“…the celebrity is a production of the
dominant culture. It is produced by a commodity system of cultural production
and is produced with the intention of leading and or representing. Nevertheless
the celebrity’s meaning is constructed by the audience; an exact ideological
fit between production and consumption is rare”. Marshall, P.D 2006. Celebrity and Power, p47, University of Minnesota
Press.
The term ‘celebrity’ is now unavoidable,
our media is consumed by celebrity culture, and its credibility and meaning
have somewhat diminished over the past generation as a result. ‘Celebrity’ derived from the French word, célèbre,
meaning ‘well known public’ and
this essay will be critically evaluating the cultural role that celebrities
play specifically within a public relations context and how their status was
achieved. Analysing past incidences where celebrities have been used in
consumer PR programmes, the reasons they were chosen and the final outcomes of
those programmes should give insight into deciphering whether Marshall’s claim
is valid or not. ‘PR activities are part of the management of communication
between an organisation and its publics’ (Grunig p7-8). Is the celebrity the
dominant figure or are they merely the product of the public?
Moreno
states in ‘Celebrity’ (1978), that it is not as black and white as this and
divides celebrities up into three sub-groups; heroes, stars and quasars. He
claims that there are ‘hero’ celebrities such as astronauts, sportsmen etc. who
are the most respected of the three; a prime example being Neil Armstrong, who
is seen as an ‘All-American hero’ in the USA. Celebrities as stars are
celebrities whose personas are so strong that they overshadow any role they
play, for example Tom Cruise is received by the public as Tom Cruise, no matter
what acting role he may be playing. The final group is the quasar celebrities
and it is a group that the modern media landscape is filled with. Quasar
celebrities are those who are driven by publicity, e.g. reality TV stars and
usually have a quick burn out, with rapid rise and fall in interest. Shows such
as ‘TOWIE’ and ‘Geordie Shore’ are good examples of this type of celebrity.
‘Grunig’s
Situational Theory of Publics’ (1984) is the typical blueprint that
organisations adhere to in developing PR campaigns, and it is primarily this
theory that we shall be analysing the example campaigns in line with. It is
considered academically as some of Grunig’s finest work and its general purpose
is to identify the publics that would be actively interested in an
organisation’s campaign. By focusing on prioritising target audiences that
would be interested in a said campaign, the likelihood of its success is bound
to increase; it’s all about detailed analytical preparation. Rather than the
norm of checking an audience through marketing analytics such as demographics,
lifestyle etc., Grunig’s method poses the question; are they ready to receive
the communication from the organisation? You can have the greatest product in
the world but unless the messages are clear and being heard by the right
people, you’re likely to fail.
According
to Grunig there are three main publics for an organisation to consider in
consumer PR; latent, active and aware. ‘Latent’ publics are the audience that
are unaware of a particular product or service, whether it be because of
financial restraints or otherwise, and do not pick up new PR and marketing
campaigns automatically within their lifestyle. For example those who are obese
wouldn’t pick up on social marketing messaging about healthy eating despite the
information actually being beneficial to them. The ‘aware’ public is the group
who recognise that there is a campaign but do not act on it. A good example in
the commercial sense would be someone who recognises that they need a new laptop
and is aware of a PC world sale but has still not acted on solving their
problem. ‘Active’ publics are those who
are most receptive to an organisation’s messages and will clearly see the
benefits of the new product or service, Apple are good example of how active
publics can provide great success. When you build up a loyal fan base, your audience
is going to seek out more information and be actively interested in what else
you have to offer.
With thorough, detailed research and
innovative strategies behind them, a celebrity can be the catalyst for a
successful campaign; so much so that they can shift latent publics to become
aware and often active publics. Take for example the recent TV campaign
promoting awareness around CPR and heart attacks fronted by Vinnie Jones. At
first glance it seems a bizarre choice but the research by the British Heart
Foundation was spot on; the demographic most at risk from heart attacks are the
working class and by using a ‘working class to Hollywood’ figurehead to spear
the campaign, the organisation were making a once latent public, aware. It is
crucial that the audience can relate to the celebrity as it will provide
credibility to the campaign and mean that its messages will resonate with its
publics. The British Heart Foundation campaign was obviously a non-profit
health awareness scheme but there is evidence of campaigns that have reached
new publics and increased profits as a result.
