Ever since Reese’s Pieces made its way onto the big screen back in 1982 with our favorite extra terrestrial, E.T., product placement has blown up. From the TV we watch, to the video games we play and even the books we read, product placement has infiltrated entertainment.
Is anything wrong with what advertising executives like to call “product integration”? Is it really that detrimental to the creativity of the writers? Is it really that distracting? When James Bond hops in his Aston Martin wearing his Gucci shades and his Rolex watch, so what? He has to drive a car and he most definitely has to be stylish.
In the age of TiVo and downloaded movies and pirated CDs, the content creators are adapting to still meet their bottom line. If you won’t pay for music, they’ll advertise to you directly through that music. And if you don’t think there is product placement in music, you’ve got to wake up and smell the Folgers coffee. (Think back to the Black Eyed Peas lyric “Seven Jeans to Religion, I say no but they keep givin’.”) Now think to the cult favorite “Grey’s Anatomy.” I love the show too, but it’s just as bad as any. Remember when Denny was still alive? He and Izzie spent so much time together … playing Scrabble! Shameless “product integration” has made its way into everything we listen to or watch.
Is this really a bad thing? No. If it means I can now watch TV shows online commercial free, I’m game. If it means movies can now have triple the budget, go for it. Moderation is key, though. Viewers shouldn’t be inundated with products every scene. The plot shouldn’t be centered on the product.
But if a scene calls for a specific product, there is no reason a director should make up a fake product like “Duff Beer.” In ways the faux product is more distracting than a real brand. If a main character has to get drunk, then why not off Bud Light? If a Bond has to drive a car, why conceal the logo if a producer could make a cool million off showing it?
The terrific implausibility of some products makes me laugh all the time. I don’t think a Sony Ericsson phone that can’t even get the weather forecast is really going to be able to stream a 3-D building schematic from headquarters in Langley. Nor is a character in Thailand going to be driving a Toyota Scion (with a steering wheel that doesn’t even match the right side of the road).
The effectiveness of product placement is widely varied and hard to determine. Some experts argue it’s the most effective way of advertising while others think product placement doesn’t even catch the audiences’ attention. The “E.T.” example boosted sales of Reese’s Pieces by 65 percent. Back then the cost to put the candy in the movie was nominal. Today, when it costs Matel upwards of a million dollars to get our favorite characters at Seattle Grace Hospital playing Scrabble, how much value are these product placements yielding? In the industry, that question is up in the air, but for consumers it doesn’t really matter. We get our shows, books, music and video games at a better quality than ever before. We really only have to deal with a Pizza Hut billboard in the background of a shot or a character working on an Apple computer.
If it pays the bills and keeps movies pumping out of Hollywood there is nothing wrong with shameless product placement. My only concern is how far it will go. Let’s just hope we don’t see Captain Jack Sparrow brushing his teeth with Aquafresh.
(Oh, and Aston Martin , Gucci, Budweiser, Sony, Folgers and Scrabble can all send their product compensation to me at the Emerald newsroom.)
[email protected]