Cultural Meaning

Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? CulturalFoundations of the Endorsement Process

GRANT McCRACKEN*

This article offers a new approach to celebrity endorsement. Previous explanations,especially the source credibility and source attractiveness models are criticized,and an alternative meaning transfer model is fxoposed- According to this model,celebrities' effectiveness as endorsers stems from the cultural meanings with whichthey are endowed. The model shows how meanings pass trom celebrity to productand from product to consumer. The implications of this model for our understand-ing of the consumer society are considered. Research avenues suggested by themodel are also discussed.

T he celebrity endorser is a ubiquitous feature ofmodern marketing. The actor Robert Young,

the quarterback Jim McMahon, the dancer MikhailBaryshnikov, the CEO Lee Iacoceo, the singer Whit-ney Houston, the test pilot Chuck Yeager, and thepolitician Tip O'Neill have all lent name and imageto recent campaigns. Unfortunately, the popularity ofthis communications strategy has not earned it exten-sive study. Nor has it inspired especially illuminatingtheoretical accounts. As a result, the received wisdomon celebrity endorsement is modest and imperfect,and existing models fail to capture several of the mostinteresting and central characteristics of the endorse-ment process.

This investigation of endorsement addresses thesedeficits from a cultural perspective. The argument isthat the endorsement process depends upon the sym-bolic properties of the celebrity endorser. Using a"meaning transfer" perspective, these properties areshown to reside in the celebrity and to move from ce-lebrity to consumer good and from good to consumer.This perspective is then used to address controversialissues concerning the consumer society. Finally, re-search opportunities are reviewed.

For present purposes, the celebrity endorser is de-fined as any individual who enjoys public recognitionand who uses this recognition on behalf of a consumergood by appearing with it in an advertisement. Wewill refine this definition later, but for the moment itis deliberately broad to encompass not only the usual

'Grant McCracken is Associate Professor, Department of Con-sumer Studies, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CanadaN1G 2WI. He wishes to thank Peter Bennett, Tara Curtis, Bill Fris-bee, Ron Goldman, Monty Sommers, Vic Roth, Donna Woolcott,and Rami Zwich as well as the anonymous JCR reviewers for theirvery useful comments on earlier versions ofthis article.

310

movie and television stars, bul also individuals fromthe world of sport, politics, business, art, and the mili-tary. The term "celebrity" is also meant in this articleto encompass a variety of endorsements, includingthose in the explicit mode ("I endorse this product"),the implicit mode ("I use this product"), the imper-ative mode {"You should use this product"), and thecopresent mode (i.e., in which the celebrity merelyappears with the product). Moreover, it includes arange of endorsement roles, such as cases in which thecelebrity is also an expert (e.g., Bobby Unser recom-mending motor oil), is associated with the manufac-turer in some long term capacity (e.g., Pat Summerallfor TrueValue Hardware), or has no special knowl-edge of, or association with, the produet in question(cf. Friedman, Termini, and Washington 1977). Thisdefinition is designed deliberately to exclude the"typical consumer" endorser (Friedman and Fried-man 1979). The model presented in this article ap-plies to all these variations but the last.

THE LITERATURETwo models, the source credibility and the source

attractiveness models, inform research and reflectionon the topic of celebrity endorsement. Both were de-vised originally for the study of communications andhave been applied oniy latterly to the endorsementprocess. Both are designed to determine the condi-tions under which the message sender or source is per-suasive.

The source credibility model rests on research insocial psychology (Hovland and Weiss 195I-I952;Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953). The Hovland ver-sion of the model contends that a message dependsfor its effectiveness on the "expertness" and "trust-worthiness" of the source (Hovland et al. 1953, p. 20;cf. Dholakia and Sternthal 1977; Sternthal, Dholakia,

© JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH • Vol. 16 • tJcccmber 1989

CELEBRITY ENDORSER: CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS 311

and Leavitt 1978). Expertness is defined as the per-ceived ability of ihc souree to make valid assertions.Trustworthiness is defined as the perceived willing-ness of the source to make valid assertions. The Hov-land model holds that sources exhibiting expertnessand trustworthiness are credible and, to this extent,persuasive.

The source attractiveness model also rests on socialpsychological research. The McGuire (1985) modelcontends that a message depends for its effectivenesschiefly on the "familiarity," "likability," and/or"similarity" of the source (McGuire 1985, p. 264; cf.Baker and Churchill 1977; Debevec and Kernan1984; Friedman, Santeramo, and Traina 1978; Jo-seph 1982; Kahle and Homer 1985). Familiarity is de-fined as knowledge of the source through exposure,likability as affection for the source as a result of thesource's physical appearance and behavior, and simi-larity as a supposed resemblance between the sourceand receiver of the message. The McGuire modelholds that sources who are known to, liked by, and/or similar to the consumer are attractive and, to thisextent, persuasive.

The source models (as we shall call the source credi-bility and source attractiveness models together) havebeen confirmed by research. The Hovland model hasbeen validated by several parties (Atkin and Block1983; Kamen, Azhari, and Kragh 1975; Klebba andUnger 1983; cf. Finn 1980, p. 779). The McGuiremodel also demonstrated its value (Friedman andFriedman 1979), and it appears safe to say that celeb-rities owe some of their effectiveness as marketing de-vices to their credibility and attractiveness. Thesource models are, to this extent, a necessary part ofour understanding of the endorsement process. But,they do not capture everything at issue in the endorse-ment process. Indeed, there is reason to think thesemodels cannot explain endorsement's most funda-mental features. The evidence for this skepticism iseverywhere. The research itseif is littered with puzzlesand peculiarities the source models cannot explain.

For instance, the research by the Friedmans pro-duced results that are not consistent with the sourcemodels. They found that some product categorieswere incompatible with celebrity categories (e.g., thatMary Tyler Moore served as a poor celebrity endorserfor vacuum cleaners). But the source models make nosuch provision. For the models' purposes, as long asthe credibility and attractiveness conditions are satis-fied, any celebrity should serve as a persuasive sourcefor any advertising message. According to the model,the persuasiveness of the celebrity has everything todo with the celebrity and nothing to do with theproduct.

Kamen, Azhari, and Kragh (1975, p. 18) suggestthat the spokesperson acts as a kind of "core aroundwhich the substantive messages are positioned." Inthis capacity, the spokesperson helps

trigger the past associations with the sponsor and stim-ulate the rcmemhcring of past messages. He would in-tegrate new messages with the old so as to build a unify-ing, coherent, sustained, and consislcnt image of thebrand.

This position implies that the celebrity serves theendorsement process by taking on meanings that thencarry from ad to ad, and that the celebrity is capablesomehow of serving as a site in which meanings co-here. Plainly, neither possibility is consistent with ei-ther source model. After all, these models make asser-tions only about the credibility and attractiveness ofthe message sender and none about the endorser'srole as a message medium or the continuity of themessage from ad to ad. In the language of Kuhn(1962), the paradigm is beginning to accumulateanomalies. Scholars have been compelled either toabandon or transform the source models.

