Commercial organizations are keen to use celebrities to advertise their products and services; so do health campaigns. Market research dictates that when celebrities endorse products or good causes, they sell and the general public take notice. That’s a good thing, right? Not always.
Celebrities
have advertised cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, and fast food. Some still do. That
was before the wave of consciousness, nutritional research, and other studies
(social, psychological, and attitudinal). Then, even though some celebrities
were smokers, they promoted a healthy lifestyle, while others were paid to quit
“bad” habits. The Canberra Times (October 4, 2012) cites examples such as the anti-smoking
campaign and the sporting celebrity who was caught smoking; and the breast
cancer awareness campaign whereby an actress was also caught smoking. Mixed
messages?
The
general public either condemned the celebrities for re-lapsing or being hypocritical,
while others took the view that celebrities were “real” people after all.
Sometimes it makes the celebrities more “relatable, more human,” and this, in
turn, may make the advertisements more credible. Not so, say others. When the
public see celebrity behaviour that is contrary to their campaign message, they
often feel slighted, or slightly angry, especially as stars are paid handsomely
for their commercials and endorsements. Simon Chapman, professor and director
of research at Sydney University’s School of Public Health, says “When you hear
someone does something for money, the tendency is to see their authenticity as
diminished.”
Celebrities
endorsing public health campaigns, such as depression, cancer, heart disease,
and the like, can lead to a high increase in public awareness and a subsequent decrease
in related illnesses and diseases. Celebrities can raise unprecedented
awareness in the target demographic, leading to more people having medical
check-ups, scans, mammograms, and blood tests. However, in the British Medical Journal, September 2012,
Simon Chapman and Geoff Rayner, honorary research fellow at London University,
debate whether or not celebrities should be used to endorse such campaigns.
Chapman says celebrity health campaigns can produce mixed results. He cites the example in which young women having mammograms exposed themselves unnecessarily to the risk of radiation and to the potential of false-positive results. The false-positive readings resulted in the removal of a breast when it did not need surgery. Chapman and Rayner wrote, “Celebrities often get involved because of personal experience with a disease or because they share the concerns of other citizens and want to help … and like experts, some probably calculate that a public profile on good causes might also be good for their careers.” They added that, “ulterior motives aside, the ability for celebrities to bring an issue into the spotlight is second to none.”
Chapman says celebrity health campaigns can produce mixed results. He cites the example in which young women having mammograms exposed themselves unnecessarily to the risk of radiation and to the potential of false-positive results. The false-positive readings resulted in the removal of a breast when it did not need surgery. Chapman and Rayner wrote, “Celebrities often get involved because of personal experience with a disease or because they share the concerns of other citizens and want to help … and like experts, some probably calculate that a public profile on good causes might also be good for their careers.” They added that, “ulterior motives aside, the ability for celebrities to bring an issue into the spotlight is second to none.”
But
celebrities bringing health campaigns or good causes to public awareness, such
as anti-poverty, human rights, child rights, and environmental concerns, may
not always be the right medium, says Chapman and Rayner. Celebrities may not be
right for delivering important health messages, they announced in their report.
“It’s not until you start delving into the role of celebrity culture on health
that the negatives begin to stack up,” Rayner said. “What celebrity culture
does so effectively is promote icons of rampant consumerism and fantasy
lifestyles … but celebrity status is often fleeting.”
They
believe that a better alternative is to “go on the offensive against junk food,
alcohol, gambling, and other often celebrity-linked, commercial propaganda.”
Celebrities can do good and bad to a cause or campaign, despite putting the campaign
on the world map. Chapman and Rayner advocate that the general public considers
the advantages and disadvantages of a celebrity campaign carefully before
“blindly” following their cause. Mike Daube, professor of health policy at
Curtin University and director of the Public Health Advocacy Institute, would
prefer campaigns to use real doctors and specialists, but notes the paradox
that the general public rarely listens to the real experts in the commercial
sphere.
So,
is any publicity good publicity? Does the good publicity outweigh the
negatives? The overall effects seem dependent upon the campaign, and the choice
of celebrity. But mixed messages can bring mixed results.
Comments
Post a Comment