Stevenson, Seth. "Enter the Big Cheese: is it Smart to Put Your CEO in Your Ad Campaign?." Slate. 12 Oct. 2009. Slate Magazine. 12 Oct. 2009. http://www.slate.com/id/2232188/
This article discusses how putting a company's CEO in their commercials influences the viewer's image of the company. The author mostly discusses the examples of Dan Hesse and Ed Whitacre, but he also throws in the example of James Dyson. In the case of Dan Hesse, the CEO of Sprint, "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads." This can be incredibly effective because Sprint, however subtly it may be, is putting a face or a personality to the company. Dyson vacuums use their CEO extremely effectively: "He's not just a guy who designed a vacuum and assures you of its quality. He also wears faded t-shirts and has nice pecs. He's cool! Which makes the brand cool." GM also employs this strategy, but the purpose is kind of different. These commercials, featuring the CEO Ed Whitacre, are kind of an apology for the fact that they haven't been doing well lately, and he demonstrates this by introducing an "earth-shattering money-back guarantee." The main purpose of these commercials is to show that "there's a person at the helm of the company who stands behind the product."
I think that these ads can be extremely effective. I don't know exactly why, but I think that the quote "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads" is really true. I don't really watch many commercials since the advent of the DVR, but there are some commercials I have seen that have no actual value. These commercials seem at least somewhat sincere, because the CEO is taking his time to convey this message. In the GM case, it just seemed kind of desperate to me, because GM is struggling, and everyone knows that they are struggling. The author did refute this by saying that "[Whitacre is] meant to look as though he's ducked out of his office only reluctantly, to spend a few minutes shooting this ad, all the while fiercely itching to get back to the hard work of improving GM." But when I viewed this add, I didn't see this at all. I don't think the Sprint or Dyson commercials sounded desperate. They just sounded like someone who supported their product and were willing to endorse it. Overall, I think these commercials will have a bigger impact than other commercials, because they actually show something of value; whereas some commercials, like the caveman or gecko Geico commercials, are funny but completely useless. I am getting tired of them and think they should be stopped forever because they are the scum of the earth. Commercials can be funny, but I think that these CEO commercials convey an actual message.
This article discusses how putting a company's CEO in their commercials influences the viewer's image of the company. The author mostly discusses the examples of Dan Hesse and Ed Whitacre, but he also throws in the example of James Dyson. In the case of Dan Hesse, the CEO of Sprint, "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads." This can be incredibly effective because Sprint, however subtly it may be, is putting a face or a personality to the company. Dyson vacuums use their CEO extremely effectively: "He's not just a guy who designed a vacuum and assures you of its quality. He also wears faded t-shirts and has nice pecs. He's cool! Which makes the brand cool." GM also employs this strategy, but the purpose is kind of different. These commercials, featuring the CEO Ed Whitacre, are kind of an apology for the fact that they haven't been doing well lately, and he demonstrates this by introducing an "earth-shattering money-back guarantee." The main purpose of these commercials is to show that "there's a person at the helm of the company who stands behind the product."
I think that these ads can be extremely effective. I don't know exactly why, but I think that the quote "putting one sincere, appealing human face on the brand might be worth a thousand jokey little ads" is really true. I don't really watch many commercials since the advent of the DVR, but there are some commercials I have seen that have no actual value. These commercials seem at least somewhat sincere, because the CEO is taking his time to convey this message. In the GM case, it just seemed kind of desperate to me, because GM is struggling, and everyone knows that they are struggling. The author did refute this by saying that "[Whitacre is] meant to look as though he's ducked out of his office only reluctantly, to spend a few minutes shooting this ad, all the while fiercely itching to get back to the hard work of improving GM." But when I viewed this add, I didn't see this at all. I don't think the Sprint or Dyson commercials sounded desperate. They just sounded like someone who supported their product and were willing to endorse it. Overall, I think these commercials will have a bigger impact than other commercials, because they actually show something of value; whereas some commercials, like the caveman or gecko Geico commercials, are funny but completely useless. I am getting tired of them and think they should be stopped forever because they are the scum of the earth. Commercials can be funny, but I think that these CEO commercials convey an actual message.
i agree with this article that by having the CEO in the commercial, it shows the audience that what they are conveying is for real. well most of the time at least. i agree with zach that the GM commercials are appealing due to the fact that they offer a full refund if your not satisfied. you can tell too when the commercial is serious and when it's not.
ReplyDelete-IGE SAN aka asia aka minority aka whateva!