But if the internal evidence for skepticism is strong,the external grounds are even stronger. The scholarlyand professional literature is littered with data thatcannot be explained by the source models. There aremysteries everywhere. Bill Cosby failed as an en-dorser for E.F. Hutton despite his evident success forKodak and Coca Cola. John Houseman failed as anendorser for McDonald's despite his effective workfor Smith Barney (Marshall 1987). George C. Scottproved, mysteriously, to be the wrong choice for Re-nault, as did Ringo Starr for Sun Country Classicwine coolers (Motavalli 1988). The source models, asthe present guardian of current endorsement prac-tice, did not forewarn advertising practitioners of theinappropriateness of these celebrity choices. Nor canthey, as the received academic wisdom on the en-dorsement process, help us understand what wentv '̂rong. The source models have not served as a practi-cal or theoretical guide to celebrity endorsement.

Consider, for instance, the example of John Wayneas a celebrity endorser for the pain reliever Datril."Wayne had nothingtodo with the product, and salesof the analgesic languished.. . . (It was a) classic . . .mismatch between star and product" (Kaikati 1987,p. 6). This is offered as a kind of explanation of whatwent wrong in the Datrii case. But what does it meanto say that the celebrity "had nothing to do" with theproduct? What "mismatch" between celebrity andproduct is being asserted here? The source models donot tell us. They cannot explain why John Wayne andDatril were incompatible.

Schudson's treatment of Jatnes Garner as a celeb-rity endorser is germane. Schudson (1984, p. 212)suggests that there is something mysterious about theadvertisements in which Garner appears.

Garner does not play himself, the person, nor does heplay a particular fictive character. Instead, he playswhat I would call the generalized James Garner role,the type for which James Garner is always cast—hand-some, gentle, bumbling, endearing, a combination of

312 THE JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Bret Maverick from "Maverick" and Jim Rockfordfrom "The Rockford Files."

This thoughtful observation spells real trouble forthe source models. If the celebrity endorser representsnot himself but his stage persona, the issues of expert-ness and trustworthiness can hardly apply. After all, ithardly makes sense to impute credibility to a fictionalcharacter. But even if we force the issue and insist thatfictional characters can, somehow, be credible,Schudson's observation tells us this is a special, role-specific credibility. It is no longer a simple matter ofthe willingness and ability to make valid assertions.

The issue of source attractiveness is problematicalin a different way. According to Schudson's account.Garner's attractiveness consists in the "endearing,""gentle," and "bumbling" qualities of his stage per-sona. We must add to this perhaps the most salienttrait of Garner's stage persona, his claim to being theforemost representative of a particular category ofAmerican male. As a prototype of the category, Gar-ner is a member of the larger pantheon of actors thathelps define this gender category in America (e.g.,James Stewart, John Wayne, Cary Grant, SylvesterStallone).

When we observe Garner from this point of view,we see that his attractiveness depends not on his qual-ities as a person or even on his qualities as a famousperson, but on the qualities he has created in his stagepersona. For communications purposes, the celebrityis a composite of his fictional roles. This means thatwhen consumers respond to Garner's "attractive-ness," they are, in fact, responding to a very particularset of meanings. They are identifying with a bundleof symbolic properties created for, and by. Garner inthe television programs "Maverick" and "The Rock-ford Files."

This is not "identification" in the ordinary sense.The source models do not capture and illuminatewhat is going on here. Audience response to JamesGarner is more complicated and interesting than thesource models allow. Garner is persuasive as a com-municator not only because he is "attractive," butalso because he is made up of certain meanings theconsumer finds compelling and useful. Garner suc-ceeds as an endorser for Mazda because he representsa bundle of meanings about maturity, American-ness, confidence, masculinity, intelligence, and goodhumor.

It is here that we begin to uncover the real insuffi-ciency of the source models as an account of celebrityendorsement. The source attractiveness model cantell us that consumers will identify with Garner, butit cannot tell us why—nor can it contend with themeanings contained in Garner's persona. Still moreimportant, the model does not allow us to make senseof the meanings contained in a celebrity endorseronce they are determined. The source model can tell

us only that a celebrity is attractive, not what attrac-tive is.

The implications ofthis insufficiency are powerful.First, the source models do not allow us to understandthe appeal of any particular celebrity. This makes itimpossible to understand why a celebrity like Garnershould be persuasive for some products but not forothers. The source models prevent us from identify-ing the matches and mismatches. We are left unableto assess how Garner's image interacts with difTerentproducts and creative themes.

Second, the source models will never allow us todiscriminate between celebrities in any useful way.Certainly they allow us to say that James Garner is,perhaps, more credible than Alan Alda. But it doesnot allow us to say how Garner and Alda differ froma symbolic or communications point of view. Thesource models might tell us only that Michael J. Fox,Tony Danza, and Don Johnson differ in their degreeof attractiveness. This is problematical because weunderstand that their differences go much deeperthan this. Hypothetically, the source models mighttell us that Cybil Shepherd, Bea Arthur, and Joan Col-lins are equally credible. But we know this samenessmasks profound and thoroughgoing differences. Inshort, the source models tell us about degrees of at-tractiveness and credibility when what we need toknow about is kinds of attractiveness and credibility.

Both the internal and external evidence containanomalies that demonstrate the insufficiency of thesource models. If we are to understand the endorse-ment process, we must build better, more sophisti-cated models. We especially must come to terms withthe meanings contained in the celebrity and give anaccount of how these meanings serve the endorse-ment process. The remainder of the article is designedto suggest such an account.

CULTURAL MEANING AND THECELEBRITY ENDORSER

The effectiveness of the endorser depends, in part,upon the meanings he or she brings to the endorse-ment process. The number and variety of the mean-ings contained in celebrities are very large. Distinc-tions of status, class, gender, and age, as well as per-sonality and lifestyle types, are represented in thepool of available celebrities, putting an extraordinar-ily various and subtle pallet of meanings at the dis-posal of the marketing system.

For example, class and status are represented by thelikesof Peter Jennings and John Forsythe as patricianmen and Catherine Deneuve and Audrey Hepburn asregal women. The distinction of new wealth is con-tained in genteel versions such as Pierce Brosnan andDiane Sawyer or in more grasping versions such asLarry Hagman and Joan Collins. The upper middleclass is represented by Tim Matheson and Shelley


Long, the middle class by John Ritter and ChristieBrinkley, and the lower middle class by PatrickSwayze and Suzanne Somers.

