Product placement-on-movies

VIEWERS¶ ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE
IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT ON MOVIES 1

VIEWERS· Attitude toward the Economic, Ethical
and Creative Implications of Product Placement on
Movies


ABSTRACT

It has been established by a plethora of studies that movies are powerful

vehicles in shaping and reshaping culture across the globe. Fortunately or

unfortunately, the marketers around the world are all aware of such power attributed

to movies. This is exactly one of the reasons marketers and advertisers are now

exerting much effort to place their clients· products on movies in order to find a

solution to the problem posed by the digital video recording that allows viewers to

zap more than they ever do.

This study started with a comprehensive review of literature about product placement

then concluded with findings from a qualitative research conducted using one-shot

survey and four sets of online focus group discussions (FGDs). Qualitative design was

used in order to generate new thoughts from the participants who watch films

through cinemas, VCDs, or DVDs. The results suggest that the participants, who think

product placement makes movies more realistic, find nothing unethical about product

placement but they suggested that movies for kids and other films which are about

war, politics, nature, environment, and social awareness should not contain any

branded products.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page numbers

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION 1

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

Product Placement: What Started it All 3

Types of Product Placement 10

Movies with Product Placement 11

The Economic Impact of Product Placement:
Is it Worth its Worth? 15

Behind the Scenes: Why Advertisers and Marketers
Favor Product Placement 19

Product Placement¶s Impact on the Creative
Aspect of Movie Making 20

The Ethical Implication of Product Placement 22

THE METHODOLOGY 26

The Online Focus Groups 26

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 27

The Profile of the Respondents 27

Did the Respondents Notice Product
Placement? 30

Branded Product Recall 31

Attitudes Toward the Economic Implication
of Product Placement on Movies 34

Attitudes Toward the Creative Implication

Attitudes Toward the Ethical Implication

CONCLUSION 49

RECOMMENDATIONS 51

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Questionnaire


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:

Advantages of Product Placement 4

Table 2:

Disadvantages of Product Placement 9

Table 3:

Examples of Branded Products Featured
in Famous Films during the µ90s and the µ80s 12

Table 4:

Featured Brands on Movies Released in 2008 13 ± 15


LIST OF FIGURES

Age Distribution of Respondents 27

Gender Distribution of Respondents 28

Frequency of Film Viewing 28

Theater 28

VCD 29

DVD 30

³Did you notice product placement
in movies you¶ve watched?´ 31

Branded Product Recall 32

Attitudes Toward the Economic Implication
of Product Placement on Movies 34, 35, 36

Attitudes Toward the Creative Implication
of Product Placement on Movies 36, 39, 40

Attitudes Toward the Ethical Implication
of Product Placement on Movies 41, 43


VIEWERSd ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ETHICAL, ECONOMIC
AND CREATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN
MOVIES

INTRODUCTION

The history of television and films is a witness to the fast changes and development

that happened to an advertising strategy which at first, was ³just another advertising technique´

but later became controversial. Product placement is ³nothing new´ (Belch & Belch 413). In

essence, product placement or brand placement is a paid exposure of products on television

shows, films or video games (McPherson) which aim to influence audience members without

necessarily identifying the sponsors (qtd. in Balasubramanian, Karrh & Patwardhan) for the

purpose of increasing brand awareness and demand on the product (McPherson). Aside from

awareness and increase in demand, product placement also aims to create a favorable atmosphere

or ³positive associations toward the placed brand, resulting in a positive shift in brand attitude´

(Cowley & Barron).

Studying product placement and its huge ability to create brand awareness is almost

no longer optional but a must for marketers who wish to make a brand be known to a large

number of audience coming from around the globe. For example, the manufacturers of BMW

and Omega are very much aware that product placement can do more than what the traditional

methods of advertising do. Product placement can actually build up a particular brand (Stewart-

Allen).

For the giants in the film industry, particularly the Hollywood, and for the product

owners who save much through product placement, nothing is actually wrong with the practice.

However, for some groups which claim concern for the youth, the children and for all who are

caught ³unaware´ of this practice, product placement is simply stealth advertising or ³embedded

advertising´ (La Ferle & Edwards) that has ethical, economic and creative implications that need

to be addressed before the consumers become desensitized of this controversial practice in the

world of marketing, advertising and media.

As product placements continue to become next-to-traditional media in terms of

advertising, it is of paramount importance for marketers to study the situation in order for them

to make sound decisions on the implications in the marketing arena of the booming practice of

product placement, particularly in movies.

Some viewers find product placement acceptable although with the exemption of

ethically-charged products (Hudson, Hudson & Peloza 299; Gould, Gupta & Grabner-Krauter

43). Some viewers think that product placement is ³cheating´ and therefore should be totally

banned (qtd. in Gould, Gupta & Grabner-Krauter 43).

This paper attempts to derive sound conclusions from the comprehensive review of the

plethora of studies and literature that discusses the ethical, economic and creative implications of

product placement particularly in movies.

Using a qualitative study, particularly through online focus-group discussions (FGDs), and one-

shot survey, the researcher intends to do introspection on the viewers¶ attitudes toward the

ethical, economic and creative implications of product placement in movies.

americancopywriter.typepad.com

www.tastymadness.com

LITERATURE REVIEW

Product Placement: What Started it All

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines product placement as ³a form of

promotion in which advertisers insert branded products into programming in exchange for fees

or other consideration´ (qtd. in Hoffman).

Product placement has been practiced since the 1930s. In the 1950s, soap operas featured

product placement. However, the history of television and film considers the success of Reese¶s

Pieces in ET: The Extra Terrestrial in 1982 as the turning point in product placement for

television and film (Welsh 14; Balasubramanian, Karrh, & Patwardhan 118; Mc Pherson).

The early forms and methods of product placement were no big deal then. However, the

skyrocketing number of manufacturers and producing who resort to product placement has

caused an alarm among certain societal groups (Belch & Belch 433). From 2003 to 2004, there

was an increase of 46.4 percent on the use of product placement (432). It was reported in Belch

& Belch¶s Advertising and Promotion book that by the second quarter of 2005, the ten most

frequently exposed brands on TV did their appearance 6,077 times, not to mention that the top

ten shows contained 11,579 placements (433). Indeed, placements have become too obvious

that it is quite impossible not to notice them.

Although it is already widely practiced, according to Ellen Neuborn, product placement ³remains

uncharted territory´ because unlike other forms of advertising, product placement does not

involve standard rate cards. This implies that the practice itself is open either to criticism or to

standardization.

Despite the controversy surrounding product placement on movies, Belch & Belch cited

several advantages of product placement.

Advantages of Product Placement

1. Exposure

2. Frequency

3. Support for other media

4. Source association

5. Cost

6. Recall

7. Bypassing regulation

8. Acceptance

9. Targeting

Belch, G. & Belch, M. Advertising and Promotion:
An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective.
[7th ed] US: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2007.

Figure 1

ADVANTAGES OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT

First of all, with product placement, the product can reach a large number of people over

a long period of time. An average film which is estimated to have a life span of three and a half

years would actually yield 75 million exposures (Belch & Belch 434). This exposure is

strengthened by the fact that moviegoers are captive audience members (qtd. in De Lorme &

Raid). As such, they went to the movie house with the anticipation that they are expected to

exert effort in decoding messages they see on screen. Making it more interesting is the fact that

the movie houses or theaters are designed to make the viewers focused ± the dark environment,

the almost-deafening sound and the way the chairs are arranged ± all contribute to the

atmosphere allowing the viewers to pay special attention to the movie. Even when viewers

watch the film in DVDs, they are still considered as captive audience who pays attention to the

movie, considering that they bought or rented the film for deliberate viewing. All these factors

make product placement favorable to the manufacturers.

The second factor is frequency, referring to the number of times a particular viewer

watches a film. Normally, some viewers expose themselves to a film more than once (Belch &

Belch 434). This gives the product more exposure to one viewer. This number of times a viewer

sees the product is even multiplied by the number of times a product appears in the movie.

Third, product placement, at times, is supported by other media. The tie-ins between the

producer and the product manufacturer include promoting the product and the movie in different

media venues. Again, this allows more chances for the product to reach the target market (Belch

& Belch 434).

