Transcript Product Placement - Dublin City University

Product Placement
Roddy Flynn
Product Placement: Prologue
• “Film-makers warned against product placement “
• “Product-placement within films and television
programmes is an entirely pernicious and dangerous
trend, according to the chief executive of Bord Scannán na
hÉireann.
• Mr Rod Stoneman said commercial sponsorship must be
kept separate from the editorial process, and added that
to his knowledge, the film board had not funded any film
which included product placements.
• Clearly, it did not help the creative process if a guy had to
stand there for six minutes showing his watch off to show
its make. How did that help the process of movie
making?”
What is it and where can I
buy it?
• Placement (either through appearance
or verbal mention) of a given brand
name product within the mis-en-scene
or script of a film.
PP - Historically
• Not an entirely new phenomenon:
• Example: In “Mildred Pierce” (1945)
Joan Crawford drinks Jack Daniels.
• But product placement in this context is
quite casual - Props master calling the
local JD distrib or simply buying JD at
the local store.
The New Wave of Product
Placement
• In the ‘90s PP much more sophisticated
• As of 1990 - 15-30 companies solely
established to place client products in movies.
• Firms charge clients fees ranging from $5000
to $250,000 for guaranteed placement in a
contracted number of films with escalation
clauses for particularly extensive or prominent
appearances
The New Wave of Product
Placement
• Today companies such as Coca-Cola
and Anheuser-Busch have in-house
divisions focused on placing their
products within movies. (Even KMPG
adopted PP as a marketing strategy in
1997 - Mr Bean, Wag the Dog,
Gingerbread man etc.)
• Both PP firms and inhouse divisions
review 400-500 films per annum looking
for opportunities.
The New Wave of Product
Placement
• PP - now standard operating procedure
within Hollywood.
• Some estimates suggest that on
average 30 - 40 minutes (33%) of
screen time given over to product
plugs.
The New Wave of Product
Placement
• Previously promotional opportunities
were examined only after the film was
completed.
• Now movie studios start thinking about
potential partners as soon as they have
a script treatment. Product Placement
companies are now involved from the
outset.
Why product placement?
Advertisers perspective:
• “As traditional means of delivering
messages such as network television
lose their ability to effectively
communicate with those target
audiences judged most desirable by
advertisers, the need to find alternative
vehicles for commercials becomes
urgent”
– Nebenzahl & Secunda
Why product placement?
Advertisers perspective:
• “The amount of entertainment choice in the future 500 digital channels, pay-per-view, home cinema will render traditional advertising an information
service, a sort of phone book…
• In order to reach a target area, corporations are
going to have to sponsor programmes, own TV
channels or, by far the cheapest option, use product
placement.”
• Ruben Igielko-Herlich, Founder of Propaganda, a
European Product Placement Firm.
Product Placements - the
answer to advertisers dreams?
• “The placement of a product or brand in a
major feature film can generate
approximately 50 million contacts (spectators)
in cinema theatres alone. Within the five
years following a films initial theatrical launch,
after its video and television releases this
figure can climb to an average of more than
500 million viewers. For example it is
estimated that Mission: Impossible will be
viewed by one billion people by the year
2000.”
Cost Effective Advertising
• Given this, product placement is far cheaper
than virtually any other form of advertising.
• As of the early ‘90s Fox charged $20,000 $100,000 per product appearance
•
• The cost per thousand viewers vs. television
or print ads is pennies versus pounds.
Adds realism?
• In addition to cost advantages:
• For advertisers “product placements are
more credible than endorsements
because they portray someone using a
product in everyday life.”
Simply Effective Advertising
• 1982 - ET: Hershey’s ‘Reese’s Pieces” were used to
entice the alien from the wardrobe. Sales in following
months leapt by 65%.
• 1995 - 3,600 orders placed for BMW’s Z3 roadster
placed in the weeks before Goldeneye’s release
• Mumford High School - $1 million worth of T-shirts
post Beverly Hills Cop.
