Product Placement

Emily Parker Professor Dominic Caristi Telecommunications 306 2 December 2009 Product Placement in Today’s Society Time isn’t standing still and neither is the evolution of technology. In a society where things are constantly changing and improving, advertisers have no choice but to change too. The birth of advertising brought a never-ending competition between businesses and the products they offer. As technology changes, advertisers work to find a way to reach their target market. But what happens when technology discoveries allow consumers to watch what they want, when they want and even gives them the ability to skip all the advertisements? Product placement happens. In other words, advertisers still find a way to reach their target market without the standard commercial breaks. Product placement isn’t a new concept by any means, but the frequency of it’s existence is growing and giving advertisers one more way to compete, spend money and ultimately reach that sacred target market. Michael Pollick described a familiar set of images that society often refers to as product placement. “There is a reason why the hero was drinking Pepsi, the bad guys were driving a Federal Express truck and the crash scene was a Starbucks coffee shop” (Pollick). As the frequency of product placement increases, producers can utilize this as a source for trade or revenue. “Product placement is an advertising technique in which companies pay or provide services in exchange for a prominent display of their product” (Pollick). When products are used in programs it can be considered product placement or just an aspect of the plot; however, the difference between something that is just a prop and product placement is being debated more and more. According to Burt Helm and Tom Lowry, the advertisers hope consumers make connections between their favorite

Parker actors and the products they favor “and that might change your behavior the next time

2

you’re thirsting for a beer or contemplating a new ride” (Helm and Lowry). Product placement is all over television and movies and it is becoming an important part of almost every program. N.E. Marsden admits that some use of product placement is necessary to add a sense of realism to a program “that a can simply labeled ‘soda’ cannot do” (Marsden). Some examples of product placement are blatant and don’t bother attempting to be subtle. Well-known example is the product placement of Coca-Cola in the hit TV program American Idol. “In last season’s American Idol, Nielsen counted 4,349 product placement occurrences” (“American Idol Product Placement”). Of course American Idol isn’t the only program utilizing product placement. Extreme Makeover: Home Edition remodels a house each episode and stocks the home with every appliance imaginable from Sears. Sex and the City character Carrie Bradshaw never completes an episode without a journal entry typed on her Apple computer. Finally, it seems the only way Oprah knows how to communicate with anyone not on her stage is via Skype (Marsden). The popular saying, “Nothing in life is free” rings true when it comes to product placement. As more digital video recorders make their way into American homes, advertisers will be forced to stray from the conventional advertising method to reach that target market (Helm and Lowry). After the second quarter of 2009, the amount of product placement instances rose 8% from the same period in 2008 (Helm and Lowry). According to NextMedium, 87% of advertisers foresee product placement being the number one way to reach consumers in the coming year (“Product Placement Effectiveness”). Although product placement is expected to increase, its current role in today’s programming is far from small. It was in season six of American Idol that Nielsen counted 4,349 product placement occurrences. For promotion that intense, the price Coca-Cola paid is relative. “The phrase ‘millions of dollars’ actually refers to $26 million

3

Parker per integration/sponsorship deal. Yes, that means that each company, AT&T, Coca-Cola, and Ford all dished out 26 million dollars” (“American Idol”). This is only a portion of the immense amount of product placement taking place in today’s programming. According to Helm and Lowry, the total revenue expected for product placement in 2010 will exceed 10 billion dollars. As with most issues, product placement is experiencing controversy. Corie Wright, lawyer and policy adviser for Free Press, a nonprofit activist group spoke of product placement and stated, “It’s egregious and deceptive. Product placement doesn’t allow us to have the usual veil of skepticism we have when we watch a standard commercial” (Helm and Lowry). The idea that consumers are being lied to, forced to believe a character actually uses a particular product and all without the slightest thought of it being an advertisement doesn’t sit well with some people. Marsden argues that product placement interrupts creative expression and is a deliberate response to payment. Whether or not a producer truly created the protagonist as a daily Cheerios eater or received payment to make it seem that way, the judgment of most situations remains in the grey area (Marsden). On the other hand, some believe product placement is completely ethical and see no reason to establish any regulations on the unconventional form of advertising. Pollick expressed his opinion on product placement through his statement about the nature of its truthfulness. “There’s truth and then there’s truth. And if you’re trying to impress different people, do you tell different truths”? If it is true that commercial media were born with a sales mission, than product placement is simply following suit and adapting to the advances in technology (“Product Placement Effectiveness”). The controversy related to product placement has brought the idea to the forefront and attention of the government and media regulators. The future of product placement is unknown, but some regulations have been implemented and more are in the works.

Parker According to John Eggerton’s article, Coalition Calls on FCC to Crack Down on

4

Product Placement, currently it is required by the FCC that product placements be disclosed at the beginning or end of a program. “Similar sponsorship identification disclosures are required on broadcast television, but the notices are buried in the credits, too small, too fleeting and too obscure ‘promotional consideration provided by’ to be effective” (Eggerton, “Coalition Calls”). I f the FCC continues to regulate product placement, the disclosure may not be enough. Dan Jaffee, from the Association of National Advertisers, doesn’t agree with this new idea. “The suggestions that there should be a crawl or pop-up whenever product placement is put forward is not only disruptive of the TV experience, but it is almost certainly an unconstitutional requirement as more extensive than necessary” (Eggerton, “Coalition Calls”). Another idea suggested protects the rights of children by forcing a program to be labeled as product integration. “Parents have a right to know who is doctoring the programs their children watch, and citizens have a responsibility to hold companies accountable for their marketing practices. But without full transparency, the public is in the dark and youths are at risk” (Marsden). If parents were able to know what programs included product placement, they could completely ban them from their televisions. The concept of product placement is evolving due to a constant change in technology and media. Consumers are skipping traditional advertisements with DVR and other technologies, advertisers are using product placement to continue reaching their target market and the FCC is attempting to protect the rights of consumers while maintaining a successful division of entertainment. The amount of product placement will continue to grow and advertisers will spend more and more money to win the competition. That is until technology changes again or the FCC puts a stop to product

5

Parker placement. The future of product placement is unknown and there’s no fast-forwarding to the end of this episode.

Works Cited "American Idol Product Placement - Nielsen Counts." Product Placement News. Ed. Jeff Greenfield. 26 May 2008. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. . Eggerton, John. "Coalition Calls on FCC to Crack Down on Product Placement." Broadcasting & Cable. Reed Business Information, 24 Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2009. . Eggerton, John. "Warning: TV Content Controls on the Table." Broadcasting & Cable. Reed Business Information, 25 Apr. 2009. Web. 29 Nov. 2009. . "FCC May Crack Down on Product Placement in TV Shows." Institute for Global Ethics: Promoting Ethical Action in a Global Context. Ethics Newsline, 30 June 2008. Web. 01 Dec. 2009. . Helm, Burt, and Tom Lowry. "Blasting Away at Product Placement." Business Week 26 Oct. 2009:

Parker

2

60. LexisNexis® Academic. Web. 29 Nov. 2009. Marsden, N. E. "What TV Shows Are Really Selling." The Washington Post 30 Oct. 2009, Regional ed., sec. A: 19. LexisNexis® Academic. Web. 29 Nov. 2009. Pollick, Michael. "What is Product Placement." WiseGEEK. Conjecture Corp., Apr. 2009. Web. 1 Dec. 2009. . "Product Placement Effectiveness and Growth." NextMedium.com. NextMedium Inc., Aug. 2008. Web. 1 Dec. 2009. .