Product Placement

Product Placement in Film: A Review of the Literature

Daniel M. Quitrio

Senior Seminar, LA 400-08 Professor Morin December 17, 2002

Product Placement Product Placement in Film: A Review of the Literature I. Introduction a. Definition of product placement b. History c. Briefing over studies Types of Product Placement a. Visual b. Audio c. Audio-Visual d. Prominent e. Subtle Cost of Product Placements a. Paid placements b. Bartered placements Test Subjects of Product Placement Studies a. Focus of studies b. Placements may target the wrong market c. Portrayals by gender d. Portrayals by age Advantages & Disadvantages of Product Placement a. Advantages i. Adds reality to film ii. Moviegoers relate to charactersAdds a feeling of belonging or security for consumers iii. Reduces film costs b. Disadvantages i. Taints the art of film ii. May target wrong market iii. Promotes ethically-charged products Ethics and Regulation a. Ethically-charged products i. Definition ii. Tobacco use in film iii. Alcohol consumption and firearms in film b. International perceptions Recall and Recognition of Brands in FilmBrand Salience Medias Influence on Consumer Attitudes a. Reality engineering b. Product placements influence on consumer behavior Conclusion

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI.

VII. VIII.

IX.

Product Placement Product Placement in Film: A Review of the Literature Rocky wears Nike sneakers. E.T. eats Reeses Pieces candy. The Men in Black wear Ray-Ban sunglasses. James Bond and his harem of beauties use Visa credit cards, Avis car rentals, BMW cars and motorcycles, a Ford Thunderbird (see Appendix A),

Heineken beer, Omega watches, Ericsson cell phones, and LOreal make-up. Bond even traded in his martini for Finlandia vodka for his appearance in 2002s Die Another Day (see Appendix B). For more than half a century, brands have been infiltrating motion pictures, igniting a variety of audiences views and perceptions. Product placement (also referred to as brand placement and brand props) is the practice of purposely placing brands in the context of feature films (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999, p.1). The practice is an alternative to traditional advertising, allowing advertisers to exhibit their products and enhance their reach to large audiences at one time. This idea was conceptualized as early as the 1940s when Joan Crawford was shown serving Jack Daniels whiskey in the 1945 movie Mildred Pierce (Babin & Carder, 1996; Reed, 1989 [cited in Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993]; Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994). This practice has not gone without controversy, however, as its use is often debated by moviegoers and media experts. While some moviegoers feel that the use of product placement enhances a film by adding to its realism (Govani, 1999), others see the practice as an invasive one that sews itself a new seam in the blanket of brands that covers a strong, consumer-based society (Wasko, Phillips, & Purdie, 1993). Some supporters of the practice argue that product placement allows them to relate to the characters (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999;

Product Placement Govani, 1999). Conversely, opponents counter supportive arguments by citing ethical concerns that are exposed by product placement. Concerns, such as the placement of ethically-charged products (i.e. tobacco, alcohol, weapons) in films are at the top of some researchers agendas (Gupta & Gould, 1997; Karrh, 1998). These issues, along with others, have most recently lent themselves as subjects to a number of articles and studies, each one offering a new perspective on a relatively controversial practice.

Though brands have been appearing in films since the 1940s, the study of product placement in film is relatively new. A surge of articles and studies have appeared in the early and mid-nineties, proving or disproving a number of hypotheses. Popular areas of study include recognition versus recall of brands in films and controversy over ethicallycharged products (or emotionally-charged products) in films, among others (these studies will be further discussed in this review). Common test subjects include undergraduate college students, the market that has been found to attend movie screenings more often than others (Babin & Carder, 1995; Babin & Carder, 1996; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993). Research methods include having test subjects screen movies in clips or in their entirety, followed by surveys or focus groups. The results of these studies will be reviewed throughout these pages. This paper will serve as a review of the literature that exists on the subject of product placement in film. Areas of discussion will include the different types of product placement, cost of product placement, the test subjects of product placement studies, the practices advantages and disadvantages, ethics and regulation, recall and recognition of brands in film, and the medias influence on consumer attitudes.

Product Placement The Different Types of Product Placement Product placement exists in different modes and on different levels. These include visual, audio, and a combination of the two (audio-visual). Visual product place-

ment is the method of including a visual representation of a brand on film. This includes strategically positioning a brand in the background or forefront (in use by a character) of a scene, displaying a billboard or some other form of visual advertisement in a scene, and any other visual representation of a brand-name product without any relevant message or sounds on the audio track which draw attention to the product (Gupta & Lord, 1998, p. 49). An example of this is Reese Witherspoons character in Legally Blonde (2001) using an Apple Mac laptop computer in a PC-laden classroom. The second mode of product placement is audio placement. This includes any verbal mention of a particular brand, including its inclusion in the screenplay or on an audio track. In this form, the brand is not shown on screen. This is exemplified in the movie Wall Street (1987), in which Martin Sheens character says to a server, Get this kid a Molson Light (Gupta & Lord, 1998). The third mode of product placement is a combination of the two aforementioned types. Gupta and Lord (1998) define audio-visual placement as the visual appearance of a brand with a verbal mention of the brand name or a brand-relevant message (such as a slogan) as a form of support. A recent example of this is in the film Cast Away (2000). In it, Tom Hankss character befriends a Wilson brand volleyball. Aside from displaying the ball on screen, Hankss character appropriately calls the ball Wilson. In the latter example, Wilson holds what seems to be a supporting role in Cast Away. Its visual and audio depiction, along with its excessive screen time, provides the

