Historically, charities have leaned heavily on celebrity ambassadors to front campaigns, although some would argue the classic model of celebrity endorsements has become outdated.
Over this past weekend, the UK charity Comic Relief launched a mini-sequel to the rom-com Love Actually, as part of its fund raising efforts for Red Nose Day.
Though less than 15-minutes long, it garnered international attention from the get-go and received high profile press coverage. Despite widespread coverage, many were unaware that it was a charity initiative.
The well-trodden method of celebrity endorsements, that was once so frequent – Naomi Campbell and Pamela Anderson fronting Peta, Beyonce endorsing Chime for Change – has seemingly become exhausted.
Ambassadorship
What needs to take the place of ambassadors and endorsements is “celebrity dissemination”, suggests Ogilvy Australia chief strategy officer Toby Harrison, who worked on the award-winning Save the Children campaign 'Every Last Child'.
“When you use a celebrity now, the modern understanding is that they’ll be a media vehicle for you as opposed to an ambassador,” says Harrison.
“What charities are tending to do now more than ever before is using celebrities as a media channel, using their media capabilities to deliver the message,” says Harrison.
The question remains whether celebrities are relevant to charities, and whether their involvement helps drive awareness or engagement.
A study from April last year that looked into the topic found that generally, charities saw little benefit in bringing in the big guns, argued UniSA PhD graduate Dr Janet Pretsell who headed the study.
“A number of participating organisations reported that their most powerful ambassadors were ‘ordinary’ Australians with real experiences that resonated with the target audience,” said Pretsell at the time.
“Famous people do not have, as one celebrity I interviewed put it, ‘special powers to brainwash audiences’ and their involvement cannot, in itself, raise funds for that organisation.”
Reach
While celebrities do not possess brainwashing capabilities, their ability to spread information to the mass market is unparalleled in modern advertising, thanks to social media.
“If you could get Kim Kardashian to tweet for you her footprint is bigger than any media buy that you could possibly make,” says Harrison.
As most celebrities do their charity work pro bono, utilising their personal brand is a lot more cost effective than buying huge amounts of media space, however.
Landor executive director of strategy Simon Bell says that while the celebrity endorsement approach could be considered lazy, the partnerships are a win-win.
Celebrities can give a charity a larger reach and get involvement from people wouldn’t ordinarily be interested in the cause.
“In turn, celebrities improve their standing on the world stage,” says Bell.
J. Walter Thompson Sydney associate creative director Sinead Roarty, who worked on the Cancer Council 'I Touch Myself' campaign which encouraged women to self-examine their breasts, says that quite simply, celebrities make the cause “sexy”.
“Celebrities generate positive buzz and add personality to a campaign as well as reaching audiences you wouldn’t normally get to, they can make an otherwise unappealing social issue sexy,” says Roarty.
“However, if all you’re doing is using a celebrity in place of an idea, then that’s unlikely to work.”
Bringing awareness to the cause through a celebrity can be strategic, but measuring the extent to which the initiative 'works' is tricky.
“It's very hard to extrapolate the use of celebrity to define a return on your investment,” says Harrison.
Similarly, Roarty noted that “only the big ones track brand association and recall, behaviour change and donations. And, if they are lucky, the small ones get to experience anecdotal results”.
Red Agency CEO James Wright says the “appetite” from media and consumers for celebrity has never been stronger, and leveraging social followers through celebrities can be a good tactic budget-wise, but it does not guarantee success.
“From a marketing perspective there is no doubt that celebrities can, when used right, help drive cut through for your message. But media and social media interest does not equal a successful campaign,” warns Wright.
A warning to brands
Some argue that if you can tap a celebrity and have them post something to their million followers, this may have a positive reverberating effect. But on the flipside it may “cannibalise” the charity's message if the celebrity outshine the message.
“Your brand can be cannibalised by using a celebrity who’s far more interesting to the audience than the charity itself,” says Harrison.
James Wright says that getting celebrities on-board can be “fraught with danger”.
“Celebrities, like anyone, can do stupid things that erode personal brand and trust, which in turn can tarnish a brand or cause they work with and support,” says Wright.
Similarly, J. Walter Thompson Sydney senior art director Alexandra Antoniou says an authentic and meaningful relationship between brand and celebrity is crucial for the campaign's success.
“There needs to be a good synergy – otherwise the danger is they'll vampire the brand and all people will remember is the celebrity,” says Antoniou.
It could be argued that the Red Nose Day cause was eclipsed by the excitement around the novelty of the short film, though, at present, Red Nose Day is reporting more than AUD$120 million in funds raised for this year's day.
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.