'Although
on the surface the nature of design may appear to be relatively
inconsequential, it might well be said to play a formative role in the history
of capitalism and, in turn, in the social expression of capitalist practices.' Miles, S. (1998) Consumerism: As a way
of life. London: SAGE Publishing.
Most consumers are guilty of
it, whether it being perfume, shoes or food, the audience become influenced to
buy products because celebrities are plastered all over it. The picture
perfect, airbrushed photos are pushed into the faces of the public wherever
they look. Open a magazine and Cara Delavigne will be inside advertising
herself wearing Rimmel London, despite her supermodel status and the
unlikeliness she wears this low-budget brand. So why do so many companies
endorse celebrity advertising to promote their products? Is it because the
audiences are brain-washed with idiotic ideas that it will make them superior
to others or do companies finally realise consumers have become gullible and obsessed
with celebrity culture in todays society.
In 2012, there was a $50
million deal between Pepsi and performer Beyoncé Knowles, this was more than
just advertising however, it was labelled a partnership deal. The $50 million
was not going directly to Knowles, it was being split to mostly media
placements and around the world promotions, with what’s left being split into
her fee and creative development fund. Pepsi’s deal was quite unconventional
because not only was it the standard commercials and printed advertisements, it
was to supply her creative projects such as events, photo shoots or music
videos. On the surface this deal seemed respectable, with Knowles telling the
New York Times, ‘Pepsi embraces creativity and understands that
artists evolve. As a businesswoman, this allows me
to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my
creativity.’[1]
This partnership was not just about paying a celebrity for the sake of
increasing sales, they had a different goal, and they wanted to ‘enhance its
reputation with consumers by acting as something of an artistic patron.’[2] On
the surface, Pepsi make this deal seem unflawed with the promises to help boost
someone’s creative career. Nonetheless, each year Pepsi continue to spend an
excessive amount on advertising, ‘Brands are increasingly disingenuous and duplicitous
in their relentless pursuit of our money and they will stop at nothing in their
overwhelming imperative to manipulate us.’[3]
Which concludes that despite what brands will give as their explanation or
motive in spending so much, money and power will always win over reality and
morality.
One man,
who would agree with this profoundly, is Wally Olins, a British practitioner of
corporate identity and branding. He published a book ‘On Brands’ in 2003 and it
explores branding in the 21st Century, concluding that the links
between business, brand and consumer are vitally important for commercial
success. Olins explains that branding has significantly changed, today it is
all about making money and branding is now part of the ‘mainstream commercial
culture.’[4] This
reinforces the fact that the partnership deal with Pepsi and Beyoncé is nothing
but a money making scheme with no intention for it to have any influence on the
world around us. To Olins, branding and consumerism ‘creates something too
commercial for it to have a true identity’[5],
it is something forced and superficial, feeding to the consumer in each and
every one of us, hence why so many companies use celebrities to fuel their
campaigns. Despite this, Olins also points out that brands are important to
consumers, they form what they think are a reliable and friendly source to buy
from, creating a bond of trust so they constantly return to that company
because their experience has been enjoyable. He says ‘Branding enables us to
define ourselves in terms of a shorthand that is immediately comprehensible to
the world around us.’[6]
Therefore it can be argued that brands use celebrities in order to reassure
their customers that they can trust what they are buying, they are buying
something with great quality and luxury. It is often found that the more
luxurious brands will use a famous face within their advertising, yet will
still keep their products at an affordable price, this is a great strength
within the power of advertising as brands can still keep their place within the
global market and their products are still being reached by millions of people.
Additionally
to the points made by Olins, within Steven Miles, ‘Consumerism is a way of
life’, he takes a more positive spin on the consumer culture as it stimulates
individuality and ‘prompts and encourages individuals to be self-reliant and self-assertive.’[7]
Consumerism has now become an everyday part of modern life, it cannot be
ignored as much as we mute the television when the advert break comes on,
ignore the pop ups on Facebook based on our browser history or abruptly walk
past the shop windows. So why wouldn’t companies take advantage of this and pay
a celebrity thousands of pounds to model if they are going to make millions
themselves out of it. He goes on to say, ‘Nothing would be consumed unless the
marketplace arouse and seduce consumerist desires’[8], which
means brands will always play to the idealistic and materialistic desires of
the consumer through celebrity endorsements.
Overall, the
argument of whether using celebrities within advertising and the branding of
products is all that moral and trustworthy will always be a split view and
brands themselves will always have a different opinion compared to some
consumers and observers. Branded products will always have the upper hand on
retailers own despite the price increase; this is down to loyalty and luxury
between the brand and consumer, often fueled by the face of a celebrity. It is
very apparent that the 21st century is concerned about having the
upmost best products by the brands with the upmost ‘amazing’ stars, as
consumers lust after using the same brands as their idols. This ultimately
means that companies will always be one step ahead of consumers; they will
always know what moves to make in order to get the most sales and make the most
profit. Therefore, despite these brands taking advantage of the shallow nature
of consumers, there is not much to stop them from using celebrities to
brainwash us because they will stop at no costs to make as much money as
possible.
[1] Sisario, B. (2012). In Beyoncé Deal, Pepsi
Focuses on Collaboration. Available:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/business/media/in-beyonce-deal-pepsi-focuses-on-collaboration.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=2&adxnnlx=1355158996-/KtNdTyHQ24HogRh8TIKAg.
[2] Casserly, M. (2012). Beyoncé's $50 Million
Pepsi Deal Takes Creative Cues From Jay Z. Available:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/beyonce-knowles-50-million-pepsi-deal-takes-creative-cues-from-jay-z/#4ee936de3bf8.
[3] Paterson, Mark (2006). Consumption and
Everyday Lifeq. USA and Canada : Routledge; New Ed edition. 215.
[7] Bauman, Zygmunt (1999). Reviewed Work(s):
Consumerism as a Way of Life. by Steven Miles. London: Oxford University
Press. 394.
[8] Bauman, Zygmunt (1999). Reviewed Work(s):
Consumerism as a Way of Life. by Steven Miles. London: Oxford University
Press. 395.
No comments:
Post a Comment