Celebrity vs character: a fight in five rounds
The math on borrowing fame vs building it
READY? FIGHT!
The debate is as old as advertising itself: do you borrow fame or build it?
Celebrities bring audiences. Characters bring control. Both promise to make your brand memorable.
But which actually wins?
Let’s settle this the only way that makes sense: a five-round fight to the finish.
In the red corner: The Celebrity – famous, expensive, comes with baggage (literal and metaphorical).
In the blue corner: The Character – created, controllable, takes time to build.
ROUND 1... FIGHT!
Round 1: Fame
Winner: Celebrity 🏆
Let’s give credit where it’s due.
Take this year’s Super Bowl. One ad rolled out Jon Hamm, Scarlett Johansson, and a roster of A-list talent. Millions of views. Instant cultural moment. Social feeds are exploding.
That’s the power of borrowed fame. You don’t need to explain who these people are. They come pre-loaded with attention.
A new character? Nobody knows them. Nobody cares yet. You’re starting from zero, and building recognition takes years.
If you need attention right now, celebrities deliver. That’s not even close.
But here’s the asterisk: those talent fees? Probably north of $10 million. And next month, those same celebrities will be selling something else for someone else. The brand is left with... a memory. A moment.
Nothing owned. Nothing compounding.
Celebrity takes Round 1. Enjoy it.
Round 2: Distinctiveness
Winner: Character 🏆
Here’s where things get interesting.
Yes, celebrities are famous. But they’re famous to everyone. Scarlett Johansson has done campaigns for dozens of brands. When you see her, do you think of any single one?
Now think about Tony the Tiger. The Michelin Man. The Duolingo owl.
Those characters ARE the brand. They’re not borrowed distinctiveness – they’re owned distinctiveness. No competitor can license them. No other category can dilute them.
A 2024 Kantar report found that characters consistently outperformed celebrities in long-term brand equity scores across global markets. The reason? They’re singular. Unmistakable. Yours.
Character takes Round 2.
Round 3: Entertainment
Winner: Character 🏆 (close fight)
This one’s tighter than it looks.
Celebrities can be genuinely entertaining. Ryan Reynolds turned Aviation Gin into a content machine. Matthew McConaughey made Lincoln ads weirdly compelling.
But here’s the difference: those celebrities have boundaries. Schedules. Opinions about what they will and won’t do.
Characters? You can make them do anything.
The Duolingo owl can threaten users on TikTok. The Scrubbing Bubbles can go to therapy. The M&M’s can have complicated relationship drama.
You can take creative risks that no celebrity’s PR team would ever approve. You can be weird, experimental, and prolific – because your character shows up whenever you need them.
The creative ceiling is just higher.
Character takes Round 3. Barely.
Round 4: Playability
Winner: Character 🏆
Want Timothée Chalamet to sign autographs at your brand activation? Get in line. Behind the movie studios, the fashion houses, the fragrance brands, and everyone else fighting for a slice of his time.
Celebrity access is brutally competitive. They have endless options, and you’re renting a tiny piece of someone else’s universe.
But when you own a character, you own a universe.
Merchandise. People buy plushies of the Geico gecko. Nobody’s buying plushies of your celebrity spokesperson.
Games. Characters can star in branded games, apps, and interactive experiences.
Fandom. Strong characters generate fan art, cosplay, remixes, UGC – all of it spreading your brand for free.
Collaborations. Your character can cross over with other brands, other IPs, other worlds.
When you build a character people love, you’re not running campaigns. You’re building a platform.
Character dominates Round 4.
Round 5: Risk
Winner: Character 🏆🏆🏆 FATALITY
This is where the fight ends.
Every celebrity comes with a hidden risk profile. Their past. Their present. Their 3am tweets. Their “private” behavior might not stay private.
(Somewhere, a brand manager is still having nightmares about those flight logs.)
When a celebrity implodes, your brand is collateral damage. You scramble to pull ads, scrub assets, and issue statements. Years of association, destroyed overnight by something completely outside your control.
Characters don’t have this problem.
Your character will never:
Get arrested
Say something unhinged on a podcast
Show up in a scandal
Demand renegotiation after going viral
Die unexpectedly
...unless you want them to.
That’s the point. Duolingo killed Duo and got billions of impressions. Liquid Death’s mascot is literally a murderous cartoon. Scrub Daddy flirts with chaos daily.
The difference? Controlled risk vs uncontrolled risk.
You can make your character controversial, edgy, unhinged – even “kill” them for engagement. But it’s YOUR decision. YOUR timing. YOUR narrative.
With celebrities, the chaos chooses you.
Character wins by knockout.
Final score: Character 4, Celebrity 1
Look, celebrities aren’t useless. If you need instant fame, they deliver. If you have unique access for some reason, USE IT.
But fame is round one. The rest of the fight – distinctiveness, entertainment, playability, risk – all goes to characters.
And here’s what the scorecard doesn’t show: the compounding effect.
Every dollar you spend on a celebrity is rent. The contract ends, you start over.
Every dollar you spend building a character is equity. The recognition compounds. The creative library grows. The brand universe expands.
Over five years, over ten years, over thirty years... it’s not even close.
The exceptions
Some celebrity partnerships genuinely work:
George Clooney × Nespresso – 18 years of consistency (the exception, not the rule)
Ryan Reynolds × Aviation Gin – he owned equity, then sold for $610M
Rihanna × Fenty Beauty – she IS the brand, not a spokesperson for it
Notice the pattern? The partnerships that last are the ones where the celebrity basically becomes a character – either through unusual longevity or actual ownership.
If you’re not getting that kind of deal, you’re probably in a rental agreement disguised as a partnership.
The bottom line
Unless you have unique access to talent that nobody else can get, the math favors building your own characters.
Not because celebrities don’t work short-term. They do.
But because you’re not building for the next campaign. You’re building a brand universe that compounds for decades.
Borrow fame, or build it.
Only one of those shows up on your balance sheet.
GAME OVER. CHARACTER WINS.
Want to build your brand mascot?
I help brands create character-driven engines powered by AI.
Book a 20-minute call | See examples
Subscribe to Marcel’s Lab - The only newsletter on building character-driven brands powered by AI. When content is infinite, characters are your moat.