Another important advantage of product placement is source association. This happens

when a particular brand is seen used by a celebrity. For some reasons, there are viewers who get

affected by the personality of the celebrity using or even just holding the product (Belch & Belch

436). . For example, kids may easily associate Domino¶s Pizza with the Teenage Mutant Ninja

Turtles. In the movie, the star turtles openly order pizza when they¶re hungry. With the ninja

turtles as the stars in the film, the viewers might readily accept that Domino¶s Pizza is the star in

the pizza-delivery business.

If the volume of exposure will be considered, then, product placement promises low

CPM or cost per thousand (Belch & Belch 436). For marketers and manufacturers, the lower the

CPM, the better it is in business.

Product placements, due to wide coverage and multiple exposures per person, promise

better recall, as opposed with products which are advertised on television. With the

advertisement clutter on TV, the movie product placement seems to be more promising (Belch &

Belch 436).

Another advantage cited by Belch & Belch is the fact that product placements, in a way,

are capable of ³bypassing´ some laws which apply to traditional advertising. For example,

liquor and cigarettes have opportunities to be promoted to the viewers without the manufacturers

getting penalized. If done on primetime television, this is a clear violation of FCC rules (436).

Finally, Belch & Belch mentioned that with product placements, the choice of movie can

already guarantee effective reach potential because definitely, the marketers would only place

ads on movies targeting the potential customers of the product (436).

Added to the list by Belch & Belch are more reasons cited by Cowley and Barron.

According to them, unlike television advertisements that make zapping possible, product

placement provides a scenario which the viewers won¶t be able to avoid exposure to. To miss a

scene that promotes a particular product means that the viewers will also miss a certain part of

the story and they would not want that to happen. Therefore, the inevitability of product

placement is one of its strengths.

Media technology like DVDs, or any other digital video recorders like TiVo allow the

viewers to avoid commercials more than they ever do (Belch & Belch, 413; ³The Hidden

Persuader´). Advertisers are aware of this so they have to find another niche where they could

actually communicate the message to the target consumers without the fear of being ignored or

avoided. The film industry matched with product placement is the best solution (413) that

marketers, producers and manufacturers see. Moreover, producers, according to Belch &

Belch, believe that using existing products in movies can actually add to ³a sense of realism´ to

the movie (413). This is because real people, after all, use real products so a more real setting is

created with the use of real and existing products in the movie (qtd in Lorme & Reid).

However, this claim is refuted, in an interview, by Mark Crispin Miller, a professor from New

York University. According to Miller, product placement is a form of commercialism that

³distorts the whole filmmaking process´ (5). Miller said that ³there is a big difference between a

world of products that looks like the world we live in and the world of products that¶s based on

placement´ (8). Miller contradicted the idea of adding sense of realism to the movie. In fact,

Miller finds product placement very unrealistic because it makes the product look ³glamorous

and heavenly´ (8).

The example Miller gave was the love scene in the movie Armageddon showing Liv Tyler and

Ben Affleck in a romantic mood but the camera pans to the branded animal

cracker which was being held by the actor in the scene (8). It also showed the

box of the branded animal cracker strategically placed beside the pair of

shoes of the actor.

AJ (Ben Affleck): You know what I·m thinking right
now?

Grace (Liv Tyler): What?

AJ : I really don't think that the animal cracker
qualifies as a cracker

Grace: Why ?

AJ: Well 'cause it's sweet which to me suggests
cookie... and you know I think putting cheese on
something is sort of a
defining characteristic Of what makes a cracker a
cracker I don't know why I thought of that I just...

Grace : Baby... you have such sweet pillow talk.

AJ : If you had like little animal cracker Discovery
Channel thing Watch the gazelle as he graze's through
the open plains And now look... as the cheetah...
approaches. Watch as he stalks his
prey Now the gazelle has looked spooked and he could
head north... to the mountainous peeks above. He
could go south... The gazelle now faces man's
most perilous question north... or... South Way down.
Tune in next week«

Grace : Baby do you think it's possible that anyone else
in the world is doing this very same thing at this very
same moment?

AJ : I hope so Otherwise what the hell are we trying to
save?

The advantages cited give the advertising industry more opportunities to set its eyes on the

movie industry as the most responsive and most viable method of reaching the target market

without the hassle of zapping, zipping and clutter and unavoidable negative perception of the

viewers on the traditional methods of advertising. However, the concept of product placement

does not offer perfections. This means that it also has several disadvantages which are listed on

the given table.

Disadvantages of Product Placement

1. High absolute cost

2. Time of exposure

3. Limited appeal

4. Lack of control

5. Public reaction

6. Competition

7. Negative placements

8. Clutter

Belch, G. & Belch, M. Advertising and Promotion:
An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective.
[7th ed] US: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2007.

Table 2

DISADVANTAGES OF USING PRODUCT PLACEMENT

First, Belch & Belch cited that despite the low CPM for product placement, the absolute cost is

actually high due to the involved cross-promotions (436).

Second, there is a possibility that the viewers won¶t even notice the product, unless the

camera zooms in on the brand name or perhaps unless the main character plugs the products.

Third, the movie does not allow detailed advertising like informing the target market of

the features of the product. It cannot accommodate a marketing pitch that talks about the product

benefits.

Fourth, the expectation of the manufacturer in the placements of the product in the movie

may not materialize due to some limitations that manufacturers have no control over (438). For

instance, Belch & Belch cited what happened to Brut when it placed its brand on a certain movie.

Brut cologne was placed in a movie which was expected to be out by December but was delayed

to February (438).

Another disadvantage is that product placement creates public reaction, and many of

these are not favorable to the movie industry. Many groups are apprehensive of the idea of

embedding an ad in a film (Belch & Belch 438). The producer and the brand owner must be

ready to answer the opposing and challenging societal concerns arising from the product

placement which is becoming more apparent in today¶s films.

With the skyrocketing number of movies injecting brands in their content, competition

may make it tough or tougher for marketers to penetrate the movie that they select to carry their

product. Competition, just like in traditional media, becomes tighter and more challenging

(438).

Belch & Belch also cited negative placement as a possibility that may be seen as a

disadvantage. The example given by Belch & Belch was also cited Susan Douglas of the

University of Michigan in an interview with the Media Education Foundation in 2000.

According to them, negative placement happens in the movie Missing, which was produced by

Columbia Pictures, which is also owned by Coca-cola. In the movie, which is about a murder

case, the logo of Pepsi was noticeably used as background in the scene that showed ³the bad

guys.´ On the other hand, Coca-cola was strategically placed on scenes that showed the

Americans, the so-called ³good guys´ in the film (7). This negative placement can have much

impact on how the viewers perceive both cola: Coke and Pepsi.

Lastly, tie-ins between the movie industry and the for-profit sectors could create clutter

(438), which can soon make product a sore in the eyes of the viewers.

Types of Product Placement

Hudson, Hudson & Pelosa divided placement into two general types: Implicit and explicit

(291). Implicit placement is generally not intrusive. For example, in the movie Spider-man,

Spider-man was seen fighting with the antagonist on top of a Carlsberg truck. It subtly promotes

the brand Carlsberg but it doesn¶t have anything to do with the story in the movie. This is not a

new formula in a superhero-starred movie. In the 1980s, the movie Superman II showed the

superhero himself and the antagonist in a fight scene taking place in the Marlboro truck.

Explicit placement, on the other hand, allows ³marriage´ between the script and the brand.

Hudson, Hudson & Pelosa gave the movie I Am Sam as an example of movie containing explicit

placement (291). In the movie, the main actor works at Starbucks. In this case, the brand of

coffee shop does not just serve as backdrop but as a major part of the story where some

important scenes developed (³The Persuader´).

Movies with Product Placement

The list of movies which include product placement, which may be implicit or explicit, seems to

be endless because this concept is being practiced for decades now. The Media Education

Foundation analyzed movies which implicitly or explicitly used brands in movies, particularly

during the 1980s, the 1990s and early 21st century. Also, brandchannel.com has a detailed list of

movies during the 21st century, from 2001 to the present year showing the featured brands on the

movies. In its list, it is apparent that most movies released feature several brands.

