RSS Feed Not Quite Conversation

« Technology: Live at DigitalLife An Open Console Future »
July 5, 2005

11:58 am | 0 recommendations | 8 comments

Acting Up

| posted by Kevin Ohannessian

On Saturday, I went and saw War of the Worlds. Worlds was a good adaptation of a good novel. But, despite the marketing machine behind it, two of my friends didn't come because of Tom Cruise's recent antics. Some have said that the film's success proves that the public can separate an actor's private life from his work. Yet, everyone was talking about the Lauer-Cruise interview. Maybe the percentage was small, but there are those who didn't go because of it.

Can a person's actions be a liability to a company? One could point to Steve Jobs or Michael Eisner, but their criticism hasn't been of a personal nature. The big business personalities don't get the same scrutiny that celebrities do. But, when those celebrities are tied to business, like an actor in a film or a spokesman in a commercial, the backlash to a company can be huge. Remember Madonna's incident with Pepsi?

In the last few decades the fields of business and entertainment have been inextricably tied together. With endorsements, sponsorships, and alliances, companies have become bound to the fickle nature of celebrity and public opinion. Is the gamble worth it? When is using a celebrity the wrong way to market?

Tags: Management, sales + marketing
Report Content
Sign in or register to comment.

Recent Comments | 8 Total

July 5, 2005 at 4:51pm

Mike La Bonne
Tom Cruise has joined the list of actors I will never watch again (Jane Fonda, Chris Christoferson), because of his ridiculous display with Matt Lauer. Cruise is not a well-educated person, and it showed convincingly when he tried to buffalo Lauer with his "knowledge" about psychiatry. Cruise's insistence on badgering people to learn about the fake religion, Scientology, is another reason I will never watch him again.
Report Content

July 5, 2005 at 5:55pm

Katherine Stone
As someone who experienced postpartum depression, I can tell you that an antidepressant helped saved my life. I just don't understand what makes Tom thinks he has any understanding whatsoever of what it is like to go through such a terrible illness, or what might work to treat it. I will not go see "War of the Worlds" and many of the women I know across the country who have suffered postpartum mood disorders plan to skip it as well.
Report Content

July 5, 2005 at 6:25pm

Shannon O'Hara
I think Tom Cruise has been very successful in pushing peoples' buttons in the past few weeks. Some may see this as successful publicity, but I also believe that his behavior can be detrimental to business - in this case, the film studio. Because Cruise was talking about a very emotional issue, mainly anti-depression medications with M. Lauer, he was successful in getting people talking about him. However, as the comments before mentioned, much of the buzz was of the negative variety. It doesn't look like much damage was done in terms of box office receipts (although I am not sure that it really helped either), but I think yes, companies must always worry about what kind of image their spokespeople are portraying, since it almost always projects onto the company in the end.
Report Content

July 6, 2005 at 2:29am

Ian
Not going to see someone's film because you don't believe what he believes or were annoyed by what he said is a bit over the top in my opinion. An actors personal beliefs have no bearing on whether or not a movie the said person stars in is good or not. Who cares if he disagrees with psychiatry, he's still an excellent actor? If Steven Spielberg was a practicing Jew (which, to my knowledge, he's not) I wouldn't skip one of his films simply because he practices Judaism and I do not, and I disagree with his beliefs.
Report Content

July 6, 2005 at 5:18am

Jim Sprague Jr.
I agree with Ian. I plan on seeing the movie only because of my fascination with H.G. Wells. It is very sad how Hollywood has to use their actors to manipulate ratings through publicity stunts. Why not instead launch a historical "H.G. Wells Tribute" television campaign, and tie it in with the movie? As for Tom, he's a great actor, however, pride comes before the fall.
Report Content

July 6, 2005 at 10:40am

Steve B.
While I am sure that there are many people, especially women, who will no longer see Tom Cruise movies because of his "different" stances, there is a much more troubling issue at play here. Mr. Cruise was interviewed on national television to discuss a technical medical subject in which he has no formal education or experience. To my knowledge he does not even have college level science classes under his belt. The media is creating experts out of social standing instead of through personal knowledge or intensivestudy. It does not say much for our society when a man who has never experienced post partum depression (neither have I) nor had the opportunity to study the bio-medical origins of it is now at the very least one of the most quoted on the subject. The "press" is presenting actors as experts and often those who are "reporters" are now no more than actors reading scripts. It is no wonder that there is no logical debate on a myriad of important subjects when the only information provided is at best one sided and often is not understood by the so called "experts." For the message to not be so muddied, the messenger better start becoming more responsible.
Report Content

July 6, 2005 at 11:02am

dave
It seems to me that the celebrities, who have gathered fame through performances, step out of the job I hire them to do when they utilize the spotlight to promote political or religious views. Entertainment is largely about suspending belief. Once an entertainer moves from pop icon (preferrably a likeable image) to controversial spokesperson engaging emotions and political bias, they damage their franchise with some segment of consumers. Companies must do what actors should do...remain neutral and provide great service in the roles that customers want them to play. As to War of the Worlds. It was visually impressive. I didn't think much of the acting...much of it may be the writer and director's fault...but I wonder how much of it was influenced by all the recent Cruise antics? D
Report Content

July 7, 2005 at 4:37am

cathalt
The main reason not to go to this movie is that's it's rubbish Cruise is a Hollywood creation, whose life bears little relation to other peoples. Deciding to or not buy or use something because of the behaviour of a celebrity is not living in the real world. Celebrities are there for our entertainment not to be listened to on important issues
Report Content

Special Editions?

Advertiser Links