WHAT'S BETTER, CELEBS OR MASCOTS? Like, if you have to choose what kind of character you want to invest in and be the face of your brand, should you pick a celebrity spokesperson or a brand mascot? @DistinctiveBAT crunched some numbers on hundreds of, uh, brand representatives: George Clooney for Nespresso, the M&Ms, Ben Affleck for Dunkin’, Kevin the Carrot for Aldi, etc. They calculated a “BAT score” for each: What % of people recognize the character + What % link it to the right brand - What % link it to the wrong brand = Total BAT score That score goes from a max of 200 (100% recognize it + 100% link it to the right brand - 0% misattribute it) to, well, -100. Overall, they found that mascots CRUSH celebs. 🔸They have 18% more recognition (68% vs 50%). 🔸They have 24% more correct brand attribution (45% vs 21%). 🔸They have 4% less incorrect brand attribution (8% vs 12%). That’s a total score of 105 for mascots and 58 for celebs. That’s nearly DOUBLE the final score. Caveats, of course: this is solely about brand attribution. It doesn’t address added reach or fame, costs, flexibility, or even business results. And a strong celeb could beat a crappy mascot. But from a purely brand-linkage perspective, celebs get pinned to the mat by mascots. (Also, that would be funny to watch…) Some lessons: 🔸If you’re looking for a face for your business, consider a mascot vs a celebrity. 🔸If you’ve got a character of any kind, USE it, and use it a lot. 🔸The best characters are linked to your brand alone. ~~~~~~~~ Sign up to the Irregular News for posts like these & more goodness, delivered to you weekly(ish) at AppliedBrandScience. com/signup