Cultural categories of gender and age are also repre-sented in the celebrity endorser. One extreme repre-sentation of maleness is established by the likes of Syl-vester Stallone, the other by the likes of Dick Cavett.Ranging between them are Hulk Hogan, ArnoldSchwarzenegger, Brian Bozworth, Fred Dryer, TonyDanza, Stacey Keach, Paul Newman, Patrick Duffy,Timothy Hutton, Bob Newhart, Tony Randall, andJeremy Brett. For women, Loni Anderson and Si-gourney Weaver represent the extremes of the contin-uum of their gender. Ranging between them areCheryl Ladd, Victoria Principal, Cheryl Tiegs, PamDawber, Kate Jackson, and Jane Seynnour. Age cate-gories range from the militantly youthful Pee WeeHerman to the prematurely ancient Danny DeVito,or from the callow youth represented in Judge Rein-hold to the wisdom gained by age in E.G. Marshall.These age categories are subject to change, as GaryColeman and Angela Lansbury have recently demon-strated.

In addition to these demographic categories, the ce-lebrity world also contains a range of personalitytypes. The curmudgeon is represented by EdwardAsner, the rake by John Larroquette, the irritable in-competent by John Cleese, the bewildered alien byBronson Pinchet, the good hearted dimwit by WoodyHarrelson, the irrepressibly impudent by Tracey Ul-mann, the indiscriminately jolly by Ed McMahon,the irascible by David Letterman, the blandly agree-able by Gary Collins, and so on.

The celebrity world also offers a range of lifestyletypes. The quintessential yuppie is perhaps Ed Olinof "Thirtysomething." The stereotypic young profes-sional woman was once Mary Tyler Moore and isnow, perhaps, Pam Dawber. The perfect Dad wasonce Robert Young and now may be Michael Grossor Bill Cosby. The perfect princess is represented byDelta Burke of "Designing Women," the workingclass hero by Carroll O'Connor, the man of wisdomand experience by David Brinkley or Charles Kerault.Here, too, the range and depth of representation isextensive.

This review oversimplifies celebrity meanings.Even the most heavily stereotyped celebrity repre-sents not a single meaning, but an interconnected setof meanings. Cher offers a useful case in point. It ispossible to locate her on all the dimensions noted. Sheis low to middle class in her status meaning, locatedtoward the "hot" end of the gender continuum, andclearly youthful in attitude if not age. The personalityis extroverted and outspoken, the lifestyle open, free-wheeling, and alternative. But, plainly, none of thesedimensions by itself captures the meanings withwhieh Cher is charged or, more importantly, the es-sential configuration of meanings she brings to the en-

dorsement process. For this, it is necessary to charac-terize the whole person. Cher is hip, risk taking, indi-vidualistic, sensual, sexual, expressive, irreverent,and liberated. It is this larger package of meaningsplaying off one another that defines Cher. Thesemeanings enter into the endorsement process whenCher speaks, for instance, for Baly-Matrix healthclubs or her own perfume.

These, then, are some of the meanings contained inthe celebrity world. They are reviewed here in a cur-sory, undocumented way. An exact assessment ofthese meanings awaits empirical study and theoreti-cal development. But enough has been said to indi-cate that the celebrity world is something richer andmore complicated than a collection of merely credi-ble or attractive individuals.

It is, I would argue, precisely the meanings of thecelebrity that makes him or her so useful to the en-dorsement process. For an endorsement succeedswhen an association is fashioned between the culturalmeanings of the celebrity world, on the one hand, andthe endorsed product, on the other. Not all endorse-ments succeed in this transfer. Indeed, some are toounsophisticated even to undertake it. But the best en-dorsements take their power and their efficacy pre-cisely from this: the successful transfer of meaning.

For example, James Garner's endorsement ofMazda succeeds when a transfer takes place betweenhis persona and the Mazda line. It succeeds when thequalities of maturity, Americanness, confidence,good humor, and a certain kind of maleness are madethe qualities of the Mazda vehicle. The endorsementsucceeds, in other words, when the properties of theman are made the properties of the car.

MEANING TRANSFER: THEGENERAL PROCESS

Celebrity endorsement is, in fact, a special instanceofa more general processof meaning transfer. I havedescribed this general process elsewhere in some de-tail {McCracken 1986, 1988) and review it onlybriefly here. According to this model, there is a con-ventional path for the movement ofcultural meaningin consumer societies. Meaning begins as somethingresident in the culturally constituted world {Mc-Cracken 1988, pp. 72-73), in the physical and socialworld constituted by the categories and principles ofthe prevailing culture. Meaning then moves to con-sumer goods and finally to the life of the consumer.Several instruments facilitate this transfer. Themovement of meanings from the culturally consti-tuted world to consumer goods is accomplished byadvertising and the fashion system. The movementof meanings from consumer goods to the individualconsumer is accomplished through the efforts of theconsumer. Thus does meaning circulate in the con-sumer society.


Advertising serves as an instrument of meaningtransfer in a deceptively simple manner. The transferprocess begins when the advertiser identifies the cul-tural meanings intended for the product {i.e.. the typeof gender, status, age, lifestyle, time, and place mean-ings). Or, more technically, the advertiser determineswhich of the "categories" and "principles" of culturepertain {McCracken 1988, pp. 73-77). In the lan-guage of current advertising practice, the advertiserdecides what he or she wishes the product to say.

Once this choice has been made, the advertiser sur-veys the culturally constituted world for the objects,persons, and contexts that already contain and givevoice to these meanings. These elements enable theadvertiser to bring the selected cultural meanings intothe advertisement in visible, concrete form. However,the advertiser must portray the elements and theproduct with consummate care and skill. This care isnecessary for two reasons. First, elements comecharged with more meanings than are wanted for theproduct so the advertiser must evoke some, but notall, of the meaningsoftheelements. Second, elementsand product must be presented in such a way that thesimilarity between them suggests itself irresistibly tothe viewer. This precise combination of elements andproduct set the stage for the transfer of meaning fromthe product to the consumer. Imprecise or unsophis-ticated combinations discourage it.

Note that there is no necessary or motivated rela-tionship betv -̂een the meanings and the product. It isnot the case that chocolates can be given only certainmeanings while tennis racquets can be given only oth-ers. Any product can carry virtually any meaning.Certainly, goods lend themselves to particular mean-ings {e.g., chocolates and social sentiment), but ad-vertising is such a powerful mechanism of meaningtransfer that virtually any product can be made totake virtually any meaning. This property of meaningtransfer is still another reason for taking special carein the selection of certain meanings. The transfer pro-cess must be carefully controlled.

Which meanings are chosen for the product will de-pend on the marketing plan and the sophistication ofclient, account executive, research group, and cre-ative team. How well meanings are represented in andmanipulated by the advertisement will depend in par-ticular on the creative director and his or her staff. Butthe final act of meaning transfer is performed by theconsumer, who must glimpse in a moment of recogni-tion an essential similarity between the elements andthe product in the ad. The consumer suddenly "sees"that the cultural meanings contained in the people,objects, and contexts of the advertisement are alsocontained in the product. Well-crafted advertise-ments enable this essentially metaphoric transfer-ence. Badly crafted advertisements do not.

