What makes a good endorser?

Is it important for an athlete to use and believe in the product he or she endorses? Does that make the endorsement more authentic, and therefore, more convincing?

Years ago, I might’ve said yes, but every day the endorsement world becomes more of a Show Me The Money kind of culture, and a real connection between athlete and product matters less.

As true as that might be, athletes (and their agents) still try to put the right spin on it. When Michael Beasley signed with Adidas last week, Steve Reed, his business manager, said "Mike has agreed enthusiastically to endorse Adidas and wear the shoe as he has done his whole playing life."

Thing is, as reported by Darren Rovell in his SportsBiz blog, photographic evidence of Beasley shows him playing in Nikes more than any other shoe, including a pair of Jordan Aqua VIII's for games against Wisconsin and USC in last year’s NCAA tournament.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/26874362

So they’re saying the right thing, even though it may not be true, and they’ll get no flack for it. Because it’s understood that endorsers are paid to endorse. When we would talk to 13-24 year old athletes about this stuff, they automatically assumed that the sports stars they saw shaving with Schick or wearing a Tag Heuer were doing it because they were getting paid to do it. The trickier and more important question was around sports-related products like Gatorade, which can affect performance on the field.

Gatorade chose their endorsers very carefully. For ten years, the only celebrity endorser they had was Michael Jordan. And after that, they associated themselves with only the most elite, and more important, most championship-winning athletes. Jeter, Hamm, Manning.

For Beasley and Adidas, it’s a little different. It’s more about exposure than anything else. No skepticism there. Just wanting get in with the cool kids.