Product Placement film with an example of prominent placement (or on-set placement), one level of product placement. Prominent placement is classified as any placement in which the

brand is prominently displayed in a scene (Gupta & Lord, 1998). This often occurs upon the use of a brand by a character in the film. Perhaps the best-known example of prominent placement is in the 1982 Steven Spielberg film E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. In it, Hersheys Reeses Pieces candy played a supporting role that earned it everything but an Academy Award nomination. Despite the snub, Higgins (1985) notes that Hershey must have been pleasantly satisfied with the 65% sales increase of the candy within the first month of the films release (cited in Gupta & Gould, 1997; Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994). While prominent placement is used to classify brands that are blatantly displayed on screen, those brands that are often seen in the background and fail to capture the audiences full attention are known as subtle placements (or creative placements) (Gupta & Lord, 1998). These placements include brands that are used in less-than-obtrusive means, including advertisements (i.e. billboards, sides of buses, etc.) that appear in a films scenery. Such forms of placement blend in with the scenes landscape and may be easily overlooked by members of the audience. Some argue, however, that this form of brand inclusion benefits a film by adding realism to the text (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999; Govani, 1999). Brands infiltrate a highly consumer-based society. Many comprise the advertising clutter that is often overlooked by passers-by. The purpose of subtle placement may arguably be to fall within the confines of this clutter, creating a more realto-life scenario on screen. This level of placement is exemplified in any movie that includes scenes in New Yorks Times Square, including Spider-Man (2002), Vanilla Sky

Product Placement (2001), Hackers (1995), and Serendipity (2001). The plethora of billboards and electronic ads that permeate the area are quite evident in such films, but due to the clutter of advertisements, it may be difficult for audience members to distinguish specific brands. The aforementioned types of placements may be recognized on a multitude of levels. Considering such factors as the mode of placement (i.e. visual, audio, audio-

visual) and the level of placement (i.e. prominent or subtle), advertisers are willing to pay large sums of money to ensure that their brands are recognized on screen. Costs of Product Placement Many advertisers have discovered the positive impact product placement has had on their industry. For this reason, these practitioners are taking advantage of the large audience reach that motion pictures have by increasingly utilizing the medium. With the advent of such commercial zapping devices as TiVo, consumers of television are able to easily rid advertisements from their favorite television programs. Concurrently, television consumers may just as easily change the channel once a paid advertisement airs on screen. Olney, Holbrook, and Batra (1991) found that one method that advertisers have discovered to combat these areas of concern is placing brands in television shows (cited in Gupta & Lord, 1998; Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994), ensuring that the products will be depicted in the best possible light by the characters and the programs scripts. Though the idea is similar, one key difference between product placement on the small screen and on the silver screen lies with cost. Paid product placements have been banned from television, but they are still implemented in film. These payments may be made in monetary amounts or through barter arrangements.

Product Placement Though cost may range depending on a brands use (i.e. audio, visual, audiovisual) and whether or not it has a prominent or subtle appearance on screen, advertisers are quite often willing to spend much to take advantage of product placements invaluable benefits (Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994). According to Gupta and Lord (1998), a single product placement may cost an advertiser between $25,000 and $225,000. Despite the abstract issue of the monetary value of placements, Gupta and Lord (1998) cite Sharkey (1988) upon discussing the system of CinemaScore, as developed by Mr. Ed Mintz.

CinemaScore is a ratings system that helps determine the most appropriate cost of product placements in newly released films. The system involves having surveyors visit a variety of movie theatres throughout the United States at different times of the day. Following the end of pre-determined films, the surveyors conduct reconnaissance among those who had just screened the film. Viewers ages and sex are noted, as well as their general impressions of the film and a list of products they recall seeing in the film. Using an unpublished formula, the prospective cost of each product placement is determined. According to Gupta and Lord (1998), there is no evidence of CinemaScores reliability and whether or not it is widely used by marketers or film producers. However, it is the only found product placement pricing system in place. Despite this evidence, it has been found that a majority of product placements that are found in films are unpaid, and are rather negotiated through barter exchanges. Karrh (1998) and Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) agree that the majority of product placements in film are not paid for in monetary sums, but are rather paid for through barter arrangements. According to Vollmers and Mizerski (1994), Gary Mezzatesta, Vice

Product Placement President of UPP Entertainment Marketing, estimates that at least 80% of products appearing in a film are unpaid placements (p. 98). In their 1997 study, Gupta and Gould cite Kalish (1988), who provides an example of one such barter arrangement. Kalish found that in one circumstance, British Airways volunteered the use of its Kennedy Airport Terminal in order to have its logo appear in a film. In this arrangement, no money was exchanged to guarantee the placement. Though product placements are found in various genres of movies and are targeted to an array of audiences, similar sample audiences have been studied in the past in order to gain an understanding of their perceptions of brands in films. Test Subjects of Product Placement Studies According to previous research, undergraduate college students and individuals between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four are those who screen movies most often (Babin & Carder, 1995; Babin & Carder, 1996; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993). It is for this reason that members of this target market have been the

chosen samples of most studies that exist on product placement in film. Since these individuals watch movies most often, it is inferred that they are more often impacted by product placement and most often targeted by marketers who choose the film medium as a means of spreading their messages (Babin & Carder, 1996). Henceforth, researchers, such as Babin and Carder (1995 and 1996), Gupta and Lord (1998), and Nebenzahl and Secunda (1993), have engrossed themselves in a number of studies that utilize this target group. As a result of their studies (regarding both eighteen to thirty-four year-olds and other ages), researchers have discovered findings that may cause advertising professionals to offer more thought to the placement of certain brands in some movies. These in-

Product Placement clude the possibility that placements may target the wrong markets; both genders may have dissimilar impressions of a given brand and audience members of different ages may interpret brands differently.

