h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Suggs for example. He does the voiceovers for an insurance company - and even answers their phones when you call them: 'delighted you called xxxxx'. Like he gives a monkeys! And he's tarnished my memories by doing advert-versions of Madness songs. I used to think he was 'one of us', 'boy next door' etc. Someone in the advertising agency obviously surveyed and found this to be a widely held perception and thus made him ripe for ad work.

Martin Freeman. Short of a bob or two is he?

Ant and Dec and 'that' hamburger company. What's embarassing about those adverts is the way they try to script them in Ant & Dec banter style.

I lose respect for people when they do adverts. I feel that someone is exploiting my like for a person. Unless, of course, they're benevolently giving the money to charitiy.

That kinda turned into a rant, but I'd like to know what peeps think.

Calm down, it's just a commercial.

Couldn't resist it

Well if they need the money they need the money and a friendly voice is nice to hear.

Well, I certainly feel disappointed when actors/comedians whose work I admire sell out. Hoooh yus.

But I suppose it depends on why the celebrity is famous. I have strong objections to adverts in which well known people trade on their image for trustworthiness/numeracy/cleverness to endorse a product (and particularly finance products). It's one thing to use a comedian to produce an entertaining advert to sell a product, it's quite another for celebrities who are not entertainers or sportspeople to do ads.

"I'm a famous boxer, so I know lots about grilling food!"

"I feel that someone is exploiting my like for a person"
Yep, that's what they are doing. Exploiting the celebs fame and therefore the publics affection.
Hence you get such ludicrous things as Jamie Oliver advertising a supermarket he doesn't shop at. Now that is a betrayal of trust.

But, equally, you get people like Johnny Wilkinson who refused to advertise softdrinks and junk food because, as he said, he doesn't drink soft drinsk and he doesn't eat junk food. Bearing in mind the probably astronomical fees he would have been payed, that is integrity.

I think it is OK if the celeb actually believes in the product, but then that's just me being an idealist.

There was an interesting comment by a famous author (well, famous in literary circles I think, I can;t remember her name!) from America who said:

"We aren't citizens anymore, we're consumers" (actually, she probably said it better than that!).

And I think that has a lot of truth to it. The primary function of the individual in the state appears to be to consume. As much and as often as possible. Since that is the most important function, any method possible will be used to increase it. And if that means conning people then that appears to be fair enough.
The worrying thing is that most people don;t seem to care.

Interesting fact, following the Paris Hilton mobile phone hack where her entire address book and messages and so forth were spread across the internet, sales of that particular phone went through the roof.

I mean, how daft is that? A proven to be vulnerable and insecure piece of equipment is snapped up cos some posh bint has one?

My initial reaction was to post stating how I also dislike celebrities cashing in on their 'status', and how teevee advertising has also used and abused some great imagery and music, but then, when I thought about it, I think we should have 'celebrities' adverts, as many as possibe, it should be actively encouraged because the alternative is infinately worse.

I would much rather watch Michael Winner endorsing a product by dressing up as a woman an trying to be funny or Linda Barker fannying about on a sofa than the alternative which is when companies try and 'make' their own celebrities, like that speccy gurning bloke from the Halifax, or they attempt to ape real life with 'wow that stain has completely gone' shocks to 'normal' housewives in 'normal' supermarkets. Or the absolute worse is the Ocean Finance route when you troupe outa succession of pin headed troglodytes to talk about how friendly and easy to use your services are.

No, give me 'genuine' celebrities making idiots of themselves over pseudo celebrities singing about their interest rates or chavs in debt any day.

I like B&Q giving their employees the chance to star on the telly ?

How much does anyone reckon they get paid ?

Must be a fair bit, especially as B&Q are saving a bomb by not using celebraties........

I wouldn't be surprised if they pay them as little as they possibly can.

Ditto

still probably more than they usually pay them and there is usually a repeat showing fee so the more times the advert is shown the more they earn

I'll bet that 'speccy gurning bloke' has earned enough to retire by now

Fingers crossed eh

<<Must be a fair bit, especially as B&Q are saving a bomb by not using celebraties........>>

Yeah when previously they must of been paying mucho too mucho dineros to get the megastars which are Leslie Ash and Neil Morrisey. As if they are 'real' employees of B&Q anyway, I once worked for a company that shipped in 'employees' to appear in the photo's to be included in the annual report (not that I blame them).

You see, it all begs the question, if you were an advertiser with a fixed budget, would you blow it all on one big advert with a 'decent' A lister, or string it out over several adverts with pikey C or D list celebs.

I also hate to see people sell their soul like that. Show a bit of integrity. As for a "They need the money" argument. For what, a new yacht? But apparently celebrity endorsements have been around since Roman times, so it doesn't seem people are getting any better.

Most of the people you see in adverts are actors, just not necessarily famous ones. Same goes for the adverts that just use voiceovers - John Peel, Caroline Quentine and Sean Bean are just 3 that spring to mind for those. And it pays well - actor Ray Brooks once said that, after he appeared in the series "Big Deal", people wanted to know what he'd been doing for the past 10 years or so. They were amazed when he told them he'd earned a reasonable living doing advert voiceovers. And Paul Merton said he wouldn't do adverts unless they offered him silly money. A few years ago he did some ads for Phones4U, so I guess they must have paid him a fair bit.

I have no objection to *actors* doing adverts, per se. It's what they do (acting, that is), albeit on a small scale. What I do object to is *celebrities* doing adverts, be they people who have a genuine "claim to fame", like Jamie Oliver, or people who have _become_ celebrities, like the four-eyed twit in the Halifax ads. I also object to the assumption that some advertising agencies seem to make - that I'm more likely to buy a product or service if it's advertised by somebody with a famous face. Some of those adverts aren't even well done - the esure ads with Michael Winner are a prime example, and the L'Oreal ads get me changing channels the minute they appear.

'Celebrity' ads have been going on TV for as long as I can remember. If I really cast my mind back, I can remember Orson Welles doing ads for sherry, and David Niven advertising Maxwell House instant coffee. So it's not the use of a 'famous face' that bugs me, it's the assumption that a famous face is all it takes to make me buy something and the poor quality of some of the adverts that are made using these 'famous faces'.

I was devastated when Alice Cooper did that ad with of all people, Ronnie Corbett....now come on, leave us old 'uns our illusions, when I was 12 Alice Cooper ranked as the AntiChrist with my parents, if not worse!

Fine by me - less space for that bloody frog in the ad breaks!

I often hope that the celebrities see it as any easy way to make heaps of cash for charity. Maybe a naive wish.

I'd say so yes.

I don't mind an actor doing acting. I mind it when they do direct endorsements. Such as "Hi, I'm Antonio Banderas. Buy these chips."

Being paid silly money makes me think of being handed a wad of Monopoly notes.