Your views on Product Placement

[Helefun]

Dear Film people,
This may be out of place on this forum but would like anyone who is willing to reply to answer some questions about Product placement on film. I am an MSc Marketing student who is doing a study of consumer attitude towards product placement.

‘Product placement’ is a advertising technique used when branded goods and other products are deliberately positioned within a an entertainment medium such as film. Marketers pay film producers a sum of money in exchange for their product being placed in a film. This technique is mostly used to create media exposure and awareness of the brand amongst film audiences. Examples of this are the use of heineken, Aston Martin and Sony in the James Bond film, Casino Royale.

So, I would like to know, What do you think of Product placement?
How often do you think you notice product placement? Do you think you are aware of it during a film?
Do you think it is acceptable or unnaceptable for marketing to take place during the course of the film?
What do you think of product placement when it takes place in films that are targeted to children?

I would like to hear your views as they would greatly enhance my study. Thanks for reading

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Helefun Dear Film people, This may be out of place on this forum but would like anyone who is willing to reply to answer some questions about Product placement on film. I am an MSc Marketing student who is doing a study of consumer attitude towards product placement. ‘Product placement’ is a advertising technique used when branded goods and other products are deliberately positioned within a an entertainment medium such as film. Marketers pay film producers a sum of money in exchange for their product being placed in a film. This technique is mostly used to create media exposure and awareness of the brand amongst film audiences. Examples of this are the use of heineken, Aston Martin and Sony in the James Bond film, Casino Royale. So, I would like to know, What do you think of Product placement? How often do you think you notice product placement? Do you think you are aware of it during a film? Do you think it is acceptable or unnaceptable for marketing to take place during the course of the film? What do you think of product placement when it takes place in films that are targeted to children? I would like to hear your views as they would greatly enhance my study. Thanks for reading

It's hard to avoid it, unless you go down the Blue Peter route (or the route they used to use) and black out the names of any products that are used for their projects. They still refer to "sticky-backed plastic" rather than the trade name, Sellotape

As long as it's not made too blatent with characters in a film constantly referring to a product by name then it's OK by me

What's worse than product placement is the spin-off toys, games, pencil cases etc.

Steve

[clitheroekid]

I was reminded of blanking-out names on products recently when I was watching a sitcom that had on the table a box of (what was obviously) Kellog's Cornflakes - they had crudely put a piece of black tape over the name but left the cockerel intact.

[ChristineCB]

When I see 10-year-old films using hi-tech devices (mobile phones, computers) with their logos displayed, I think, "I'm glad I didn't waste money on THAT generation of devices - what a waste to have bought one of those! In fact, maybe I should avoid those vendors' current products, too. Apple's throwing in a lot of money for its iPhones start, but everyone knows iPhones-2 will be here sooner enough and a lot better. For a little while. Maybe I'll avoid Apple..."

Or Toshiba, HP, etc.

The aging of hi-tech devices isn't like men's skinny ties or Roger Moore's bellbottoms, or the tailfins on '50s cars. I don't find myself marvelling at the atmosphere that an old Mac contributes to SEINFELD episodes, but rather mocking it.

However, a '67 Jag definitely adds to the 1967 film's decor.

If I was Apple, I'd probably pay to get Windows displayed on movies. And vice versa, because in a few years, it's a sign of that vendor's obsolescence.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by ChristineCB When I see 10-year-old films using hi-tech devices (mobile phones, computers) with their logos displayed, I think, "I'm glad I didn't waste money on THAT generation of devices - what a waste to have bought one of those! In fact, maybe I should avoid those vendors' current products, too. Apple's throwing in a lot of money for its iPhones start, but everyone knows iPhones-2 will be here sooner enough and a lot better. For a little while. Maybe I'll avoid Apple..." Or Toshiba, HP, etc. The aging of hi-tech devices isn't like men's skinny ties or Roger Moore's bellbottoms, or the tailfins on '50s cars. I don't find myself marvelling at the atmosphere that an old Mac contributes to SEINFELD episodes, but rather mocking it. However, a '67 Jag definitely adds to the 1967 film's decor. If I was Apple, I'd probably pay to get Windows displayed on movies. And vice versa, because in a few years, it's a sign of that vendor's obsolescence.

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.

But that didn't stop the sales of the Motorola RAZR phones - known in the trade as "poser phones". They look good. They're just rubbish when you try to use them

Steve

[ChristineCB]

"Rubbish when you use them" - yes, as if Functions (or failures of) really affects Form and its more important marketing!

And frankly, hi-tech gimmicks in Year 1 will never come close to form or function in Year 5. Or 3. Or 2. But when committing it to film, well, I'd be very careful about my logo reminding people of how obsolete and dated my products were.