10

Since individual movies are often targeted towards specific audiences, advertisers may choose to place their brands in these films to ensure that their brands message(s) is spread to these ready-made audiences, which comprise the very same demographics that they are seeking. Since many films are screened in a variety of locations, their market reach is quite valuable to the advertisers (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999), who are attempting to increase or alter audience knowledge or perception of the brand. For example, the movies Toy Story (1995) and Toy Story 2 (1999) are animated features that are highly targeted to children. Brands that suit the films audiences are placed in the context of the movies, ensuring that their target demographic will see them. These brands include such toys as Barbie dolls, Etch A Sketch, and Mr. Potato Head. Market reach grows even further when future generations of similar target markets consume the same advertising messages (in the same movies) because of films on videocassettes and digital video disks (Wasko, Phillips, & Purdie, 1993). Advertisers often choose to place their brands in films that target the same audiences that their brands are targeting. However, there are no means of ensuring that the brands message(s) will be delivered to the appropriate market (DeLorme, Reid, Zimmer, 1999). Some films are written and produced with a particular audience in mind, but upon completion, it is not uncommon that the film will attract a large portion of an unexpected market. Similarly, brands are not always used effectively when they appear in scenes that

Product Placement

11

may not best suit the particular brand (Ong & Meri, 1994). Ong and Meri (1994) found that this might lead to a decline in brand recall by the movies audiences. Once a brand is placed in a movie, that brand will expose itself to all who screen the film, whether or not they include members of the brands target market. This may include individuals of a different gender or age. In their 1997 study, Gupta and Gould noted that many products possess gender identifications (p. 39). The researchers hypothesized that males generate more favorable responses to products that are depicted as possessing masculine qualities. According to Kanungo and Pang (1973), these products include cars (cited in Gupta & Gould, 1997). Likewise, Milner, Fodness, and Morrison (1991) cite guns as masculine products (cited in Gupta & Gould, 1997). In their study, Gupta and Gould (1997) surveyed and questioned 1,006 males (49%) and females (51%) at a large Midwestern University. Following the implementation of surveys and open-ended questions, the researchers found that their hypothesis was supported and that there is a product by sex interaction (p. 42) among product placements. Though the issue of varied gender perception with product placement has been noted and studied by some, another issue of concern regards the impact ones age has on her or his perception of product placement. In their 1999 study, DeLorme, Reid, and Zimmer interviewed a wealth of younger moviegoers (aged eighteen to twenty-one) and older moviegoers (aged thirty-five to forty-eight) in order to compare and contrast their varied views on product placement. A series of focus groups resulted in the finding of distinct and diverse perspectives among many of the study samples.

Product Placement

12

According to their research, DeLorme, Reid, and Zimmer (1999) found that older moviegoers generally perceive product placements as implications of a changing society. Since brands were not often included in films during this audiences youth, their current use is often perceived as an indication of a major cultural shift. According to the study, older moviegoers associated brand props with feelings of insecurity, frustration, and fear of change (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999, p. 24). Various examples of such feelings are provided. One such citation reads as follows: . . . It just seemed that the people who made the movies back in the olden days were really trying to keep things a little purer . . . They were trying to keep those commercial considerations out of it . . . The last ten or fifteen years it just seems that every time somebody has a drink or something the label is pointing at you and you can recognize what it is. [Oliver, older (moviegoer), age forty, tennis coach, frequent (moviegoer), depth interview]. Conversely, the researchers found that the younger moviegoers perceive product placement as associated with an invitation to cultural belonging and feelings of emotional security (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999, p. 28). It was found that since the younger generation grew up in a consumer-based society that has been infiltrated by advertisements and other promotional items, the younger generation does not generally place a heavy emphasis on product placements. One interviewee said the following: . . . You grow up and you start watching TV and you start going to movies and you grow up watching this stuff day in, day out, and you become so accustomed to it, it doesnt register . . . You dont sit there and consciously pick it out and notice it. You lose that . . . [Marshall, younger (moviegoer), age twenty-one, glass glazer, infrequent (moviegoer), focus group]. Despite the diverse perceptions of product placement that exist, researchers have found that some moviegoers and critics believe that the practice boasts several positive attributes and advantages for films, their audiences, and those who produce the films. Other researchers have discovered opposing arguments.

Product Placement Advantages and Disadvantages of Product Placement Product placement in film has generated much debate from moviegoers and ex-

13

perts alike. While some share concurring views on the practice and its arguable benefits, others unite in opposition, citing a number of attributes of the practice that may cause a films ruin. Existing studies provide interviews with a plethora of individuals within limited age ranges. Some include direct quotations from the study samples in an effort to preserve their exact feelings and perspectives. DeLorme, Reid, and Zimmer (1999) found that some positive attributes of product placement resonate in the minds of films consumers. Many individuals agree that the inclusion of brands in films adds to the realism and validity of the story and the lives of the characters (DeLorme, Reid, and Zimmer, 1999; Govani, 1999). In a subjective newspaper article, Govani (1999) argues that individuals are able to relate to characters that use branded products, rather than generic ones. Govani (1999) asserts that products give movies an indelible imprint of realism. In real life, we eat, drink, wear, and drive brand-name products. Its part of our topography (p. 2). One other cited advantage of brand inclusion in films is its ability to subsidize the costs of movie production (Macklem, 2002). Since some advertisers are willing to take advantage of the motion picture medium to spread their brands messages, the prices they pay to include the placements may be used to diminish the production costs of films. Despite these cited benefits, some concur that the negative impacts of placements on films outweigh the positive attributes. Some researchers cite individuals negative views of product placement. These opponents are adamant that the practice is likely to influence negative impacts on the film

