Product Placement On Movies

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE
IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT ON MOVIES
Viewers Attitudes Toward Ethical, Economic and

Creative Implications of Product Placement on Movies

ABSTRACT
It has been established by a plethora of studies that movies are powerful
vehicles in shaping and reshaping culture across the globe. Fortunately or
unfortunately, the marketers around the world are all aware of such power attributed
to movies. This is exactly one of the reasons marketers and advertisers are now
exerting much effort to place their clients products on movies in order to find a
solution to the problem posed by the digital video recording that allows viewers to
zap more than they ever do.

This study started with a comprehensive review of literature about product placement
then concluded with findings from a qualitative research conducted using one-shot
survey and four sets of online focus group discussions (FGDs). Qualitative design was
used in order to generate new thoughts from the participants who watch films
through cinemas, VCDs, or DVDs. The results suggest that the participants, who think
product placement makes movies more realistic, find nothing unethical about product
placement but they suggested that movies for kids and other films which are about
war, politics, nature, environment, and social awareness should not contain any
branded products. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page numbers
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
LITERATURE REVIEW
1
3
Product Placement: What Started it All 3

Types of Product Placement 10
Movies with Product Placement 11
The Economic Impact of Product Placement:
Is it Worth its Worth? 15
Behind the Scenes: Why Advertisers and Marketers
Favor Product Placement 19
Product Placements Impact on the Creative
Aspect of Movie Making 20
The Ethical Implication of Product Placement 22

THE METHODOLOGY 26
The Online Focus Groups 26
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
27
The Profile of the Respondents 27

Did the Respondents Notice Product
Placement?
30
Branded Product Recall 31
Attitudes Toward the Economic Implication
of Product Placement on Movies 34
Attitudes Toward the Creative Implication
Attitudes Toward the Ethical Implication
CONCLUSION
49
RECOMMENDATIONS 51
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
Questionnaire

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Advantages of Product Placement 4
Table 2:
Disadvantages of Product Placement 9
Table 3:
Examples of Branded Products Featured
in Famous Films during the 90s and the 80s 12
Table 4:
Featured Brands on Movies Released in 2008 13 15

LIST OF FIGURES
Age Distribution of Respondents
27
Gender Distribution of Respondents
28
Frequency of Film Viewing
28
Theater
28
VCD
29
DVD
30
Did you notice product placement

in movies youve watched?
31
Branded Product Recall
32
Attitudes Toward the Economic Implication

of Product Placement on Movies
34, 35, 36
Attitudes Toward the Creative Implication

36, 39, 40
Attitudes Toward the Ethical Implication

41, 43

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ETHICAL,

ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCT
PLACEMENT IN MOVIES
INTRODUCTION
The history of television and films is a witness to the fast changes and development
that happened to an advertising strategy which at first, was just another advertising technique
but later became controversial. Product placement is nothing new (Belch & Belch 413). In
essence, product placement or brand placement is a paid exposure of products on television
shows, films or video games (McPherson) which aim to influence audience members without
necessarily identifying the sponsors (qtd. in Balasubramanian, Karrh & Patwardhan) for the
purpose of increasing brand awareness and demand on the product (McPherson). Aside from
awareness and increase in demand, product placement also aims to create a favorable atmosphere
or positive associations toward the placed brand, resulting in a positive shift in brand attitude
(Cowley & Barron).
Studying product placement and its huge ability to create brand awareness is almost
no longer optional but a must for marketers who wish to make a brand be known to a large
number of audience coming from around the globe. For example, the manufacturers of BMW
and Omega are very much aware that product placement can do more than what the traditional
methods of advertising do. Product placement can actually build up a particular brand (StewartAllen).
For the giants in the film industry, particularly the Hollywood, and for the product
owners who save much through product placement, nothing is actually wrong with the practice.
However, for some groups which claim concern for the youth, the children and for all who are

caught unaware of this practice, product placement is simply stealth advertising or embedded
advertising (La Ferle & Edwards) that has ethical, economic and creative implications that need
to be addressed before the consumers become desensitized of this controversial practice in the
world of marketing, advertising and media.
As product placements continue to become next-to-traditional media in terms of
advertising, it is of paramount importance for marketers to study the situation in order for them
to make sound decisions on the implications in the marketing arena of the booming practice of
product placement, particularly in movies.
Some viewers find product placement acceptable although with the exemption of
ethically-charged products (Hudson, Hudson & Peloza 299; Gould, Gupta & Grabner-Krauter
43). Some viewers think that product placement is cheating and therefore should be totally
banned (qtd. in Gould, Gupta & Grabner-Krauter 43).
This paper attempts to derive sound conclusions from the comprehensive review of the
plethora of studies and literature that discusses the ethical, economic and creative implications of
product placement particularly in movies.
Using a qualitative study, particularly through online focus-group discussions (FGDs), and oneshot survey, the researcher intends to do introspection on the viewers attitudes toward the
ethical, economic and creative implications of product placement in movies.

