Anybody else have an issue with milk advertising?

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?

Does Tiger Really Drive a Buick? Appears So.

Athlete endorsements are a tricky game for marketers. Not only is it expensive (more expensive for Tiger Woods than for Tiger Williams), but you need to be absolutely sure your spokesperson represents in some way the values you espouse as a company (think MJ vs Kobe).

Perhaps most importantly, the endorsement only works if we, the consumer, believe the athlete actually uses the product. I keep seeing these ads of Shaq endorsing the Icy Hot back pad, and I just don't buy it. He's got a whole staff of trainers - why would he need a back pad? I don't really believe Gretzky drives a Ford. But I, all of a sudden, do believe Tiger drives a Buick. I didn't until I saw his recent ad (www.buick.com - click on the emblem).

The TV version of the ad is essentially 30 seconds of Tiger talking about how much he enjoys the ride. He sounds sincere which helps, but what struck me is Buick's decision to truly get him to endorse the product. Too many companies simply put their star athlete's image next to the logo (see Tiger's Tag Heuer ads) and expect the association to lead to increased sales. It does, but not as effectively as it could. Buick got Tiger to sit down and, in his own words (it seems), talk about how much he enjoys using the product personally.

Now that's endorsement.

Have your say: What are the best and worst athlete endorsements? Agassi and Canon? Daly and Winn Grips?