Product Placement

14

and its viewers (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999; Gupta & Gould, 1997). One concern is that implementing the practice will jeopardize and possibly tarnish the art of film (Karrh, 1998; Macklem, 2002). Macklem (2002) cites the popular view that commercializing films encourages individuals to place a heavy emphasis on brands and little on the entertainment or creative value of motion pictures. In his literature review, Karrh (1998) makes note of this issue. He cites an example in which a film was changed to accommodate the placement of a brand. According to Karrh (1998), Taco Bell is featured in the film Demolition Man (1993), which is set in the year 2032, as the last fast-food chain left on Earth. For the films international release, the placement of Taco Bell was replaced by Pizza Hut, which has a greater global reach than Taco Bell. Pizza Hut paid for all costs in making this change. Wasko, Phillips, and Purdie (1993) further cite the lengths some marketers will go to ensure that their brands are seen in popular films. According to the analysts, Associated Film Promotions, a product placement firm, went to the extent of altering a films screenplay to add a scene that was conducive for placing a product. The firm had a salad-making scene added to the movie North Dallas Forty (1979), simply to provide an opportunity for the placement of Bertolli salad oil (Wasko, Phillips, & Purdie, 1993). Govani (1999) disagrees with the claim that the creativity in a film suffers due to product placement. Furthermore, Govani (1999) shuns the claims validity. He states that anyone whos going to a mainstream flick to find art in the first place may need to get their reality passport stamped (Govani, 1999, p. 2). One other way in which product placement can have a negative influence is when it targets the wrong individuals (see Test Subjects of Product Placement Studies). In

Product Placement some instances, advertisers place brands, hoping that the proper target market will con-

15

sume their messages. However, there is no way to ensure that any particular market will see a film or that all moviegoers will interpret a brands placement similarly (DeLorme, Reid, & Zimmer, 1999). From the advertisers point of view, the brands placement is not necessarily effective, rendering it useless. Perhaps the most common and most controversial impact studied is the use of ethically-charged products. Karrh (1998) and Everett, Schnuth, and Tribble (1998) define these as any brands that promote a negative action (i.e. alcohol, tobacco, and firearms). Researchers have studied the impact such placements have had on moviegoers (Gupta & Gould, 1997), and some provide arguments opposed to the placement of such brands (Basil, 1997). These products have stimulated much controversy and debate regarding the ethics of product placement. Ethics and Regulation The ethical standards held by advertisers who place brands in films are questioned in a wealth of studies and subjective articles. One common ethical concern is the notion that product placement constitutes a form of subliminal advertising, since products are integrated into films, but no disclaimer is present that warns the viewer of any form of advertising in the film (Gupta & Gould, 1997; Snyder, 1992; Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993). Among the most controversial subjects, however, is the use of ethically-charged products in film. Other nations perspectives on the ethical use of product placement in US American films have also been studied.

Product Placement Ethically-charged Products in Feature Films Gupta and Gould (1997) define ethically-charged products (or emotionally-

16

charged products) as products which especially arouse ethical concern and differences across consumers regarding their marketing and consumption (p. 38). The researchers specifically cite tobacco, alcohol, and guns as fitting into this category. The use of such controversial products as tobacco, alcohol, and firearms typically garners a great amount of attention from media experts and moviegoers. This is due to the potentially hazardous implications their overexposure may have on an individual. A 1997 study shows some individuals impressions of such placements in films. The study measures undergraduate college students views regarding the acceptability of placing cigarettes, alcohol, and guns in movies. Results indicate that the acceptability of cigarettes, alcohol, and guns are 41.3%, 60.3%, and 38.7%, respectively (Gupta & Gould, 1997). Each ethically-charged product merits certain debate. Perhaps no product has been more greatly contested in some studies than tobacco. As a result of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969, the advertising of cigarettes in broadcast media was banned in 1971 (Basil, 1997). Despite this ban, however, tobacco companies unrelentingly continue to place brands in films. According to some controversial memos that were found, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company and Associated Film Promotions combined forces to contract the use of celebrities in films to help market cigarettes (Basil, 1997). These were then called special placements. In appreciation for their compliance in the deal, film celebrities were given jewelry, cars, and other luxury items (Basil, 1997). The blatant branding of cigarettes in films warranted additional concern. Rothenberg (1991) makes note that in 1991, the Federal Trade

