Despite flight to fame, celeb talent isn’t as sure a bet as CMOs think

It’s part of a broader pattern. The “built-in affinity” a top name can bring means it’s “an easy place to go,” said Mike Hayward, chief creative officer at agency Copacino Fujikado.

Such deals can cost brands between $3 million and $5 million a pop (and that’s before the media costs associated with running a Super Bowl, or similarly scaled campaign). But chosen well, they confer a powerful “prestige effect” upon a brand, said Tim Derdenger, associate professor of marketing and strategy at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business. “You’re tying your brand to that other brand and trying to capture the golden halo effect around that other brand,” he said.

“It gives the ad another angle of memorability,” said Katie Duffy, vp, global brands at parent company Ferrara, of its pairing between TV host Andy Cohen and confectionary brand Nerds at this year’s Big Game.

There’s a body of research, including Derdenger’s, that shows a tie-in with a top name can yield significant economic benefits for a brand. Nike’s partnership with Tiger Woods, for example, was estimated to have led to a 2.5% lift in golf ball sales over 10 years — representing over $100 million in business. 

Armed with that knowledge – and wary their campaign investments must succeed amid both a fragmented cultural and media landscape and in the context of a shaky consumer economy – marketers are keener than ever to exploit A-listers’ short-cut to a cultural moment.

“You need to earn your way into culture, not buy your way into culture. Slapping a celebrity on a campaign is a really good way to buy attention,” said Charlie Coney, creative and strategy officer, UK and EMEA at Ogilvy UK.

Although this flight toward fame has been spurred by a search for sure bets, leaning so heavily on A-listers might expose advertisers to a different kind of risk.

Following the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by ICE agents in Minnesota, more famous figures have gone public with their opposition to U.S. government immigration policies. Several musicians including Justin Bieber, Bon Iver and Billie Eilish wore “ICE out” pins at the Grammy awards earlier this month, for example; recent polls suggest they were in line with current public sentiment.

Brands haven’t followed their lead. Where the public sees an artist exercising their right to free speech, marketers see a lit fuse. Large corporations, particularly public ones, are machines built to reduce risk. And relying more heavily on A-listers to add weight to ad creative exposes advertisers to more political risk.

Despite the danger of a political backlash toward a brand backing an outspoken celebrity activist, Derdenger suggested marketers’ caution in this area may hold them back. “Brands aren’t risk eliminators. If they [are], they won’t have any impact,” he said

But it can also hamstring an advertiser’s long-term brand building efforts. Sean Gilpin, CMO of Hyundai (which has a long-standing association with actor John Krasinski), noted that celebrity inclusion won’t turn a bad ad into a good one.

“I don’t think it’s like a parachute or a safety net by any means,” said Gilpin. “It can be actually just as challenging to make sure the concept is pulled off.”

A dud partnership, which soaks up a campaign budget on talent fees rather than smart media placements, might just end up wasting a brand’s time and cash.

“It creates borrowed attention. And borrowed attention can expire really quickly,” warned Coney.

Relying on fame might, in the short term, increase the probability a brand breaks through this year. But it won’t add much to efforts to shore up a brand over the longer term – or provide a permanent answer to marketers’ efforts to balance the need for impact with their fear of exposure.