Jenny Craig pivots away from celebs in ads

This article was originally featured in USA Today on August 13, 2013. I have reposted because I'm curious to hear everyone's thoughts. Feel free to comment below.

JENNY CRAIG PIVOTS AWAY FROM CELEBS IN ADS

Bruce Horovitz, USA TODAY
 August 13, 2013

JENNY CRAIG WANTS TO ZIG WHERE OTHER WEIGHT-LOSS SPECIALISTS ZAG, BY CUTTING WAY BACK ON THE USE OF CELEBRITY ENDORSERS IN ITS ADS.

Quick: Which weight-loss company has featured actress Valerie Bertinelli in its ads?

Or Jennifer Hudson? Or Mariah Carey? Or, ugh, big, bad Charles Barkley?

If you're not sure, you've got plenty of company. That's one major reason why Jenny Craig, which uses Bertinelli, announced that it will feature far fewer celebs going forward and, instead, will roll out a new animated advertising campaign that comes without the big celebrity endorsement fees.

(If you're keeping score, Hudson and Barkley have starred for Weight Watchers and Carey for Jenny Craig.)

At issue: Can consumers remember which highly paid celebs hype which products? Or, even more central: Are celebrity endorsers worth all the dough? According to the folks at Ace Metrix, spokes-celebs may be doing a lot more to help their own bottom lines than the products they hype.

Overall, ads without celebrities rate slightly better with consumers than ads with celebrities, according to a recent study by Ace Metrix, a syndicated ad testing specialist. While the average Ace Metrix score of all celebrity spots in the study was 515, the average score for ads without celebs ranked slightly higher, at 529.

"Celebrities can be very polarizing," explains Peter Daboll, CEO of Ace Metrix. So, if half the consumers love the celeb in a spot — and half hate the star, he says, "you're cutting off half of your potential audience."

Among the most polarizing celebs, he says: Tiger Woods, Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber and Sarah Jessica Parker.

When clients ask Daboll whether to use a celeb in a spot, he says he offers one word of advice: don't. "A good story always works better than just slapping a celebrity in an ad."

But celebrity broker Noreen Jenny Laffey, president of Celebrity Endorsement Network, says it's not that simple — particularly with weight-loss ad campaigns. "The problem isn't the celebrity," she says, but the fact that celebs in weight-loss ads all pretty much do and say the same thing: I used this product, and I lost weight.

That's not only boring — but also confusing. "It's hard when you have competitive products using celebrities to basically say the same thing," she says. The cola and sneaker giants face these same problems, she notes. "You need to do something totally different that stands out."

Not easy. So Jenny Craig's new marketing chief, Leesa Eichberger, turned to the ad agency Havas Worldwide New York for something different. The new, animated ads will focus on the company's food and its one-on-one support. Gone: all the bright lights, celebrity spokespeople and requisite "before and after" imagery, Eichberger says.

Daboll, the numbers-crunching CEO at Ace Metrix, says it has a decent shot at working — if only because it's not just another overweight celebrity bragging about losing some tonnage. "I'd suggest it's a smart move."

Does Weight Watchers really work?

A few months ago, I asked if any of my readers could share their experiences with Weight Watchers. I'd been plateaued with my own weight loss for several months and was thinking of switching from counting calories, to counting points.

I'm pleased to announce that I have been a member of Weight Watchers and have lost 8 pounds in 2 months.

I'd like to give my critique of the program, and why I think it's been working for me.

Instead of counting calories, people on WW count points. A point number is given to you during the registration process -- depending on your weight, height, age, and gender. I have 28 points to consume each day. In addition to your daily points limit, WW'ers are also given 49 "anytime" points each week to use for special cheats and splurges. It's also possible to earn "activity" points by exercising.

I have 28 points a day. Every food's given point value is based on its macro nutrient values -- specifically the protein to carb to fiber to fat ratio. 

As a previous calorie counter, It was a shift in thinking when I switched to counting points. I find that I care less about calories -- and more about the quality of food that I'm putting in my body. 

I do have two critiques though. First, because exercise is counted in points, I don't think you get as "much" back when you work out. For instance, 50 minutes on the elliptical could easily burn around 550 calories, right? That's the caloric equivalent of a Big Mac from McDonald's. That same intense 50 minute elliptical workout is only going to get me about 4 activity points -- which is the equivalent of just ONE of the following: 2 slices wheat bread, 4 oz chicken, 2 eggs, or a glass of wine. That being said, I never feel unsatisfied, because I do have my anytime points that I can dip into if I choose to.

The other critique is the alcohol factor. I'm a big wine drinker, so when I was counting calories, I'd make sure that I had about 300 calories left for two glasses of wine if I went out on a date or out with girlfriends. 300 calories is not that much of a sacrifice - when I was counting calories, I'd simply plan ahead and go to the gym to put in a half an hour of cardio. However, Alcohol in WW tends to be rated much higher because it lacks protein or fiber...... so a glass of wine is 4 points. 2 glasses is 8 -- that's how many I get for lunch! 

The bottom line is I really do like and support the program. I think it's easy to follow, and really forces you to say, "Do I really want that," and "Is it worth it" -- you know? I also believe the program encourages you to think of weight loss and healthy eating on both the daily and weekly platforms, because you do have to plan ahead. Also the meetings are an amazing support.