Beauty: Smiling for Dollars

HOLLYWOOD IS SO inextricably linked to our cultural ideals of beauty and glamour that it's no mystery why a cosmetics company would want to hitch its wagon to a star. Louise Brooks' bob kept hairstylists in business in the 1930s. Betty Grable's legs inadvertently sold the first disposable razors marketed to women, after World War II. It was only a matter of time before actors realized the potential profits behind being such successful marketing tools for beauty brands, and before long, Judy Garland and Joan Crawford signed on to appear in magazine advertisements for Max Factor in the '30s and '40s. Although Farrah Fawcett sold untold amounts of Wella Balsam conditioner in the '70s and L'Oréal has had a revolving army of actors proclaiming "Because I'm worth it" for four decades, the cachet of the beauty endorsement had been on the wane since the late '80s and early '90s. Models supplanted actors as the "faces" of brands, and celebrities were forced to skulk off to foreign markets like Japan's to fulfill lucrative endorsement contracts under the radar. But a quick glance at a women's magazine in 2006 reveals that there is no more shame in the celebrity-endorsement game.

"The explosion of the tabloid press and the Internet has made the general public kind of insatiable" when it comes to celebrities, says John Demsey, president of Estée Lauder. "People want a sense of familiarity with the people they look up to these days."

And familiarity they've got, thanks to the staggering success of the tabloids. Instead of the escapist "insert yourself here" print ads and commercials featuring the (relatively) blank canvas of a model, we're met with a face so familiar that we know not only the box-office stats of her last movie but also the names of her children and which coffee chain she prefers. And given that the financial stakes are so high—with Oscar winners demanding beauty contracts worth up to $12 million a pop—the question is, Is she really worth it?

"The answer is yes. She is worth it if she connects to what the brand is about," says Demsey, citing Lauder's relationship with Gwyneth Paltrow (who signed with the brand in 2005 for several million) as an example of a good fit. "But there is something that happens. It commoditizes things when everything looks the same. They lose their uniqueness. That's why the selection of the celebrity and how they're presented make such a difference."

There are legitimate reasons stars are signing up to shill mascara and moisturizer in such numbers. First, the embarrassment factor has disappeared. "Ten years ago, celebrities didn't think this was a good career decision. They thought it detracted from their cachet," says Scott Beattie, chairman and CEO of Elizabeth Arden. "When we signed Catherine Zeta-Jones in 2002, she was one of the first prominent celebrities to sign to a beauty brand. Now it seems stars see an opportunity [with beauty advertisements] to present themselves to the public in a more controlled way than the tabloids do. As a result, the paparazzi images become less of a commodity. In the past, there was resistance because it was viewed as overexposure. Now it's accepted."