With all the recent news coverage on product placement it’s easy to assume that product placement is a fairly new concept. However, it dates back as early as the 1930s when Proctor & Gamble broadcasted soap operas on the radio featuring their soap powder brands (Williams et al. 2011, p.3). Product placement was also being used in feature films as car brands offered to help studios who needed a car for a scene (Wenner, 2004, p104).
With approximately two thirds of TV viewers muting or skipping adverts (Kiley 2006 cited Williams et al, 2011, p2), advertisers are being forced to consider other methods and product placement seems to be the most logical answer. The main strength of product placement is that it catches ‘the consumers in a moment of pleasure, as opposed to when their defences are up’ (Wenner, 2004, p105) such as when watching an advert. The viewer is in a ‘happy, receptive state of mind (Shaw, 2001 cited Wenner, 2004, p111).
But what is product placement? According to Karrh (1998 cited Kuhn et al, 2010, p62) it is the ‘inclusion of branded products or brand identifiers, through audio and/or visual means within mass media programming’. However as this definition was likely created before product placement began to appear in blogs, video games and musicals, the definition doesn’t account for these platforms. Therefore Williams et al’s (2011, p.1) definition - ‘the purposeful incorporation of commercial content into non-commercial settings’ – is better.
There are three variations of product placement (Wenner, 2004, p109), the first being its original form as it is currently used in films. The second variation is product integration where products dictate the content of the media being used. The third variation is virtual product placement where placements are inserted into program content.
Is product placement really any different to advertising though? McDommell and Drennan (2010) believe that it is, arguing that what distinguishes product placement from other types of marketing communication is that is it embedded into and dominated by the media content (Balasubramanian et al, 2006 cited McDommell and Drennan, 2010). Whilst advertising is paid for, paying for product placement is the exception rather than the rule, ‘accounting for perhaps 10% of product placement transactions’ (Harrison, 1999 cited Wenner, 2004, p104). It is more common for companies to supply their products ‘for use on- or off-screen, in trade for being placed into the entertainment vehicle’ (Crisafulli, 1995 cited Wenner, 2004, p104).
Product placement has a number of benefits for both the company and film makers. For example, it can offset production costs - the movie ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ grossed $100million before it was even released in the cinema, solely because of product placement deals (McDonnell and Drennan, 201, p26).
Product placement is more cost effective than paid for advertising. ‘The paid placement...averages $50,000, a fee that might not even buy a one-time 30-second placement on prime-time television.’ (Wenner, 2004, p111) However, this is based on the assumption that these placements are used in the right context. Lindstrom (cited Tetzeli, 2011) says that 95% of all product placements are a waste of money because they’re conscious and out of context. It’s not enough to simply place your product in a film or blog, it must fit with the vehicle otherwise consumers will simply dismiss the product.
There are a number of factors that can affect how effective product placement is on the consumer.
According to Russell (2002 cited Bressoud et al, 2010, p376) product placement recall is higher when the placement is more highly integrated into the plot of the story because it induces semantic processing which leads to higher recall. This suggests that product integration is more effective than traditional product placement. However this could lead to storylines being ruined because a certain product has to mentioned or integrated into a script.
When does product placement go too far? Some would argue that it’s when it becomes targeted at children. There are already laws in the UK about what can’t be advertised to children, and perhaps this should also extend to product placement. Englehart (1987 cited Hudson et al, 2008, p291) claims that children are more susceptible to placements than adults because of their inability to ‘make the distinction between ads and program content’. Therefore it seems unethical to use product placement in children’s media.
Advances in technology are playing a role in the evolution of product placement – especially with the introduction of virtual product placement. Images of products can now be ‘digitally inserted into a film or TV program after the program has actually been made’ (McDonnell and Drennan, 2010, p26). This technique would address a problem with traditional product placement highlighted by de Gregorio and Sung (2010, p93) – that behaviours in response to product placement differ by demographic characteristics. Virtual product placement could give advertisers the opportunity to see what audience films attract when released and then decide whether it is attracting the correct audience for their brand before negotiating a deal.
Virtual product placement could potentially be extended to eBooks. There have been examples of product placement occurring in books, for example Proctor & Gamble made a deal with the author of the teenage book ‘Cathy’s Book’ to promote the book in exchange for having some of its products mentioned in the book (Hudson et al, 2008, p289).
‘Books are the only word-based medium currently free of advertising... because until now it’s been difficult to sell ad space in books.‘ (Carr, 2010) However with the popularity of eReaders, this could be a thing of the past. We could see virtual product placement being used to insert and change the brands mentioned in eBooks. Another possibility that could be explored is discussed in this example: ‘Imagine you’re reading a novel and the main character is driving a Volvo S60R and within the text if you were to click on the name of the car it was a link to a website that promoted the S60R.’ (Lee, 2011)
As much as product placements can help create realism, too much of it can ruin the media itself. We could see writers been forced to revolve storylines and scripts around a certain brand. So the question is should we place more value on realism or on the fact that product placement is less intrusive than the traditional advert break?
References
Bressoud, E. And Lehu, J. Russell, C.A., 2010. The Product Well Placed. Journal of Advertising Research. 50, 374-385
Carr, P., 20 August 2010. Forget Ads In Books, Lit-Lovers Face An Even More Hideous Prospect. Tech Crunch. Available from: http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/20/eat-pay-love/ [Accessed 22nd April 2011]
De Gregorio, F. and Sung, Y., 2010. Understanding Attitudes toward and behaviours in response to product placement. Journal of Advertising, 39, 83-96
Hudson, S. and Hudson, D. And Peloza, J.,2008. Meet the Parents: A Parents’ Perspective on Product Placement in Children’s Films. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 289-304
Kuhn, K. and Hume, M. and Love, A., 2010. Examining the Covert Nature of Product Placement: Implications for Public Policy. Journal of Promotion Management, 16, 59-79.
Lee., 18 January 2011. How do you feel about product placement in eBooks? Quit Your Day Job. Available from: http://quityourdayjob.com.au/2011/01/how-do-you-feel-about-product-placement-in-ebooks/ [Accessed 22nd April 2011]
McDonnell, J. and Drennan, J., 2010. Virtual Product Placement as a New Approach to Measure Effectiveness of Placements. Journal of Promotion Management, 16, 25-38.
Tetzeli, R., 2011. I’m With the Brand. Fast Company, 82-92
Wenner, L., 2004. On the Ethics of Product Placement in Media Entertainment. Journal of Promotion Management, 10, 101-132.
Williams, K. and Petrosky, A. and Hernandez, E. and Page, R., 2011. Product placement effectiveness: revisited and renewed. Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 7, 1-24.
No comments:
Post a Comment