MOVIES PRODUCTS/BRANDS Source

ET- The Extra Terrestrial Reese·s Pieces; Coca-Cola American Marketing
(1982) Association (AMA)
3 Men and a Baby (1987) Pampers Media Education
Foundation (MEF)
Baby Boom (1987) Huggies MEF
Tequila Sunrise (1988) Cuervo Gold MEF
Days of Thunder (1990) Exxon MEF
License to Kill (1989) Larks Cigarette MEF
Demolition Man (1993) Taco Bell MEF
For Love of the Game (1999) V-8 Juice MEF
Back to the Future (1985) Pepsi MEF
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Domino·s Pizza, Pepsi MEF
(1990)
Ghostbusters (1984) Miller , Coca-Cola MEF
Good Will Hunting (1997) Dunkin· Donuts MEF
Summer of Sam (1999) Pepsi MEF
The Thomas Crown Affair Pepsi MEF
(1999)
Wild at Heart (1990) Marlboro MEF
Armageddon (1998) Animals Cracker MEF
Bowfinger (1988) FedEx MEF
At First Sight (1999) Coca-Cola MEF
Happy Gilmore (1996) Subway MEF
You·ve Got Mail (1998) Starbucks, AOL, NY Times MEF; AMA
Figure 3
EXAMPLES OF BRANDED PRODUCTS FEATURED IN FAMOUS FILMS
DURING THE ¶80s AND THE ¶90s

FEATURED BRANDS ON MOVIES RELEASED IN 2008

MOVIES FEATURED BRANDS

The Dark Knight Bang & Olufsen, Belstaff, Bentley, Dodge, Ford, Harris Bank,
Lamborghini, Magnum Products, Mercedes, MV Agusta,
Nokia, Powerball, Scottrade, Volkswagen Beetle
Hellboy II: The Golden Army Ford, Iams, Regal Entertainment Group, Tecate
Hancock BMW, Cadillac, Capitol Records, Chevrolet, Christian Dior,
Coca-Cola, Dasani, Datascope, Dodge, Dunkin' Donuts,
Everest, FedEx, Fitovers, Ford, Greenpeace, Headline News,
Jiffy Pop, Kenworth, Korean Air, Macalester College,
McDonald's, Mercedes, Motorola, Nike, Polar Air Cargo, Ray-
Ban, Sony, Sony VAIO, Spalding, Sprite, State Farm, Swatch,
Wells Fargo, Wish-Bone, YouTube, Zagnut
WALL-E Apple, NASA, Playmate, Rubik's Cube, Zippo

Get Smart Apple, BMW, Cadillac, Chanel, Dell, Disney, Ernst & Young,
Ferrari, Ford, Freightliner, GMC Yukon, Land Rover, LG,
Lincoln, L'Oreal, Lumber Liquidators, Magnum (gun),
Mercedes, Nike, Post-It Notes, Rimowa, Sierra Mist, SIG
Sauer, Sky Mall, Subway, Sunbeam (car), Verizon, Vespa,
Victorinox Swiss Army, Visa, Volkswagen Beetle, Walther
The Incredible Hulk Amstel, Apollo Theater, BlackBerry, Budweiser, Chevrolet,
Coca-Cola, Dell, Ford, Harvard University, Hummer, Iron
Man, Jeep, Norton, Ortobom, Panasonic, Pingo Doce, Polar,
Pringles, Ray-Ban, Sharp, Symantec, Volkswagen
Kung Fu Panda NONE

Sex and the City Adidas, American Airlines, Apple, Bag Borrow or Steal, Bang
& Olufsen, BlackBerry, Bluefly, Botox, Buddakan, Burberry,
Carolina Herrara, Cartier, Chanel, Christian Dior, Christian
Lacroix, Christian Louboutin, Christie's, Clean & Clear,
Crayola, Cuisinart, Cup Noodles, Dell, Desert Pepper Trading
Co., Diane von Furstenberg, Dove, Duane Reade, e.p.t.,
Entertainment Weekly, Escada, Ford, Four Seasons, Garnier
Fructis, Gucci, Harvard University, Heinz, Hello Kitty, Henri
Bendel, Hermès, Hershey's, HSBC, IWC, Jergens, Junior's,
KeyFood, Kit Kat, Lanvin, Lincoln, L'Oreal, Louis Vuitton,
Lumi, M&M's, Manhattan Mini Storage, Manolo Blahnik, Marie
Claire, Mercedes, Merrill Lynch, MetLife, Montegrappa,
Motorola, Netflix, New York Magazine, New York Post, New
York Public Library, Nike, Nivea, Oscar de la Renta, Page Six,
Pantene, Piazza Sempione, Post-It Notes, Prada, Pret a
Manger, Princeton University, Roger Vivier, S. Pellegrino,
Salvatore Ferragamo, Scoop, Skyy, Smartwater, Sony, Sprint,
Starbucks, Swarovski, Tiffany & Co., TV Guide, U-Haul,
Uniden, Van Cleef & Arpels, Vera Wang, Versace,
VitaminWater, Vivienne Westwood, Vogue, Wall Street
Journal
(Source: http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_films.asp?movie_year=2008#movie_list



Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Chrysler, Clorox, Ford, Good Humor Ice Cream, Harley-
of the Crystal Skull Davidson, New Britain Transportation, Pabst Blue Ribbon,
Pan American Airways, Spam
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Daily Express
Caspian
Iron Man Apple, Audi, Blüthner, Brown University, Bulgari, Burger
King, Cadillac, Cadillac Escalade, Caesars Palace, Chevrolet,
Cisco, CNBC, Dell, Dolce & Gabbana, Esquire, Forbes, Ford,
Goodyear, LG, M.I.T., Maxim, MySpace, Newsweek, Nissan,
Operation, Perrier, Persol, Ray-Ban, Rolling Stone, Rolls
Royce, Saleen, Segway, Shelby, Tesla, Texaco, The Apogee
Foundation, U.S. Air Force, University of California,
Berkeley, Vanity Fair, Verizon, Voss, Wired
Baby Mama 7-Eleven, American Idol, Apple, Audi, Blimpie, Boo Boo
Busters, Budweiser, Clif Bar, Coca-Cola, Deer Park, Doctors
Without Borders, Dogswell, Dr. Pepper, Exxon, Forbes,
Infiniti, Jamba Juice, Marriott, Maytag, Mazda, Motorola,
Pam, Penn State University, Perrier, Persol, Philadelphia
Eagles, Pringles, Red Bull, Red Vines, Rolling Rock, S.
Pellegrino, Sega, Sharp, Silk, Sony, Suzuki, Tastykake, Terra
Chips, USA Today, White Castle, Yamaha
The Forbidden Kingdom American Express, Boston Bruins, Boston Red Sox, Enyce,
MasterCard, Tennessee Titans, Xbox
Prom Night Brown University, Ford, GMC, Jones Soda, Klonopin, Life &
Style Weekly, Midol, Samsung
21 Bally's Hotel and Casino, Beefeater Gin, Bombay Sapphire,
Budweiser, Caesars Palace, Casino Royale and Hotel, Cathay
Corner, Chrysler, Circus Circus Casino, Dunkin' Donuts,
Everlast, Freitag, GMC, Grey Poupon, Gucci, Hard Rock Cafe,
Harvard University, Jansport, Lincoln, Louis Vuitton, M.I.T.,
Mandalay Bay Casino, MGM Grand, Mirage Casino, Monte
Carlo Casino, Palms Hotel and Casino, Pepsi, Planet
Hollywood, Pony, Red Rock Casino, Reebok, Republic, Rio All
Suite Hotel and Casino, Samuel Adams, Sony PlayStation,
Sunplus Technology, The Boston Language Institute, The
Riviera Hotel and Casino, Treasure Island Casino, Twinkies,
VitaminWater, Volkswagen
Horton Hears a Who! NONE

