Placement of Products

The bottom line

2006-04-05T18:50:00.000-07:00

Product placement is on the rise, and it’s not only the advertisers who are noticing. The consumers are taking a stance on this controversial subject as well.

The Writer’s Guild of America is leading the crusade against product placement in the professional world. They have filed a formal complaint with the FCC, citing that product placement violates laws that regulate advertising. They claim that since we don’t allow stealth advertising, that is, advertising without the consumer knowing it is an advertisement, then what right does product placement have to be the exception. WGA feels that whenever product placement appears in a show, some sort of warning signal should be flashed. However, many feel this is taking it a step too far and indeed feel as if this would draw their attention to the product more than normal.

On the consumer front, the website productinvasion.com has taken it up to expose the truth behind product placement. This is run by a writer for reality television who has had enough with being told what products to integrate into the program. She feels a responsibility to bring the not-so-reality of these placements into the minds of the consumers. The main issue many have with their fight against product placement is that it seems to be unjust. For years writers have been told what to write, so why the uproar now? It has to do with money. The producers are making hundreds of thousands of dollars off these product placement deals, and the writers and directors don’t see a penny of that profit. If a settlement could be reached as to how to split such profits, the fuss being made about product placement in the industry would fade significantly.

On the flip side, most people are taking advantage of product placement in the age of TiVo. Customers are becoming more and more likely to buy DV-R’s and televisions with built in commercial skipping technology. With the death of the 30-second spot imminent everyone is looking for a way to make their product seen. And using product placement, some people have gotten very creative. A new trend is to have a product placed within a book, such as Ford has paid British novelist Carole Matthews to write about their Fiesta in a favorable light in her next novel. Music recording studios like Movie Records are now being set up with the specific intention of having the artists signed to their labels placed in movies and television shows. In fact, Pontiac has taken it to an entirely new level: they have consumers watching the streets for former Survivor stars driving Pontiac cars in order to win a prize.

However, product placement will eventually have to be regulated, just as all forms of advertising are. The first, most obvious front of this regulation will probably deal with marketing towards children. There are already bundles of laws in place that regulate advertising to children, since they are easily susceptible to marketing schemes. In the new film Curious George, Universal Pictures has taken the step in placing products in children’s movies. However, the products such as Dole Bananas and the VW Touareg, were not what the children were looking at—the parents were the one’s watching. So even though these things may be placed within a children’s movie, the consumers must have a watchful eye in order to see who is really being targeting.

When it comes down to it, product placement is here to stay. The bottom line is that it works, which is why it’s becoming increasingly popular. There will always be controversy when it comes to any methods of advertising, and this is only the first in a line of controversy to come as advertising is forced to take new forms. But, at the moment, there seem to be no bounds for this growing trend.

Digitally placed

2006-04-01T20:58:00.000-08:00

The newest trend in product placement: digitally inserting your product into the show.

Sounds a little high tech, doesn’t it? But why not? Instead of making sure that the box of Cheeze-Its is positioned correctly in the shot and risk the actors messing up the arrangement, Numb3rs producers can work with their sponsor in post production (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11728512/). They can digitally situate where the box is going to be placed on the counter, where nothing had been before.

Apparently, people are, as tends to be the trend with any development with product placement, up in arms about this advancement. But I can’t understand why. What’s the difference between having the box actually there in the shot or using a computer to insert it in the shot? It’ll be in the final product no matter what, so what’s the big deal?

The biggest problem comes from the flow of revenue. Just as is the problem with the Writers Guild of America, its not so much about compromising art as it is about the money. The producers are asking writers and directors to jump through hoops to make these products look good, but the only one who sees profit from these products are the producers. The writers and directors can yell about art as much as they want, but when it comes down to it, its money that has the main stage.

Family Guy in the Ice Age

2006-03-27T21:25:00.000-08:00

I’m proud of myself. All my blogging about product placement has finally paid off—I am really starting to notice all the placement!

It happened last night, while I was watching the new Family Guy on FOX. The show is known for its random scenes about things that don’t entirely make sense to the plot. Peter Griffin made some side comment about “nuts,” and then it cut to a computer animation scene of a mountain and a squirrel character from Ice Age 2. Peter was then put into the scene talking about acorns.

I was a little confused at first, just because the contrasting styles of animation were so out of place to begin with. Later on I saw a trailer that aired during the show promoting Ice Age 2. Most of all, I was baffled by this placement since I can’t imagine that many people going to see this movie would be watching Family Guy. Ice Age 2 is a family movie for young kids to go to with their parents. Family Guy is highly inappropriate for these children, and they’re the one’s I’d assume Ice Age wants to promote to.