Once meanings have been moved into goods, theymust also be moved into consumers. Consumers

must take possession of these meanings and put themto work in the construction of their notions of the selfand the world. They must craft and shape these mean-ings to fulfill the strategies of meaning manipulationwith which they have constructed their lives. Con-sumers are constantly finding gender, class, age, life-style, time, and place meanings in their possessions,and using these meanings to fashion aspects of theself. They are constantly taking possession ofculturalprinciples in consumer goods that help define andfashionthehome, the family, and other aspects oftheworld in which they live. Consumers turn to theirgoods not only as bundles of utility with which toserve functions and satisfy needs, but also as bundlesof meaning with which to fashion who they are andthe world in which they live (Belk 1988). When thisis done, the movement of meaning is complete. Themeaning that began in the culturally constitutedworld has finally come to rest in the life and experi-ence ofthe consumer. The cultural circuit is com-plete.

Thus, in general terms, do culture and consump-tion interact to create a system of meaning movementin contemporary societies. I have given just one ac-count of this process (McCracken 1986, 1988). Read-ers may wish to consult other accounts ofthis mean-ing process {Adams 1973; Holman 1980; Levy 1959,1981; Mick 1986; Prown 1980; Stern 1988; Wallen-dorf and Arnould 1988), how it is used {Ames 1982;Appadurai 1986; Belk 1988; Csikszentmihaiyi andRochberg-Halton 1981; Solomon 1983), how it en-ters into the marketing system {Douglas and Isher-wood 1978; Gottdiener 1985; Hirschman and Hol-brook 1981), and how it might best be studied {Prown1982; Sherry 1989; Umiker-Sebeok and Levy 1987).

MEANING TRANSFER: THECELEBRITY ENDORSER'S

CONTRIBUTION

Celebrity endorsement plays a crucial part in themeaning transfer processjust described. As the Figureshows, the meaning that begins in the dramatic rolesofthe celebrity comes, in Stage 1, to reside in the ce-lebrities themselves. In Stage 2, this meaning is trans-ferred when the celebrity enters into an advertise-ment with a product. Some ofthe meanings ofthe ce-lebrity are now the meanings ofthe product. In thefinal stage, the meaning moves from the product tothe consumer. Celebrity endorsement makes a veryparticular contribution to each of these three stages.

Stage 1Endorsement gives the ad access to a special cate-

gory of person from the culturally constituted world.It makes available individuals charged with detailedand powerful meanings. Celebrities are, in this re-


Culture

FIGURE

MEANING MOVEMENT AND THE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS

Endorsement Consumption

_ objects

persons

context

role 1

2

3 1

celebrity

Stage 1

Key: m = path of meaning movement

Q - stage of meaning movement

spect, very different from the anonymous models (oranonymous actors) who are normally used to bringmeanings to the ad. Celebrities deliver meanings ofextra subtlety, depth, and power.

The contrast between celebrities and models isworth developing. It is clear enough that advertise-ments can undertake meaning transfer without theaid of celebrities. Anonymous actors and models arecharged with meaning, and, obviously, they are avail-able at a fraction ofthe cost. Indeed, for most adver-tising purposes, the meanings that can be "imported"through an anonymous model are perfectly sufficient.The question, then, is why celebrities should be usedfor an ad. How does the celebrity "add value" to themeaning transfer process? What special powers andproperties does the celebrity bring to the advertise-ment, to the product, and, ultimately, the consumer?

Anonymous models offer demographic informa-tion, such as distinctions of gender, age, and status,but these useful meanings are relatively impreciseand blunt. Celebrities offer all these meanings withspecial precision. Furthermore, celebrities offer arange of personality and lifestyle meanings that themodel cannot provide. Finally, celebrities offer con-figurations of meaning that models can never possess.No mere model could bring to Baly-Matrix the prop-erties that Cher delivers, nor could any model havesummoned the impatient, time-tested integrity JohnHouseman gave the Smith Barney line "We makemoney the old-fashioned way, we earn it." Only aman playing Houseman's roles in the way Housemanplayed them could empower the slogan as Housemandid. Celebrities have particular configurations ofmeanings that cannot be found elsewhere.

In addition, celebrities are more powerful mediathan anonymous models and actors. Even when theydeliver meanings that can be found elsewhere, theydeliver them more powerfully. Celebrities evoke themeanings in their persona with greater vividness andclarity. Models and actors are, after all, merely "bor-rowing" or acting out the meanings they bring to thead. The celebrity, however, speaks with meanings oflong acquaintance. Celebrities "own" their meaningsbecause they have created them on the public stageby dint of intense and repeated performance. AudreyHepburn delivers "elegance" much more vividlythan even the most elegant model. She does so be-cause she has enacted and absorbed this elegance byperforming it on stage and screen.

Celebrities draw these powerful meanings from theroles they assume in their television, movie, military,athletic, and other careers. Indeed, these careers actvery much like large ads, as Stage 1 of the Figureshows. Each new dramatic role brings the celebrityinto contact with a range of objects, persons, and con-texts. Out of these objects, persons, and contexts aretransferred meanings that then reside in the celebrity.When the celebrity brings these meanings into an ad,they are, in a sense, merely passing along meaningswith which they have been charged by another mean-ing transfer process. Or, to put this another way, themeaning that the celebrity endorsement gives to theproduct was generated in distant movie perfor-mances, political campaigns, or athletic achieve-ments.

Interestingly, celebrities appear largely unaware oftheir part in the meaning transfer process. Nowhereis this better illustrated than in their concern for type-


casting. Actors say they dislike being cast repeatedlyin the same role, claiming that typecasting limits theircareer and creative options. What they do not see isthat their careers, their art form, and the endorsementprocess all depend upon typecasting.

The North American movie demands the participa-tion of actors charged with meanings; it needs actorsto bring their own meanings with them to a part.These meanings simplify the movie's expository taskand give it substance and direction. Bill Murray, Syl-vester Stallone, Morgan Fairchild, and Joanne Wood-ward all carry meanings with them from role to role.One of the troubles with unknown actors and ac-tresses is precisely that they are unable to carry mean-ing into the role they are asked to play.

There are a few exceptions to this pattern. A fewactors and actresses are "rinsed" of meaning betweenroles and, as a result, bring a new persona to each newfilm. Only an actress ofthe calibre of Meryl Streep iscapable of earning (and exploiting) this privilege. Formost, a mild case of typecasting is not just the conse-quence but actually the very cause of their participa-tion in the Hollywood system.