americancopywriter.typepad.com
www.tastymadness.com
LITERATURE REVIEW
Product Placement: What Started it All
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines product placement as a form of

promotion in which advertisers insert branded products into programming in exchange for fees
or other consideration (qtd. in Hoffman).
Product placement has been practiced since the 1930s. In the 1950s, soap operas featured
product placement. However, the history of television and film considers the success of Reeses
Pieces in ET: The Extra Terrestrial in 1982 as the turning point in product placement for
television and film (Welsh 14; Balasubramanian, Karrh, & Patwardhan 118; Mc Pherson).
The early forms and methods of product placement were no big deal then. However, the
skyrocketing number of manufacturers and producing who resort to product placement has
caused an alarm among certain societal groups (Belch & Belch 433). From 2003 to 2004, there
was an increase of 46.4 percent on the use of product placement (432).
It was reported in Belch
& Belchs Advertising and Promotion book that by the second quarter of 2005, the ten most
frequently exposed brands on TV did their appearance 6,077 times, not to mention that the top
ten shows contained 11,579 placements (433). Indeed, placements have become too obvious
that it is quite impossible not to notice them.
Although it is already widely practiced, according to Ellen Neuborn, product placement remains
uncharted territory because unlike other forms of advertising, product placement does not
involve standard rate cards. This implies that the practice itself is open either to criticism or to
standardization.

Despite the controversy surrounding product placement on movies, Belch & Belch cited
several advantages of product placement.
Advantages of Product Placement

1. Exposure
2. Frequency
3. Support for other media
4. Source association
5. Cost
Belch, G. & Belch, M. Advertising and

An Integrated Marketing Communications
[7th ed] US: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Figure 1
ADVANTAGES OF
PLACEMENT
First of all, with
product can reach a
6. Recall
Promotion:
Perspective.
2007.
7. Bypassing regulation
8. Acceptance
9. Targeting
PRODUCT
product placement, the
large number of people
over a long period of time. An average film which is estimated to have a life span of three and a
half years would actually yield 75 million exposures (Belch & Belch 434). This exposure is
strengthened by the fact that moviegoers are captive audience members (qtd. in De Lorme &
Raid). As such, they went to the movie house with the anticipation that they are expected to

exert effort in decoding messages they see on screen. Making it more interesting is the fact that
the movie houses or theaters are designed to make the viewers focused the dark environment,
the almost-deafening sound and the way the chairs are arranged all contribute to the
atmosphere allowing the viewers to pay special attention to the movie. Even when viewers
watch the film in DVDs, they are still considered as captive audience who pays attention to the
movie, considering that they bought or rented the film for deliberate viewing. All these factors
make product placement favorable to the manufacturers.
The second factor is frequency, referring to the number of times a particular viewer
watches a film. Normally, some viewers expose themselves to a film more than once (Belch &
Belch 434). This gives the product more exposure to one viewer. This number of times a viewer
sees the product is even multiplied by the number of times a product appears in the movie.
Third, product placement, at times, is supported by other media. The tie-ins between the
producer and the product manufacturer include promoting the product and the movie in different
media venues. Again, this allows more chances for the product to reach the target market (Belch
& Belch 434).
Another important advantage of product placement is source association. This happens
when a particular brand is seen used by a celebrity. For some reasons, there are viewers who get
affected by the personality of the celebrity using or even just holding the product (Belch & Belch
436). . For example, kids may easily associate Dominos Pizza with the Teenage Mutant Ninja
Turtles. In the movie, the star turtles openly order pizza when theyre hungry. With the ninja
turtles as the stars in the film, the viewers might readily accept that Dominos Pizza is the star in
the pizza-delivery business.

If the volume of exposure will be considered, then, product placement promises low
CPM or cost per thousand (Belch & Belch 436). For marketers and manufacturers, the lower the
CPM, the better it is in business.
Product placements, due to wide coverage and multiple exposures per person, promise
better recall, as opposed with products which are advertised on television. With the
advertisement clutter on TV, the movie product placement seems to be more promising (Belch &
Belch 436).
Another advantage cited by Belch & Belch is the fact that product placements, in a way,
are capable of bypassing some laws which apply to traditional advertising. For example,
liquor and cigarettes have opportunities to be promoted to the viewers without the manufacturers
getting penalized. If done on primetime television, this is a clear violation of FCC rules (436).
Finally, Belch & Belch mentioned that with product placements, the choice of movie can
already guarantee effective reach potential because definitely, the marketers would only place
ads on movies targeting the potential customers of the product (436).
Added to the list by Belch & Belch are more reasons cited by Cowley and Barron.
According to them, unlike television advertisements that make zapping possible, product
placement provides a scenario which the viewers wont be able to avoid exposure to. To miss a
scene that promotes a particular product means that the viewers will also miss a certain part of
the story and they would not want that to happen. Therefore, the inevitability of product
placement is one of its strengths.