10,000 BC NONE




Semi-Pro adidas, Budweiser, Busch, Cadillac, Converse, Denver
Nuggets, Hitachi, Indiana Pacers, NBA, New Jersey Nets,
Penthouse, PUMA, San Antonio Spurs, Shasta, Sports
Illustrated
Vantage Point Chevrolet, Dasani, Mercedes, Perrier, Peugeot, Sony, Sony
Ericsson, Sony VAIO, Volkswagen Beetle
Jumper Alitalia, Apple, Aquafina, Armani, Budweiser, Carhartt,
Delta, DODA, Dodge Magnum, Emigrant Savings Bank, Epson,
Ford, Houlihan's, Jeep, Marvel, McDonald's, Mercedes,
Meridian, MetLife, NBA, Nokia, NY1, Oprah Winfrey,
Quiksilver, Samsung, Sierra Mist, Tanqueray, The North Face,
University of Michigan, USA Today, Verbatim, Visa
Fool·s Gold Apple, Arby's, Budweiser, Bushnell, Chris Craft, Dive Rite,
Eve's Addiction, Frito Lay, Howard Johnson, Kalik, Mapquest,
Mares, National Enquirer, OK! Magazine, Piaggio, Rip Curl,
Sony PlayStation, Tabasco, T-Mobile
Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus: adidas, Aéropostale, Alesis, Apple, Baldwin, BMW, Coca-
Best of Both Worlds Concert Cola, Converse, Nike, Range Rover, Sabian, Yamaha
Tour
Meet the Spartans American Idol, Apple, Barbie, Black & Decker, Boost Mobile,
Botox, Cadillac Escalade, Chanel, Chevrolet, Coca-Cola,
Dentyne, Dummies, Gatorade, Grey Goose, Hooters, JDate,
Krispy Kreme, MySpace, Neutrogena, Nintendo, Palms Hotel
and Casino, Pedigree, Red Bull, Subway, UPS, YouTube
Cloverfield Aquafina, Belvedere, Budweiser, Campari, CNN, Ford, Frito
Lay, Jolly Rancher, Lacoste, Mercedes, Mountain Dew,
Nationwide, Nike, Nokia, NY1, Panasonic, Philips, Sephora
The Bucker List Apple, Bell, Cadillac, Chock Full O·Nuts, Chrysler, Cisco,
Ford, Ford Mustang, Hill-Rom, HP, Lacoste, Listerine, Los
Angeles Dodgers, Mercedes, Motorola, Pepsi, Philips,
Pontiac, Pyrotect, Rolls Royce, San Francisco Giants, Sharp,
The North Face, The Riviera Hotel and Casino, Timberland,
Toyota, United States Parachute Association
National Treasure: Book of Apple, Aquafina, BlackBerry, Borders, Cadillac, Cisco,
Secrets Converse, Ferrari, Ford, Fuller's London Pride, HP, Land
Rover, Mayflower, Mercedes, Motorola, MSN, Red Bull,
Rolex, Seattle's Best Coffee, Tracker Boats, Volvo, ZTV

Figure 4


THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT: IS IT WORTH

ITS WORTH?

It is no accident that brands are placed on movies, of course. Brand integration on

TV and movies, according to Stewart-Allen, does not ³actually involve money

changing hands´ (8). It involves, in fact, a ³mutually beneficial business´ that

promotes the brand while offering a realistic atmosphere. However, many sources

are openly disclosing the dollars involved in product placement. For example, in

an interview by the Media Education Foundation, the director of Armageddon, Michael Bay,

admitted having ³saved´ $75,000 for using Tag Heuer clock and TAG logo in the film (³Behind

the Screens´ 6).

Susan Douglas, a professor from the University of Michigan, said that in the past, film producers

rely on investors for a kick-off of any production. This time, on the other hand, producers no

longer set their eyes exclusively on investors, but also on advertisers. For example, she cited

Pampers paying $50,000 in 1987 for its appearance on 3 Men & a Baby; Huggies paid $100,000

to Baby Boom for featuring the product; Cuervo Gold gave $150,000 for appearance on Tequila

Sunrise; Exxon paid $300,000 for Days of Thunder; and Larks Cigarette paid $350,000 for

appearing on License to Kill (³Behind the Screens´ 6 ).

Miller supported this claim by saying that since it that advertisers like him

is very expensive to produce and promote a movie, producers are endlessly looking for ways on

how to cut the budget short without sacrificing the show itself (³Behind the Screens´ 6). In a

video report, Rushkoff said that ³advertisers are losing faith on the traditional 30-second ad´


(³The Persuader´). In fact, giant advertiser American Express chief

marketing officer John Hayes said during an interview ³are paying

more to reach less´ (³The Persuader´).

Hayes continued by saying, ³The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same

thing over and over and expect different results´ (³The Persuader´). This is the reason

advertisers and marketers set eyes on films as the newest venue for selling. Precisely, product

placement is selling.

In an article authored by Neuborn What¶s Your Worth? It was revealed that manufacturers pay a

great deal, though not as great as the 30-second airtime in terms of reach, just to penetrate TV

shows and movies. Here¶s what Neuborn disclosed:

Product: M&M's

Show: ER

Placement: In a quiet moment, one doctor buys another a package of M&M's from a
hospital vending machine. Value: $430,618

Explanation: "In this scene, the candy is part of a romantic conversation between the
two characters. The product is mentioned by name and is the focus of one character's
act of kindness toward another. The presence of verbal and visual elements heightens
the value of this placement."
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=20&did=977550951&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1217003997&clientId=57020

Product:Coca-Cola

Show: American Idol

Placement: Two red Coca-Cola glasses sit on the table as the three judges review
American Idol hopefuls.

Value: $1.8 million

Explanation: "It would cost any marketer $350,000 for a 30-second commercial on this
show. Coca-Cola gets almost nine minutes of screen time in this placement. The
glasses, logos visible, are present throughout the extended segment. At one point,
one judge raises his glass and takes a drink."

Product:Ragu Express

Show: Everybody Loves Raymond

Placement: Ray is spying on his wife at the supermarket. When it looks like she might
spot him, he quickly ducks behind an end-cap display of Ragu Express boxes.

Value: $83,125

Explanation: "There are two clear shots of the product. In both, the show's star, Ray
Romano, has his hands on the product. The brand name is clearly visible. The second
shot is a close-up."

If there is one particular brand that is ³brand-conscious,´ it¶s the Bond. Chu said that The Bond

Franchise is one of the pioneers in product placement (129). David Wilson, EON¶s vice

president of global business strategy reiterated that ³Bond has always been a brand-aware

character´(Chu 129).

While it is well-publicized that many producers get the best deals in terms of dollars and other

perks through product placement, there are also instances when the producers of a program

featured a brand on the movie but did not demand for any dollar-based tie-ins (Stanley). For

example, Disney/Pixar¶s Finding Nemo, which according to Hudson, Hudson & Peloza, based on

their research on brandchannel.com had three featured brands, disclosed that the company had

nine marketing partners, yet no paid product placement (Stanley). Universal Pictures vice

chairman, Marc Shmuger, says, ³If we go to a brand and basically tell [the marketer] we're only

interested in their media dollars, then that's not valuing the relationship´ (Stanley).

Behind the Scenes: Why Advertisers and Marketers Favor Product Placement

Welsh calls the economic scenario as a ³win-win´ situation for both advertisers and

producers:

Consider this, studios typically spend $30 - $50 million to promote
a new feature release. Once a product has been attached to a film,
it can leverage equity from that film across multiple communication
channels. The 2004 release of the film Garfield is a good example.
Lisa Licht of the 20th Century Fox said the studio got the idea for placing
Pepperidge Farms¶ Goldfish crackers in the Garfield movie. The win for
Pepperidge Farms is the exposure and brand awareness that a major film
release is able to lend to Goldfish crackers among a highly desirable
target audience. In exchange for a guaranteed placement, of Garfield
eating Goldfish crackers in the film, Pepperidge Farms agreed to promote
the film on millions of packages of Goldfish crackers, while at the same time
conducting a Garfield contest and including film mention in national FSIs
and national advertising (68).

No marketer, no advertiser, and no movie mogul would deny the truth that product

placement promises good business deals. Manufacturers are investing millions of dollars not for

nothing, but for more and more dollars. If it doesn¶t work, it won¶t prosper. If it does prosper,


then, it means it offers excellent return on investment. The most remarkable increase in sales

which is attributed to product placement, so far, is the tie-in between Reese¶s Pieces and ET ±

The Extra Terrestrial which was reported to have its sales increased by 60 to 65 % (Welsh 70).