One of the most famous athletes in the world
is Tiger Woods and when he burst onto the golf scene in the 90’s he
revolutionised the image and global perception of his sport. Golf had been
stereotyped as a game for wealthy, middle class white businessmen, and some
people would argue that it still is, but when a young African American won
every major trophy going, the sport reached a whole new audience. Sports
magnates Nike recognised this and offered Woods a multi-million contract in
1996 to be their figurehead. The first four years saw Nike receive a $50million
revenue growth with annual sales totaling a quarter of a billion and Woods was
offered a new five-year contract in 2000 worth $125million. Because of Tiger’s
iconic status and the demographics that he reached, Nike’s products sold like
never before and this is evidence of latent publics becoming active on the back
of a relatable celebrity figure being used. “Advertisers think that a popular
and respected celebrity can affect consumers feelings and their purchase
behavior, and celebrities can influence the consumers persuasion of the product
according to the image of it”, (Belch & Belch, 2001).
As I have touched on earlier, choosing the
right celebrity is crucial; there has to be a relation between the celebrity
and the brand, a celebrity alone doesn’t guarantee success so in that sense the
audience are definitely in control. Famous punk icons such as Johnny ‘Rotten’
Lydon, of Sex Pistols fame, and Iggy Pop have recently advertised ‘Country-life
Butter’ and ‘Swiftcover’ car insurance. These campaigns came under scrutiny as
they lacked any integrity and the stars themselves were also barraged for
‘selling out’; how can two punk rockers famous for anti-establishmentarianism be
selling such safe and dull products? There was even further embarrassment for
Iggy Pop and Swiftcover as the adverts were banned when it was found that
musicians couldn’t actually have a policy with the company. The tag of the
whole campaign was Iggy saying ‘I insure through Swiftcover, why don’t you?’
which was obviously misleading as he is a musician himself; talk about a public
relations own goal! The audience’s perceptions of the celebrities were
different to the organisation’s perceptions of them and therefore there was a
conflict of interest, there has to be alignment. On the other hand one could
argue that there is no such thing as bad publicity, and that the controversy
these campaigns generated could have actually helped the brands become
memorable for the consumer. The names ‘Countrylife’ and ‘Swiftcover’ were therefore
at the forefront of the public’s mind and ergo stood out in a crowded
marketplace. ‘Endorsement can take
attention of consumers in the markets where motivation to choose between the
products is difficult and low’ (Fill, 2005). It is a good point that Fill makes
here but you have to be careful that the celebrity figure doesn’t in fact
overshadow the campaign and detract from what the product is all about,
creating confusion; ‘Another problem is the overshadowing of the brand which
means that consumers may only give attention to the celebrity and fail to
realise the brand’, (Belch & Belch 2001; Gellene 1998). A good example of
this occurring was Virgin Media’s recent broadband campaign starring Usain
Bolt. As it was during the Olympics, Virgin thought that Bolt was the biggest
star in the world at the time, and although they were right , his image was
synonymous with event and people were actually unsure of what he was actually
selling.
According to Pickton & Broderick (2005),
there are three main components that a brand must consider when choosing a
credible celebrity candidate; attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise.
The examples that I have aforementioned seem to back this statement up. The
successful ones such as Tiger Woods were attractive to consumers and credible,
as they were deemed honest, reliable and relatable to. People want to use the
same clubs as Tiger because they feel he has the expertise and that they make
him play so well whereas why would anybody take advice on butter from Johnny
Lydon, someone who has never been associated with the product he is marketing.
