On Friday, WWD reported that Salma Hayek is currently working on an undisclosed beauty project. Earlier this month, it was also rumored that Jennifer Aniston is on the hunt for an endorsement deal herself.
But all I could think was, really? Isn’t the celebrity endorsement template a bit staid, especially in today’s tough economic times? There are plenty of models out there that could do the same job for much less money and hassle. Sure, a celebrity creates more exposure for your brand, but do they really influence consumers to spend money? I can’t say I know anyone who’s rushing out to CVS because Drew Barrymore’s shilling a Cover Girl mascara via alluring blinks. (And just think of the stable of stars L’Oréal Paris employs - sixteen celebrities, including Beyonce, Scarlett and Eva Longoria Parker - and somehow they can’t think of how to help that year-to-year net profit drop of 26.6%.)
You’d think beauty companies would try to cut some of the dead weight right now - could what Neutrogena gets out of Susie Castillo’s advertisements really make up for whatever she was paid? - unless we’re totally off. Do celebrities smiling and flipping their hair really get you to spend your cash more so than models?
—MEGAN MCINTYRE










posted by guest
Mar 02, 2009 12:52PM
this reminds me of magazine covers. I think its a "relatability factor" of actresses vs. models is what pulls the cosmetics companies in.
Though I would prefer a model over an actress any day.