Simply Effective Advertising
• Note the advertiser may be the studio owner:
• Sony gadgets regularly turn up in ColumbiaTristar films
• Warner’s Space Jam acted as a $90m
commercial for Time Warner merchandise
• 20th Century Fox shamelessly plugged X-Files
and Sky News in ID4
Why product placement?
Producer’s perspective:
• Originally because:
• Production budget is significantly cut by
borrowing catering goods, props and
equipment
• But now, in addition...
• Product placer’s promotional clout
substantially tops up the studio’s
marketing spend.
Why product placement?
Producer’s perspective:
• “In the 1960s, product placement was
different. Aston Martin just lent us the
cars or shells of cars, that we could
crash. (In Goldfinger we got through
four.) Nowadays, while we don’t receive
any cash payments to place product, we
do expect a promotional tie-ie.”
• John Parkinson, Eon Productions
Why product placement?
Producer’s perspective:
• Product placement can substantially
reduce a films overall budget:
• For Days of Thunder, GM’s donation of
30 Chevy Luminas, plus ongoing
maintenance of same represented a
substantial budget saving. Thereafter
Chevy used the film as the basis for a
tie-in campaign
Why product placement?
Producer’s perspective:
• Airlines and hotels often provide free or
reduced rate services in return for
placement. Similarly food or beverage
companies.
Why product placement?
Producer’s perspective:
• As for marketing:
• Ericsson spent $25 million on a tie-in
campaign with Tomorrow Never Dies
running across 57 countries in more
than 20 languages.
Negative Aspects
• Arguably PP threatens cinema as an artform,
infusing a commercial drive into an artistic
pursuit
• Producers and Directors must now take into
account the specifications of PP companies
• Example: “Home Alone II” rewritten at
American Airlines insistence
Greater Financial Risks
• Failure to adhere to PP company
demands can be expensive:
• 1990 - Black&Decker sue Fox for
$150,000 after a Die Hard II scene
fitting a drill ends up on cutting room
floor.
Greater Financial Risks
• Dairy Queen, “Radio Flyer” and
Columbia
• Reebok, “Jerry Maguire” and Tristar
Unregulated Advertising
• 1989 - Enormous Media debate in US re Philip
Morris & Liggett group paying films to place
Lark, Marlboro and Eve Cigarettes in
Superman ($42,500), Supergirl ($30,000),
and Licence to Kill ($350,000)
• Technically this broke the Federal Cigarette
Labelling and Advertisement Act which stated
that tobacco ads must carry federally
mandated health warnings
Unregulated Advertising
• Consumer Advocacy Group at the
Centre for the Study of
Commercialisation (sponsored by the
Centre for Science in Public Interest)
filed petition to the Federal trade
Commission declaring PP as “an unfair
business practice and requiring onscreen disclosure of products advertised
in films.”
Unregulated Advertising
• Commission cited five top grossing
1990 films:
•
•
•
•
•
Ghost - 23 Products placed
Pretty Woman - 20
Home Alone - 42
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - 18
Total Recall - 55
Adds realism?
• Occasionally what would otherwise constitute
excessive PP may fit into the natural environment of
the film. In Days of Thunder, Tom Cruise’s car, helmet
and racetrack banner are covered with logos - but
this reflects the profusion of adverts in the real
NASCAR environment
• Sometimes this is less effective Twisters incorporation of Drink cans.
Adds realism?
• “…it is important to note that the
products placed are only those of the
largest and most powerful producers
and thus are not a true indication of the
variety or use of products in the
marketplace. In this sense they actually
become unrealistic.”
• Janet Wasko - Hollywood in the
Information Age
The Commodification of
Culture
• Not impossible that manufacturers will require
more knowledge of a film before release.
• May lead them to influence productions to
maximise the benefits accruing to them by PP
deals.
• Is it too far-fetched to anticipate a day when
advertisers approve scripts and stars and
modify all elements of the motion picture
process to suit particular advertising goals?
The Commodification of
Culture
• Increasing reliance on the revenues
from PP may limit the types of films
considered for production.
• Placement firms recommend placement
based on proven track records - such
conservativeness may perpetuate the
status quo