We all know that the collective milk producers and dairy farmers are advertising heavily (with their "Got Milk?" campaign), and I can see why. They want people to drink more milk. The campaign has got to be the most successful in history (they claim more than 90% awareness). I can believe that number - their ads are EVERYWHERE.
My issue is more with the scope of their campaign. In an previous post I talked about the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement, if done well. They are taking this to the extreme! According to Wikipedia, no few than 200 celebrities have donned the milk mustache. And these are premium-priced celebrities - from Tiger Woods to Angelina Jolie. 200!!! And that's just the non-fictional celebrities! Add a couple dozen more fictional characters, such as SpongeBob SquarePants and Garfield.
Is that necessary? C'mon, I get it. I should drink more milk. But I would rather you use only a handful of these celebrities so that you don't have to charge me $6 for four litres to cover your marketing costs!
I know, I know, how can I, as a marketing consultant, advise against advertising spends? Well, because I think we also have a responsibility to make sure we're not excessively overcharging in order to recoup the costs associated with blatantly glamourous campaigns. In this case, it even seems somewhat monopolistic, since there isn't really a direct competitor to milk. If I want my cereal, I have to spend the $6!
Have your say: What are some other offenders? Who else overcharges to seemingly recoup marketing costs?