STAR BLOGGERS

The wedding of Fann Wong and Christopher Lee has been the talk of the town since news of their matrimonial union was made public. Perhaps as far back as just under a month before the telecast of their wedding, trailers have been gracing the television of many. This was, of course, aptly followed by the names of sponsors who contributed in some ways to their wedding.

While engaging in senseless banter with my friends over the weekend, we commented on how fortunate it must be for superstars to be bestowed with seemingly endless offers from sponsors to be seen using their products or engaging their services. Cars, watches, jewelries and even baby milk powder! We have seen them all.

On the other hand, we can’t help it but wonder which party is benefitting from these arrangements – is it the superstars, who seemingly are constantly supplied with products that take care of them from head to toe; or the sponsors, who get to put their products in the limelight, literally. Thankfully, in biology – the course that I am currently pursuing in my further studies, there is a name for such situations – mutualism.

Before I continue, let me give an example of mutualism in a simple context – ants and trees. Some types of ants build nests on trees and at first sight, it may seem that the ants are taking advantage of the trees. However, ants are, by nature, territorial; and in this aspect, protect the tree from other pests that may otherwise feast on the tree leaves and sap.

In respect of this, it may seem that both parties just benefit from each other and that the story is just as simple as that. If I may be allowed to carry on this analogy, there is a slight difference between being in the situation of the ant or the tree. You see, the ants decide which tree to build their nest on, whereas the tree, well, stands there and wait.

In the glittering glamour of endorsements and sponsorships, there may be very little that laymen, like me, can understand. I would like to think that endorsements are as simple as it is – I like a product and I tell the world about it. However, endorsement deals are probably far more complicated than that. It is usually made official and there are usually clauses that prevent the person endorsing it from using other competitive products; or at least be seen using them. For this, an agreement involving supplies of services or products, or perhaps monetary rewards are usually involved.

I probably will not mind eating the same brand of rice for 6 months or even use the same shampoo for the next 2 years. However, I will be cautious about having to eat at a particular fast food restaurant (or at least not be seen eating at other fast food restaurants) for an entire year for an endorsement.

Having said that, the question on who’s using who probably boils down to which party benefits most from the endorsement – something that we, as spectators, do not really know. However, the recent publicizing of the marriage between Fann and Christopher can’t help but make me envious of the former. I can imagine how much I can save from gown rentals (or purchases, if I am feeling a little generous on myself) and bridal accessories; not to mention a partially if not fully paid honeymoon.

To say that the couple made use of the sponsors is probably overbearing while saying the reverse is likely to be inappropriate. After all, the decision to get the newlyweds to promote their products is likely to stem from a commercial decision. Moreover, it is unlikely that anyone will be able to force a company to use them in an endorsement deal. In this instance, I’ll akin the sponsors to the ants and the endorsement party, the tree.

Simply Jean was a nominee for Most Insightful Blog at ping.sg, a community of meta blog for Singapore bloggers. She can be found discussing current affairs topics at http://blog.simplyjean.com

Trackback URI | Comments RSS