Product PlacementProduct placement, by default, appears to have a negative connection with movie buffs or most of the articles found from the Internet. On the other hand, it is seen positively by advertisers. To avoid a narrow perspective I decided to find out more about this phenomenon. Here are some conclusions observed.
A blatant example of product placement by meIt is a placement of an advertisement for a product or brand into a movie (etc.). There are different ways how to do it: quoting Jean Mark Lehu (Branded Entertainment) "
classic placement,
institutional placement,
evocative placement and
stealth placement". In the first one you simply show a product. In institutional/corporate you show a brand. In evocative placement "operation is more discreet, in the sense that the brand does not appear, nor is clearly cited onscreen" - Its packaging or its shape is sufficient to be identified. In stealth placement, placement is almost unidentifiable, for instance, a wardrobe of the main character. In this case, the recognition is usually given after or prior to the movie (e.g. in the credits or Internet advertising). There is
fictional placement -fictional names are used as brands but they often bare resemblance to actual brand names. There is also
contextual product placement which means that a brand acts as a hero (example of such can be found
here). The placement is not exclusively a visual phenomenon but it can also be audible one (like the sound of Zippo).
2. The 'evil' side?Now, there is a huge discontent about the whole business of placing advertisements in films. The most avid opposers can be heard criticizing ruthlessly that film makers are surrendering their visual freedom to big corporations -i.e. "whoring for the corporations". There is also a huge fear that in the future placements will be ever omnipresent to con the viewers to consume in most elaborate ways. An image materializes of evil advertisers who will use any means necessary with no moral to reach their goals.
Why, it's a mac,
thank you for askingThis is definitely an attractive idea but it's far too simplistic. At the same time, I do admit that there can be these extreme cases, but on the other hand majority of advertisers are bound to planet Earth and will have to deal with multiple issues, such as the amount of money used, the image desired ... etc.
3. About advertisingAdvertising is done on different reasons. It's a wholehearted process where every detail is important and must support the brand image. Advertising is not free -it costs money- and usually it's one of the biggest parts of the company's expenses. There are huge risks taken at each choice because if the advertisement is a failure it may have huge impact on future sales or the brand image. If a certain brand image has received bad publicity, this will stick in the minds of consumers for a long time. Also, a person is more likely to report the bad experiences to a wider sample of people than the good ones. When smaller businesses are in question the impact is lot bigger. And also, the amount of money invested means more. Objectives of marketing are not always to increase the sales, company may want to e.g. increase or maintain market share, eliminate competition, raise awareness for the brand or enhance the brand image.
Pepsi does a plug in Max Payne
(I find it fare to mention both brands)
Advertising is an investment, and the product placement very profitable one if everything goes okey. However, I want you to bear in mind, that advertising decisions consists of different elements and are bound by risk. Even though advertising may seem a device to fool potential consumers it also depends on normal business practices and profitability calculations; just like your ordinary neighborhood flower shop. And this leads us to..
4. Planet Earth CallingWhat is often forgotten, is that we live in a world where consumerism is the culture. When you wake up and look around the contents of your apartment do you not see a single product? Also, when you walk out your house, aren't you met with various brands? Now, a film without brands (set in a real world) would be quite funny without any. Of course, one can always use fake advertisements but this may not always be the best choice.
5. Benefits (on both sides)Product placement being always the bad guy, let's consider for a change the good sides of placement. Sometimes a movie may actually benefit from placements:
Benefits for the movie:- it brings credibility to the movie if set in real world (look part 4)
- it brings credibility for the character (if a character is, for instance, a professional photographer, why wouldn't he use the best equipment there is?)
- it brings visibility to the actor/movie (contracts with companies -> "free" advertising prior/during/after the movie)
The Money side:
- Money for props
- freebies (e.g. you get free technology)
- exchange of equipment (e.g. you can use certain cars for the movie on 'loan' basis)
- ...
- Money for advertising the movie (advertiser can, for example, do the whole advertising part or use the movie to advertise its product if agreed -> more visibility)
The Company side:
- More consumers, sales -> more money
- Improvement of brand image & favourable connections (e.g. if a certain product is used by the main character it will benefit the product)
- More visibility for the brand/company/product
- The image of continuity (futuristic/old era movies)
6. Good usage of product placement?
As mentioned in the part 1, there are different ways how to do product placement. At least product placement should be done so that it does not underestimate the viewer. The most horrible example of a bad placement is pausing the movie for few seconds to show some cell phone brand. This is downright stupid and arrogant (whether the director of the movie has done this on purpose to underline it's awkwardness is another matter). This is most clear with music videos (I deviate from films for a minute here) -why don't they rather put 'sponsored by'/'this music video was brought to you by'.. before the video and let the viewers enjoy it without irritating observations. The product placement should at no time interfere with the movie so that the viewing process is interrupted! The best placement are the logical product placements where it is natural for the movie/characters to use them without that they are being blantly referred to.
7. Children and product placement
What comes to movies directed at teens and younger audiences the general guidelines for advertising should be followed. Studies have shown that children are more susceptible to the influences of ads. Luckily many countries either ban or limit advertising toward young audiences. In Hollywood I'd hope studios to use their heads when deciding on the advertising contracts. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to have movies directed at children without plugs. It goes without saying that in this case product placement should not be encouraged and can be considered to be a bad thing.
8. Make your own conclusions
I would go for the opinion that as long as the placement does not interfere with the movie (not directed at children) and the movie uses the product to its own benefit (not vice versa -that the corporation dictates the storyline), it is okey. However, it is up for the viewer to decide. For some, even the idea is abomination. For others, seeing a plug will cause bitterness. Then again if the plug is not seen clearly a consumer may blame a company in question for an attempt to use subliminal witchcraft at fooling oneself.
I encourage you to investigate the matter yourself and take a look at the both sides of the story. Go to your library and take a look at few marketing books. This may broaden your perspective more than few Internet sources will.
That said, here are few interesting links:
Brandchannel -list of plugs by different brands
Product Placement News -no idea if its any good but looks nice
A primary source for this blog entry is Branded Entertainment by Jean Mark Lehu.