More to the present point, it is precisely this type-casting that makes celebrities so useful to the endorse-ment process. It is the accumulated meanings of ce-lebrities that make them so potent a source of signifi-cance. Meryl Streep has limited value as a celebrityendorser because she is largely free of accumulatedmeanings. The same may well be true of George C.Scott. Without typecasting, actors are unable to bringclear and unambiguous meanings to the productsthey endorse. Without typecasting, they have nomeanings to give the transfer process.

Stage 2Ideally, the ehoice of particular celebrities is based

on the meanings they epitomize and on a sophisti-cated marketing plan. In the best of all possibleworlds, the marketing/advertising firm first would de-termine the symbolie properties sought for the prod-uct (having determined which symbolic propertiesare in fact sought by the consumer). It would thenconsult a roster of celebrities and the meanings theymake available, and, taking into account budget andavailability constraints, would choose the celebritywho best represents the appropriate symbolic proper-ties. At present, no roster exists, so advertising firmsare forced to rely on a very general rendering of whatmeanings are available to them in the celebrity worldand where these meanings are located.

Once the celebrity is chosen, an advertising cam-paign must then identify and deliver these meaningsto the product. It must capture all the meanings itwishes to obtain from the celebrity and leave no sa-lient meanings untapped. Furthermore, it must cap-ture only the meanings it wishes to obtain from the

celebrity. All celebrities will encompass in their rangeofcultural significance some meanings that are notsought for the product. Care must be taken to seethat these unwanted meanings are kept out of theevoked set.

This will be accomplished by filling the advertise-ment with people, objects, contexts, and copy thathave the same meanings as the celebrity. These ele-ments cue, by the principle of redundancy, the con-sumer to the salient message. They help select the ex-act set of meanings that are sought from the celebrity.

The ad will sometimes operate on the meanings ofthe celebrity, and may even modestly help transformthem. It is interesting to note, for instance, how noveltreatments of Paulina Porizkova's appearance in thecurrent Estee Lauder "White Linen" campaign "re-positions" her beauty and redefines its meaning(Wells 1989, p. 72). This campaign very deliberatelymakes Porizkova's beauty more classic, more elegant,and therefore more appropriate to the Estee Lauder"White Linen" product line. In other words, an ad-vertising campaign can sometimes have the effect ofanew dramatic role, bringing the celebrity into contactwith symbolic materials that change the meaningscontained in their persona. Celebrities have beenknown to exploit this effect by choosing their endorse-ment to tune their image. Typically, however, the adis not trying to transform the meanings ofthe celeb-rity. In most circumstances, it seeks only to transferthem.

Finally, the ad must be designed to suggest the es-sential similarity between the celebrity and the prod-uct so that the consumer will be able to take the laststep in the meaning transfer process. In a perfectworld, copy testing is then used to judge whether in-deed the ad succeeds in this regard. When assuranceis forthcoming, the second stage of transfer is com-plete and the ad is put before the consumer. The con-sumer suddenly "sees" the similarity between the ce-lebrity and the product, and is prepared to accept thatthe meaningsin the celebrity (by dint of long and fondacquaintance) are in the product. If all has gonesmoothly, the properties of James Garner are now theproperties of Mazda.

Stage 3 ^;:',.

Let us now consider celebrity endorsement in itsfinal stage of meaning transfer. How does the processof celebrity endorsement help consumers get mean-ings out ofthe product into their lives? How, in otherwords, does an endorsement by James Garner helpthe properties ofthe Mazda become the properties ofthe consumer?

Consumers are constantly canvassing the objectworld for goods with useful meanings. They use themto furnish certain aspects ofthe self and the world.The object world, as we have seen, gives them access


to workable ideas of gender, class, age, personality,and lifestyle, in addition to cultural principles of greatnumber and variety. The material world of consumergoods offers a vast inventory of possible selves andthinkable worlds. Consumers are constantly rum-maging here.

We know that this final stage ofthe transfer processis complicated and sometimes difficult. It is notenough for the consumer merely to own an object totake possession of its meanings, or to incorporatethese meanings into the self. The meanings ofthe ob-ject do not merely lift off the object and enter intothe consumer's concept of self and world. There is, inother words, no automatic transfer of meaning norany automatic transformation of Ihe self. The con-sumer must claim the meanings and then work withthem.

We have some general sense that rituals play an im-portant part in this process. Consumers must claim,exchange, care for, and use the consumer good to ap-propriate its meanings (Cheal 1988; McCracken1988; Rook 1985). We know that they must select andcombine these meanings in a process of experimenta-tion (Belk 1988; Wallendorf and Arnould 1988). Butthis process is still very much terra incognito from ascholarly point of view. Of all ofthe topics in the cul-ture and consumer behavior portfolio, this one is themost neglected. A cultural understanding of celebrityendorsement illuminates this little known terrain.

Celebrities play a role in the final stage of meaningtransfer because they have created the self. They havedone so publicly, in the first stage of the meaningtransfer process, out of bits and pieces of each rolein their careers. All the world has watched them takeshape. From darkened theaters, consumers havelooked on as celebrities have selected and combinedthe meanings contained in the objects, people, andevents around them. The self so created is almost al-ways attractive and accomplished. Celebrities buildselves well.

The constructed self makes the celebrity a kind ofexemplary, inspirational figure to the consumer.Consumers are themselves constantly moving sym-bolic properties out of consumer goods into their livesto construct aspects of self and world. Not surpris-ingly, they admire individuals who have accom-plished this task and accomplished it well. Celebritiesare proof that the process works. Celebrities havebeen where the consumer is going. They have done inStage 1 what the consumer is now laboring to do inStage 3 ofthe meaning transfer process. Or, to put thisanother way, consumers are all laboring to performtheir own Stage 1 construction ofthe self out ofthemeanings supplied by previous and present roles andthe meanings accessible to them there.

But this is more than just a formal parallel betweencelebrities and consumers in Stages 1 and 3. The con-sumer does not revere the celebrity merely because

the celebrity has done what the consumer wants to do,but also because the celebrity actually supplies cer-tain meanings to the consumer. Celebrities create aself out of the elements put at their disposal in dra-matical roles, fashioning cultural meanings into apracticable form. When they enter the endorsementprocess, they make these meanings available in mate-rial form to the consumer. Consumers are grateful forthese meanings and keen to build a self from them.The celebrity is supplying not just an example of self-creation, but the very stuff with which thisdifficult actis undertaken.

Let us return to the James Garner example oncemore. Consumers have watched James Garner fash-ion what Schudson calls the "fictive self out oftheobjects, events, and contexts of his screen life. Garnerhas given them a dramatic example ofthe very act inwhich consumers are themselves engaged. Further-more, Garner has put useful and interesting meaningsat their disposal. He has given them a vivid, well-orga-nized and "performable" self. This tilm persona (andits successor in the television world. Thomas Mag-num) offers a self that is capable but occasionally in-competent, forthright but unassuming, and almost al-ways the master of his fate (except when conspiredagainst by a comically or otherwise imperfectly ma-levolent force). The Garner self is diverse, balanced,and, most of all, workable.