However, this got me to thinking. There are regulations against marketing to children, such as you’re not allowed to advertise Power Rangers merchandise during the airtime of that show. Why is it that you’re allowed to place products in a show and then air commercials for them during the same show?

11%?

2006-03-26T15:40:00.000-08:00

I found an article (http://www.mediabuyerplanner.com/2006/03/01/product_placement_up_to_11_perc/index.php) claiming that an average of 11% of a show on prime time television is devoted to product placement, according to a study by TNS Media Intelligence. They had no way to measure which mentions of products were paid for, but the overall conclusion is that product placement is rapidly on the rise.

Reading this, I was a little shocked. I watch at least 5 hours of prime time television a week. And I’m talking about the shows known for product placement, such as “24” and “Gilmore Girls” and “American Idol.” If 11% of the content of these shows really is product placement, I’m not seeing it. Once in a while I’ll see an Apple computer or a Coca-Cola bottle, but at least to me, it isn’t affecting the plotline of the shows.

When speaking to my other friends who tend to watch these shows with me, they agreed. One friend said that she only noticed products when she used them. For instance, if she saw a Mac laptop, she’d look closer to see if it was a PowerBook like she uses, and if it wasn’t, she would ignore it and turn her attention back to the plot of the show. However, none of them felt that the placement of brands into these shows made a difference in the grand scheme of things. If Jack Bauer didn’t have his handy Sprint camera phone on 24, he could never have sent to government pictures of those terrorists who were holding the airport hostage. It didn’t interfere with the show, since that would have been part of the plotline to begin with. Instead, it put a brand on the phone, and no one really noticed a difference since all of our phones also have a brand name on them.

Musical product placement

2006-03-23T13:07:00.000-08:00

Yet another twist on the traditional product placement! We shouldn’t be surprised anymore—all traditional media is being reinvented, so it makes sense that traditional product placement should be as well.

I ran across an article (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/3/prweb361600.htm) that discussed musical product placement. My first thought was that brands were paying artists to mention their product in songs. Indeed, rap artists have already taken to mentioning Escalades and Sean John clothing in their songs, so getting compensation for this wouldn’t be an idea that was too far off the spectrum. However, what I read about was completely different.

A studio called Movie Records has invented this new idea of musical product placement. They will compile a soundtrack for a movie. One song will be chosen as the single to be released to promote that movie. In return, the movie has to incorporate the band or singer into the plotline, or have them be mentioned a few times. If this is impossible, then the plot has to be rearranged so that somehow, the characters end up at a concert of the artist.

Product placement is supposed to have products incorporated, hopefully seamlessly, into the plot. So why should a musical artist be any different? They are all selling an image, a brand—what does it matter if they are real people? It’s taking it to a new level that I think has potential to expand into other areas. Product placement seems to be asking: What can’t we do?!

A new twist

2006-03-22T16:01:00.000-08:00

Product placement in every day life…weird, right? But no, its already here.

Last March, Pontiac joined together with the reality show Survivor and created an interesting twist: Pontiac challenged the viewers to look for former Survivor contestants driving their Pontiacs around the country (http://www.productplacement.biz/category/product-placement/page/2/).

Pontiac ran 15 second spots at the end of each episode of Survivor promoting this contest. Each time a contestant was spotted and reported on the website, the person received an entry to the contest to win a Pontiac.

So now we’ve moved onto putting products as advertisements in every day life. It seems a little far fetched, a little strange, doesn’t it? However, I believe that not only is it brilliant, but its not strange at all. First and foremost, people are now actively looking for your brand in their life. They’re searching you out. Secondly, we all wear shirts with brand names stamped on them, we all drive cars with logos on them. We’re walking advertisements to begin with, so why not push people to pay more attention?

Going too far...?

2006-03-21T15:29:00.000-08:00

On the topic of “taking it too far”—what about product placement in films aimed at children?

The recent release “Curious George,” a Universal Pictures film, was the first to take a leap into the territory of product placement into kiddy movies. From George the monkey eating Dole bananas, to The Man in the Yellow Hat driving a red Volkswagen Touareg, the brand names appear to run rampant (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021002260.html).

We already have legislation in place dictating what can and cannot be advertised during commercial time to children—is product placement a step around those laws?