In 2001, BMW Motors created what Douglas Rushkoff called the ³perfect hybrid of ad

and movie´ (³The Persuader´). The movie titled The Hire was not just sponsored by BMW

Motors but they are also the producer. The Editor in chief of Advertising Age, Scott Donation,

called this venture an ³advertising as a piece of entertainment in and of itself that people not only

will tolerate but will actually go in search of´ (³The Persuader´). Donation also said that BMW

sales increased dramatically years following the airing of this film (³The Persuader´).

PRODUCT PLACEMENT¶S IMPACT ON THE CREATIVE ASPECT OF MOVIE

MAKING

Could the Castaway plot and setting be the same if there were no Fed Ex and Wilson

Sports placement? In the movie, the main actor, Tom Hanks, played the role of an executive

from Fed Ex who was stranded in an island by himself --- with only ³Wilson´ to talk to.

³Wilson´ is the name of the volleyball which is also the brand name of the makers of the

volleyball itself.


Fed Ex seemed to enjoy a full-length-film exposure to the audience knowing that the

main character could not be detached from the company where he supposedly works for.

The film did not only heighten brand awareness but also increased the reputation or

image of the featured brand since it was associated with the drama and realization that transpired

in the movie. Definitely, the real executives from Fed Ex knew exactly where the film would

lead them. As Mitch Kanner of the Integrated Entertainment Partners said, ³At the end of the

film, not only did we deliver the packages, but we found romance. How much better could you

feel about the brand?´ (³The Persuader´).

Another movie that became controversial because of strategic product placement was

Missing which was produced by Columbia Pictures Entertainment which was purchased by

Coca-Cola.

Missing, a film released in 1982, is about an American student who was killed by

members of Pinochet regime (³Behind the Screens´). In the film it was obvious that there is a

³featured divide´ between the ³good´ or ³Coke´ and the ³bad´ or ³Pepsi.´ Douglas analyzed the

scenes and said that it was apparent that the violent scenes with the Pinochet regime are shot

with Pepsi logo on the background while the ³good guys´ in the film, supposedly the Americans,

are seen enjoying their glasses of Coke (³Behind the Screens´). Definitely, there is no

coincidence to the Pepsi logo and Coke scenarios in the movie. They were, as Douglas pointed

out, strategically placed to relay an ³unspoken´ message to the viewers. Of course, the director

and writers should have been aware of the background of the owners of Columbia Pictures and

the so-called ³cola wars.´

Needless to say, it seems apparent that Douglas Rushkoff has a reason to say that ³the

boundaries between content and advertising are blurring in nearly every popular medium´ (³The

Persuader´). Eisenberg and Bradford of TIME call this phenomenon the ³blurring of the lines

between content and commerce´ which is very popular in Hollywood (38).

Writers and directors start doing their jobs thinking of answers to the questions like Who

is the producer? What other brands does it own? Who are sponsoring the show? How can the

brand be strategically placed in the movie? How long should the brand be exposed?

Considering the answers to all these questions leads to only one thing: Control and

manipulation on the creativity and storyline -- no matter how much the producers deny it.

A former executive at J. Walter Thompson, Eugene Secunda supports this claim saying,

³There are agencies, for instance, in Hollywood who go through every script before it is

produced and find specific opportunities for automobiles, for beer, for virtually any product that

you might want to name´ (³The Persuader´). This is clearly the economic sides of product

placement unveiled.

THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT PLACEMENTS ON MOVIES

Hudson, Hudson & Peloza are concerned about advertising, particularly product

placement on movies for children. In their research article titled Meet the Parents: A Parents¶

Perspective on Product Placement in Children¶s Films, they mentioned that it seems like no

existing body is concerned about regulating product placement on movies, considering that

children are still not capable of distinguishing between content and advertising (289). No

regulating body is concerned primarily because the people still believe that the children are the

responsibilities of the parents.

Hudson, Hudson & Peloza surveyed among parents in the UK and Canada about their ethical

evaluations of product placement. They found out that ³explicit placements of ethically charged

products were perceived as the most unethical type of placement´ (298). Ethically charged

products, in Hudson, Hudson & Peloza¶s research, include tobacco, alcohol, fast food and soda

(296). In Australia, a congress of world consumer rights advocates wants soft drink marketing to

children under 16 be banned (³Call to Ban´). According to report, the congress wants companies

of soft drinks to "cease the marketing of all sugar-laden beverages to children under 16,

including print and broadcast advertising, product placement, the internet, mobile phones,

athletic sponsorship, signage, packaging promotions, merchandising and other means" (³Call to

Ban´). The reason for this action is that the soft drink advertisements contribute to the rate of

childhood obesity.

It¶s also interesting to note that parents don¶t actually talk about advertising or product

placement with their children and that almost one-third of their respondents are not even aware

of brand integration in movies (299). This result needs serious attention because it could imply

that there is actually a need for a regulating body who is more informed about the hidden agenda

of one-way form of advertising in movies.

According to Hoffman, a group called Commercial Alert, which is a small group against product

placement supported by a certain Ralph Nader, wants movie producers to inform viewers that a

certain company paid the producer in order for the product to be featured in the film (34).

However, Hoffman contradicted this by claiming that this is not necessary because product

appearance on films does not include a litany of the benefits, attributes or effectiveness of the

product. He even posed a question asking, ³Where is the harm to viewers?¶ (35). The ³harm to

viewers´ is embedded in the fact that the viewers readily accept what they see on films thinking

that every angle or every scene is a product of the creativity and the

demands of the story,´ and not based on the deals closed between producers and marketers

(Schejter 23).

Moreover, the controversial ³harm to the viewers´ is best explained by researchers who

pursued tobacco product placement in the movie industry. In 2006, Le Gresley, Muggli, and

Hurt reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages taken from the British American Tobacco

Company from March 2003 to May 2005. They found out that despite public denial of tobacco

companies regarding placing advertisements on movies, documents proved otherwise (505).

According to Le Gresley, Muggli and Hurt, promotion of smoking had its debut in the

Hollywood when tobacco companies secretly paid producers so that their products would make it

to the scenes in the movies (505). The issue here is that another research found out that smoking

instances in movies for teenagers are as prevalent as those in movies targeting the adults (qtd. in

Le Gresley, Muggli, and Hurt 505; Sargent, et. al 30).


Sargent, et. al. mentioned that when a cigarette brand appears in a film, it gives the brand

a favorable distinction by being associated with the characters and the tone of the film (29).

In their studies, they content analysed contemporary films taken from a ten-year period.

They actually watched and analysed the contents of the top 25 US box-office films for each year

from 1988 to 1997 then they compared the prevalence of brand appearances for movies which

were released before the voluntary ban on paid product placements and after the said ban took

effect (30). The result of their study alarms critics. Sargent, et. al. found out that 85 % of the

films from their samples contain tobacco use, where the tobacco brands appear in 70 films. The

more alarming result suggests that tobacco use is apparent even in films targeting children (30).

THE METHODOLOGY

The focus of this research aside from the comprehensive literature review on product

placement is to find out what the viewers¶ attitudes are toward the ethical, economic and creative

implication of product placement on movies.

The questionnaire has three parts: part 1 asked about the profile; part 2 aims to

measure the brand recall of the respondents; part 3 aims to find out the respondents¶ attitudes

toward the ethical, economic and creative implications of product placement. The questionnaires

were distributed online using snowball sampling to 100 respondents.

After the result of the survey was tallied, four (4) online focus group discussions

(through Yahoo messenger conference) were scheduled inviting 8 members from each of the age

groups. The FGDs revealed remarkable and interesting ideas which contributed to the research.

THE ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS

A focus group discussion or FGD is a qualitative method of data gathering that aims to discover

unique opinion and thoughts of each discussant in the group (International Dev¶t Research

Centre). With the help of a facilitator, the group is expected to openly and spontaneously relate

their thoughts and even their inhibitions regarding the selected topic.

Four online focus groups were made possible through Instant Messaging (IM) software. The

eight participants from each age group spent over an hour reading messages in the IM window

and typing their thoughts so that the other members would be able to decode them. FGD 1

included 8 respondents whose ages range from 40 to 49. FGD 2 included 8 respondents from 30

to 39 age bracket; then FGD 3 included 8 from 20 to 29 years old and finally, FGD 4 included

participants who are 19 years old and younger.

