Celebrity endorsements are a popular way for brands to achieve meaning, however, the success of any endorsement may be dependant on the correlation between celebrity and brand, which is known as the “matchup” effect, coined by McCracken in 1989. This has seen individuals such as McCracken, Amos, Holmes, Strutton, Kahle and Homer approaching their research in a similar manner, their school of thought outlining that the effectiveness of an endorsement is tied to how well the image and / or personality of the celebrity fits the product and the selling idea. The consumer – seen as the “fan” in a certain aspect needs to see the correlation between celebrity and the product.

Kahle, Homer and Kamins believe that in most cases, it is the attractiveness of the celebrity that strengthens the intentions of the consumer to purchase the advertised product. However, Zwilling and Fruchter believe that there are many contradictions and findings that can strain the task of creating a match between celebrity and product. For example, Shimp’s research outlines that “trustworthiness and attractiveness are emphasied over a celebrity’s popularity”, however his past studies have found that repeatedly pairing pleasant images with brands can result in favourable brand attitudes by viewers of those advertisements. Kahle, Homer and Kamins each agree that effective endorsements are not necessarily based on the “attractiveness” of a celebrity, although it assists in curving the attitudes of consumers. Kamins implies that celebrity endorsement influences consumers positively, with this influence somewhat partially due to the desire of a consumer to identify with the endorser.

Advertising, as an institution, is used on many occasions to sell the product they wish to. Young consumers may somewhat “borrow” from a celebrity they admire in the construction of their identity, by purchasing and using the product endorsed, constructing a self satisfying self-concept. Advertisers target their audiences perfectly, and use celebrities to do exactly so. Such a sweet deal for usually, a large price.

Recently I’ve been thinking about how much artists cater to their audiences. As the audience is everything, everyone really plays on that idea, uses it to their advantage, use it to make money – it’s all business. TV uses their audiences, obviously. My sister and my mum are watching TV as I write this and the former, in a thirteen year old fashion is squealing about how she has waited three seasons for these two characters to get together. She then proceeded by watching their much awaited steamy get together, and when I asked her if it was up to her expectations she looked at me, grinned, then looked back at the screen grimacing every so often. She has literally grown into an eighteen year old in front of my eyes. Coming back to my main point, it goes to show how active audiences are these days while watching TV shows. These producers, directors, everyone involved know what they’re doing. They deliberately don’t let two characters get together so this happens to viewers across the country. Yes, the audience controls ratings, but the producers control the audience’s emotions and that is television. This is what I love about it, being able to produce something that thrusts such a plethora of emotions onto a vulnerable and antagonised mind. This is television. This is media.

After the extremely entertaining and informative lecture this week about “narrative” given by Dan, it has prompted me to reflect on what is better – having a narrative or not? It was a topic that everyone had their own formed opinion on this week, whether or not the like having a narrative to follow. I think that when it comes down to it, it is down to personal preference. Not needing a narrative is similar to going into an art gallery and being comfortable and seeking solace in interpreting one piece of work in whichever way you want – creating a narrative for it. However, some do not need a narrative, individuals who would prefer to have an explicit meaning behind something,  with a structure to follow, especially when watching a film. I think that it is so interesting to think about the variety of ways someone can interpret something, and how some individuals dislike not having a narrative to follow, which is understandable as some prefer to watch a sequence of events that progresses with a climax at the end and a resolution. Narrative is such a tricky topic, there are various thematic concerns that need to be present in order to classify something as a narrative, but I also believe that an individual’s own take on a piece of work can assist in declaring something a narrative or not.

“You know how everyone’s always saying seize the moment? I don’t know, I’m kind of thinking it’s the other way around, you know, like the moment seizes us.”

Although the project briefs of representing a person have now come to an end, I thought it would be good to see how the professionals do it. Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood” is the epitome of a portrait. Filmed over the course of 12 years, Linklater delves into the adolescence of Mason Evans Jr (portrayed by Ellar Coltrane) as he matures between the ages of 2002 – 2013 growing up in Texas. Experiencing the ups and downs of divorce, drug use and graduation, audiences literally see Mason growing up in front of their very eyes. With a soundtrack true to its era, it really is a nostalgic journey for anyone watching. It is truly amazing to see such a work of art that has been created over such a vast period of time by individuals with such an obvious investment in the project. It is simply extraordinary to experience the film first handedly, as a representation of a specific individual and their triumphs and downfalls.
Nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards and rated 8.1 on IMDB, this film is one of beautiful moments, with concept rich with emotion and naturalism, as Linklater uses its duration to remind everyone that life is about the little moments.