Identifying
the different types of publics is all well and good, but is futile unless the
messages presented to them are pertinent. Grunig knew this and his ‘four part model
of communication’ is just that guideline, documenting all sorts of
communication that occurs during a campaign and the pros and cons of each of the
four different methods.
The
first step of the model is communication through press agencies and publicists
and it is a one-way system from source to receiver with the organisation
outputting the information to the media and press. The purpose of this form of
communication is similar to propaganda, even though that is a term that the
organisation would personally never use to describe it, and its purpose is to
persuade and manipulate the audience into behaving as the company desires.
Although no lies would be told, some of the truth would be withheld, as it
were, and little research would be required with the press and publicists
colluding together.
It is a
method regularly used in campaigns nowadays, and an example would involve a
celebrities’ publicist having a pre-arranged agreement with a newspaper to have
their client photographed at a certain location or a doing a certain deed. The
idea would be that it can influence a public’s perception of the celebrity, for
example a celebrity seen at a charity event would come across as a generous
character and their reputation would be boosted. There have however been
critics of the model, arguing that in this day and age the consumers are wiser
than ever and can see through false attempts to amass their approval; and
organisations are now shrewder, taking every possible measure to prevent this
occurring.
The second
step of the model, and the last one way communicative method, is the public
information stage. Similar to the press
agency and publicity stage mentioned above, this step is a simple source to
receiver communication with the main difference being the emphasis on the whole
truth’s importance. Press releases are a key component of the method and
journalists are often crucial with the main purpose being the dissemination of
information. Little research is required but organisations must look at the
readership of the selected publications that they have chosen and decipher
whether they are giving their message out to the correct publics.
Good
examples of this are the regular supermarket adverts that you see appearing on
television and in the press. When ASDA based their marketing around their cheap
prices and publicly broadcast the cost difference between themselves and
competitors such as Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrison’s, it sparked a battle for
the audience’s attention. ASDA were just being completely truthful by
publishing the exact price differences between them and their competitors. Tesco
responded by dropping their prices and taking on rivals ASDA at their own game,
but chains such as Morrison’s couldn’t financially cut their prices, as they
were more about quality of product. They came up with the idea of having
celebrities to gain them the exposure and therefore an advantage over ASDA and
Tesco with a more memorable campaign. ‘Take That’ were the spearheads of the
initial TV campaign, which generated a lot of exposure and interest as it
coincided with their big comeback. On the back of its success Morrison’s signed
up many more celebrity figures such as Denise Van Outen and Freddie Flintoff
and posted impressive sales.
The next
step is the first two-way communicative method of the model and is known as
‘two way asymmetric’ messaging. As with the first step of the model, the
purpose of the asymmetric method is to influence an audience into buying into
an organisation’s brand, but with feedback taken into account. Grunig describes
it as ‘scientific persuasion’ with formative research carried out into
evaluating public’s attitudes. The model is imbalanced, as rather than try and
change themselves, the organisations cleverly alter the public’s attitude
towards them, saving considerable amounts of money and also retaining their
company ethos. If a company makes a dramatic change to the way they operate it
can often be detrimental to their reputation as it is almost an admission that
they were wrong before and can be perceived as indecisive.
As the
four-part model was written in 1984, social media wasn’t even considered, but
out of all the parts I would say that it fits the asymmetric method best. The
whole purpose of the method is to bring the consumer to you and Twitter is a
fantastic example of how this is now easier than ever for brands and
celebrities. Take Wayne Rooney for example, after he had a number of
controversial, damning stories printed in the press, the footballer set up a
personal Twitter account to give a direct personal image of himself that hadn’t
been tampered with by media spin. He has over 5 million followers and has been
able to really show his fans just what he is like off the pitch and dispel some
stereotypes that had been put in people’s minds from what they have read in the
press. The consumers are going to the ‘brand’ directly as they are choosing to
follow Rooney and they can message him themselves and give feedback, adding the
two-way dimension.
