You’re scrolling through Instagram at 11:00 PM. You see a generic ad for a toothbrush. Scroll. You see a generic ad for a VPN. Scroll. Then, you see Ryan Reynolds making a deadpan joke about his own aviation gin being "smooth enough to forget your own children's names" (okay, maybe not that far, but you get the vibe). You stop. You might even laugh.
Why? Because famous people in ads aren't just faces anymore; they’re shorthand for trust, or at least for entertainment value.
But here’s the thing: just slapping a celebrity on a billboard doesn't work like it used to in the 90s. We’ve become cynical. We know they’re getting paid. We know they probably don't use that $12 drugstore mascara in real life. Yet, the data from 2024 and 2025 shows that 49% of Super Bowl ads still lean heavily on famous faces. Why do brands keep betting millions on star power?
It’s about the "short-term spike." According to recent research by System1, celebrity ads drive significantly higher brand recognition—often hitting 93% or higher—compared to ads without them. It’s the difference between a stranger asking for a favor and a "friend" (or someone you feel like you know) recommending a product.
The "Clooney Effect" and Why Logic Doesn't Matter
Psychologists call it attribute conditioning. Basically, if we like George Clooney and think he’s sophisticated, we subconsciously transfer those "sophisticated" vibes to Nespresso. It’s not a logical process. You don't sit there and think, "Because George Clooney acts well, this coffee pod must be high-grade Arabica."
You just feel it.
Nespresso’s global recognition jumped by 30% since Clooney started his partnership in 2006. That’s nearly two decades of one man being the face of a coffee pod. It works because the "fit" is perfect. Clooney represents "attainable luxury"—he’s suave but drinks his coffee in a kitchen, not just on a red carpet.
When the fit is off, things get weird. Remember the Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad? That’s the gold standard for how not to use famous people in ads. It wasn't just tone-deaf; it felt predatory. It tried to use a celebrity to "fix" a massive social movement with a can of soda. The audience didn't just ignore it—they revolted.
The $7 Billion Athlete: Michael Jordan’s Masterclass
If you want to talk about the absolute peak of this industry, you have to talk about Michael Jordan. In fiscal year 2024, the Jordan Brand generated $7 billion in revenue for Nike. To put that in perspective, Jordan personally earned about $300 million from Nike in 2024 alone.
That is more than he made in his entire 15-year NBA career. Combined.
What made the Jordan deal different? Ownership. Or rather, "ownership-like benefits." Most famous people in ads get a flat fee. They show up, say the line, and go home. Jordan’s mom, Deloris, famously insisted on a royalty structure. He gets a piece of every shoe sold.
This changed the game. It turned a "spokesperson" into a "partner." In 2025, we’re seeing this everywhere. Ryan Reynolds doesn't just "do ads" for Mint Mobile; he owned a chunk of the company before it sold to T-Mobile for $1.35 billion. When the celebrity has skin in the game, the audience feels it. It stops being a script and starts being a business move we’re all invited to watch.
Why 70% of Celebrity Brands Actually Fail
It looks easy from the outside. You have 50 million followers, you launch a tequila or a skincare line, and you profit, right?
Wrong.
💡 You might also like: US Stock Market Hours Explained: Why Timing Your Trade Is More Than Just 9:30 to 4:00
Industry data suggests that over 70% of celebrity-backed food and beverage brands fail. Authenticity is a fickle beast. Take Kylie Jenner’s "Glow" drinks. It felt like a "cash grab"—a term consumers now use like a weapon. If there’s no "lived experience" (as marketing experts like to call it), the brand dies once the initial hype fades.
Contrast that with Blake Lively’s Betty Buzz. She’s been vocal for years about not drinking alcohol. So, when she launched a line of non-alcoholic mixers, it made sense. It wasn't a reach. It was an extension of her actual life.
What People Get Wrong About "Influencers" vs. "Celebs"
In 2025, the line is blurry, but the effectiveness isn't.
- Micro-influencers often see engagement rates around 3.8%.
- Mega-celebrities usually hover around 1.2%.
Why? Because a micro-influencer with 50,000 followers can actually talk to their fans. They respond to DMs. They feel like a "real person." Celebrities are "aspirational," but influencers are "relatable." Brands are now realizing that one A-list movie star is great for a Super Bowl splash, but ten specialized influencers are better for actually moving product off the shelves.
The New Guard: Athletes as the Gold Standard
Athletes are currently outperforming traditional actors in the ad space. Why? Because you can't "fake" a game-winning shot.
In a world of AI-generated content and filtered photos, the "authenticity" of an athlete’s performance is a rare currency. Steph Curry’s deal with Under Armour includes stock options—again, that "skin in the game" factor. Fans know Curry is tied to the success of the shoe. When he wins, the brand wins.
How to Actually Use Famous People in Ads (Without Losing Your Shirt)
If you're a brand manager or a curious observer, the "rules" have changed. The "Old Way" was: Hire the most famous person you can afford and make them hold the product.
The "New Way" looks more like this:
1. Prioritize "The Fit" over "The Fame" If the celebrity doesn't actually use the product, don't hire them. Consumers in 2026 are digital detectives. If a celebrity is seen using an iPhone in a "leaked" photo but does ads for Samsung, the brand takes a massive hit to its credibility.
2. Speed and Agility Ryan Reynolds’ agency, Maximum Effort, is famous for this. When that Peloton ad went viral for all the wrong reasons in 2019, Reynolds hired the actress from the ad 48 hours later to do a commercial for his gin. It was fast, funny, and hijacked the cultural conversation.
3. Move to a Performance Model The days of the $10 million flat fee are dying. More brands are moving toward "performance-based" endorsements. This means the celebrity gets a smaller base fee but a percentage of the sales they actually drive. It keeps everyone honest.
📖 Related: 8900 Pesos to Dollars: What You'll Actually Get After Fees
4. Short-form is King A 60-second TV spot is a dinosaur. The most effective celebrity ads right now are 15-second TikToks that don't even look like ads. They look like "behind-the-scenes" content.
What This Means for You
The next time you see a famous person in an ad, ask yourself: Am I stopping because of the face, or because the story actually makes sense? We are moving into an era where "Fame" is a commodity, but "Attention" is a luxury. Brands that just buy fame end up with expensive flops. Brands that buy into a celebrity’s actual lifestyle—like Michael Jordan or Blake Lively—end up building empires.
If you're looking to leverage this for your own business, start small. You don't need George Clooney. You need the "George Clooney of your niche"—the person your specific customers already trust.
Practical Next Steps:
- Audit your "Trust Gap": If people aren't buying your product, is it because they don't know it exists, or because they don't trust your claims? If it's trust, a well-aligned endorsement can bridge that gap.
- Look for "Lived Experience": Find partners who were already talking about your industry before you offered them a check.
- Negotiate for Content, Not Just a Face: Ensure your deal includes the right to use their likeness in "lo-fi" social content, which often performs 2x better than high-production commercials.