Product Placement

17

Commission considered mandating health warnings for placements of cigarettes in movies broadcast on television (cited in Gupta & Gould, 1997). According to Gupta and Gould (1997), the tobacco industry voluntarily banned the use of all paid product placements that same year, thus curbing itself of what has proven to be a lucrative practice. As an example of the profitability of tobacco brand placements in movies, Lark cigarettes spent a reported $350,000 to place its brand in the James Bond film License to Kill (1989) (Basil, 1997; Karrh, 1998). Likewise, Marlboro paid 20,000 (US $31,442) for a placement in Superman II (1980) (Basil, 1997). Debate over whether or not tobacco brands should be allowed to be featured in motion pictures ensues. One common argument cites a mandate made and enforced by the United States Surgeon General. It requires that all cigarette ads feature a health warning, making known the products potential hazards to the viewer. Opponents of the placement of cigarettes in films agree that such placements are blatant marketing tactics, and thus should adhere to the same policies enforced for all other cigarette advertisements. Surgeon General health warnings, however, are not found on films that feature these placements (Basil, 1997). One common concern is that the inclusion of these products will entice the movies viewers to adopt smoking as a habit. Basil (1997) and Everett, Schnuth, and Tribble (1998) cite Social Cognitive Theory in their respective articles. This Theory states that much is learned through observation. Since moviegoers are subjected to viewing actors smoking cigarettes (and in some cases adopting specific brands), and since this depiction is usually portrayed as a glamorous activity oftentimes enjoyed by members of a high socioeconomic class, the moviegoers may possibly be drawn to the habit (Basil, 1997; Everett, Schnuth, & Tribble, 1998).

Product Placement

18

In the past, this hotly contested debate was brought to the attention of the United States Supreme Court. In his review, Snyder (1992) cites product placement and how some believe it falls into the realm of commercial speech. Though it was tobacco placements that spurred this judicial precedence, the entire practice of product placement (of all products) was questioned. Elements of commercial speech, which has been comprehensively defined by the United States Congress, are subjected to government regulation, and so if product placement were to fall into Congresss definition, it too would be subject to regulation. Snyders interpretation is that product placement should not be considered commercial speech because it does not comply with the definition assigned by Congress. Snyder (1992) states that whatever the status of product placement before the film is actually made, once the film is produced the placed products become an intrinsic, inextricable part of the film (p. 335). The product that spurred this legal squabble remains a popular one to study. A series of investigations have been made into the amount of tobacco appearances in films throughout time. In one heavily cited study, top-grossing US films between the 1960s and 1990s were evaluated. It was discovered that tobacco use in films by decade does not change much, but the prevalence of characters that smoke occurs three times more than the amount of individuals who smoke in reality (Basil, 1997; Everett, Schnuth, & Tribble, 1998; Karrh, 1998). In another study, Everett, Schnuth, and Tribble (1998) examined the top ten grossing US films from the years between 1985 and 1995. The researchers concluded that 45.7% of the films feature at least one lead character that uses tobacco and 98% of the films feature at least one pro-tobacco event (defined as implied or actual consump-

Product Placement

19

tion of tobacco, paraphernalia [ashtrays and matches], talking about tobacco, no smoking signs, and tobacco product logos [Everett, Schnuth, & Tribble, 1998, p.319]). Sargent et al. (2001) studied the top twenty-five highest-grossing US films every year between 1988 and 1997 (250 films in total). The researchers observed tobacco appearances (defined as the appearance of a brand name, logo, or identifiable trademark on products or product packaging, billboards, store-front advertising, or tobacco promotional items [Sargent et al., 2001, p. 3]). Types of placements that were considered were actor endorsements, in which a lead or supporting actor uses a particular brand, and background appearances, in which the brand is placed in a films scenery or in an advertisement. Since the span of years studied includes films before and after the tobacco industrys voluntary ban on paid product placements in films, tobacco appearances in preban films were compared to appearances in post-ban films. The results are as follows: 87% of the total films studied contain at least one incidence of tobacco use, 28% of the films contain specific brand appearances, and 24% include brand appearances specifically in the background. The frequency of brands that appear in pre-ban films is similar to those in post-ban films. However, actor endorsements increased following the ban, background appearances decreased following the ban, and a combination of actor endorsements and background appearances increased after the ban. In a study by the American Lung Association, 103 films between the years of 1994 and 1995 were considered. Thomas (1996) indicates that the results of this study are that 77% of all films screened included tobacco use, but only 20% of the films showed specific brand names (cited in Karrh, 1998).

Product Placement

20

Though the placement of tobacco products has lent itself to much scrutiny, alcohol and firearms are also areas of concern among a number of individuals. Though these products have not been the subjects of any significant study, many authors include them with tobacco in their lists of ethically-charged products (Everett, Schnuth, & Tribble, 1998; Gupta & Gould, 1997; Karrh, 1998). Everett, Schnuth, and Tribble did include alcohol, along with tobacco, in their 1998 study. The researchers reviewed the use of alcohol use in the top ten highest-grossing US films every year between the years 1985 and 1995. Alcohol events (defined as implied or actual consumption of alcohol, alcohol paraphernalia, talking about alcohol, and alcohol product logos [Everett, Schnuth, & Tribble, 1998, p. 319]) were considered in each film. It was discovered that 96% of the films featured at least one alcohol event and lead characters in 79% of the films used alcohol. (Though many films include the placement of alcohol brands, Appendix B features a print advertisement that publicizes the use of Finlandia vodka in the 2002 James Bond movie, Die Another Day.) The moral use of ethically-charged products have been contested for some time, but in a study conducted by Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Krauter (2000), international audiences evaluate US American films and judge the ethical use of product placement. International Perspectives of Product Placement in US American Feature Films While some ethical codes seemingly span internationally, some nations adopt a separate set of ethics for specific practices (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-Krauter, 2000). In a 2000 study conducted by Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Krauter, the impressions and ethical concerns of Austrian, American, and French consumers are studied in regards to product placement in films. The researchers hypothesized that there will be a country

