Oh the irony!

The last few months have been brutal for businesses. Layoff announcements, the world over, are seeing all labor go from being valuable to dispensable in no time.

Isn't it a bit baffling that businesses don't pause celebrity-led campaigns while they make all the "tough calls?"

A few of the big ed-tech companies in India sponsored a sporting event or a comedians for reaction videos, simultaneously writing emotionally charged apology emails to those who lost employment.

I understand that the recurrent wage bills could be more draining than a one-time sponsorship. From a layperson's perspective, though, this makes little sense.

Anytime I come across a sponsored video or news about signing an ultra-famous celebrity for a brand, I wonder how anyone buys into it?

The celebrity will not be using your product but is vouching for it? Consider education, a celebrity is not going to take the up-skilling test or the classes being offered.

How is the consumer trusting this review or hype?

Influence and reach are the buzzwords used as a response to this question. They work in subtle and often mysterious ways, which makes the reasoning all the more foolproof.

Despite all the defense on why it makes sense to continue celebrity-led branding, we soon find out the backhanded ways consumers are scammed into buying the product.

But "oh! this is how startups are" is the quick rebuttal. It reminds me of those mindless MUNs students attend. At any point, your justification can be changed to suit a cause.

It also makes me unsure if the consumer even buys into the review or the hype. It makes me feel strongly about how we need better, creative, and direct ways of convincing the consumer.

At the moment, though, to an outsider, it is a game of hide and seek.