But there is a second, in some ways more interest-ing, way in which celebrities play the role ofa "superconsumer." This occurs when the film persona ofthecelebrity consists not merely in the presentation of aninteresting film persona but actually in the creationofa self that is new and innovative. Most film starsbring to the screen a self, cut whole cloth, from thestandard American personality inventory. But thereare a few who have undertaken a much more difficultand creative innovation in which personality ele-ments are created or dramatically reconfigured.

In this highly creative mode, the celebrity becomesa kind of experiment in self-construction. This makesthe celebrity very powerful indeed. He or she has be-come an inventor ofa new self the consumer can use.A good example of such an act of self-invention is thecharacter portrayed by Bruce Willis in the series,"Moonlighting." Willis invented a version of male-ness, a way of interacting with others (not the leastof whom was a female superordinate), and a posturetoward the world that holds enormous appeal for cer-tain consumers. In his creation of David Addison,Willis put useful meanings at the disposal ofthe con-sumer. In a sense, he product-tested notions ofthe selffor a group ofconsumers who are themselves engagedin an act of experimentation. Consumers perceivethat Willis is working on a self and is within "spittingdistance" (as his screen persona might say) of accom-plishing this self. Consumers engaged in a similar pro-cess are grateful for both the example and the point-


ers. It is precisely this exemplary status, and the novelmeanings contained in Willis's persona, that makehim a compelling endorser for Seagram's wine coolers(Gabor, Thorton, and Wiener 1987).

The celebrity world is, to this extent, a realm of ex-perimentation in which actors sometimes do morethan merely play out cultural categories and princi-ples. Sometimes they also engage in innovation, aswhen Bea Arthur creates new notions ofthe elderly,the stars of "Family Ties" work out certain notionsofthe family, and rock and roll stars invent and rein-vent the adolescent self. This experimentation makesthe celebrity an especially potent source of meaningfor the marketing system and a guide to the processof self-invention in which all consumers are engaged.

Celebrities serve the final stage of meaning transferbecause they are "super consumers" ofa kind. Theyare exemplary figures because they are seen to havecreated the clear, coherent, and powerful selves thateveryone seeks. They are compelling partners to themeaning transfer process because they demonstrateso vividly the process by which these meanings can beassembled and some ofthe novel shapes into whichthey can be assembled.

But who really needs the meanings created by ce-lebrities? We know that there are certain groups espe-cially keen on using them. Solomon (1983) observedthat anyone undergoing any sort of role change or sta-tus mobility is especially dependent on the meaningsof their possessions. McCracken (1987b) has tried toshow the importance ofthis meaning to those who aremoving from one age category to another. O'Guinn etal. (1985) have pointed out that those who are newlyarrived to a culture are also heavily indebted to themeanings contained in the consumer society and thecelebrity world.

But it has also been asserted that everyone in amodern, developed society is underspecified in thissense. As Belk (1984) and Sahlins( 1976) have argued,modern Western selves are deliberately left blank sothat the individual may exercise the right of choice.Also pertinent is the relative collapse of institutionsthat once supplied the self with meaning and defini-tion (e.g., the family, the church, the community).Working together, individualism and alienation haveconspired to give individuals new freedom to definematters of gender, class, age, personality, and life-style. The freedom to choose is now also an obligationto decide, and this makes us especially eager consum-ers ofthe symbolic meanings contained in celebritiesand the goods they endorse.

This, in broad detail, suggests how celebrity en-dorsement operates as a process of meaning transfer.We have reviewed each of the three stages ofthis pro-cess, considering in turn how meaning moves into thepersona ofthe celebrity, how it then moves from thecelebrity into the product, and, finally, how it movesfrom the product into the consumer. Celebrities are.

by this account, key players in the meanings transferprocess.

THE REAL CONSUMER SOCIETYThis discussion ofthe cultural aspects of celebrity

endorsement enables us to address one or two largerissues in the field of consumer research. More pre-cisely, it carries larger implications for the debate thatnow rages about the nature ofthe consumer society.One party to this debate argues that the consumer so-ciety encourages low artistic standards, materialisticpreoccupations, and an affection for the trivial andunimportant (e.g., Barnouw 1978; Ewen 1976; Lasch1979; Pollay 1986). The consumer society has beendeclared the domain ofthe Philistine.

The North American preoccupation with moviestars is a favorite target (Ewen 1988, pp. 92-100).North America is accused of having a triviallyminded fascination with the affairs ofthe rich and fa-mous. This fascination is cited as evidence of thedepths to which popular culture is destined to fall, thebankruptcy of North American life, and the shallow-ness ofthe individual who lives therein.

These arguments are, no doubt, very satisfyingfrom apolitical and polemical point of view, but theydo not reckon very well with the cultural realities ofthe celebrity world as described here. These criticismsfail to see that Hollywood, the star system, and celeb-rity endorsement are all profoundly cultural enter-prises and that our fascination with celebrities reflectsour involvement in the meaning transfer system theyaccomplish.

The celebrity world is one of the most potentsources ofcultural meaning at the disposal ofthe mar-keting system and the individual consumer. It is,therefore, not at all surprising that we should careabout celebrities and the lives they lead. It would bemuch more surprising if we were indifferent andsomehow above an interest in the world of tbe stars.As all of us labor to fashion manageable selves, it isinevitable that we should cultivate a knowledge ofthis world. More plainly. North Americans are not"star-crazy," but rather merely active consumers ofthe meanings that are made available by the celebrityworld.

There is indeed a delicate and thoroughgoing rela-tionship between the culture, the entertainment in-dustry, and the marketing system in modern NorthAmerica. We are beginning to understand what thisrelationship is and how it works. We must hope thatthe first victims ofthis emerging understanding willbe the glib assertions that characterize North Ameri-can society as thoughtlessly materialistic, and NorthAmerican consumers as the narcissistic, simple-minded, manipulated playthings ofthe market place.Celebrity endorsement and the marketing system arecultural undertakings in which meaning is constantly

CELE8RITY ENDORSER: CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS 319

in circulation. As we begin to render a more sophisli-caled account of how these systems work, we will be-gin to see that North American culture and commerceare more interesting and more sophisticated than itscritics have guessed.

FUTURE RESEARCHThe cultural perspective suggests three avenues of

research. The first of these is a thorough assessmentof how meanings move in the celebrity world. Weknow that each role, event, or accomplishment in thecareer ofthe celebrity changes the meanings ofthe ce-lebrity, but we do not know precisely how this takesplace. We do not know what the precise relationshipis between the role, event, and accomplishment, onthe one hand, and the celebrity, on the other. Nor dowe know how meaning transfers from one to theother. We need a precise idea of how meanings cometo exist in celebrities.

