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, which should you choose?

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.