Product Placement

21

effect in the acceptability of ethically versus non-ethically-charged product placements and that US consumers will be more accepting of product placements than will Austrian or French consumers (Gould, Gupta, Grabner-Krauter, 2000, p. 7). Three samples were used for this study, one representing each nation. The American sample was taken from the 1997 Gupta and Gould study. It was comprised of 1,012 undergraduate college students (491 male and 515 female) from a large Midwestern university. The French sample was comprised of 204 individuals (ninety-seven male and ninety-nine female), 99.5% of which were younger than or equal to twenty-five years of age. The Austrian sample included 240 university students (125 male and 115 female), 75.8% of which were younger than or equal to the age of twenty-five. Surveys and open-ended questions were the research methods used. Following their experimental study, the researchers successfully proved their first hypothesis, that there will be a country effect in the acceptability of ethically versus nonethically-charged product placements, by using an ANOVA formula (Gould, Gupta, Grabner-Krauter, 2000). Their second hypothesis (US consumers will be more accepting of product placements than will Austrian or French consumers) was also supported on a qualified basis (p. 11). For this study, the researchers compared general responses from all three test subjects. They found that Americans were generally more accepting of ethically and non-ethically-charged products than were Austrians (Gould, Gupta, Grabner-Krauter, 2000). Though Americans were generally more accepting of ethicallycharged products than were the French, both nations acceptance of non-ethicallycharged products did not concur with the chosen hypothesis (Gould, Gupta, GrabnerKrauter, 2000).

Product Placement

22

Ethics and regulation of product placement in film has proven to be a popular area of study for a number of researchers. The debate regarding the acceptability of tobacco use in film, alone, has garnered much attention. This, however, is not the only area of study that has been tackled in the field. Another cause for study is the recall and recognition of product placements by those who view them on the big screen. Recall and Recognition of Brands in Film Within the last decade, numerous researchers have heavily tested audience recall and recognition of brands in films. The majority of all research, however, lies with the moviegoers recall of brands in movies. Recall involves the ability to recollect what brands appeared in a film without being offered possible choices. In his 1987 study, Steortz concluded that effective communication exists between an audience and the placement of a brand in a film when 20% or more of the audience is aware of the product placement (cited in Babin & Carder, 1996). This theory leads to the idea of brand salience, or brand awareness, which has been tested with recall by several researchers. Alba and Chattopadhyay (1986) define brand salience as the prominence, or level of activation, of a brand in memory (cited in Karrh, 1994, p. 90). The effects of product placement on brand salience are discussed in studies conducted by several researchers who have claimed an interest in the study of product placement. In his 1994 study, Karrh tested the effects of product placement on brand salience with seventy-six undergraduate college students. Karrhs (1994) methods included having his test subjects screen clips of films and then answer open-ended and closed questions related to the subjects general impressions of the brands placed in the clips. Through his research, Karrh (1994) found that brand salience generally increased for

Product Placement those brands that were not known before screening the clips. Furthermore, it was con-

23

cluded that brand salience increases for brands that play a prominent role in a given film (Karrh, 1994). Comparable to Karrhs (1994) study, Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) similarly utilized film clips to test their hypothesis: subjects viewing a scene with a product placement will recall the product placed significantly more than a control group who saw the scene with no product embedded (p. 99). In order to test this hypothesis, Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) separated a set of test subjects from a control group. The test subjects viewed a clip from a film that was saturated with product placements. The control group viewed the same clip, but with the placements omitted. As a result, 95.8% of the test subjects recalled that a brand appeared in the clip, and 93% of the test subjects were able to correctly identify the brand (Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994). In 1995, Babin and Carder published a study that furthered the previous attempts made by Steortz (1987), Karrh (1994), and Vollmers and Mizerski (1994). Babin and Carder (1995) criticize Steortzs study because the researcher failed to use a control group upon completing it, leaving no platform from which to base (or compare) the test subjects results. In contrast, Karrh (1994) and Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) used control groups, but their studies were potentially flawed because they used film clips, rather than a complete film (Babin & Carder, 1995). In their study, Babin and Carder (1995) showed their sample of 108 test subjects the movie Rocky III (1982) in its entirety. The researchers first hypothesis was that brand salience of product placements would be higher among viewers of the film (test subjects) than those who did not view the film (control group). Following the screening, it was found that members of both groups were

Product Placement not aware of some of the placed brands (low brand salience). Thus, the hypothesis was not supported (Babin & Carder, 1995). In their continued research, Babin and Carder

24

(1995) hypothesized that viewers of the film would have more positive attitudes towards the product placements than those who did not screen the film as a part of the study. Since there were no significant differences among either group with their impressions of the placed brands, this hypothesis was not supported (Babin & Carder, 1995). In 1996, Babin and Carder returned with another study of product placement. Similar to their first study, the researchers chose to further utilize the Rocky film series. In this study, recognition (the ability to call to mind specific brands from a film once a series of options are provided) of brands placed in Rocky III (1982) and Rocky V (1990) were tested between two groups of undergraduate college students (a combined ninetyeight test subjects). Results from the study show that placements from Rocky III were more successfully recognized than those in Rocky V. Babin and Carder (1996) attempt to add a resolution to this finding by theorizing that placements were more effective in Rocky III because they are spread throughout the film, whereas in Rocky V the placements mostly occur within the first one third of the film, deeming them easily forgotten by the end of the screening. Furthermore, Babin and Carder (1996) cite that prominent versus subtle placements may play a part in audience recognition. According to the researchers, Rocky V features more creative placements, or subtle placements, that are not obtrusive on screen (Babin & Carder, 1996). In contrast, Rocky III utilizes more prominent placements, which may better command the audiences complete attention (Babin & Carder, 1996).

