.

First list out the pros and cons. Rick Suttle lists out some advantages in his article “What Are Five Advantages to Using Celebrities in Advertising?” that will be helpful in this exercise:

 

Pros

1. Possible consumer influence- if the consumer favors the celebrity, or finds them at least credible or interesting, the consumer therefore may favor the product as well.
2. Increased brand awareness- this is the definition of putting a face to a name. It is easier for people to know of and remember brands that correlate with people they are already familiar with.
3. Positive brand positioning- through the transitive law, if the celebrity in the endorsement is seen in positive light. The brand will be positioned in positive light.
4. Fresh start- if a brand is falling/losing popularity, introducing a celebrity into the story, could possible give the whole brand a fresh start. Consumers are more likely to think the product is “elite” again.
5. Then of course, all of the above could ultimately attract new users of the product.

 

Cons

1. Not all celebrities relate to all audiences. As a company you are taking the gamble of exclusion. Someone who may otherwise love your product, may not even try it if they do not like the celebrity endorsement.
2. It is possible that the star could outshine the brand. It is important that the celebrity is integrated into the story well enough so the consumer understands the value and relationship.
3. Spoiler Alert! This is the biggest downfall!… You can NOT control celebrities. No matter how many contracts they sign, anything could happen. When you leave a public figure to be the voice of your brand, any unfavorable action is, again, by the transitive law, a direct relation to your brand.

Need I remind you of Paula Deen or Ray Rice?

Now, here’s some additional food for thought. What if the celebrity isn’t the “face” of the brand; rather, they are the “voice” of the brand. Does it have the same advantages? Will the consumer relate the voice with the brand in the same way as they would by seeing the face? Will it mitigate some of the risks since the face won’t be directly related? These are all additional considerations to think about when developing the story.

This week, Wonderful Pistachios released its new commercial with new personifications. John Cena, which given his wrestling occupation, is controversial by nature, yet he was given the endorsement to be the voice of the mascot elephant.

David Gianatasio writes his AdWeek article “John Cena Is Not an Elephant, but Now He’s Playing One on TV for Wonderful Pistachios” as an introduction to the new endorsement. See the video here.

 

Do you think a voice to a character is a good compromise to mitigate risk of a celebrity endorsement? Or do you think it is a waste of money to not have the face related with the brand as well? Let me know in the comments!

Break the Mold

“Job hunting is balls”. That’s probably the best line written in Angela Natividad’s article on AdWeek, “Can’t Get a Creative Recruiter to Call You Back? No Worries, There’s a Bot for That.” The rest of it? The rest of it is total sh–, um, crap.

Remember as you are reading this, that I AM a millennial speaking out to my fellow millennials. Well, comrades…

STOP IT! Stop feeding into the stereotypes of our generation- the stereotype that we are lazy, entitled, and soft.

I get it. Job searching is awful, especially fresh out of college. It seems like every recruiter is looking for 3-5 years of professional experience, a full portfolio, and 15 coworker references. (Okay that last one was a bit of an exaggeration). At times it feels like our resumes aren’t even making it into the hands of HR reps or recruiters at all because of the explicit lack of interest in even acknowledging receipt of such materials and applications.

But, you have to stop complaining. You are not alone. You are not the only applicant out of college on the hunt for a job in a very competitive creative field. The need for this “Bot” Natividad writes about shouldn’t even be a “thing”. If you haven’t read about it, let me give you a quick overview. This Bot works in a similar fashion as Facebook Messenger. When you submit an application, it reaches out to you on the site, introduces it self, bodes a cushy compliment, and offers you more information. It still does not promise someone will read through your materials, but at least you’re getting a compliment, right?

Ugh.

Take it from me. I’ve been there with the job hunting, I’ve done that, and I was able to break through it. How?, you ask. I tried these things that could possibly help you (more than an ego boosting artificial intelligence):

• go to job fairs
• network through current relationships and build new ones
• research the company to which you are applying before you apply
• add some humor or creativity to your emails and application materials. It’s OK in our industry! It’s eye-catching. Creatives like that stuff.
• always provide an online portfolio and bring your hard copy portfolio to the interview
• if you get an interview, come prepared with questions. Just a few. Don’t interview the interviewer.

Don’t have an online portfolio? Here are some free online providers to get you started.

Bottomline- just put the work into finding the job in the same way you would put work into the job after you are hired!

Do you think I am being too harsh? Do you think the Bot is a great idea? I would love to hear your thoughts and opinions in the comment section below!

Think Dirty

Okay, let me first start off by saying, this may seem totally satirical (and it may be!), but it is also totally relevant in the graphic design community.

How often do you design something, take a step back, and realize ‘whoa. that looks like something totally different’. Or, how often do you design something, show it to a peer, and they laugh at you because they see something totally different than what was intended? This happens often! Graphic designers are often forced to turn on their dirty minds to make sure what they’re designing doesn’t actually look dirty.

Just the other day, I was designing a game board infographic. The colorful Candyland-type path swirled up and down from the left side of the page to the right. In the end, the path formed the outline of what some people may say resembles the dangling jewels of the male anatomy. Turning on my dirty thoughts prompted me to turn the design 90 degrees and alter the path slightly.

This is also what I call proactive thinking. The PR team would be so proud.

Not everyone looks at their designs in the way during their editing stages. AdWeek (Griner, 2016) highlighted a new website in a recent story called Genitalsornot.com. This website allows people to send their logo designs in for a genial review. Does turning on your dirty mind sound too difficult or unappealing? For a mere $25, the reviewers on this website will turn on their dirty minds so you don’t have to during your editing stage. They will reply with any suggestions to make your design “clean” and your PR team happy.

In the AdWeek post, they show a few examples of logos that maybe should have been sent off for Genitalsornot.com. See below:

(Griner, 2016)

So this got me thinking- are there any larger companies that have done this without noticing? After a ton a research and again realizing how common of an issue this is, I came across a very well-known logo. The Dick Clark productions logo.

We’ve all seen it. We’ve all had to notice it at some point in time. It doesn’t help that his name attaches itself to the innuendo as well. But, how does something like this get through an entire creative, production, and management team (at the least) and not get flagged?

Are there any other companies or logos you can think of that could have benefitted from the genitalsornot.com site? I’d love to hear from you in the comments below!

Griner, D. (2016, September 16). A Designer Created a Service to Help Brands Figure Out If Their Logos Look Like Genitals. Retrieved September 20, 2016, from http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/designer-created-service-help-brands-figure-out-if-their-logos-look-genitals-173570