Horological Meandering

Sword side one.  On one end, you align the company with the views of that celebrity ambassador.  And it's implied your values are consistent with that celebrity.  Many celebrities infallibly fall into scandal/gossip vortexes that damage their image (regardless of deserved or undeserved by the celebrity) and subsequently damages the company's image.  And in fact, the wrong celebrity will damage the consumer's perception of the brand.  There are relatively few celebrities that give off the perfect vibe of sophistication, ethics, and a clean lifestyle and whom doesn't have any skeletons in the closet.  But these brands don't look for that, they go for individuals they already have a relationship with, whether or not that is the right one.  

Sword side two.  Many celebrities are not known for superlative taste, etc.  At least not anymore.  The glamour years of Hollywood with beautiful women whom exhibited class and sophistication (think Sophia Loren, Elizabeth Taylor when she was younger) are nearly gone.  Today, celebrities are no longer as large influencers of taste as they once were, especially out of media towns such as Los Angeles, New York, Mumbai, et al.  They share that spotlight with the rise of commerce; business men, famous investors, and famous intellectuals (playwrights, screenwriters, authors, professors, and journalists).  Rap-musicians and American Footballers are examples of individuals whom have only recently come into the spotlight, and many are still in their "fashionable" phases.  They themselves may become long-forgotten fashions themselves.  Style comes from years of experience (sometimes a lifetime) of those who have privilege.  "Fashions fade, style is eternal." - Yves Saint Laurent.  

In the end, watch companies shouldn't focus on celebrity endorsements.  Look at Patek Philippe, they are not tremendously public with celebrity endorsements.  Neither does A. Lange & Soehne nor Vacheron Constantin.  These companies prefer to let the product stand on their own.  By logical extension, does this mean that the other brands are almost relying on celebrities to help their products stand up?  I'll let you decide that one.    

Last but not least, celebrity endorsements work less and less in the higher end luxury goods.  The people who can afford to buy them are less moved and motivated by celebrities, especially sports and modern urban music celebrities.  They're moved and motivated by themselves.  I'd start a marketing campaign; "You're your own celebrity."  

There's a lot of other things to consider.  Depending upon the angle of the brand.  There are sometimes qualitative things about a celebrity endorsing a product.  For instance Richard Mille having celebrities such as race car drivers and tennis players stating his watches can survive the g-forces of such extreme situations and still tell perfect time.  This is a qualitative celebrity endorsement that indicates the product is particularly rugged.  Nothing else.  

But to have a rap musician or a basketball player say this watch is good adds absolutely no major qualitative aspect to the watch.  Unless that watch improves their music or athletic ability (which I wouldn't believe such a claim if it were made).  Garbage in, garbage out.  

Lastly, PR firms love using their celebrity connections and tell their clients (the brands) that they'll benefit greatly.  What do you think?  I think they're in it for themselves.  

In the end, when I was very young, I remembered my teachers always reminding me to be mindful and critical of one thing; recognize the time when someone is impartial.  Be critical to what you read and hear, never take something at face value.  Evaluate the feasibility and likelihood of the incoming information stream.  Filter as you see fit, and make a final evaluation as to the credibility and worthiness of the piece of information.  Being skeptical is not a bad thing.  A valuable lesson that I think all people should remember.  

  login to reply