Skip to main content

Using Celebrities to Enhance Your Cause-Related Marketing

Celebrities and Social Marketing, the Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Tuesday’s posting talked about MacGuffins, devices that impel your target market to action when you're doing cause marketing or social marketing. One MacGuffin is the use of celebrities.

In the illustration World Vision, an international Christian relief and development organization, is working with Hannah Teter, the Olympic gold medalist for the snowboarding halfpipe at the 2006 Winter Games in Torino. Teter commissioned the Mapleside Sugar House in Mt Holly, Vermont (Hannah’s home state), to create Hannah’s Gold grade A Vermont maple syrup. A portion of the proceeds goes to World Vision.

Celebrities bring public and media attention. For instance, Teter’s work for World Vision has won the 20-year-old acclaim as the ‘Sportswoman of Year’ award from the U.S. Olympic Committee. Some of that attention has devolved to World Vision. Certain celebrities can lend your campaign credibility. Some will actually donate money and expertise, in addition to their time. A few will lend you their Rolodex.

But celebrities can bring negatives along with the positives.

Cost. Even celebrities who are free are probably going to cost you something. Maybe they need frou-frou hotels, first-class flights, limos, special meals or extra rooms for their families and entourage. It’s prudent to devote a staffer or volunteer to attend to the celebrity during functions, so that costs staff time. If the celebrity is a performer, the riders in their contracts can be eye-opening. And don’t forget that just courting them costs time and treasure.

Fickle nature of celebrity. Fame is fickle. Few celebrities remain on the A-List for more than five or six years. Everybody knows who’s on the A-List, and competition for their endorsement is fierce. In most cases, the so-hot star this year is the subject of a “where are they now” profile on ET just a few years later. And once their star fades…assuming they remain loyal… what do you do with them?

Matching. Some celebrities available to you just may not be a match for your cause or campaign. At Children’s Miracle Network, sports celebrities came easy. But we found that a NFL hero in one market was a goat in another. Olympians have broader appeal, but only a handful are remembered a year after the Games are over. Of course there’s the usual variety of actors and singers, and television personalities. But if you’re trying to get publicity you may find that an entertainer closely associated with one TV network may get the short shrift from another.

Scandal. I have personal knowledge of a very well-known professional athlete who, after appearing at a charity event, required his volunteer driver (a female) to take him to a strip club and then wait for him. Yikes! Needless to say, he was never invited back.

By all means use celebrities if it makes sense for your campaign. But do so with your eyes open and looking out for trouble.

Comments

Just browsing the internet. You have a very, very interesting blog. I'm sure I will visit again.

Popular posts from this blog

Cause Marketing: The All Packaging Edition

One way to activate a cause marketing campaign when the sponsor sells a physical product is on the packaging. I started my career in cause marketing on the charity side and I can tell you that back in the day we were thrilled to get a logo on pack of a consumer packaged good (CPG) or even just a mention. Since then, there’s been a welcome evolution of what sponsors are willing and able to do with their packaging in order to activate their cause sponsorships. That said, even today some sponsors don’t seem to have gotten the memo that when it comes to explaining your cause campaign, more really is more, even on something as small as a can or bottle. The savviest sponsors realize that their only guaranteed means of reaching actual customers with a cause marketing message is by putting it on packaging. And the reach and frequency of the media on packaging for certain high-volume CPG items is almost certainly greater than radio, print or outdoor advertising, and, in many cases, TV. More to

Why Even Absurd Cause-Related Marketing Has its Place

Buy a Bikini, Help Cure Cancer New York City (small-d) fashion designer Shoshonna Lonstein Gruss may have one of the more absurd cause-related marketing campaigns I’ve come across lately. When you buy the bikini or girls one-piece swimsuit at Bergdorf-Goodman in New York shown at the left all sales “proceeds” benefit Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center . Look past the weak ‘ proceeds ’ language, which I always decry, and think for a moment about the incongruities of the sales of swimsuits benefiting the legendary Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Cancer has nothing to do swimming or swimsuits or summering in The Hamptons for that matter. And it’s not clear from her website why Shoshanna, the comely lass who once adorned the arm of comedian Jerry Seinfeld, has chosen the esteemed cancer center to bestow her gifts, although a web search shows that she’s supported its events for years. Lesser critics would say that the ridiculousness of it all is a sign that cause-related marketing is

A Clever Cause Marketing Campaign from Snickers and Feeding America

Back in August I bought this cause-marketed Snickers bar during my fourth trip of the day to Home Depot. (Is it even possible to do home repairs and take care of all your needs with just one trip to Home Depot / Lowes ?) Here’s how it works: Snickers is donating the cost of 2.5 million meals to Feeding America, the nation’s leading hunger-relief charity. On the inside of the wrapper is a code. Text that code to 45495… or enter it at snickers.com… and Snickers will donate the cost of one meal to Feeding America, up to one million additional meals. The Feeding America website says that each dollar you donate provides seven meals. So Snickers donation might be something like $500,000. But I like that Snickers quantified its donations in terms of meals made available, rather than dollars. That’s much more concrete. It doesn’t hurt that 3.5 million is a much bigger number than $500,000. I also like the way they structured the donation. By guaranteeing 2.5 million meals, the risk of a poor