ad: Annual 2024 Now Open For Entries!
*

Should celebrities be plugging advertisers in interviews?

Published by

The old adage asserts, 'Word of mouth is the best advertising'. And there's a lot of truth in that. When a satisfied customer recommends a product or service to a potential customer, a form of potent and cost-free advertising has taken place and it's unarguably effective. You'll also hear the wise sages claim 'You can't buy publicity like that.' But can you? What if the individual doing the recommending is a) famous and b) on the company's payroll?

Of course celebrity endorsements are nothing new. From Clark Gable to Cheryl Cole, the well-known have always been tempted by the commercial buck and happily rented out their likeness and reputation to advertisers. However, when Cheryl pops up, hair swishing luxuriantly, on a the telly or a magazine page, she's not delivering a word of mouth recommendation, she's starring in an obvious advertisement. We know she's been paid for her kind words and lovely face, so the experience may be cheesy but it's never deceptive.
This changes when the famous person is out of the traditional advertising arena and appears to be speaking their mind freely. And it's this sort of carry-on which has landed ITV in hot water this week. Indeed, the broadcaster has been summoned to a meeting with Ofcom to explain the behaviour of Patsy Kensit on the  Alan Titchmarsh show.

During an interview with the venerable gardener, Patsy was particularly keen to talk up the benefits of a certain meeting-based dietary plan. Very happy to credit the scheme with her recent weight loss, she was less forthcoming on the subject of her role as a paid brand ambassador for the service.    

ITV has claimed Kensit's references were 'brief and not unduly prominent' (which they would)  but Ofcom isn't happy. They say the general effect was to "promote and endorse the service as an effective method of weight loss".

The rules are pretty clear on this, stating products, services and trade marks must "not be promoted in programming" and "no undue prominence should be given to a product, service or trade mark". Interestingly ITV has form here. They earned a telling off when Dannii Minogue spent airtime telling Lorraine Kelly about her liking for A2 Milk, which she is paid to promote. A couple of years ago, Ofcom intervened over a piece on This Morning featuring Amanda Holden plugging a law firm.

Now the regulator is running out of patience, saying: "In the light of this latest case, Ofcom is requesting that ITV attends a meeting .. to discuss its compliance in this area." In short, ITV are in for a proper roasting. So we should ask, is this activity actually problematic or are we just being a bit prissy?

Firstly we must dispel any notion that the stars are mentioning these clients incidentally, without realising what they are doing. When a celeb attends an interview they are well-briefed, even mapping out the subjects they intend to cover and which points to prioritise. Usually this is done with the help of their PR company and management - but occasionally with the connivance of the broadcaster. So this is no accident, it's a strategy.

Is it fair? Probably not. Even in the free market bean feast of the USA, endorsements by stars are controlled and interviews which are actually advertisements must be announced as such. But we mustn't take the viewing public for fools. When Dannii, Amanda and Patsy embark on diatribes about milk, solicitors and diets, it's pretty clear what they're up to. And it's to be hoped they're well rewarded, because I'm sure the audience find it rather venal and a bit pathetic.

Nevertheless, it's clearly a pitch that works. You may think Ms. Kensit's plugging performance is tiresome, but you may also think she looks pretty trim and decide her advice is worth a shot.

We can't blame the stars for this. They've obviously calculated their loss of credibility is worth the cheque and that's between them and their self-respect. However, the broadcaster is genuinely failing in their responsibilities; partly because they are allowing a forbidden style of marketing to be foisted upon viewers by self-serving slebs, but largely because they are permitting the quality of their content to be corrupted by these campaigns. An interview driven by a poorly concealed advertising angle is no sort of interview at all. The channel is also admitting commercial messages into their airspace without receiving a fee - which is just bad business.

So I would suggest ITV take a hard line on this. Tell the big showbiz agents that artists involved in such trickery will not be welcomed back to the sofa to talk about their book, film or record anytime soon. This would focus minds and prevent future TV appearances from being hi-jacked.
It may also convince Ofcom that the network intends to stamp out this rather shoddy practice - if in fact, that is the intention.

Magnus Shaw - blogger, copywriter and consultant

Website

Comments

More Leaders

*

Leaders

The Elephant In The Conference Room

Overcoming Confirmation Bias To Improve Business Outcomes Of all the cognitive biases that affect business, confirmation bias might be the most insidious. It’s a challenge for many companies that can negatively impact performance. Smart...

Posted by: Lysle Wickersham
*

Leaders

#GettingToKnow Sleek Events Founder Jennifer Davidson

Tell us a bit about your role! Is there a “typical” day? As a founder, there is never a typical day. My role has evolved as the business has grown over the past 10 years. I love having variety in my day, but I find most of my time is...

Posted by: Creativepool Editorial
ad: Annual 2024 Now Open For Entries!