Asymmetrical Information

So that's why AT&T hired Carrot Top?

AT&T hired Carrot Top because I will never (EVER) be able to erase from my brain the sound of his screechy voice saying, "Just dial down the center!"

And if I ever get truly stuck, and there's a payphone, hey, I'll probably use it.

I suddenly hate myself.

;)

is that the proper usage of 'their'?

shouldn't it be they're? It could just be me, with english being my second languag. : )

is that the proper usage of 'their'?

shouldn't it be they're? It could just be me, with english being my second language. : )

Their = Possessive
They're = They are

>

1st Their: "Their making ... a financial commitment," Incorrect usage. Bad Jane.
2nd Their: "Their company", thus possessive.

Ouch, eating crow. Alas.

"Their company" is actually the 3rd Their.

And, the incorrect usage isn't Jane's fault.

Silly theory. Lots of ads without celebrities are expensive too. Why is hiring Michael Jordan more of a "long-term commitment" to a product than, say, buying time during the Superbowl?

Celebrity endorsements are just one of many advertising tactics. Why do it? I don't know. Maybe the advertiser the ad will make a stronger impression, be remembered more readily, if there's a celebrity in it.

I think all these explanations work. But I think the best is simply a matter of memorability.

Still. Every young punk who wants to fantasize about being Michael Jordan will look for the Air Jordans, ya know?

"So that's why AT&T hired Carrot Top?"

I'm not sure that $1.98 and some pocket lint constitutes a sufficient commitment to fall under this theory. :-)

I guess Alyssa Milano in skintight leather was costing them too much dough, or they were feeling public minded and decided that keeping Carrot Top and Mr. T off of welfare was a noble cause.

Possibly the threat is that if you ever stop at a payphone and forget to 'dial down the center,' Carrot Top shows up in person and corrects your error. You know, just like on TV.

Coercive advertising at its finest :)

I think Jane was expressing her desire (platonic, of course) to "get" Jordan himself for a gift. Well, he is a hunk I suppose. The ultimate in celebrity gift ideas.

It's an accurate assessment for flowers, but it makes no sense at all for celebrity endorsements. No one cares if a company gives lots of money to some no-name to endorse their product.

I've heard the same argument made about baseball teams that pursue free agents, that overpaying a journeyman baseball player is a sign that the team is committed to winning immediately, and is designed to win over potential season ticket purchasers rather than filling an actual need.

An alternate theory:

Maybe the "long-term commitment" is the celebrity's, and not the sponsor's.

Athletes can't endorse both Nike and Reebok. They have to choose. it's easy to say that they will choose whoever pays the most, so what?

But that's not quite right. They will (should) choose the one where the present value of all payments is the greatest. So if you think you're going to get more PV from Nike, say, than Reebok, you will endorse Nike, even if their first payment is less.

One factor that determines this will be your judgment of the longevity of the product, since a longer life implies more advertising, a richer stream of fees, etc.

So the endorsement couldbe said to have real weight. Maybe the athletes really have decided the products they endorse are superior to the competition.

How's that for far-fetched?

Not all celebrity endorsements are equal. If the celebrity is endorsing something that the the public perceives might make a difference in performance (and if, the celebrity is thought to have a better ability to judge the quality/performance of the product), the public might put a lot of weight on the endorsement. An example might be golf equipment. A professional golfer is unlikely to use inferior equipment (if it will reduce the chances of winning) just because of an endorsement contract. (Unless, as Phil suggests about Tiger, the golfer can still beat everyone else using inferior equipment.)

On the other hand, when Arnold Palmer endorses a brand of motor oil, I think the advertiser just hopes the publics affinity for Arnold will rub off on the product. I think the same is true when Bill Cosby endorses a brand of pudding. I doubt the public thinks Bill is any better equipped to tell which brand of pudding is the best than are the rest of us. Still, if you like Bill it's kinda nice buying his brand. I mean, what would you do if he were to drop by and you had nothing in the cupboard but a store brand of pudding to serve him?

All this aside it's interesting that given the extraordinary talent that MJ possessed for playing basketball his "value" to the economic process with little more then being a salesman for sneakers and underwear.

"All this aside it's interesting that given the extraordinary talent that MJ possessed for playing basketball his "value" to the economic process with little more then being a salesman for sneakers and underwear."

He had a huge impact on the popularity of the NBA overall. IIRC, it has been estimated that his total economic impact over the course of his career is about ten billion dollars (and this was a few years back). That ain't chump change.

Speaking for myself, I'd be more inclined to use one long-distance carrier over another if any of them could just come close to matching the rate I get on the card I bought at Wal-Mart. Really, is it worth seeing a celebrity on TV to pay twice the rate for the second twenty minutes as you paid for the first? And is it worth paying half again as much for the first twenty as I pay all the time?

It's a real head-scratcher, folks. Three and a half cents a minute. I even used it from China and Sweden. Can CALL ATT do that? And even if they could, why would anyone want to?

The measure of how convincing this theory is, is that even Gary Becker has given up on it. These days, he simply suggests (quite sensibly IMO) that advertising is a good jointly consumed with the product; it's a form of entertainment, and the bundle (advertising + product) is generally preferred to a linear combination of (advertising, no product) and (no advertising, product).

I think y'all are giving our fellow primates way too much credit. Celebrity endorsements represent a transfer of mojo from the celebrity to the product, and therefore, by implication, to the buyer of the product. The more widely recognized the celebrity is among the target market, the more the mojo for that potential buyer. As a non-TV watcher with little interest in sports, a Michael Jordon endorsement is worthless to me--but I'm not buying Nikes anyway. But if I were a fan of MJ and in the market for shoes--oh wow!

I think Elmo is getting close. My own suspicion is that this is a manifestation of a very deep behavior in primates. High status individuals who adopt a behavior will influence others of lower status to adopt it also. Low status individuals who adopt a behavior will be ignored. Celebrities are high status individuals among humans. I recall there were examples of monkeys doing such things when I was reading up on animal behavior years ago. A high status monkey adopting a new and unfamiliar food item, for example, will quickly lead to others in a troop doing so too, whereas if a low status monkey adopted first no other would follow.

Perceptions do not limit reality.

Comments are Closed.