Product Placement Gupta and Lord (1998) agree with Babin and Carder (1996) that prominent placement aids in brand salience. In their study, Gupta and Lord (1998) found that

25

prominent placement garners higher audience recall. The researchers tested recall of subtle and prominent placements among 274 undergraduate students. Furthermore, the three modes of placement, including audio, visual, and audio-visual, were tested for recall. After screening three films, it was concluded that prominent placements warrant higher audience recall than subtle placements and that the audio mode (i.e. the verbal mention of a brand by name or slogan) will garner higher recall among viewers than will visual placement (Gupta & Lord, 1998). A majority of the aforementioned studies have added to the results found in the 1994 pioneering study by Ong and Meri. In it, the researchers surveyed moviegoers in movie cinemas after they had just viewed two different films. Ong and Meri (1994) found a generally positive attitude taken to product placement by the subjects. Many of the moviegoers favored product placement over more traditional means of advertising because it is less obtrusive in nature (Ong & Meri, 1994). The researchers learned from this study that audience recall of brands is not significant enough to have any influence on a persons consumer behavior (Ong & Meri, 1994). This may be due to the idea that many of the brands were not placed in scenes that best suited them. Furthermore, many of the brands were depicted in negative circumstances, possibly hindering ones recall of them (Ong & Meri, 1994). For example, Ong and Meri (1994) cite the placement of Huggies diapers in a drug store during a violent robbery in the movie Point of No Return (1993). Since the brand appears in such a violent scene, it is not being positively dis-

Product Placement

26

played in the film, thus possibly hindering its salience (Ong & Meri, 1994) among viewers. Similar to a product placements influence on an individual, the media, as a whole, influence their consumers in a plethora of ways. Consumer attitudes may be shaped because of the medias construction of hyper-reality and product placements influence on consumer behavior. Medias Influence on Consumer Attitudes Since their inception, media have been providing audiences with information, entertainment, and vehicles for persuasion. Each has produced some influential result on those who consume the media. Why and how the media affects their audiences is a complex area of study. The overlying complexities of a mediums influence help shape an individual in a variety of ways, including her or his consumer behavior. Product placement is just one of several practices by which an individual may be influenced to behave in a particular manner. Nebenzahl and Secunda (1993) found that a majority of the individuals that they studied prefer product placement and other non-obtrusive marketing tactics to traditional advertisements, like television commercials. Due to the consumers positive impressions of product placement and the ways particular brands are displayed or used in films, individuals may be coerced to behave in a specific manner regarding consumption. In their comprehensive analysis, Solomon and Englis (1994) tackle the issue of reality engineering. This is the process a marketer takes to manipulate an individuals views of social reality (Solomon & Englis, 1994). Reality engineering takes place among all media, including television, radio, film, and the Internet. Solomon and Englis (1994)

Product Placement

27

affirm that the medias consumers are not often acute to the process taken by marketers to represent reality in the media. The analysts state that very few, if any, audience members are aware of the behind-the-scenes efforts of public relations or advertising agencies whose goal is to engineer the social reality portrayed in these media vehicles of popular culture (Solomon & Englis, 1994, p. 1). One tool that is currently being utilized in this process is the placement of brands in films. According to Solomon and Englis (1994), product placement is viewed as an emerging vehicle that joins traditional advertising, merchandising, and public relations to help cloud the line between reality and hyperreality, medias version of what is real. Hirschman and Thompson (1997) cite how advertising has influenced the realm of entertainment media, such as television and film. The general idea that television exists to deliver audiences to advertisers, rather than to simply entertain the viewer, is upheld because programs are produced with a sponsor in mind (Hirschman & Thompson, 1997). According to the theorists, opportunities for audience consumption of brands are fostered with the inclusion of brands in film (Hirschman & Thompson, 1997). A number of analysts have debated whether consumers buying behaviors are influenced due to such factors. Each one focuses on a different aspect to prove or disprove product placements impact on consumer behavior. These include the study of test subjects and evaluations of brand liking (or brand affect) among consumers. In their 1994 study, Ong and Meri studied various moviegoers recall of product placements in films they just viewed (see Recall and Recognition of Brands in Film). Since audience recall was not strong, the researchers concluded that product placement might not weigh heavily on ones consumption practices.

Product Placement

28

Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) cite the potential impact that the exposure of product placement has on a viewers liking, or affect, of a brand. Since marketers are capable of ensuring that their brands appear in a positive manner in films, the viewer typically garners a positive reaction toward the brand (Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994). Mizerski and White (1986) stated that it is thought that this positive attitude would be later accessed by the consumer and lead to the purchase and consumption of the product (cited in Vollmers & Mizerski, 1994). In contrast, Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) tested brand affect among movie viewers and found that compared to a control group, the test subjects did not seem to favor any of the tested products. Product placement is just one practice that has been under scrutiny when considering the medias impact on consumer behavior. The practices role in the creation of film is a part of the industrys implementation of the reality engineering of the media. Whether or not the inclusion of brands in films influences consumers to purchase products has been the subject of some studies, but nothing has been determined. Conclusion The study of product placement in film is a complex one with a variety of considerations to be addressed. Despite the recent interest in the study of product placement, published reports, articles, and analyses cover a broad spectrum of the practices issues and concerns. These include studies and critiques of the types of product placements, cost, advantages and disadvantages, ethics and regulation, audience recall and recognition, and the practices influence over consumer behavior. Most studies address audiences perceptions of brands in film, whether it is its recall of brands or its general impressions of the practice.

