We have come a long way from the Unilever’s first deliberate insertion of Sunlight Soap into the early Lumiere films of the late 1890’s (Gregorio and Sung 2010) to the point were today we would probably be more surprised if a film didn't include product placement (PP). Most of the movie blockbusters of the past few years have used PP to either fund parts of production or market the film through co branded advertising.
In recent years there has been a rise in films that use product placements heavily to subsidize the production of the movie such as Sex and The City (2008) and Hitch (2005). Both of these films use product placements shamelessly, whether they are there to add a sense of realism to the scene or as stealth advertising is irrelevant, the fact is that an increasing number of brands are placing products but with what consequences to consumer attitudes?
Before you do anything have a flick through this video.
Do we as the audience actually notice these placements as much as the advertisers think we do? Well I would probably say no, granted some of them are unavoidable like the use of Chevrolet in Transformers or Ford/Aston Martin in Bond but how many fly under the radar or merge into the background. Looking through that video above I tried to count how many brands were included in that montage but the truth is that PP is so rife that in some scenes you can easily over look a background brand. There is an ongoing discussion in the world of academia as to whether prominent or plot connected placements are as effective as previously thought. Supposedly background placements are more effective for long term recall but if we don't notice them surely they are good for nothing.
Product placement assumes that just seeing a product in a particular setting or scenario will increase awareness or desire to purchase the product. Surely though if a placement is too obvious and in your face it is going to have a negative effect on the audience who may feel that the brand is violating their enjoyment of the movie or program. It has got to the point now where if were not careful, films are going to become 2hr commercials for the big swingers in advertising. To make matter worse now we are going to see it in UK television as well.
It may seem from what I have said so far that I am against PP in a big way, I actually don't mind the practice provided that it is done tastefully but at the moment I believe that some of it is crossing that line. We are so used to products in films now that we often dismiss it as an unfortunate truth but how will we react to PP on our televisions. You are probably familiar with American Idols placement deal with Coca Cola (seen below), do these new rules mean that we will start to see a similar situation on the X Factor?
My big fear with this new wave of PP is that UK television will become just as bad as some of that in America. So long as ITV, Five, Sky and the others can keep this tasteful I won't mind. I find it interesting that the new UK regulations require programs that include PP to show a warning symbol at the beginning and end of ad breaks. Why has this not been the case in films over the past few years? There has been a call for some time now that films featuring PP show a warning at the start to caution audiences as to its presence. Why I wonder have they now decided to make this warning mandatory, is it warn people so they can choose to change channel or so they pay more attention and increase the effect of each placement?
I shall leave you to form your own opinions of whether or not we should be warned about PP or what the future holds for PP in UK programming. One final thought, David Lynch, the Oscar nominated director and his thoughts on the practice of product placement.
Gregorio, F., Sung, Y., 2010. Understanding Attitudes Toward and behaviors in response to product placement. Journal f Advertising. 39 (1). 84-96
No comments:
Post a Comment