In Summary

  • Analysis for The Conversation by Dr Nives Zubcevic-Basic, Director, Master of Marketing, Swinburne University of Technology

Celebrities are always part of the show in the US presidential election. This is by no means a new trend. Historians have traced the role of celebrities in politics back to the 1920 election, when Warren Harding was endorsed by film stars including Lillian Russell.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy was endorsed by Rat Pack members Sammy Davis junior and Dean Martin. More recently, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney,, Brad Pitt and Samuel L. Jackson supported Barack Obama. Actor Clint Eastwood, however, endorsed Republicans John McCain in 2008 and Donald Trump this time around.

The 2016 election is no different. So how much of a difference, if any, do high-profile endorsements make? And to which demographics?

Who’s endorsing who?

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have been endorsed by an army of celebrity supporters.

Some of Clinton’s high-profile endorsers include LeBron James, Amy Schumer, Katy Perry, Meryl Streep, Jamie Lee Curtis, Lady Gaga, Ellen DeGeneres, Drew Barrymore, George Clooney, Khloe Kardashian, Kerry Washington, Viola Davis, Britney Spears, John Legend, Richard Gere, Salma Hayek, Lena Dunham, Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce and Snoop Dogg.

In contrast, some of Trump’s supporters include Azealia Banks, Sarah Palin, Kirstie Alley, Tom Brady, Charlie Sheen, Dennis Rodman, Kid Rock, Mike Tyson, Donnie Wahlberg, Gary Busey, Hulk Hogan, Tim Allen and Chuck Norris.

If we simply look at the Twitter power behind some of the celebrities listed above, Clinton’s camp – with DeGeneres, Spears, James, Lopez and Beyonce – has a combined 195.6 million followers, compared to Trump’s camp – Sheen, Tyson, Palin, Hogan and Alley – with a combined 21 million followers.

Celebrities often go beyond simple endorsements and make powerful statements such as Elizabeth Banks’ Fight Song or the star-studded Avengers cast’s oblique but powerful statement against Trump.

Former heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson has pledged his support to Donald Trump. Sonia Moskowitz/Getty Images

Celebrities sell

Advertisements featuring celebrities are a popular marketing strategy. In fact, one in five ads globally features a celebrity. Undoubtedly, endorsements are big business.

Some well-known campaigns include Beyonce and Pepsi (worth US$50 million), Justin Bieber and OPI nail polish ($12.5 million) and Brad Pitt and Chanel No. 5 ($6.7 million).

Marketers happily spend millions on celebrity endorsers as they are able to leverage “secondary brand associations” – that is, people transfer their opinions and feelings about a celebrity to the brand.

In a cluttered world where myriad messages fight for the attention of time-starved consumers, celebrity endorsers serve as arbiters of public opinion. And so, marketing organisations rely on symbolic and emotional features to generate “sociopsychological associations”. Some celebrities are seen to be so aspirational that even a glimpse of them in an ad conveys positive meaning, like athletes Cristiano Ronaldo and Roger Federer.

It’s important to understand the traits a celebrity, also referred to as a source, should have in order to transfer positive meaning to a brand. These are broken down into three categories:

  • source attractiveness (physique, intellect, athleticism, lifestyle);
  • source credibility (expertise, trustworthiness); and
  • meaning transfer (compatibility between brand and celebrity).

Quite often, celebrities use their high profile to encourage people, world organisations and politicians to support their cause, like singer Bono’s One campaign against poverty. Actors Jack Black and Neil Patrick Harris encouraged Californians to vote against the California Marriage Protection Act.

Not-for-profit and world organisations are aware of the power of celebrities and create connections in order to garner publicity, awareness and donations. This includes the United Nations and Angelina Jolie, and DeGeneres and the Ice Bucket Challenge.

Celebrities are able to motivate young people to seek further information and to take part in activist causes. Kim Kardashian West/Instagram

Celebrity endorsements in politics makes sense

We know celebrities grab and hold consumer attention. They also improve ad recall. People are more likely to think positively about a product because they are familiar with the celebrity.

However, expertise is an important element when wanting to influence consumers. Credibility is another crucial factor that tells us not all celebrities are equal. Those considered to be more credible have a higher influence on people’s opinions and decisions.

Celebrities with prior political activism, like Martin Sheen and George Clooney, are more likely to have a stronger influence. Interestingly, people consider celebrities to be more credible and trustworthy than politicians.

A negative comment by a credible endorser such as Oprah Winfrey can be as damaging as a positive one. For example, Winfrey stopped eating burgers during the 1996 “mad cow” spread – this resulted in a 10% drop in cattle futures the next day.

Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump at a rally. Mark Kauzlarich/Reuters

Effectiveness and audience

Research has found that young adults are more likely to listen to family and friends, rather than celebrities, as a source of political information.

At the same time, young people believe celebrities have an effect on the way people think – more than politicians, scientists or academics. Outside of age, ethnicity and gender are also known to affect celebrity endorsement influence.

For instance, African-American and Caucasian-American voters are more likely to rely on family and friends. However, Asian-American, Polynesian and Hispanic voters are more likely to trust politicians or interest groups. Also, men consider celebrities to have a greater influence than women do, regardless of cultural background.

Celebrities are able to motivate young people to seek further information and to take part. However, this is less true of first-time voters. Those who are less politically savvy or poorly informed are also more likely to vote for a political party endorsed by a celebrity.

What’s interesting is that most celebrities tend to align themselves with politically uncontroversial issues and tend to steer towards liberal perspectives – for example, George Clooney and Not On Our Watch, a campaign for improving human rights.

Trump’s camp includes controversial celebrities who have previously been involved in controversial branding endorsements, like Charlie Sheen and underwear brand Hanes.

Trump was also a celebrity prior to becoming a candidate. People’s experience of his public persona through his roles on TV have over time instilled a specific meaning. That meaning is now transferred to his political campaign.

Entertainer Katy Perry and Hillary Clinton at a campaign rally in October 2015. Scott Morgan/Reuters

So what’s the final verdict?

With the right celebrity endorsements, political campaigns can do quite well.

Oprah Winfrey’s endorsement of Obama in 2008 was found to increase overall voter participation and number of contributions received by Obama, and an estimated overall 1 million additional votes.

All it takes is trustworthiness, credibility, and a lot of followers.

Several actors make a powerful statement against Donald Trump. The Conversation

Written by Nives Zubcevic-Basic, Director, Master of Marketing, Swinburne University of TechnologyThis article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.