Debatable is written by the Otago University Debating Society, which meets for social debating every Tuesday at 7pm in the Commerce Building. This week’s motion is “that this house would ban product endorsement by celebrities”. Maddie Harris argues the affirmative while Kate Rouch argues the negative.
Affirmative
Okay, so there’s this thing called human traits of imperfection, and then there’s the right of a consumer not to be mislead by sleazy advertising. Product endorsement by celebrities has become another marketing stunt for the lazy un-innovative who made it through a Marketing degree at uni, landed a job with a big marketing budget and unfortunately can’t come up with any advertising ideas of their own. Tragic cliché of a marketing student.
Okay, so firstly how it works; we put a famous person in his/her typical Nike gear with his Calvin Klein cologne (or the female equivalent). And we overly impressionable consumers see this advertisement, instinctively draw the connection between this gorgeous successful person, and these brands and then take it upon ourselves to also consume these products in an attempt to connect ourselves with that fantastic craving within us all - fame. Okay so, right intentions; God, fame would be great. But poor outcomes.
Let’s say this famous gorgeous creature was someone like Tiger Woods; here is where the human imperfection comes into play. He then f*cks up massively and everything he once stood for and this brand has collasped. Product endorsement by celebrities is falsely luring consumers into buying products based on a sleazy celebrity’s pre-scandal leaks rep. And one can only imagine the distress after naively purchasing a pre-sleaze scandal product; that feeling of being completely taken advantage of, and utter betrayal. Quite frankly, celebrity endorsement simply has to be banned. Consumers deserve the right not to be mislead by a crack fiend “has been” with the sex drive of a paedophile. When the celebrity cheats, they cheat on us, and that is not a risk that any consumer should be subject to.
Secondly, let’s take the recent insurgence of All Black involvement in advertising on TV. I am going to be the first to say this; sometimes it’s better if certain role models keep their mouths shut. In this case, celebrity endorsement for products can actually result in a complete destruction of said celebrity’s reputation. The “wow, he totally struggled to say a whole two sentences in a row” thing is a totally game blower for our young hopeful Kiwis aspiring to one day wear that black jersey. It’s better our celebrities stay where their talents lie (i.e. the rugby field), a captain with an ounce of charisma is carefully selected to do any public speaking, and we are all blissfully unaware of this inability to string sentences together, and the dreams of our young carry on!
It is simply clear that product endorsement by celebrities creates more betrayal, misleads consumers into purchases they don’t need, and leads them into realisations that detroy their dreams. As well as presenting marketing majors with an easy way out in terms of advertising ideas. Celebrity endorsement of products should definitely be banned. It s clearly time for a change. And soon to be Marketing grads; get stoned and come up with something great that doesn’t involve Katy Perry. I dare ya.
- Maddie Harris
Negative
There aren’t any good reasons to ban celebrity endorsement of products – although there are a myriad of poor reasons. Mr Fix-It Power’s legislation targets misleading statements, regardless of who speaks them. The fact is that people can separate a product from a person, and realise that just because a celebrity is paid to speak lines, it doesn’t make the product any better. What it’s more likely to do is give us all a bit of a laugh.
Let me explain. What this debate is really about is the Richard Long-Hanover Finance type situation. The message to take from this isn’t that celebrities shouldn’t endorse products. The proposed legislation said that, ‘anyone who makes a misleading statement in a product disclosure statement or advertisement is liable for a fine of up to $1m dollars.’ That means if Mary-Joe Bloggs off the street appears on the telly and says, ‘Oh yes, Clearajam, it made all my acne go away in two seconds,’ but neglects to say ‘oh and it also burnt my face off’ will be up for it. It also means if Sonny-Bill Jane says it, he’s up for it too. This is good because endorsers will inquire whether the product does what the script says it does before accepting the deal.
But what about those celebrities? Assuming they aren’t saying misleading things, but just lying about other people’s houses pretending to be heat pumps (Daniel Carter), which is the definitive mark of a face-melting babe, what’s the point? The point is that despite the best attempts of teacher campaigns telling us how atrociously our third-best-in-world education system is failing everyone, the New Zealand public is not stupid. We can tell that pretty-boy Carter is reading lines making money off Daikin, just as we can tell that Drew Barrymore was born with it, and it has nothing to do with Maybelline or their new vibrating gyrating mascara-wonder 3000X.
The ‘so-what?’ of this argument goes something like this: everyone is liable if they tell lies to the public, celebrity or not. People will take more care to make sure the company isn’t lying to them about what their product can do before signing contracts. Companies will realise their lying wolf-act will cost them, and that we’re smart enough to see through it even if they try it on. So there.
- Kate Rouch
Debatable - 26