The
final step to the model is ‘two way symmetric communication’ and it a method
that relies on honest and open two-way communication and mutual give and take
between organisation and consumer, rather than the persuasive element that the
asymmetric method entails. It is all about creating a mutually beneficial
relationship between audience and organisation and is about creating a
compromise; ‘It creates an equality of exchange’ (Theaker 2004, p16). This is
the main difference between asymmetric and symmetric communication, the former
aims to change consumers only, whereas the latter reaches a compromise, with
the organisation and the consumer’s attitudes being altered to meet in the
middle. It is however the most ‘idealist’ of all of the methods and rarely
comes to pass successfully in reality, it had attracted criticism from other
academics for this reason, even though Grunig himself described the work as
‘abstractions of reality’. It is however
a very popular technique employed by non-profit organisations.
Although
rare there is one good example of a long lasting symmetric campaign that still
runs to this day; David Beckham’s partnership with Adidas, especially with the
Adidas ‘Predator’ football boots. It is
a campaign in which the audience’s perception of Beckham matched that of the
organisation’s view. ‘Brand Beckham’ holds incredible power and familiarity,
which is part of its success; he is seen as a family man who has worked hard
for his status and a nice relatable guy for many. He has a contract with the
German sports giants worth over $125million and is definitely a celebrity who
is not a product of the audience but has earned his status, he is a ‘working
class hero’. His incredible reach means
that he builds a relationship with Adidas consumers and this fits in with
another of Grunig’s theories; ‘The Excellence Theory’.
Grunig’s
excellence theory states that celebrities are used to ‘create an impression in
the mind of the public that allow the organisation to buffer itself from its
environment.’ It is known as ‘the
symbolic, interpretative paradigm’ and is all about building a relationship
between public and celebrity away from the brand itself and if achieved, can be
phenomenally successful. Beckham has become synonymous with Adidas now and both
are rarely thought about without the other popping into mind. This is the ‘Holy
Grail’ in marketing for an organisation as their hard work is mostly done and
the long-term effect is implicated. This is of course unless the celebrity is
exposed in an unrecoverable, negative manner as we saw happen with the Tiger
Woods scandal in 2008 and the Wayne Rooney cheating affair in 2010. Rooney was
dropped as the image of Coca-Cola and the video game FIFA as he had failed his
duties as a public role model and it reflected badly on the organisations.
Although still with Nike, Wood’s contract terms were reduced and he lost
several other endorsements including Gillette and Rolex at a cost of millions
of dollars.
In the
incredibly interactive media landscape that exists today, I think that a
celebrity’s success is more and more dependent on the audience than it ever has
been before. The internet and emergence of reality TV has led to vast amounts
of feedback and judgment on a celebrity and people’s opinions can be the decision
between a successful career or an unsuccessful one for a celebrity. In days
gone by, celebrity’s were undoubtedly products of the dominant culture as they
had to have talent and something that set them aside, and were therefore
sculpted into perfect image for the audience to see. Although these types of
figures exist still to this day there are less and less of them and we as the
audience decipher their success. As I have mentioned earlier, you can have the
most famous, popular celebrity on earth but if they are sending out the wrong
message and promoting a product that doesn’t align with their image, you’re
going to fail. For that reason I would say that the audience are now the most
important part of the celebrity culture, holding the majority of the cards. ‘We the public will either want to believe
what we see, or find out for ourselves if our scepticism can be proven correct,
which is why this model still works in 21st century’ (Grunig 1984).
Referencing/Bibliography
Grunig, J, ‘Paradigms of
global public relations in an age of digitalization’, Prism, vol.
6, no. 2, pp1-19, 2009
Belch, E.G. & Belch, A.M. 2001,
Advertising and Promotion, 5th edn, McGraw Hill Irwin, New York, 177-179
p
Grunig, J. Hunt, T (1984)
Managing Public Relations, Thomson, US
Grunig, J. White, J
(1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, US
Theaker,
A (2004) The Public Relations Handbook, 2nd Edition, Routledge, London
Websites
used and further reading
No comments:
Post a Comment