At first, I thought so. But thinking about this more carefully, I realized that it was not the children seeing this movie who were going to be asking their parents for Dole bananas. It was the parents taking their children to see this film that were supposed to see the VW symbol on the car. A movie aimed at children will always fill the theater halfway up with parents. Disney has acknowledged this fact for years, which is why their timeless classics make fans out of the parents as well. So really, the children aren’t being targeted, and our minds can rest at ease…right?

Doubtful. I’m sure that product placement directly for children will eventually creep onto our screens. But even so, the children are not the ones with the buying power or the money in the family. No matter how hard advertisers try to reach the children, they still have to go through the parents. If a child sees his favorite star eating a sugary cereal in a movie and wants to eat it for that reason alone, he still has to convince his parents to buy that cereal. It’s not as simple as it would be to market to parents.

So no matter how far product placement goes, even if it takes the leap to boldly targeting children, the parents are still the gatekeepers.

Holden Caulfield drinking a Pepsi

2006-03-17T10:36:00.000-08:00

The question is, when is using product placement going too far? If the main characters of a show are going to be drinking soda as part of the plot, does it harm the show to let Pepsi put their logo there? That said, I’ve discovered something new in product placement that I do believe is taking things too far.

Carole Matthews is a British novelist, who has a new book coming out titled The Sweetest Taboo. This genre of book is self described by the author as “chick lit.” It has a very specific audience—mostly middle aged women with careers and family, looking for a romance novel. Ford has paid the novelist to mention their cars in the book. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3522635.stm) The main heroine of the novel now drives a Ford Fiesta Roxanne. A passage from the book describes the car:

"I look out of the window of the shop and eye my lovely Ford Fiesta Roxanne with something approaching misery.
"Last year was a different story. Business was booming and I splashed out on my first-ever new car. Brand spanking new - complete with enough gadgets to keep even Alex amused.
"She's red, raunchy and drives like a dream and now, she's got to go. Believe me, it will be like cutting off one of my own arms."

Its practically copy for a television spot. A commercial is art, but it is created solely to sell. Television and films are art, but they are, in essence, created to sell. No one wants to produce a movie that has no audience—they want profit. Movies and shows are promoting themselves no matter what, so promoting something else, to me, doesn’t seem to be a big deal. However, a novel? Many of the greatest writers were never published until after their deaths, leaving me to believe that selling their work was not the most important goal. A novel is permanent. Words are supposed to connect generations—imagine if the author of Catcher in the Rye had Holden Caulfield drinking a Pepsi as he walked around the streets of Manhattan contemplating his life. Not only is it out of place, but it compromises the art. That being said, I doubt many romance novels are meant to last throughout generations. This seems to be a money making scheme through and through. However, to me, something just feels wrong about it.

Speaking of...

2006-03-16T17:18:00.000-08:00

Speaking of productinvasion.com, the website was featured in a New York Times article two weeks ago.

The Writer’s Guild of America has been on a crusade against product placement, but so far, has received very little media attention. They are calling for a code of conduct to govern product placement, including a mandate to disclose all the products paying for airtime before the show begins. The writers and directors aren’t happy with money hungry producers selling away parts of their artistic creations. They want more say in what can be placed, and where. (http://www.adrants.com/2005/11/hollywood-wants-product-placement-disclos.php)

The article in the Times is some of the first coverage of this growing controversy. A formal complaint has been issued to the FCC about product placement, and is requesting that action be taken quickly. The complaint was at first rejected, but with the growing attention being focused on this subject, is soon to be reconsidered. The issue that the writers are bringing forth is that this violates the Communications Act, which states that all sponsors of a show must be clearly stated. They are calling for product placement to not only be disclosed at the beginning of a show, but also have an alert when they occur during the show. (http://www.commercialalert.org/fcc.pdf)

I have to say, I find this a bit ridiculous. I understand that the writers and directors aren’t thrilled with being told what goes where, and I understand that it can be considered sneaky. But the action proposed in the complain to the FCC has to be considered ridiculous. People turn to TiVo and other DVR devices precisely for that reason—they are tired of the long commercial breaks and just want to watch their show. They do not want to watch a show that has words pop up on the screen every time a product or brand appears! Television has been described as an escape for people from the real world—people don’t want to be reminded while watching the show that this isn’t happening out in the world somewhere. It seems as if a disclaimer would be ruining the show more than product placement would be.

"Uncreative" and "lazy"

2006-03-02T19:00:00.000-08:00

Some people REALLY hate product placement. More than I really thought was possible, actually. I’ve heard people complain about how it’s ruining the art of entertainment, but the owner of the blow www.productinvasion.com has taken to chronicling the “evils” of product placement.

