CNET's headline...I didn't make it up. They are trying to be funny because he plays saxaphone...uh, I think. I have a couple issues here:
First the opening statement: "A Web search upstart is cutting the ribbon on a new service with the celebrity muscle of Bill Clinton, a sure sign that dot-com hype is back. "
Really? This Clinton thing is what you are going on? Not lower interest rates driving more people to roll the dice on riskier investments? You're saying that a former president, who I don't really equate with technology myself (not that I equate any other president with tech either), is heralding the next dot com boom blitz (now I did just make that up...boom blitz...I like it). I don't buy it...at least not for the reasons mentioned. Frankly, Clinton is everywhere.
I guess I would also be concerned about a start-up that would spend it's money hiring Clinton to speak. I mean, that has got to be expensive (I read that Vanity Fair article). OK, so it's the investors own money at this point...but does it make you question how they spend their capital? Their search engine is targeted at the business user. I think this customer segment is savvy enough to scratch their head and wonder what Clinton has to do with the Internet (aside from the fact that his VP invented it...oh wait, he's affiliated with Google).
The other celebrity endorsements mentioned don't do much to build a case for famous folks successfully endorsing tech companies (although, I gotta say I like the iPod/U2 ads...catchy, but a little too ubiqiotous...and just now starting to get on my nerves). Anyone else think the AOL/Sharon Stone ads were a mistake? They were just a little weird and their corporate image really clashes with her image. The Priceline ones with William Shatner were at least amusing...in a kind of creepy way.
Oh, I dearly hope that the ones we are doing with the Jeopardy! guy are funny...please Encarta marketing team, let them be funny.
Just my opinion.