The first avenue of research has a methodologicalcomponent as well. We need an instrument that al-lows us to determine methodologically the meaningsthat adhere in celebrities. We know that the meaningsthat exist in celebrities are extraordinarily numerousand various, but we have yet to devise an instrumentthat allows us to detect and survey these meanings.Only some delicate combination of qualitative andquantitative methods will enable us to decipher themeanings ofthe celebrity world in the individual andthe aggregate.

Once an instrument is devised, certain crucial em-pirical work can be undertaken. We can determinethe meanings that any individual celebrity brings tothe endorsement process, and to survey the meaningsthat exist in the entire world of endorsement. A ty-pography ofthe meanings contained throughout thecelebrity worlds of sports, politics, business, art, themilitary, television, and Hollywood is possible andwill give us a systematic sense ofthe meanings at thedisposal ofthe endorsement system and the meaningtransfer process.

The second avenue of research should concentrateon a more precise determination of how advertisingaccomplishes the transfer of meaning from celebrityto product. How do creative directors identify andcatalog the symbolic properties contained in the ce-lebrity world? What are the rhetorical and visual de-vices by which this celebrity meaning is transferredwithin the advertisement? What celebrity meaningsare seen to work best with what products? What is theprocess by which consumers contribute to the mean-ing transfer process? It is also relevant to ask here howa celebrity changes his or her stock of symbolic prop-erties by participating in an advertisement.

The third avenue of research deals with how con-sumers appropriate and use the meanings that cometo them as a result of endorsement. How does the con-

sumer take possession ofthis meaning? How does theconsumer use the meaning ofthe celebrity in the con-struction ofselfand world? It may be that some con-sumers routinely canvass the symbolic meanings ofone or several celebrities to take advantage of the ex-perimentation taking place here. Do consumers setup long-term relationships with a single celebrity andsystematically "download" all the new meanings thiscelebrity makes available through new roles and en-dorsements? Do consumers follow a variety of celeb-rities from whom they draw a variety of meanings?What happens to consumers when celebrities aretransformed by disgrace or new fame? We must beginto chart what becomes ofthe cultural meanings afterthey leave the endorsement and enter into the life ofthe consumer.

These are all questions that need to be answered forus to understand the process of celebrity endorsementin fine detail. They are the research opportunities themeaning transfer perspective brings to light.

The meaning transfer approach casts some doubton the sufficiency ofthe source models' explanationof celebrity endorsement. But it does not prevent usfrom asking the questions that have been asked in thistradition. For instance, it is still possible to talk aboutthe issue of credibility or other questions relevant tosource research. It is still possible to see that some ce-lebrities are more credible than others and that eachcelebrity is more credible for some promotional pur-pose than others.

What the meaning transfer model does is shift theterms oi' this debate. When we consider credibility inthis new context, we are no longer talking about themanner in which celebrities communicate informa-tion, but rather the manner in which they communi-cate meaning (McCracken 1987a). Credibility nowturns on which meanings celebrities make availableto endorsements and how well (hey transfer thesemeanings to the product. Examples ofthis culturalcredibility are not hard to find. John Houseman wasthe compelling choice for the Smith Barney advertise-ment. The actor chosen to succeed him, LeoMcKern,carries different meanings in a different configura-tion. He is, in a word, less credible. The Smith Barneyslogan is changed, and diminished, as a result.

The symbolic or cultural perspective (McCracken1987a) allows for a new credibility measure of adifferent sort. There is, for instance, no longer anysingle kind of credibility. A celebrity can be extremelycredible for certain meanings and not at all crediblefor others. Plainly, this aspect of credibility cannot becaptured by the theories and instruments convention-ally used. Indeed, to investigate the celebrity endorse-ment from the symbolic or cultural point of view, anew set of questions and methodologies must be in-vestigated.

CONCLUSIONA new perspective on the process of celebrity en-

dorsement has been developed. It has suggested that


the source models with which endorsement is nowunderstood by practitioner and scholar are insuffi-cient. The chief deficit of these models is that they askus to accept that it is the attractiveness and credibilityof the celebrity that make the endorsement work.Useful for certain purposes, this approach prevents usfrom seeing that celebrities are in fact highly individ-ualized and complex bundles ofcultural meaning. Italso prevents us from seeing that endorsement con-sists in the transfer of these meanings from the celeb-rity to the product, and from the product to the con-sumer. The meaning transfer model presented here isintended to demonstrate that the secret ofthe celeb-rity endorsement is largely cultural in nature, andthat the study ofthe celebrity and endorsement is im-proved by a cultural perspective.

[Received November 19S8. Revised April 1989.]

REFERENCESAdams. Marie Jeanne (1973), "Structural Aspects ofa Vil-

lage Art," American Anthropologist, 75 (February),265-279.

Ames, Kenneth L. (1982), "Meaning in Artifacts; Hall Fur-nishings in Victorian America," in Material CultureStudies in America, ed. Thomas J. Schlereth, Nash-ville, TN: The American Association for State and Lo-cal History, 206-221.

Appadurai, Arjun, ed. (1986). The Social Life of Things.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Atkin, Charles and Martin Block (1983), "Effectiveness ofCelebrity EndorscTS," Journal of Advertising Research.23 (February/March), 57-61.

Baker, Michael J. and Gilbert A. Churchill (1977), "TheImpact of Physically Attractive Models on AdvertisingEvaluations,"'' Journal of Marketing Research. 14 (No-vember). 538-555.

Barnouw, Erik (1978), The Sponsor: Notes on a Modern Po-tentate. New York: Oxford University Press.

Belk. Russell W. (1984). "Cultural and Historical Differ-ence in Concepts of̂ the Selfand Their Effects on Atti-tudes Toward Having and Giving," in Advances inConsumer Research. Vol. 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear,Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 753-760.

(1988), "Possessions and the Extended Self," Jour-nal of Consumer Research. 15 (September), 139-168.

Cheal, David (1988), "The Post Modern Origin of Ritual,"Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior. 18 (Septem-ber), 269-290.

Csikszentmihaiyi, Mihaly and Eugene Rochberg-Halton(1981), The Meaning of Things. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Debevec, Kathleen and Jerome B. Kernan (1984), "MoreEvidence on the Effects of a Presenter's Physical At-tractiveness: Some Cognitive, Affective and BehavioralConsequences," in Advances in Consumer Research.Vol. 11, ed. Thomas C. Kinnear, Provo, UT: Associa-tion for Consumer Research, 127-132.

Dholakia, Ruby Roy and Brian Sternthal (1977). "HighlyCredible Sources: Persuasive Facilitators or Persua-

sive Liabilities?" Journal of Consumer Research. 3(March), 223-232.

Douglas, Mary and Baron Isherwood (1978), The WorldofGoods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption.New York: W.W. Norton.

