Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong TV Spots Were Worst Celebrity Ads of 2010

[StyrbjornSterki]

Study: Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong TV Spots Were Worst Celebrity Ads of 2010
8:25 AM 1/13/2011 by Georg Szalai

Product confusion and dislike of a star often mean that expensive endorsement deals don’t pay off.

NEW YORK - A new study on celebrity endorsements shows that big names often don’t pay big dividends in advertising.

It ranked a Tiger Woods commercial for Nike, followed by a Lance Armstrong Radio Shack ad as the worst celebrity spots of 2010 based on effectiveness. A Macy’s commercial featuring Donald Trump came in at number five of the least effective celebrity endorsements.

In an analysis of nationally televised ads over the first 11 months of 2010, the study by Ace Metrix found that commercials with celebrities performed at or below average in key metrics, Ad Age reported.

The five worst celebrity ads all had a negative "lift," a metric that measures how much better or worse an ad did compared with its industry competition, of 24 percent to 30 percent.

Overall, the study found that one-fifth of celebrity spots had a negative impact on ad effectiveness. And fewer than 12 percent of celebrity ads exceeded a 10 percent lift.

"From Tiger Woods to Donald Trump, we found that with rare exception, celebrity endorsements were largely ineffective and failed to yield the benefits popular wisdom promises," Ace Metrix CEO Peter Daboll wrote.

In the digital age, consumers are simply too pressed for time, not easily vowed and as likely to be influenced by their social networks as by celebrities or more so, he explained said.

Confusion about what product a celebrity was promoting and dislike of a celebrity were key drivers cited by consumers that also seem to have played a key role in the Woods commercials. "Mired in controversy, Tiger's sponsors chose to address his "mistakes" in their ads rather than the products that he was supposed to be hawking," Daboll said.

Woods has lost a slew of key sponsors since news of extramarital affairs first emerged.

 

[ExRower]

I prefer Millward Brown's ad testing

 

[Race Radio]

It is only going to get worse for Wonderboy, he is toxic goods.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Another take on the study:

Don’t Hire Tiger Woods or Lance Armstrong For Your Ad Campaign

Jan. 13 2011 - 1:55 pm

Celebrity endorsements aren’t what they used to be.

According to a study by Ace Metrix in Ad Age, celebrities do nothing to help sell a product, sometimes they can even hurt sales.

… today’s consumer is more likely to be influenced by someone in their social network than a weak celebrity connection. Today’s consumer is informed, time-compressed, and difficult to impress, and they are only influenced by ads that are relevant and provide information. They don’t want to have products pushed at them, even from a celebrity.

Ace Metrix studied every celebrity ad from the first 11 months of 2010 and found that one-fifth of the ads had a negative impact on advertising effectiveness.

Tiger Woods, unsurprisingly, did the most damage. His Nike ad “Did You Learn Anything” was 30% less effective. Ad Age suggests part of the problem was that Nike focused on what Woods had done wrong instead of on any specific Nike products.

Lance Armstrong was also considered highly ineffective for his Radio Shack ad “No Emoticons.” Other celebrities who hurt ad effectiveness: Kenny Mayne, Dale Earnhardt Jr. and Donal Trump.

If the report inspires companies to cut back on using so many celebrities in their ads, it could really put a crimp in the earning power of many of the members of our Celebrity 100 list. People like Scarlett Johannson and David Beckham can sometimes earn as much from endorsements as they can from their day jobs.