Manning is to LL Cool J as Brees is to Doogie Howser

January 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

There’s a lot on the line next Sunday in Miami.

Not only for the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints, but for quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Drew Brees as well. Sports marketers say the winning Super Bowl quarterback could double his marketability and endorsement portfolio.

Well, that might be difficult for Manning. He’s already the endorsement king, bringing in about $12 million annually from deals with MasterCard, Sony, Gatorade, Oreos and others. That’s about triple what Brees brings in from endorsements. Still, $4 million annually, that’s not chump change.

Companies considering partnering with Manning or Brees will likely have a close eye on The Davie Brown Index. It’s one of the nation’s leading indexes for brand marketers and tells a lot about the public’s perception of high-profile figures.

The DBI reveals some interesting facts about both QBs and their public perception. You might be surprised with some of the stars with which the two align.

Not surprisingly, Manning overall scores higher than Brees 78.99 to 51.83, meaning overall his brand resonates quite a bit louder with the U.S. public.

On the awareness front, Manning scores 84.57, Brees 42.44. It’s pretty amazing that almost 85 percent of Americans recognize Manning by name or face. The 15 percent that don’t must not have a television.

But on appeal, Brees outscores Manning 77.18 to 76.73. On the influence scale, Manning scores a 71.36 to Brees’ 64.12. And on the trust barometer, Manning scores a 65.89 and Brees notches 61.13.

The scores say that once the public becomes aware of Brees, they tend to like him a lot. So clearly, since only 42.44 percent of Americans currently recognize Brees by name or face, he has the most to gain by piloting his team to Super Bowl glory.

Now for the most interesting part.

On the awareness level Manning is in close proximity (at least among U.S. consumers) to Brett Favre, Diana Ross, LL Cool J and Collin Farrell.

As for appeal, consumers find Manning about as likeable as Jon Bon Jovi, Elvis Presley, Richard Petty and Jake Gyllenhaal.

Manning’s aspiration score aligns with Joe Montana, Denzel Washington, Grant Hill and Dick Clark.

His endorsement score is on par with Carrie Underwood, George Clooney and Morgan Freeman.

His influence ranks Manning among the top 100 celebs in the DBI database (No. 78), near Tom Brokaw and John Travolta.

Here’s the Brees breakdown.

Awareness: Helio Castroneves, Mike Krzyzewski, Mira Sorvino.

Endorsement score: Hank Aaron, Samuel L. Jackson, Pat Riley, Rihanna and Queen Latifah.

Appeal: Rocco Mediate, Chris Noth, Jack Nicklaus and Zach Galifianakis.

Aspiration score: Julia Roberts, Danica Patrick, Dan Aykroyd and Dwyane Wade.

Trust: Richard Branson, Ted Danson, Whoopi Goldberg and Neil Patrick Harris.

Hmm. Who knew Manning aligned with LL Cool J and Brees with Doogie Howser.

With that in mind, Feb. 7 should be a super Sunday.


  • I think some of the likeability issues with Manning would be due to his on field success and endorsements. 5 years ago, people outside of Indy liked the Colts more because they were the underdog fighting to win and having success. Manning was new and his aww shucks personality was charming. Now with the large amount of success he is having some people are turned off by that, and same with his saturation.

    In fact Manning better be on his best behavior, the press will be looking for any chink in his squeaky clean image to exploit ala Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan etc...

    the only thing Americans like more than building up a celebrity is watching their fall from the top with some scandal.
  • Manning/Brees
    Interesting article and comparisons. I would certainly hate to take seriously that endorsement score with Manning and George Clooney. Same thing for Samuel L Jackson and Brees. How in the world with all of the names listed of people to look up to did those two loons (Clooney and Jackson) get in the mix?
  • Loons?
    First of all this was a fun blog post to read.