Product Placement Though product placement is a relatively old practice, its study is recent. Few studies emerged that have been tested and accepted as landmark studies. These include Nebenzahl and Secundas 1993 study of consumers attitudes of the practice, Ong and

29

Meris 1994 study of audience recall, and Vollmers and Mizerskis 1994 study of brand salience. From these and other studies, numerous reports have been inspired and based. A majority of these analyses and studies, however, have focused primarily on test subjects in the same specific age range. Future research could include the study of a younger audience and its impressions of product placement. Furthermore, many of the existing studies test the practices unexplored angles, leaving few published reports that actually attempt to counter or support some of the previous studies. Perhaps future reports will address some of the currently researched issues to add validity and strength to existing theories. Likewise, the completion of further studies may counter current theories, demanding their careful scrutiny and deconstruction. Despite the relatively fresh study of product placement in film, the practices future examination will enhance the body of research and analysis that currently exists. For as long as Mildred Pierce serves Jack Daniels whiskey and James Bond drives a BMW, product placement will remain an issue of worthy consideration.

Product Placement Bibliography Babin, L. A. & Carder, S. T. (1995). Advertising via the box office: Is product placement effective? Journal of Promotion Management, 3 (1/2), 31-51. Babin, L. A. & Carder, S. T. (1996). Viewers recognition of brands placed within a Film. International Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 140-151. Basil, M.D. (1997). The danger of cigarette special placements in film and television. Health Communication, 9, 190-98. Buss, D. (1998). A product-placement hall of fame. Business Week [Online]. Available: http://www.businessweek.com/1998/25/b3583062.htm [2002, December 3]. DeLorme, D. E., Reid, L.N., & Zimmer, M. R. (1999). Moviegoers experiences and interpretations of brands in films revisited. Journal of Advertising, 28 (Summer), 71-95. InfoTrac OneFile A56337853 Everett, S.A., Schnuth, R.L., & Tribble, J.L. (1998). Tobacco and alcohol use in top-grossing American films. Journal of Community Health, 23, 317-24.

30

Gould, S.J., Gupta, P.B., & Grabner-Krauter, S. (2000). Product placements in movies: A cross-cultural analysis of Austrian, French, and American consumers attitudes toward this emerging, international promotional medium, Journal of Advertising, (Winter), 41-67. Govani, S. (1999). Product placement in movies: Is it really so bad? Christian Science Monitor, February 10, 1999, 11.

Product Placement Graser, M. (2002). Strike up the band for Cruise movie. Yahoo! News [Online]. Available:

31

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/variety/20020621/film_variety /film_minority_dc_1 [2002, June 21]. Gupta, P.B. & Gould, S.J. (1997). Consumers perceptions of the ethics and acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 14 (Spring), 37-50. Gupta, P.B. & Lord, K.R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20 (Spring), 47-59. Hirschman, E.C. & Thompson, C.J. (1997). Why media matter: Toward a richer understanding of consumers relationships with advertising and mass media. Journal of Advertising, 26 (Spring), 43-60. InfoTrac A19540159 Holbrook, M.B. & Hirschman. E.C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 132-140. Karrh, J.A. (1994). Effects of brand placements in motion pictures. Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, 1994, 182-188. Karrh, J.A. (1998). Brand placement: A review. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20 (Fall), 31-50. Kern, T. (2001). Commercial televi$ion. Snack Food & Wholesale Bakery, June 2001, 166.

Product Placement McClintock, P. (2002, November 14). Medics seek restrictive ratings for smoking movies. Yahoo! News [Online]. Available:

32

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=600&e=2&cid=598&u=/nm /20021114 [2002, November 14]. Macklem, K. (2002). Ready for your close-up, Pepsi. Macleans, August 12, 2002, 34-35. Nebenzahl, I.D. & Secunda, E. (1993). Consumers attitudes toward product placement in movies. International Journal of Advertising, 12(1), 1-11. Ong, B.S. & Meri, D. (1994). Should product placement in movies be banned? Journal of Promotion Management, 2 (3/4), 159-175. Poniewozik, J. (2001). This plugs for you. Time South Pacific, June 25, 2002, 56-57. Sargent, J.D., Tickle, J.T., Beach, M.L., Dalton, M.A., Ahrens, M.B., & Heatherton, T.F. (2001), Brand appearances in contemporary cinema films and contributions to global marketing of cigarettes, Lancet, 29-40. Snyder, S.L. (1992). Movies and product placement: Is Hollywood turning films into commercial speech? University of Illinois Law Review, 1992 (1), 301-37. Solomon, M.R. & Englis, B.G. (1994). Reality engineering: Blurring the boundaries between commercial signification and popular culture. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 16 (2), 1-17. Vollmers, S. & Mizerski, R. (1994). A review and investigation into the effectiveness of product placements in films. Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, 1994, 97-102.

Product Placement

33

Wasko, J., Phillips, M., & Purdie, C. (1993). Hollywood meets Madison Avenue: The commercialization of US films. Media, Culture & Society, 1993, 271-294.

Product Placement Appendix A

34

This ad appeared in the November 29, 2002 issue of Entertainment Weekly. It promotes the placement of a Ford Thunderbird in the 2002 James Bond film Die Another Day.

Product Placement Appendix B

35

This ad appeared in the November 27-December 17, 2002 issue of The Improper Bostonian. It promotes the placement of Finlandia vodka in the 2002 James Bond film Die Another Day.