[christoph404]

Product placement has become huge business nowadays, both manufacturers see the value and filmakers exploit it to raise cash to get their film made.We as the viewer have to endure over long shots of logos and unsubtle placement of brand names.On big films like Casino Royale companies like Aston Martin will supply cars to be trashed and smashed in exchange for valuable screen time promo of their product. I believe Sony own the film company or have a huge stake, hence their placement. But go back a few years and it was a very different story, Jaguar refused to loan ITC productions their new E Type sports car for Roger Moore to drive and have as his car in "The Saint" and so he ends up driving......a Volvo! And Michael Deeley, producer of the original "The Italian Job" has always been a bit miffed that Austin Rover refused to donate any Minis for filming or be involved in the film in any way and so the producer had to buy the cars for use in the film! And Rolex initially refused to supply a watch for James Bond to wear, producer Cubby Broccoli is reputed to have taken the watch from his own wrist and tossed it to the production dresser saying,"better use mine then" Incredible... how times have changed! Bond now wears an Omega watch and that is costing Omega a lot more than supplying a few free watches, they must be paying a huge amount to Bond producers for the honour of Bond endorsing the product.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Product placement has become huge business nowadays, both manufacturers see the value and filmakers exploit it to raise cash to get their film made.We as the viewer have to endure over long shots of logos and unsubtle placement of brand names.On big films like Casino Royale companies like Aston Martin will supply cars to be trashed and smashed in exchange for valuable screen time promo of their product. I believe Sony own the film company or have a huge stake, hence their placement. But go back a few years and it was a very different story, Jaguar refused to loan ITC productions their new E Type sports car for Roger Moore to drive and have as his car in "The Saint" and so he ends up driving......a Volvo! And Michael Deeley, producer of the original "The Italian Job" has always been a bit miffed that Austin Rover refused to donate any Minis for filming or be involved in the film in any way and so the producer had to buy the cars for use in the film! And Rolex initially refused to supply a watch for James Bond to wear, producer Cubby Broccoli is reputed to have taken the watch from his own wrist and tossed it to the production dresser saying,"better use mine then" Incredible... how times have changed! Bond now wears an Omega watch and that is costing Omega a lot more than supplying a few free watches, they must be paying a huge amount to Bond producers for the honour of Bond endorsing the product.

It's all wasted on me. I would never by a car or a watch or anything else, just because I'd seen it in a film. But I'm not exactly the advertisers and product placers target audience

Steve

[Santonix]

Bond has been mainly wearing an Omega watch for the last 34 years. Ever since Roger wore one in "Live and let Die".

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by Santonix Bond has been mainly wearing an Omega watch for the last 34 years. Ever since Roger wore one in "Live and let Die".

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!

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by christoph404 Rolex Submariner.......Pulsar Time Computer Quartz LED..........Rolex........ Rolex. a Cellini King Midas model ........Seiko LCD ..........Omega Seamaster ......... a Rolex!

And now - back to the programme......

John Drake wore an Omega I seem to recall, but then he was so common that he used the buses sometimes...............

I recall Maggie Thatcher remarked "Any secret agent who rides a bus to work after the age of 30 can count himself a failure in life."... (McGoohan was thirty in 1958).

Number Six affected a Favre-Leuba, but then the whole series was something of an enigma......

[christoph404]

......yes..sorry about my nerdy reply, Im a bit of a James Bond geek as well as a watch geek, if you hadn't noticed,very sad combo I know but hey............. and I like taking the bus, public transport is what we are all being encouraged to do isn't it? I will even venture on board the dreaded bendy bus if Im really pushed! And Im well over thirty! And I suppose John Drake would wear an Omega, I mean being a poor imatation of Bond and all.....ha ha, only joking, I loved Danger Man and The Prisoner. And BTW Bond's Rolex from Live an Let Die fetched 28,000 pounds at auction in 1998.

[kelp]

The minute I saw that tin of Heinz Beans in that corner shop in "It Always Rains On Sunday" I knew, I just had to have one!

(It's no good running the film, it isn't there really)
What about the old lady in the Jerry Lewis Film, who sits in front of her TV set, and as the camera pulls back we see she is surrounded by all the stuff advertised on her TV set!!! Now that's product Placement that works!

[Helefun]

I think Chris had a good point: who are the target audience for product placement? I think it is possibly mass market. Its also quite uncertain about how the films containing paid placements will do at the cinema. Hence, product placement is a bit of a risky business. Obviously, I bet BMW and Aston Martin knew that a bond film would mean serious money. They probably not only paid for their products to feature, but also supplied them with a number of cars. LOTS OF MONEY! Lots of payback too. I think Aston Martain has raised its profile since. However, BMW have stopped placing their cars in movies as of late. Maybe it raised BMW`s profile a little too much. I think their target market has changed, maybe beyond their control.

On a different subject, has anyone seen Tallidaegar Nights (sorry if I`ve not spelt it right). I think they are taking the piss out of product placement? what do you think?

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Helefun I think Chris had a good point: who are the target audience for product placement? I think it is possibly mass market. Its also quite uncertain about how the films containing paid placements will do at the cinema. Hence, product placement is a bit of a risky business. Obviously, I bet BMW and Aston Martin knew that a bond film would mean serious money. They probably not only paid for their products to feature, but also supplied them with a number of cars. LOTS OF MONEY! Lots of payback too. I think Aston Martain has raised its profile since. However, BMW have stopped placing their cars in movies as of late. Maybe it raised BMW`s profile a little too much. I think their target market has changed, maybe beyond their control. On a different subject, has anyone seen Tallidaegar Nights (sorry if I`ve not spelt it right). I think they are taking the piss out of product placement? what do you think?

Like with all advertising, only 50% of it works - but nobody knows which 50%
(Adjust percentages to suit, they're made up anyway. But the basic premise still holds)

Steve