Comments on: A New Frontier in Product Placement?

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:09:37 +0000

Jeanne, a strength of product placement is that most people don’t recognize it as a paid deal. They just see a product used in a show or a film and they don’t think about how or why it’s there. It’s just exposure and, in some cases, the glamour factor of having a product used by a star.
In a commercial, it may be a totally different thing, since people recognize commercials for what they are.

By: Jeanne

Jeanne — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:00:44 +0000

David,
Much of the public does not have a clue about any kind of placement, credible or not. It’s no secret, but I’d bet many haven’t read an article about this or heard a discussion. This is why it works.
But placements in commercials?. I don’t know. [Do I sound like the PR person I am?] As a teen who smoked, I thought I was the most sophisticated person in the universe. But I didn’t smoke Marlboro because of the man on the horse. I smoked because many of the movie stars looked so great posing with their cigarettes, smoke twirling this and that way. And friends smoked Marlboro.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:17:39 +0000

Kermit, I agree that in many cases product placement has gotten out of hand. To me, the most annoying, as I said in the post, is the blatant placement in Trump’s Apprentice series. To have The Donald touting the benefits of whatever product paid to be there has zero credibility, to me at least. But maybe some of those placements helped move product for a company.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:55 +0000

Bill, I think it can very easily get out of hand. The smarter marketers, if they venture into this area, will do it well, without being piggy about it.
Those that go overboard will either not have their ads accepted by the networks or else they’ll be so cluttered that they’ll lose their impact.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:11:46 +0000

By: KermitFan

KermitFan — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 18:00:40 +0000

I appreciate the role that product placement has in media these days. What I don’t appreciate, however, is the way that it plays out. Seems that you can’t watch any “reality-based” shows any more without seeing oodles of black electrical tape covering up logos from companies that haven’t paid. Or, my favorite is when they blur out the logos on apparel, etc. as people are walking along. The end result? I pay MORE attention to the logos that are being blurred than the logos that aren’t being blurred out…
Ugh, can’t we just get back to simply filming people and environments the way that they actually are, instead of having to edit them out “just in case” someone should spot a Nike logo on my shoes?

By: Anna Bella Stationery

Anna Bella Stationery — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:35:20 +0000

Product placement, from our point of view as a designer/manufacturer, is one of the best low cost, or free advertising options for us – we love it!
We even belong to a PR list that sends product placement leads for movies, TV and commercials
It’s been a crucial PR element for keeping our small business alive.

By: Bill Gammell

Bill Gammell — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:02:41 +0000

David,
This is very interesting and a trend that I could see increasing and evolving. In a time where ads are not as effective as they used to, do you think product placement in ads themselves will produce greater results than any one company could produce by themselves (the sum is greater than its parts) or will it just likely create more clutter and lack of credibility and trust?
What are your thoughts?

By: Bill Gammell

Bill Gammell — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:55:52 +0000

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:30:26 +0000

Thanks for the link. Boy did the M&M folks blow it.

By: GoingLikeSixty

GoingLikeSixty — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:21:30 +0000

Actually M & M’s turned down the placement in the movie.
There was no payment for placement, only for promotional tie ins. One of the best product placement deals ever.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/mandms.asp

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:33:56 +0000

Hi Lewis.
NASCAR is probably the king of product placement when you look at the cars and the drivers’ uniforms. There’s barely enough room for the team name or the driver name.
So it seems totally appropriate for NASCAR to do some product placement of its own with a ride in a UPS ad. But in that case, UPS already has a commercial tie with NASCAR, as a sponsor of a car.
I’m wondering if there are any other examples of totally unrelated brands getting visibility in someone else’s TV ad.

By: David Reich

David Reich — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:27:47 +0000

Thanks for the comment and the link, Pete. The examples you mention are interesting, although, as you say, Nissan didn’t pay Apple anything. Actually, it seems like Apple got the benefit and the free ride in that example.

By: Lewis Green

Lewis Green — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:09:57 +0000

David,
Thank you for the update regarding product placement. As more and more of us Tivo our way through TV, businesses need to continue to find new ways to show us their products.
NASCAR, for example, has teamed up with UPS in an indirect way, through one of its drivers. Dale Jarret’s car is sponsored by UPS, and during the races you can see Dale driving a UPS truck like only a NASCAR driver can. Good for UPS and good for NASCAR, as the ad targets those of us watching the race. While we may not ever pay attention to a UPS ad, put a NASCAR driver behind the wheel, and you’ve hooked us.
This doesn’t relate directly to product placement in the way you discuss it here, but it does relate in a more subtle way. (Or maybe not so subtle.)

By: Pete

Pete — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:05:28 +0000

Hi David - I don't think this is new either; look to coop ads from credit issuers in particular. But two more recent examples for your theory: Google/Pontiac and Apple/Nissan. I blogged about it here: http://www.beingpeterkim.com/2006/07/google_pontiac_.html