Now that you have been sufficiently intrigued by the title, here is the context- Dhoni is the current brand ambassador for Boost (the chocolate malt drink) along with Virat Kohli. Cricket fans and parents of teens may recall that Tendulkar was the brand ambassador for the same product some years back.
So, on the back of Tendulkar’s retirement, a facebook friend posed this question on whether Boost had really reaped the dividends for using celebrities for branding in contrast to close competitor Bournvita (which does not use celeb ads). This sparked off an interesting debate on the role of advertisements in the health drinks category.
Those who were for use of celebs
• Using sporting icons (not any celeb) to promote a health drink is aligned with its brand purpose and not such a bad idea.
• Some kids who hate milk drink milk and boost chocolate eclairs just because Dhoni drinks it! For their parents (yes, not just the mother), Dhoni is a god send!
Those who were against use of celebs
• Celeb ads are a short cut and an expensive /lazy way to market the product
• Such ads appeal to children’s aspirations, rather than the mother’s intelligence
I could not quite make up my mind, torn between my twin identities as a marketer and a mother, in this specific instance, though I have some pretty strong views on how ads can influence children.
Which side are you on?