By far the most fascinating section on this site is the “Behind the Scenes” page. These are actual true stories from disgruntled people who have worked on television shows and had their producers demand to place specific products into the show. This is a tale from the story producer of The Swan—the reality show that made over women with plastic surgery and diets who were unhappy with their looks:

”Jenny Craig was a major sponsor of the show, so the women were all supposed to be eating Jenny Craig packaged food. The trainers didn’t want them to eat it. We had to pretend like the women were all still eating Jenny Craig food, even though they weren’t.”

So it does become an ethical dilemma for those who are editing these sequences. It does seem to be all about the money. But then again, you would be hard pressed to find many people who felt that the entire concept behind The Swan was entirely moral to begin with.

The writer of this site calls product placement an “uncreative” method of advertising. However, I believe she should view this as a challenge rather than a burden. She is now being pressed for her creativity to seamlessly fit a product into the show. To me, it seems as if she can’t deal with the dynamic environment of the entertainment world. Product placement, whether she likes it or not, is the future of advertising, and therefore, the future of television. It’s something that needs to be adjusted to.

However, if you can’t accept this, just like this woman cannot, you can click on the “Aliens Unmasked” section of the website and send an email to advertisers and media buyers reading:

I hate to bother you, as you are probably very busy writing voice-overs for your products but I have a point I would like to make - reality shows are boring when they become more about the products than contestants. You assume that our demographic is too stupid to notice that you have hijacked our shows, but we have and it's dull.

Please return the writing of our shows back to Hollywood creative types, and we will continue to TiVo through your commercials. One solution is for you to produce more entertaining ads, like the Tiny House commercial, and we will happily tune in.

The Age of TiVo

2006-02-26T17:33:00.000-08:00

Why has the media suddenly opened its eyes to product placement?

The obvious answer is TiVo. TiVo is destroying traditional media as we know it, I’ve been told. Its been drilled into my head that when I graduate college with an education in advertising, I’m likely to have to forget everything I learned in these four years because the formulas will all be different. And it’s all because of TiVo.

After all, TiVo’s main users are the one’s that most marketers want to target. They are the ones with the disposable incomes. And we can prove this based on the fact that they own TiVo. Some interesting TiVo statistics (found on this website: http://www.gearbits.com/archives/000645.html) as of May 30, 2004:

Number of Season Pass recordings active—21 million
Total number of programs recorded—5.5 billion
Number of times a button to control live TV has been pressed (pause, rewind, fast forward, etc.)—80 billion

With statistics like these, it’s no wonder that people are paying less attention to the traditional 30 second spot. While estimates of only about 10% of homes have a DV-R type of recorder in their house, the number is expected to grow significantly.

Before, the viewers used to be stuck watching the commercials. They would at least have to be background noise. Now, with the option to skip through them, the best viable option is integrating your product into the show. According to Neilsen Media Research, which has only recently begun tracking product placement, there has been an upsurge of a 30% increase in product placement on television from 2004 to 2005. (http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/LIFE/602140304/-1/NEWS01)

Audiences are sophisticated. They know when a brand is being shoved in their face screaming “BUY ME!” It’s the subtle, under the radar product placement that will become effective in the time to come. It’s the main characters on Gilmore Girls eating Pop Tarts for breakfast and having a quick, casual discussion about them that will win over the traditional media in the imminent years. It’s the line about the new Wal-mart perfume that the characters briefly mention on All My Children that will become the new formula for advertising.

So, what if it's free?

2006-02-21T20:46:00.000-08:00

So, is it product placement if it’s free?

In last season’s South Park, an entire episode focused on Sony’s new PSP. In the episode Kenny got a PSP and was playing it non-stop, until he died as usual. This time, when he went heaven, they needed Kenny to play the “Golden PSP”—saying that the PSP was actually planted on Earth by God because they needed to see who would have the best talents to direct the heavenly army against Satan’s soldiers.

The whole 30 minutes of the show was entirely focused on the wonders of the PSP, which had just been released at the time. If you’re one of those avid television watchers who notice the supposed-to-be-discreet product placements, you probably would have laughed at the obviousness of South Park’s promotion of the PSP. But it was unpaid!