    Second BerwickGuy Clooney and Jackson are loons? What are you referring to? Do you mean the characters they portray in movies are a bit odd? Both these actors are very charitable. Were you not aware that the Haitian relief mega-telethon broadcasted on all major networks last Friday was Clooney's brainchild. Clooney co-founded Not On Our Watch with the goal of stopping the genocide occurring in Sudan. Jackson has been involved in the civil rights movement since he was an usher at Martin Luther King's funeral. Both Clooney and Jackson where listed under the endorsement score which refers to the degree to which consumers identify the celebrity as being an effective product spokesperson so apparently there are many consumers who do not think these two are loons and admire what they do for the greater good of mankind.
  • Touche!
    Touche, Hazel. Touche!
  • What a crock
    What a pandering article...I'd love to see the list from which Mr. Schoettle picked those names. Not arguing with the scores, but the comparable names. I'd be willing to bet for any of those categories there are more recognizable names than the ones he "chose" to mention for the Brees comparison, and less recognizable names that match up to Peyton. Just another way to spin the article to say what you want.
  • Something to pander
    Hello Robert, and thanks for reading and taking the time to comment. I didn't chose those names. The Marketing Arm, which produces the DBI, chose those names. And in all cases they were selected because those were the people directly above and below (a method known as bracketing) Manning and Brees in the rankings. Not a random selection to get a rise out of the good folks who read The Score. Again, thanks for reading.
  • Manning/Brees

    Please accept my apology. My reference should have been Danny Glover not Samuel L Jackson. Mr. Glover and Mr. Clooney are well known for their outlandish statements on political issues and the state of the world in general. In the case of Mr. Clooney, even those with looney ideas may be charitable. After all, he has to do something with all that money. In this case, he's a patriot for doing the right thing. On the other hand, Mr. Glover - a first class nut, but that wasn't part of this post. I just found the comparisons a bit distasteful, that's all.

    Again, my apolgies.
  • So Funny
    Ah, BerwickGuy... you make me laugh. On all of these IBJ Blogs, you always have to get the last word when someone disagrees with you.
  • Interesting article....
    Interesting article and comparisons. I would certainly hate to take seriously that endorsement score with Manning and George Clooney. Same thing for Samuel L Jackson and Brees. How in the world with all of the names listed of people to look up to did those two loons (Clooney and Jackson) get in the mix? building solar panels.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. Now if he'd just stay there...

  2. Daniel - what about the many US citizens who do NOT follow what the Bible teaches? The Hindus, Jews, Muslims and others who are all American citizens entitled to all rights as Americans?? This issue has NOTHING to do with "What the Bible says..." Keep all Churches separate from State! Pence's ongoing idiocy continues to make Indiana look like a backwards, homophobic state in the eyes of our nation. Can't we move on to bigger issues - like educating our kids?

  3. 1. IBJ should link to the referenced report. We are in the age of electronic media...not sharing information is lazy. Here is a link 2. The article should provide more clarity about the make-up of this panel. The commenters are making this item out to be partisan, it does not appear the panel is partisan. Here is a list of the panel which appears to be balanced with different SME to add different perspectives 3. It suggests a by-pass, I do not see where this report suggests another "loop". 4. Henry, based on your kneejerk reaction, we would be better off if you moved to another state unless your post was meant as sarcasm in which case I say Well Done. 5. The article and report actually indicates need to improve rail and port infrastructure in direct contradiction to Shayla commentary. Specifically, recommendation is to consider passenger rail projects... 6. People have a voice with their elected officials. These are suggestions and do not represent "crony capitalism", etc. The report needs to be analyzed and the legislature can decide on priorities and spending. Don't like it, then vote in a new legislature but quit artificially creating issues where there are none! People need to sift through the politics and provide constructive criticism to the process rather than making uninformed comments in a public forum based on misinformation. IBJ should work harder to correct the record in these forums when blatant errors or misrepresentations are made.

  4. Joe ... Marriage is defined in the Bible ... it is mentioned in the Bible often. Marriage is not mentioned once in the US or Indiana Constitution ...

  5. Daniel - Educate me please: what does the Bible have to do with laws? If the government wasn't in the business of marriage to begin with, then it wouldn't have to "define" marriage at all. Marriage could be left as a personal, religious, or otherwise unregulated action, with no ties to taxes, legal status, etc. Then people could marry whomever they want, and all this silliness would go away. Remember to vote Libertarian in November.