Out in the market

Celebrity endorsement is a common marketing tool. Popular or well-known personalities are often used to “push” items, particularly those that are “new” in the market. A good example are the latest “. . . tathione” products, which, until recently, were relatively unknown in the local market. But thanks to celebrity endorsements and a strong marketing push, their producers now seem to be selling profitably.

Endorsers, obviously, must be widely popular. They should also be perceived by the public as credible and sincere. And while they are usually effective, more so if their marketing campaign is supported by trimedia and outdoor advertising, one must have deep pockets to afford them. The more popular the endorser, they are likely to be more expensive, with endorsement contracts usually running up to millions of pesos.

It remains uncertain, however, whether such is the case of at least three public officials now separately endorsing various products through television and outdoor advertising. They are widely popular, for sure, and seemingly credible. Otherwise, they would not have been all elected to the Senate. And one can suppose that their “endorsement” carries much weight with consumers.

One male senator, now on his second term, endorses a facial-care service via print and outdoor advertising. His male colleague, a neophyte at the Senate, endorses a health supplement via television advertising, while their female colleague, also a neophyte, endorses a laundry product also via television advertising. And while their endorsements are all seemingly aboveboard, and their actions surely legal, one cannot help but be wary of possible unintended effects.

Moreover, their endorsement contracts beg a question: if a Senate investigation is in aid of legislation, are their advertising contracts in aid of “reelection”? This seems to be the only plausible explanation. For how else can a public official, recently elected at that, justify his or her decision to serve as a “celebrity” endorser for a service or a product necessarily tainted more with private profit rather than public interest?

Marketers often claim there are two kinds of products in the market: good products, and products that need heavy marketing. In the same token, perhaps there are two kinds of public officials: those who are actually working, and those who are perceived to be working. How, then, do we classify those who actually go out of their way to endorse a consumer product through advertising?  

It seems unbelievable that the three senators would have agreed to separately endorse consumer products without compensation or consideration. And, assuming contracts were signed and money changed hands, it remains uncertain whether senators can actually receive amounts in their private capacity and beyond their legally mandated government salaries and benefits. But assuming that no payments were made, then it seems incredible that the good senators would have agreed to endorse for “free.” That seems to be more difficult to explain.

What if, in the future, the endorsed product or its maker runs into controversy and faces a Senate investigation? What are the good senators to do then? Is it just a matter of inhibiting themselves from the investigation? Will this not deprive the electorate of their proper representation in legislative work, simply because a “private” matter between the senator and the product maker runs conflict with his public duties?

Another possible conflict issue is in the line of legislation. What if the Senate receives a proposal for consideration involving legislation or regulation of the endorsed product or its maker? What are the good senators to do in this case? Again, will inhibition suffice or even be fair? Will this not short-change the public, the very people who elected the senators into office and who are actually paying their salaries? Either way, the senators are at the losing end, for they will seemingly lose their perceived objectivity the moment they take part in deliberations. At the back of the public’s mind, they will always be wary of how the senator will act on the matter involving his endorsement benefactor.

Another possible complication is that the endorsed product will face regulatory investigation or sanction for one reason or the other. Can the senator-endorser successfully dissociate himself or herself from the issue? Can he or she be expected to remain impartial and objective, and not act, officially or unofficially, in any way that will benefit his or her endorsement benefactor? Worse, what if the product undergoes public or consumer rebuke? How will this affect the senator’s credibility before the public? Can they risk the adverse effects or consequences of having publicly endorsed a lousy product?

Testimonial evidence is one thing, and comprehensive product testing another. It remains uncertain whether the endorsed products actually carry the weight of comprehensive scientific and medical scrutiny and review. And yet, the good senators still went ahead and endorsed them. A risky proposition, isn’t it? More so if the endorsement was done without compensation or consideration. Why will one do that? Why take that risk for nothing?

The final point is the future relationship between the senators and their endorsement benefactors—who are actually the endorsement beneficiaries as well, particularly if the senators’ endorsement translate to higher sales and more profit. Can one expect the senators to use the weight and influence of their office to benefit their benefactors either through legislation or investigation? Also, can one expect these benefactors to “support” the senators’ reelection bid either back to the Senate or to Malacañang? Or, perhaps, the “advertising opportunity” now is support enough already? After all, while national elections are still two years off, it is never too early to be “out in the market.” 

Comments to matort@yahoo.com

IT’S a shade too insensitive to say that there must be a silver lining in that powerful cyclone that flattened villages in the key rice-producing Irrawaddy delta in Burma—or Myanmar—at the weekend, leaving a death toll of at least 15,000 people, per latest accounts, but still rising.

I am an avid cycling enthusiast. As one, I have been up to Antipolo and to Tagaytay a countless number of times. But I guess the ultimate dream of a local cyclist is to go up to Baguio, as it offers one of the most challenging courses, to say the least, a cyclist can embark on.

“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.”—George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., March 31, 2001

The Way Forward: The food crisis

IT is a food crisis now. At first, there was just disruption of the movement of food staples from producers to consumers. But when inadequate supply triggered riots in some countries, food prices began to soar.

Sway: Out in the market

Celebrity endorsement is a common marketing tool. Popular or well-known personalities are often used to “push” items, particularly those that are “new” in the market.

Market Files: Skewed coal, gas taxes

There is a sense of disharmony in the way the government is taxing imported coal and that of its indigenous natural gas from the Malampaya natural-gas reservoir in offshore Palawan.