So is that okay? If its unpaid, then is it not as unethical as it would have been had they been paid to focus an episode around a PSP? If that’s the case, why draw the line anywhere? If there’s already going to be a soda can sitting on a desk, why not have Pepsi pay to put its name on the can? If the high school kids are already wearing shirts with words printed on them, why not have Abercrombie shirts? Why is it so different if the producers are paid to promote the brand, instead of just randomly choosing to promote a brand and receiving no compensation? Why don’t we consider the entire idea of product placement good business strategy instead of the downfall of entertainment as we know it?

Sponsorship v. Product Placement

2006-02-15T08:43:00.000-08:00

Sponsorship: n. a person or an organization that pays for or plans and carries out a project or activity; especially one that pays the cost of a radio or television program usually in return for advertising time during its course

I’ve been bringing up the subject of product placement among my friends, just to get an idea of their take on the subjects. The same confusion seems to keep cropping up—the difference between sponsorship and product placement.

The logos decorating the grounds of Torino, Italy during this year’s winter Olympics are sponsorships, however many tend to believe that this is what product placement is. They tend to believe that any time they see a brand name they are witnessing product placement.

Bode Miller skis on Rossignol skis, which the audience can so clearly see every time he makes a turn and we get a glimpse of the underside of his skis. This is sponsorship! They’ve paid Miller—quite well—to wear his skis, hold them up high if he wins events, and even give credit to his skis for his performance.

When watching I, Robot, Will Smith gets out of a sleek, futuristic car to go fight his enemies. Oh yeah, and the car just happens to be made by Audi and bears their symbol largely on the front of the car. This is product placement!

But as always, there's a grey area. What about reality TV? We've all seen the extensive and sometimes ridiculous amounts of brands in The Apprentice, but is it sponsorship or product placement? I personally differentiate between the two by claiming product placement is strategically situating products in plot of a show, while sponsorship is a brand paying for their product to produce the show and have the image that the show provides. But here's where we run into a dilemma. These products, such as Doritos and Domino’s Pizza, are an integral part of the plot of these shows, however they are paying to help produce the show and have their name attached to it. What do you think about that?

Its everywhere!

2006-02-14T20:42:00.000-08:00

Product placement: n. the appearance of a product or service in a broadcast program or movie, paid for by the manufacturer to gain exposure for the product or service

You think you know all the advertisers tricks, don’t you? Well they’ve got more up their sleeve than you’re willing to bet, and product placement is the next scheme they’re pulling out. Think you’ll notice all the strategically placed brands? Think again.

Everyone remembers one main thing about Back to the Future: the awesome car Doc turns into a time machine! Ask anyone, from Baby Boomers to Gen Y what brand the car was, and they’ll all give you the correct answer: the DeLorean. Yea, it started that long ago. It just wasn’t a trend until now.

Besides, would Back to the Future really have been as cool had they not referred to the car as many times as they did? Just calling it “the time machine” would have gotten old and contrived. Isn’t product placement more natural to our mind’s eye anyway?

We’ve all seen it before, the can of soda that looks strikingly like a Coca-Cola can but instead reads the words Cola-Cola, or some variation. It catches our attention more than a normal can of everyday Coke would.

One of the most famous success stories of product placement would be Reese’s Pieces. We all remember young, adorable Drew Barrymore luring her alien friend towards her house with the little pieces of candy. The spot was originally intended for M&M’s, but they turned the offer down. Virtually unknown before, Reese’s Pieces rose to popularity almost instantly after E.T. premiered.

Product placement is supposed to seamlessly fit into the story line. When the viewer sees Mac computers being used, Nextel phones being talked on, and McDonald’s being eaten, they don’t think twice. It’s when the product is blatantly being pushed that it becomes a problem. Look at “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle”—which, by the way, I don’t think there has ever been a more transparent push of a brand. The entire movie centered around the ridiculous adventure of two men to get White Castle burgers, which were the only things on their mind. Granted, it worked. After I, along with every single one of my friends, saw the movie, we took the 40 minute trek to find a White Castle and devour their disgusting burgers. But that’s not to say that we didn’t know we were being told what to eat!

Product placement has to be done subtly. Otherwise the audience feels offended, as if the advertisers think they’re too naïve to realize what’s going on. It’s all around us, and has been for years. Only now is it becoming the next big thing, thanks to TiVo eating up traditional media.

So, what about you? Have you noticed a rise in product placement? Does any particular brand stick out as the worst offender? What’s your take on the morality of the subject?

Greetings!

2006-02-10T06:14:00.000-08:00

This is my first post, just to get the hang of things! This is going to be all about the wonders of the up and coming trend of product placement!