Your views on Product Placement

[Santonix]

Originally Posted by christoph404 No, thats incorrect. Bonds watch of choice has mainly been his trusted Rolex Submariner. In Live an Let Die Bond wears a Rolex Submariner with spinning outer bezel ring which he uses to cut through rope. That prop watch was sold at Christies several years back for a considerable amount of money. In" Live and Let Die" Bond also wears a Pulsar Time Computer Quartz LED. In The Man with the Golden Gun Bond is again wearing his Rolex which can be clearly seen as he is smoking his cigar. Incidentally Scaramanga is also wearing a Rolex. a Cellini King Midas model (solid gold of course!) From 1977's "The Spy Who Loved Me" Bond forsakes his Rolex and wears a Seiko LCD and continues to wear a Seiko LCD of some kind throughout his term as Bond(this is the seventies/eighties remember, LCD watches were THE thing to have) until the Rolex makes another appearance in "Licence To Kill" The first appearance of the Omega Seamaster watch is in 1996 when Pierce Brosnan wears it in Goldeneye and it is only since then that Bond has worn an Omega, which IMHO is a poor imitation of Bonds proper watch....a Rolex!

Gosh must have been eating too much pop corn. Now where did I put the whisky bottle?

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Santonix Gosh must have been eating too much pop corn. Now where did I put the whisky bottle?

,,,, well they look similar, Rolex and Omega are great rivals and their rivalry has in the past come to court litigation with Rolex suing Omega for copyright and patent infringement. It must have been a coup for Omega to get the Bond endorsemnent though and an indication of how things have changed in the world of product placement. I would imagine Rolex were not willing to meet the demands of Bond producers for using their watches, a huge contrast to the days when they refused to loan one measly watch, a complete turn around in the balance of power to say the least. And while on the subject of Bond, on a more sinister and disturbing note, American gun sales of the Glock Pistol used by Brosnan increased dramatically after it was seen in the film. That is disturbing to me, the thought that a Gun manufacturer might pay for a product placement, and why couldn't Brosnan simply continue to use the vintage PPK pistol as all the other Bonds? I wonder.....I would like to think that there is no truth in that suppostion but you never know.

[Helefun]

Yes, gun manufacturers can pay for product placement although it doesn`t really mean much to us brits. Prescription drugs too. I don`t know how many times I have heard of "x-lax" or however you spell it! I assume its a laxative but I don`t know if its sold over here. With obesity on the rise, unhealthy food is a bit of an issue too. Pepsi, Coke, Pizza Hut you name it. Cigarette manufacturers actually use product placement as a way around the TV/Billboard etc ban on advertising. Is that a good thing?

[batman]

I reckon Max must've have had a personal deal with Brylcream, judging by the amount that appears to be plastered on his head!

Bats.

[clitheroekid]

One of the "extras" on the recent Sgt Bilko 50th Anniversary has some rather splendid product placement. One instance has Col Hall and his wife playing bridge with another couple, and Bilko's name gets mentioned. Col Hall gets into a faff and his colleague offers him a Camel cigarette (by name) and suggests he calms down. The fags get passed around and a general air of calm descends!

[Cheeky Bob]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook I thought the Apple iPhone had already been shown to be rubbish and just a gimmick. That's what the trade papers are saying anyway.

Which ones? The reviews I've read (many by Apple sceptics) say that it's a major breakthrough in terms of ease of use and intuitive user-friendliness - which is exactly what made the iPod such a hit despite being far from the first high-capacity MP3 player on the market.

As for product placement, I rarely notice it and it never bothers me. I was aware at the time that pretty much every gadget in Casino Royale was made by Sony, who funded the film, but would the experience have been qualitatively different if there'd been a spread of brand names? I don't think so. Similarly, I noticed that the IT department at 24's CTU had decided to scrap its contract with Apple and switch to another manufacturer at some point between the second and third series (or thereabouts). Again, mildly diverting, but didn't remotely affect my overall enjoyment.

As was mentioned above, I'm actually more bothered if a product has been deliberately censored to avoid overt placement! There was a hilarious example on telly last week (sorry, I forget the programme) where two people were having a video chat - one on an iMac, the other on a Mac laptop. Both had had black masking tape applied to block out the logos (not especially effectively given that the machines were white and silver), despite the rather obvious fact that if you don't want to recognise the brand, you don't go for the one with the most distinctive design!

