I think the trust dimension is crucial in categories of advertising where the creative isn't necessarily that strong.

Just by appearing in broadcast media the implicit message is 'we can afford to buy this space' and thus are somewhat trustworthy.

Secondly I don't believe what people say unless I know the methodology for the research but if people express a scepticism for celebrity endorsement then maybe the issue is that the brands are also saying. Not only can we buy the media space, but we can buy the celebs to go with it. We must be trustworthy. Maybe the outtake is that people trust the brands more and the celebs a little less from this process.

Just a thought because with respect to 'media as trust' I've been thinking about this for some years now. Your post takes my thinking in another direction.

here we all are gathered at grant's blog, with our own blogs in our pockets, associating with each other over ideas that we care passionately about (and most likely earn our livelihood trading in) debating whether or not there is any significance to celebrity endorsements.

i'll be the first to admit that reason number one i enjoy grant's blog is that i hope that some of anthropological insight will rub off on me, that i will always be learning and thinking in new ways. and i know that, in conversation, i will want to drop a reference to him (both to give him credit and to assure people that i do read) in conversation with people in a way that will lend substance to an idea that, without that reference, could easily have been discarded as the babblings of a chowderhead.

so i guess the question is – aren't we all celebrities who are always endorsing?

If we do like or admire them, then we can feel an affinity for the products, e.g., Tiger Woods and Nike.

Brands can also become celebrities (e.g., Google, Apple), and thereby command attention on their own.

i'm interested in the oddly transactional framework that accompanies the 'endorsement' way of thinking of this – as if this interaction between viewer/consumer and product/communication were on Tivo:
play.
stop.
rewind.
ask if they know what they're talking about.
consider their level of knowledge on the topic at hand.
compare with current agreed upon standards of excellence and knowledge in the field.
evaluate real credibility
consider considering purchase.
confidently state immunity to mass media.
buy product reluctantly
use socially and smile while doing so.

i would argue that endorsement is a dead word. credibility is personality. the blending of celebrity and brand and business is fascinating at this moment in time: lance armstrong, tiger woods, 50 Cent (real credibility?), Jackass, the entire Bravo Network . . . .

without a doubt the most elegant use of personalities i've seen, however, has got to be the Nike NEXT LEVEL ads running during the European Championship:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwlpTgbQTE

The flip side is that they have little to no "authority" — they aren't credible, regardless of Carl Malden for American Express or Dr. Marcus Welby (MD) for Sanka. Authority is based on real credibility – which celebrities lack.

They both work in different ways. And they aren't dated techniques — as you still see them used, quite effectively!

Regards.

Celebrity endorsements, under this model, are just costly signals used to separate quality products from schlock when quality is hard for users to observe prior to purchase. The fact that it costs a lot to hire a celebrity is well known to the public, which makes the signal credible. There may be additional reasons for burning money on celebrities rather than just setting pyramids of cash aflame (although, come to think of it, nobody would believe a video of that), but this simple idea deserves more consideration than it usually gets among marketing folks.