Ewen, Stuart (1976). Captains of Consciousness, New York:McGraw-Hill.

(1988), All Consuming Images, New York: BasicBooks.

Finn, David W. (1980). "The Validity of Using ConsumerInput to Choose Advertising Spokesmen." in Advancesin Consumer Research, Vol. 7, ed. Jerry C. Olson, AnnArbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research. 776-779.

Friedman, Hershey H. and Linda Friedman (1979), "En-dorser Effectiveness by Product Type," Journal of Ad-vertising Research, 19 (October), 63-71.

. Michael J. Santeramo, and Anthony Traina (1978),"Correlates of Trustworthiness For Celebrities," Jour-nal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science. 6 (Fall), 291-299.

-, Salvatore Termini, and Robert Washington {1976)."The Effectiveness of̂ Advertisements Utilizing FourTypes of Endorsers," Journal of Advertising. 5 (Sum-mer). 22-24.

Gabor, Andrea, Jeannye Thorton, and Daniel P. Wiener(1987). "Star turns that can turn star-crossed." U.S.Newsand World Report, (December 7), 57.

Gottdiener, Mark (1985), "Hegemony and Mass Culture: ASemiotic Approach," American Journal of Sociology.90(5), 979-1001.

Hirschman, Elizabeth and Morris B. Holbrook, eds. (1981),Symbolic Consumer Behavior. Ann Arbor, MI: Associ-ation for Consumer Research.

Holman, Rebecca (1980), "Product Use as Communica-tion: A Fresh Appraisal ofa Venerable Topic," in Re-view of Marketing, eds. Ben M. Enis and Kenneth J.Roering, Chicago: American Marketing Association,250-272.

Hovland, Carl I. and Walter Weiss (1951-1952), "The In-fluence of Source Credibility on CommunicationEffectiveness," Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 (Winter),635-650.

. Irving L. Janis, and Harold H. Kelley (1953), Com-munication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.

Joseph, Benoy W. (1982). "The Credibility of Physically At-tractive Communicators: A Re\iew," Journal of Adver-tising. 11 (July), 15-24.

Kahle. Lynn R. and Pamela M. Homer (1985), "PhysicalAttractiveness ofthe Celebrity Endorser: A Social Ad-aptation Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research,II (March), 954-961.

Kaikati, Jack G. (1987), "Celebrity Advertising: A Reviewand Synthesis," International Journal of Advertising. 6(2), 93-105.

Kamen, Joseph M., Abdul C. Azhari, and Judith R. Kragh(1975), "What a Spokesman Does for a Sponsor," Jour-nal of Advertising Research, 15 (April), 17-24.

Klebba, Joanne M. and Lynette S. Unger (1983), "The Im-pact of Negative and Positive Information on SourceCredibility in a Field Setting," in Advances in Con-sumer Research, Vol. 10, eds. Richard P. Bagozzi and


AliceM.Tybout, Ann Arbor, MI: Association forCon-sumer Research, 11-16.

Kuhn. Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revo-lutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lasch. Christopher (1979), The Culture of Narcissism. NewYork: W.W. Norton.

Levy, Sidney J. (1959). "Symbols for Sale," Harvard Busi-ness Review. 31 (July/August), 117-124.

(1981), "Interpreting Consumer Mythology: AStructural Approach lo Consumer Behavior." Journalof Marketing, 45 (Summer), 49-61.

Marshall, Christy (1987), "It Seemed Like A Good Idea atthe Time," Forbes. (December 28). 98-99.

McCracken. Grant (1986), "Culture and Consumption: ATheoretical Account of the Structure and Movementofthe Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods," Journalof Consumer Research. 13 (June). 71-84.

(19B7a), "Advertising: Meaningor Information?" inAdvances in Consumer Research. Vol. 14, eds. Paul An-derson and Melanie Wallendorf, Provo, UT: Associa-tion forConsumer Research. 121-124.

(1987b), "Culture and Consumption Among the El-derly: Three Research Objectives in an Emerging

,'' Ageing and Society. 7 (June). 203-224.(1988). Culture and Consumption. Bloomington: In-

diana University Press.McGuire. William J. (1985), "Attitudes and Attitude

Change." in Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. 2,eds. Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson. New York:Random House. 233-346.

Mick. David Glen (1986). "Consumer Research and Semio-tics: Exploring the Morphology of Signs. Symbols, andSignificance,'^ Journal of Consumer Research. 13 (Sep-tember). 196-213.

Motavalli. John (1988), "Advertising Blunders ofthe Richand Famous," Adweek. (January II). 18-19.

O'Guinn, Thomas C , Ronald J. Faber, and Marshall Rice(1985). "Popular Film and Television as Consumer Ac-culturation Agents: America 1900 to Present," in His-torical Perspective in Consumer Research: Nationaland International Perspectives, eds. Chin Tiong Tan

and Jagdish N. Sheth. Singapore: National Universityof Singapore. 297-301.

Pollay, Richard (1986), "The Distorted Mirror: Reflectionson the Unintended Consequences of Advertising,"Journal of Marketing. 50 (April), 18-36.

Prown. Jules D. (1980), "Style as Evidence," WinterthurPortfolio, 15 (Autumn). 197-210.

(1982), "Mind In Matter: An Introduction to Mate-rial Culture Theory and Method," Winterthur Portfo-lio. 17 (Spring), 1-19.

Rook. Dennis W. (1985), "The Ritual Dimension of Con-sumer Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research. 12(December). 251-264.

Sahlins, Marshall (1976), Culture and Practical Reason.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schudson, Michael (1984), Advertising, The Uneasy Per-suasion. New York: Basic Books.

Sherry, John F., Jr. (1989), "Postmodern Alternatives: TheInterpretive Turn in Consumer Research," in Hand-book of Consumer Theory and Research, eds. HaroldH. Kassarjian and Thomas Robertson, EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice-Hall, in press.

Solomon, Michael R. (1983), "The Role of Products as So-cial Stimuli: A Symbolie Interactionism Perspective."Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (December), 319-329.

Stern. Barbara (1988). "Medieval Allegory: Roots of Adver-tising Strategy for the Mass Market," Journal of Mar-keting. 52 (July), 84-94.

Sternthal. Brian, Ruby Roy Dholakia, and Clark Leavitt(1978). "The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility:Tests of Cognitive Response." Journal of ConsumerResearch. 4 (March), 252-260.

Umiker-Sebeok. Jean. ed. (1988), Marketing and Semi-otics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Wallendorf. Melanie and Eric Arnould (1988). " 'My Fa-vorite Things': A Cross-Cultural Inquiry into ObjectAttachment, Possessiveness. and Social Linkage,"Journal of Consumer Research, 14(March), 531-547.

Wells, Linda (1989). "Face Value," A^ewrozine. Part 2 (February 26). 46, 56. and 72.

Documents

Cultural Meaning