The FGD started by sending the participants video clips showing product placement,

particularly of those which was asked in the questionnaire. Without asking any question, the

discussion started with the participants¶ comments on what they saw in the video clips.

To guarantee confidentiality, each of the participants was given a code. For example, members

of FGD 1 were coded as FGD1-A, FGD1-B, and so on. FGD 2 members were given codes like

FGD 2-A, FGD, 2-B, etc. The same pattern was followed in coding FGD 3 and FGD 4.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the respondents

1. AGE DISTRIBUTION

below 20
13% 40-49
13%

30-39
17%

20-29
57%

2. GENDER

Male
38%

Female
62%

Over half of the respondents are female and their ages range from 20 to 29 years old.

How often, on the average, do you watch movies?

Theater

30 32 28

25 22
20
15
10 6 7
5 5

0
1-3 times a more than 4 1-3 times a more than 4 1-3 times a more than 4
week times a week month times a year times a year
month

Many of the respondents prefer to watch movies on cinema. During the online FGDs, it

was revealed that all of the participants have preference on theatre over other media although

all of them have DVD players and original DVDs at home. FGD4-B mentioned that she

loves watching films in theatre because she gets to spend time with her close friends. FGD

3-F also emphasized that the choice of movie to watch is not actually big deal, but the fact

she is with her friends is whatµs important. However, this is opposite of what FGD 1-B who

admitted that she would not go to theatre unless the movie is ³to die for.´

Berman conducted a study on brand recall and one of the information found out was that the

younger generation prefers watching in theaters although they have other media in their

homes. This is also true with the respondents in this research.

VCD

45 42
40
35
35
30
25
20
15
10
5 2
0 0
0
1-2 times a more than 4 1-2 times more than 4 1-2 times a more than 4
week times a week month times a month year times a year

DVD

29
30

25
21
20
14 13
15 12
11
10

5

0
1-2 times a week more than 4 1-2 times a more than 4 1-2 times a year more than 4
times a week month times a month times a year

Results on the frequency on viewing reveals that all of the respondents watch movies in theatres

and using DVDs but only 79 % do watch films with their VCDs. About 39% of the respondents

watch theater for 1 -3 times a month and 42% watch for more than 4 times a month using VCDs.

This implies that those respondents with VCDs still prefer to watch using them compared with

DVDs or with theater. Most of the respondents who watch in theaters are those between 20 and

29 years old. The older respondents prefer DVDs in watching movies.

Did you notice product placement in the movies you¶ve watched?

No, 14

Yes , 86

In the survey, there are 14 respondents who didn¶t notice any product featured when

they watched movies. On the online FGDs conducted, only one participant, FGD 1-C did not

notice any product placement. According to him, he misunderstood the question. He

thought that the question was pertaining to the list of films given. If the answer is based on

the movies in the list which he had viewed, then, he¶s sure he did not remember any product

displayed or featured in the movies. However, he cited American Idol as the show that

obviously ³capitalizes on products so much.´ FGD 1-C said plugging on the American Idol

is too much and no longer tolerable. It was taken note of but then, the research focuses on

product placement on movies so the American-Idol plugging was not explored despite the

other members of the online FGDs agreeing to how FGD 1-C feels about it.

BRANDED PRODUCT RECALL

25
21
20
20

14
15
Male
9
10 8 8 Female
6 6
4 4
5
1
00 0 00 00 00
0
0-10% 11-20% 21-30% 31-40% 41-50% 51-60% 61-70% 71-80% 8190% 91-
100%

The study revealed that only 4 female respondents have a brand recall which is between

61 and 70%. None of the male respondents had reached 50% of brand recall. This result implies

that viewers don¶t really remember which brand appeared on which movie. Although most of

them are aware that branded products appeared on the movies they¶ve watched.

The participants were asking why they needed to recall the products when most of the

movies were released years ago. FGD 2-C said, ³You don¶t expect me to remember the brand.

First, I didn¶t watch to look for any brand. I was not even aware of it.´ FGD 3-F remarked, ³I

can tell you the details of the movies I¶ve watched but not the product involved.´ On the other

hand, FGD 3-A remembers clearly that AOL and Starbucks are among the stars in You¶ve Got

Mail. ³I just remember them because my first time to try coffee at Starbucks was after watching

You¶ve Got Mail with my boyfriend then.´


Then the conversation went on:

Researcher: So you admit

that featuring Starbucks in You¶ve Got Mail would make a viewer go to the

nearest Starbucks to have some coffee?

FGD 3-A: It happened to me and my boyfriend.

FGD 3-C: Interesting huh«

FGD 3-A: But back then, I didn¶t consider that advertising. I think it¶s normal

thing for people to consume branded products. It¶s normal. Besides

I prefer to see the products being used by a character.

FGD 3-G: Same here. If I see the actor or actress use the product, I feel more

confident that the product won¶t go wrong. For example, Samantha in

Sex and the City will not use any item that looks absurd or weird.

In general, according to the participants, if they were already aware of the term product

placement when they have seen the movies, they might be able to identify most of the products.

FGD 1-C directly said that she didn¶t really make any effort in remembering the brands in

movies because she said the products were not important part of the movies so ³nobody would

deliberately remember them!´ FGD 1-F answered by saying, ³It¶s no big deal anyway.´

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT

PLACEMENT ON MOVIES

Featuring brands on movies in order to reach
more viewers is not acceptable because it
13% distracts the viewers from concentrating on
the movie.

87%

If featuring brands on movies can
reach more viewers at less cost, then
it should be acceptable because it
gives more consumers the freedom to
choose without the brand intruding
our space.

The result suggests that most of the respondents do not really mind seeing featured

products in the movies. For most of them, product placement gives consumers the freedom to

choose without the brand intruding their spaces ± unlike what traditional advertising does. FGD

1-E and FGD 2-B both agreed on separate FGDs that any advertisement that does not ³talk to us´

directly, just like the telemarketer and the face-to-face sales clerk, is acceptable for them. This

means that if the advertisement does not intrude their privacy, then there is no problem.

However, almost all participants said that if product placement is too much and too manipulative

and all become movie-turned-ad, then, no one will like it. FGD 2-G commented, ³I¶m sure if

there¶s too much placement of brands on movies, the Hollywood would run out of excellent

directors. For sure, directors like Steven Spielberg and even respectable actors like Mel Gibson

would not want to become ³mouthpiece´ of commercialism.´

I favor product placement
42
over the traditional 30-
second commercial
because of the lower
58 advertising cost.

The lower advertising cost on product
placement can not yield favorable results for
the featured brands because the viewers
don·t really notice their brands.

Over half of the respondents believe that the lower advertising cost on product

placement cannot yield favorable results for the featured brands. FGD 4-E started talking about

this part saying, ³I hate commercials ´

FGD 4-E continued, ³Imagine, when I watched Sex and the City with my friends, we

were bombarded with so many many commercials. I already finished my Pringles and the

commercials were still running! ´

She said product placement is better because she thinks a 30-second advertisement is a

waste of money for advertisers because ³nobody watches commercials.´

Only the producers gain
from product placement,
not the viewers.

88

12

The viewers are empowered by the
featured brands because they give
them the right to choose without the
brands intruding their space.

Almost all of the respondents agree that only the producers gain from product

placement. FGD 2-A remarked, ³I don¶t really care if they gain from that product placement

thing. That¶s the whole point of making movies, to gain so good for them.´ FGD 4-C said she

thought product placement can empower viewers by not having any pitch or ³sales talk´ for them

to purchase the product.

This remark implies that hard sell doesn¶t work for FGD 4-C but soft sell, like product

placements, do. This preference on advertising strategy is the same with the preference of

French consumers, who as found out by Taylor, Holy and Haley, prefer soft sell over hard sell

(qtd. in Gould, Gupta & Grabner-Krauter 46). In their study however, Gould, et. al. considered

product placement as ³intrusive´ and ³a hard sell.´ In this study, it appears that products placed

on movies are considered as soft sell primarily because of the lack of pitch on consumer benefit,

product performance, etc. This concept of product placement being a form of soft sell ad is

consistent with how Hoffman perceives product placement to be (34).

