Two items of note in the world of celebrities got me thinking about how little the general public thinks about the importance of the branding of public figures in our celebrity-driven media culture.
The first was a little while back when word spread that teen heartthrob Zac Efron flipped out at the sight of a pimple on his face before a party he was attending and borrowed makeup from his girlfriend Vanessa Hudgens in order to conceal it. As the linked post suggests, Efron was likely to see fans of his, that night and perhaps even have photographs taken of him that could end up on the internet or in a celebrity magazine. Now the reaction of the internet gossip mavens (like the one linked to above) was to poke fun at Efron's excessive concern about his appearance, calling him a "sissy" just as his girlfriend did and suggesting he was 'feminine' for having these concerns. The post also mentions Efron's concerns about his weight and lumps these in the silly, feminine worry category as well.
But these concerns do not seem so silly or 'feminine' when one looks at this situation from a branding perspective. Though he is surely a fine singer and a decent actor, the quality that makes Efron a celebrity and most importantly creates revenue opportunities for him is his physical attractiveness. Look at a picture of him- he is a very handsome, skinny guy:
This combination of handsomeness and skinniness is at the core of the Zac Efron Brand. A teenage girl sees this picture of Zac Efron and wants to see the Zac Efron movie and buy the Zac Efron CD. Interest in pictures of Zac Efron in celebrity magazines generates "heat" in the movie industry that allows him to grab more film roles. We, the public, do not care about Zac Efron as a person- he might be a total jerk who can't really sing and actually has bad skin but just wears a lot of makeup- none of this matters. What the public cares about is Zac Efron the Brand. And Zac Efron the Brand is handsome, skinny, and possesses a sunny disposition. That's what this photograph says to you, the consumer.
So now we understand that Zac Efron the Brand is what matters to the public, not Zac Efron the Person. Thus when Zac Efron the Person is concerned about his skin clarity and his weight, he is simply acting like any economically rational actor! (pun intended) Simply put, his skin and his body are integral to his Brand, meaning they are integral to his livelihood. The overwhelming majority of guys, put in the same economic situation, would put that makeup on and hit the gym to fit into those skinny jeans.
Another situation that arose more recently was the Michael Phelps bong photo seen below:
One's initial reaction to the blowback from this photo- I'm interested specifically in the loss of the Kellogg's endorsement - is to bemoan Corporate America's faux morality and hypocrisy. After all, kids in colleges across the country are smoking pot all the time, and Phelps is just a 23-year-old kid. "Give him a break!" they say- he is losing millions of dollars over a stupid bong hit.
But if one looks at this situation from a Branding perspective, things look a little different. Prior to this photo, the Michael Phelps Brand stood not only for athletic excellence in the Olympic swimming pool, but also for a "good old-fashioned clean-cut All-American fella" who had some decent moral values that kids looking to buy a breakfast cereal could look up to. That is what the Michael Phelps Brand stood or prior to this photo, and it is why Kellogg's and other companies paid him millions of dollars to put his face on cereal boxes and other products. The Michael Phelps Brand was worth money to Kellogg's through the positive associations consumers had with Michael Phelps the Person. It did not matter that (as I know from my friend who went to Michigan with him and from internet sources) Michael Phelps the Person was actually a huge douchebag who got drunk all the time, smoked pot, and slept with scores of coeds and even strippers. This aspect of Michael Phelps the Person was kept quiet (for the most part), leaving only the shiny parts in the public eye and creating this Superman-like alter ego I call Michael Phelps the Brand.
With this photo, a negative element of Michael Phelps the Person severely harmed Michael Phelps the Brand. Keep in mind that we are talking about business here. It does not matter that you and I think pot smoking is fine and perhaps even think more of Phelps because of this photo. What matters is that the average American parent (who may have even smoked a doobie in her day) thinks that Phelps is no longer a good role model for her kids and now has negative associatons with the Michael Phelps Brand rather than positive ones. "But that's so hypocritical and narrow minded!" you say. That kind of moral reasoning does not matter in the world of Branding. The salient fact is that the Michael Phelps Brand is worth less to Kellogg's now because of this bong photo- it's as simple as that. So Kellogg's was 100 percent correct in dropping Phelps and his tarnished Brand. To those who whine that Phelps lost millions of dollars over a bong hit, realize that huge portions of his pre-photo Brand (the non-swimming parts) were (as explained earlier) built on a mountain of bullshit and deception spread by marketers and PR professionals. In this world, "You live by the Brand, and you die by the Brand."
No comments:
Post a Comment