[clitheroekid]

I have never had, nor ever want, a mobile phone.


Anti-social machines

[Helefun]

I am currently undertaking an MSc thesis on film marketing and would be very grateful if you could assist by answering this e-questionnaire. It should take no longer than 10 minutes to fill out. All answers are confidential and I will not ask you for any personal or contact information. Your responses will only be used for this study.

To answer the questionnaire, please click on the link following link www.cocco.daiowen.co.uk. Please send the link to all your friends and helo me out!

Thank you in advance for your participation,
Helen Cocco

If the link does not work, copy and paste this link into your internet explorer.

[wearysloth]

Interesting topic.

Product placement becomes annoying when the occurence of the product no longer seems 'natural'.

Always enjoyed it when the BBC went out of their way NOT to advertise brand names, so cereal packets would be sporting masking tape and so forth.

[Moor Larkin]

Ah, the subtleties of Marketing.

I do wonder if Product Placement isn't just one of those Corporate Ego Stroking things where the audience hardly notices it in the film (and all that do couldn't really care less)...... but ......... all the Marketing 'Suits' (who've spent several $M getting Brand A in the picture, rather than Brand Z) make their Preeesentations to the Board and afterwards they all sit mumbling into their Vanilla Frappe's about how darned clever they all are.......

[ChristineCB]

I hope HELEFUN will give us an update on the findings, and their own opinion about the various questions.

[Helefun]

Well i`ve analysed my study christine et al, and it seems that most people are accepting of product placement all around. Apart from tobacco and weapons as product placements that is. Most people thought that product placement in films targeted at young people is wrong however.

Yeah, all in all, it appears that british consumers accept product placement as a marketing medium. This has nothing to do with its effectiveness as a marketing medium however. That would be quite difficult to measure. Keep talking though people... You`re doing a great job and have brought up some really interesting stuff.

If there are any film marketers out there or people who work with product placement, please get in touch with me on here or at helefun@hotmail.com. I would love to interview you if you would be willing to offer your expert opinions. Thank you!

[ChristineCB]

Thanks. I think "generally accepting" is my impression of audiences. My raves against Hi-Tech Devices are more cautionary than begging for exclusion - as I said elsewhere, if I had a competitive product, I'd LOVE to see my competition put their hi-tech products in a film - they'd enjoy some bonus that first year, but every year afterward, it would beg for negative marketing.

I thought the TRUMAN SHOW's lampooning of product placement was most interesting. Would I object to such blatancy? Oh, I don't know - take a look at the colored-out Pepsi cans in Tom Hanks' BIG. The lack of Pepsi text is SO clear that any fan of Coke has to realize that Pepsi wouldn't pay up for additional ads.

It makes Pepsi look cheap. Does it help them or hurt them, therefore?

And conversely, how has Coke taken advantage of Pepsi's refusal? (I don't believe they have. I don't think it'd be too tough to paint in Coke logos, however.)

[ChristineCB]

One day after Steve Jobs announces the newer, small iPhone, first-generation user backlash has led him into announcing a $100 credit on their $300-400 purchase of a few weeks ago. How sweet!

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by ChristineCB Thanks. I think "generally accepting" is my impression of audiences. My raves against Hi-Tech Devices are more cautionary than begging for exclusion - as I said elsewhere, if I had a competitive product, I'd LOVE to see my competition put their hi-tech products in a film - they'd enjoy some bonus that first year, but every year afterward, it would beg for negative marketing. I thought the TRUMAN SHOW's lampooning of product placement was most interesting. Would I object to such blatancy? Oh, I don't know - take a look at the colored-out Pepsi cans in Tom Hanks' BIG. The lack of Pepsi text is SO clear that any fan of Coke has to realize that Pepsi wouldn't pay up for additional ads. It makes Pepsi look cheap. Does it help them or hurt them, therefore? And conversely, how has Coke taken advantage of Pepsi's refusal? (I don't believe they have. I don't think it'd be too tough to paint in Coke logos, however.)

Does anyone ever do negative product placement? Like having the bad guy drink Pepsi - sponsored by Coke?

Steve