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CREATIVE IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT

PLACEMENT ON MOVIES

Featuring brands on
movies can make the story
more realistic.

89

11
Featuring brands on movies can
make the story look artificial and
actually more unrealistic.

This result shows that most of the respondents believe that product placement can

actually make the story more realistic. Very few respondents think that featured brands make the

story look artificial and more unrealistic.

According to most of the participants, the brand names make the story ³come alive.´ If

there are no branded products, the participants think that the movie is just like ³fairy tale´ where

every character or every item is ³nameless´ or imaginary. FGD 1-H said that ³in real life,

everything we use has names. The same thing applies to movie characters.´ FGD 1-G explained

that in real life, ³We actually don¶t want to buy products which we never heard of before.´

Besides, FGD 3-A believes that for Castaway, Fed Ex was used primarily because Fed Ex is ³the

famous delivery service.´ FGD-3-A believes that if Fed Ex were not famous, it won¶t be used by

the director in the movie.

This respondent has no idea on how deals are done for product placement- related

matter. FGD 3-A actually thinks that the choice of the director is dictated by ³whoever is

famous´ although in reality, manufacturers set their eyes on product placement ³to make their

products famous.´

There are many instances when manufacturers deliberately set relatively huge amount to

be used for marketing, particularly for product placement.

For example, in an article by Madden published at Advertising Age in April of this

year, she reported about the plan of Unilever to provide big-time sponsorship to the Chinese

version of ³Ugly Betty´ in China. Unilever, according to Madden, is promoting three brands:

Dove shower cream, Clear anti-dandruff shampoo, and Lipton tea milk-in (12). This implies

that the main actress is expected to use Dove and to show she¶s using Lipton tea in the office

during tea breaks. The media director for Greater China, Patrick Zhou, said, ³The `Prettiest Ugly

Girl¶ will take `a relatively large proportion¶ of the total media budget for the three brands´

(Madden 12).


Product placement can hinder
the creativity of the writers
and director. 26%

74%

Product placement has no
influence on the creativity of
the writers and director.

Almost a quarter of the respondents agree that product placement does not at all

influence the creativity of the writers and the director.

There are participants who think that creativity is affected. For example, instead of

making the writer think of brand name for a necessary item in the movie, it would be much

easier to just choose one brand that already exists in the market. By doing this, the creativity of

the writer and the director is not maximized.

A good example of this point is the movie Shrek the Third which did not use any brand

in the movie. According to www.brandchannel.com, the writers of Shrek the Third just invented

some brands, which didn¶t exist in reality. The idea of creating original and unrealistic brands

like The Far Far Away kingdom creates a more imaginative and creative atmosphere.

However, in this study, more participants think that featuring any brand has nothing to

do with the creativity of the writer and director.


Product placement can
cause the storyline to
change. 39

61
Product placement does not
influence the storyline.

Over half of the respondents agree that product placement does not influence the

storyline. However, reports would reveal that even before the concept or storyline is finished, the

sponsor already has in mind how the product will be placed strategically in the movie, so as to

guarantee brand awareness and positive association.

Madden cited in her article that Bausch & Lomb is sponsoring a show in China and as

such, the lead female character in the show will transform from being a person with glasses to

someone who displays contact lenses manufactured by Bausch & Lomb. Aside from this, the

show¶s supposedly stylish characters will be wearing contact lenses in the show (12).

In that cited show, the switch from eye glasses to contact lenses is already an

unsolicited part of the storyline. If the show did not have any partnership with the branded

lenses, perhaps the writers won¶t even think of such a brand being used by the famous ³Betty La

Fea´ of Mexico.

Marketers and manufacturers won¶t be as sponsor without being placed strategically in

the movies or in any show. If they allot a huge amount of budget for a movie, they, for sure,

expect a huge amount of return on investment. This is the economic aspect that most of the

viewers are not even aware of.


In a recent article titled Product Placement Becomes Part of the Plot published online at the

International Herald Tribune, Clifford mentioned that, ³These days consumer brands not only

appear on shows, but are also elaborately woven into the plot, with advertisers calling a lot of the

shots. Their agencies approve television scripts, suggest plots that hinge on the product, attend

and critique the episode shoots, and review the rough cuts of episodes´ (Clifford).

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT

ON MOVIES

Featuring brands on movies has
Featuring brands on
97% ethical implication.
movies has no ethical
implications.
3%


This result shows that only 3 out of 100 respondents think that product placement has

ethical implication. The four sets of FGDs devoted a lot of time in discussing this part.

FGD 3-A said she doesn¶t find anything unethical in movies carrying branded names.

She specifically cited Sex and the City as a product-placement-rich movie but she said she

actually liked the placing and the mention of different brands in the movie and said, ³It¶s a movie

about culture and fashion, I think, so I watch it also to get more ideas about what brand is in

right now.´ On the other hand, FGD3-C, one of the participants who believe that product

placement has ethical implication, said that placing a brand on the movie is advertising that does

not tell the viewer that it is advertising. FGD 3-C calls it ³selling without warning.´ He

explained that product placement is worse than any 30-second commercial on TV because unlike

TV commercials, viewers can choose not to expose themselves to the product by simply using

the remote control to change channel. However, FGD 3-C explained that with the product

injected on the movie, the viewers are left with no choice but to be exposed to the product.

In another group, FGD 1-B gave a different point of view. He said that in this issue or topic, the

³most affected´ are the competitors of the branded products.

Here¶s the transcript of the discussion:

FGD 1-B : When we say ³ethical´ we refer to values or morality, right?

Researcher: Yes.

FGD 1-D: Yep.

FGD 1-B: I think product placement is not about values or morality.

What¶s wrong with that? They don¶t even lie, unlike

in television ads. Some lotion ads tell us we¶ll have smooth

and attractive tan complexion in just a single drop spread

on our skin but of course that¶s a lie. That¶s unethical.

FGD 1-D: There are many ads that lie. They make promises. They make

burgers look mouth-watering but when it looks different

in reality!

FGD 1-D: As a viewer, it¶s all right for me to see Samantha using Prada

or Tom Hanks of You¶ve Got Mail hanging out with Meg Ryan

at Starbucks. But the main people who will be affected are

the competitors like Caribou Coffee as competitor of Starbucks.

Well, we know movie-making is profit-oriented and the movies

won¶t be able to accommodate all existing brands plus not

all business establishments are rich enough to penetrate

Sex and the City or James Bond films.

Product placement should
be banned on some movies.

14%
Some brands should not
be allowed to be
featured on movies.

45%

39% All kinds of brands
may be featured
on movies.

Branded products should 2%
be totally banned on
movies.


This result shows that the respondents have various views on product placement on

movies. Many of the respondents agree that some brands should be banned from being featured

on movies. Only 2 respondents believe on total ban on product placement.

Almost half of the respondents agree that some brands should not be allowed to be placed

on any movie. During FGDs, the participants mentioned several brands that they think should not

land on the movies. These include cigarette, fast food, soft drinks, liquor. Almost all of the

participants said that cigarette and liquor should be out of the picture. In fact, three of the

participants even said that it¶s not the kind of cigarette that is the problem in product placement,

but the scene in the movie. They said that no movie should show any character smoking.

Promoting smoking through characters that look tough or strong is, according to FGD 1-D, is

what makes a movie unethical. She explained, ³To promote smoking, regardless of the brand, is

to make people believe that smoking is acceptable.´

While FGD 1-D is concerned about showing smoking scenes on movies, Dr. Stanton A.

Glantz, a professor of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, is specifically

concerned about smoking in movies targeting children. In an interview on NYC podcast titled

On the Media, Professor Glantz mentioned that there is high correlation between exposure of

kids to movies with smoking and the likelihood that they will actually smoke. This means that

³kids who see a lot of smoking in the movies are about three times more likely to actually start

smoking than kids who don¶t see a lot of smoking on movies´ ( ³Smoke Gets in Their Eyes´).

Professor Glantz actively advocates smoking ban on movies, especially those for kids.

In his web site titled Smoke Free Movies, there is a list of movies from 1990 to 2005

which they content analyzed in terms of the number of instances smoking appeared. The result

showed that Time Warner, Sony and Disney are the top three producers of films with tobacco

brand displays (³Brand Identification´). The more alarming result is that ³more than forty

percent of tobacco brand appearances since 1990 have been in movies rated G, PG, and PG-13´

(³Brand Identification´).

People like Professor Glantz and FGD 1-D are the types of persons that Philip Morris,

which owns 50% of US cigarette market and 37% of world cigarette market (³Brand

Identification´) would like to get rid of. The transcript of the speech delivered by Hamish

Maxwell during their Marketing meeting in 1983 revealed that large tobacco companies are

willing to resort to every possible means to ensure that their products would land on the hands of

their no-age-limit target market. A significant part of the speech said:

Recently, anti-smoking groups have also had some early successes at eroding
the social acceptability of smoking. Smoking is being positioned as unfashionable,
as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every creative means at our disposal to
reverse this destructive trend. I do feel heartened at the increasing number of occasions
when I go to a movie and see a pack of cigarettes in the hands of the leading lady.
This is in sharp contrast to the state of affairs just a few years ago when cigarettes
rarely showed up on camera. We must continue to exploit new opportunities
to get cigarettes on screen and into the hands of smokers (³Big Tobacco¶s Secret´ 10).

Indeed, the tobacco companies would not hesitate to do every means to promote their

product. Le Gresley, Muggli & Hurt found out in their research in 2005 that in order to ensure

sales without being controversial on paying huge amount to producers, the British American

Tobacco (BAT), the maker of Lucky Strike, company attempted to produce a movie of their own

where they could promote their brands outright (2). This is aside from the fact that they

³discreetly´ promote their brands in movies through engaging in various deals.

Professor Glantz is currently lobbying for

the solutions to the problem of smoking, especially

of branded cigarettes, in movies. Glantz, with the

help of support groups, wrote a letter to six media

giants to discourage them from striking deals with

tobacco companies in exchange for smoking scenes

in the movies. The letter was addressed to Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Sony,

Time Warner and Viacom. In the letter, Glantz was proposing a four-part policy that will,

according to Glantz, will ³avert tobacco addiction, disease and death on a massive scale´ (³The

Solution´).

The four-part policy was clearly outlined in the letter and reached the offices of the media

giants through the New York State Department of Health with Richard F. Daines as

commissioner.

In the letter, it says, first, for the film producers to ³rate new smoking movies ³R´.

Exempted in this proposal are the programs that clearly show the negative effects of smoking to

one¶s health. Second, for the film producers to ³certify no pay-offs.´ This means that the film

industry has to declare nobody in the industry receives anything, in cash or in kind, in exchange

for exposure of cigarettes on films. Third, for films to run anti-smoking advertisements prior to

showing of any film targeting adults. Fourth, for the media giants to simply ³stop identifying

tobacco brands´ in their movies.


The respondents/participants also have their own solution or suggestion about product

placement as a growing issue among marketers and film producers.

First, some of them believe that some products should not be placed on movies. Among

these products which the participants see as ³ethically charged´ include cigarette, fast food,

condoms, beer and soft drinks. FGD 4-D believes that ³showing the people that a particular

brand of condoms works better is to fool the audience. Besides, sometimes, we can¶t avoid very

young kids watching movies with adults. When they see the condoms brand they ask `What is

that?¶ and it¶s not always easy to answer on-the-spot´

FGD2-A, on the other hand, does not want to tolerate main characters ordering at fast

food because she thinks it has big influence on the viewer, especially if ³the viewer is hungry´

when he watches the movie. This remark was contradicted by FGD 2-E who said that ³If you

don¶t see any character ordering at any fast food, it means the movie is not realistic. Everybody

orders at fast food these days.´

More participants are eager to offer other suggestions. Instead of banning some products

on movies, they suggest making some movie genres brand-free. Among these types of movies

are war movies, political film, environment-awareness movies, and children¶s films.

Most of the participants agree that children¶s films should be totally brand-free.

However, one participant, FGD 1-C said, ³If you take away brands from movies for kids, it¶s

kinda boring. I can¶t imagine Toy Story without Mattel or Barbie.´

This remark leaves a question worth pondering upon. Can a movie become a hit without

a mention of any brand in the market?

A web site monitoring brands in the movie industry, www.brandchannel.com, has a

compilation of movies released since 2000. In their list, they included information which is not

easily accessible to all the viewers.

To answer the question, ³Can a movie be a hit without a mention of any brand in the

market?´ an analysis of the list of movies in 2007 was conducted.

In 2007, the web site listed down 40 movies released. Out of the 40 movies, only 7 has

no featured brands. Among these are 300, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, Pirates of the

Caribbean, Saw IV, Beowulf, and The Golden Compass. A quick analysis of the list reveals that

the number of featured brands does not guarantee gross of films. For example, the Pirates of the

Caribbean was successful but it did not have product placement. Shrek the Third also was a hit

though the brands in the films were all ³made-up´ by the writers. In this new version of Teenage

Mutant Ninja Turtles, the web site (www.brandchannel.com) commented that if in the past,

TMNT used branded products for pizza and soda, this time it used some make-believe brands

called Checco¶s Pizzeria and Turbo soda.

At first, it might appear that TMNT is no longer attached to any marketing strategy, with

the fact that it ended its ³business relationship´ with Domino¶s Pizza and Pepsi. However, a

closer look at the official web site of TMNT reveals that it does not stop its marketing. In fact, it

already carries its own name ± the movie title and the name of its stars ± in various brands from

toys to bubble gum to pizza!

http://www.x-

entertainment.com/articles/0946/

CONCLUSION

Product placement is nothing new in the advertising, marketing and media industry. For

years, movies have been featuring brands either in exchange for dollars, or some just to build a

relationship with the manufacturers. All these deals happen ³behind the scenes.´ The viewers

are not aware that there is money or relationship-building involved in movie making if the actors

or actresses are using branded products. Even if the viewers have knowledge on these deals,

they don¶t really care much about the deals because they think that only the producers gain

something from the deals. For most of the viewers, at least as of this time, product placement is

actually no big deal.

However, there are some groups which actively monitor product placement both in

television and films. Commercial Alert, Brandhype, and Smoke Free Movies are just few of the

active organizations that advocate sound product placement. They don¶t necessarily want

product placement to be totally banned but they remind the industry that too much clutter creates

more problems, not only to the society but also to the advertising and marketing industry.

Product placement in movies, as seen by viewers, is not really a bad idea. However,

these days, most marketers eye on the potential of product placement on movies as the answer to

the current problem of ³more people zapping than ever´.

Indeed, marketers and advertisers are brilliant and brave. They could ³cross the

borderline´ just to make their clients happy. They are more than willing to penetrate all possible

means just to bring the dollars from the consumers¶ pockets to the manufacturer¶s treasure. After

all, that is what marketing and advertising are all about. Although this is true, they have to

understand that clutter could, in the end, make their clients unhappy and unwilling to hire them

again so they need to do something about the clutter problem in movies even before it starts.

The challenge now is for the parents to be more vigilant in making their kids media

literate, for the marketers to be considerate of the society¶s needs, for the manufacturers to think

not only of their own pockets but also of the society¶s concerns, for the policy makers to see the

importance of popular culture like movies, and for the producers not to forget how powerful

movies remain to be in shaping and reshaping culture across the globe.

Finally, movies are entertainment media with captive audience. Researches conducted by

academically oriented individuals like professors of Business and Media related courses don¶t

fail to highlight the fact that the captive audience looks for entertainment, not for any form of

pitch. Miller might be correct when he said, ³Imagine now, think ahead and try to picture

yourself say forty years from now when maybe there is no more Starbucks and AOL has been

long since replaced by some other service. Imagine what you¶d make of a movie like this. It

will be like some artifact from a distant era. I mean, who cares? If the drama, if the dialogue,

the pacing, if these things aren¶t enough then there¶s nothing there´ (³Hollywood goes Hyper-

commercialism´).

Product placement-on-movies

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Product placement-on-movies

Similar to Product placement-on-movies (20)

More from Virginia Bautista

More from Virginia Bautista (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Product placement-on-movies