Media technology like DVDs, or any other digital video recorders like TiVo allow the
viewers to avoid commercials more than they ever do (Belch & Belch, 413; The Hidden
Persuader). Advertisers are aware of this so they have to find another niche where they could
actually communicate the message to the target consumers without the fear of being ignored or
avoided. The film industry matched with product placement is the best solution (413) that
marketers, producers and manufacturers see. Moreover, producers, according to Belch &
Belch, believe that using existing products in movies can actually add to a sense of realism to
the movie (413). This is because real people, after all, use real products so a more real setting is
created with the use of real and existing products in the movie (qtd in Lorme & Reid).
However, this claim is refuted, in an interview, by Mark Crispin Miller, a professor from New
York University. According to Miller, product placement is a form of commercialism that
distorts the whole filmmaking process (5). Miller said that there is a big difference between a
world of products that looks like the world we live in and the world of products thats based on
placement (8). Miller contradicted the idea of adding sense of realism to the movie. In fact,
Miller finds product placement very unrealistic because it makes the product look glamorous
and heavenly (8).

The example Miller gave was the love scene in the movie Armageddon showing Liv Tyler and
Ben Affleck in a romantic mood but the camera pans to the branded animal
cracker which was being held by the actor in the scene (8). It also showed the
box of the branded animal cracker strategically placed beside the pair of
shoes of the actor.
AJ (Ben Affleck): You know what Im thinking right

now?
Grace (Liv Tyler): What?
AJ: I really don't think that the animal cracker
qualifies as a cracker
Grace: Why ?
AJ: Well 'cause it's sweet which to me suggests
cookie... and you know I think putting cheese on
something is sort of a
defining characteristic Of what makes a cracker a
cracker I don't know why I thought of that I just...
Grace : Baby... you have such sweet pillow talk.
AJ: If you had like little animal cracker Discovery
Channel thing Watch the gazelle as he graze's through
the open plains And now look... as the cheetah...
approaches. Watch as he stalks his
prey Now the gazelle has looked spooked and he could
head north... to the mountainous peeks above. He
could go south... The gazelle now faces man's
most perilous question north... or... South Way down.
Tune in next week
Grace : Baby do you think it's possible that anyone else
in the world is doing this very same thing at this very
same moment?
AJ: I hope so Otherwise what the hell are we trying to
save?

The advantages cited give the advertising industry more opportunities to set its eyes on the
movie industry as the most responsive and most viable method of reaching the target market
without the hassle of zapping, zipping and clutter and unavoidable
negative perception of the viewers on the traditional methods of
advertising. However, the concept of product placement does not offer
perfections. This means that it also has several disadvantages which are
listed on the given table.
Disadvantages of Product Placement

1. High absolute cost
2. Time of exposure
3. Limited appeal
4. Lack of control
5. Public reaction
Belch, G. & Belch, M.
An Integrated
[7th ed] US:
Table 2
Advertising and Promotion:

Marketing Communications Perspective.
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2007.
6. Competition
DISADVANTAGES OF USING
PRODUCT
7. Negative placements
8. Clutter
PLACEMENT

First, Belch & Belch cited that despite the low CPM for product placement, the absolute cost is
actually high due to the involved cross-promotions (436).
Second, there is a possibility that the viewers wont even notice the product, unless the
camera zooms in on the brand name or perhaps unless the main character plugs the products.
Third, the movie does not allow detailed advertising like informing the target market of
the features of the product. It cannot accommodate a marketing pitch that talks about the product
benefits.
Fourth, the expectation of the manufacturer in the placements of the product in the movie
may not materialize due to some limitations that manufacturers have no control over (438). For
instance, Belch & Belch cited what happened to Brut when it placed its brand on a certain movie.
Brut cologne was placed in a movie which was expected to be out by December but was delayed
to February (438).
Another disadvantage is that product placement creates public reaction, and many of
these are not favorable to the movie industry. Many groups are apprehensive of the idea of
embedding an ad in a film (Belch & Belch 438). The producer and the brand owner must be
ready to answer the opposing and challenging societal concerns arising from the product
placement which is becoming more apparent in todays films.
With the skyrocketing number of movies injecting brands in their content, competition
may make it tough or tougher for marketers to penetrate the movie that they select to carry their
product. Competition, just like in traditional media, becomes tighter and more challenging
(438).
Belch & Belch also cited negative placement as a possibility that may be seen as a
disadvantage. The example given by Belch & Belch was also cited Susan Douglas of the

University of Michigan in an interview with the Media Education Foundation in 2000.
According to them, negative placement happens in the movie Missing, which was produced by
Columbia Pictures, which is also owned by Coca-cola. In the movie, which is about a murder
case, the logo of Pepsi was noticeably used as background in the scene that showed the bad
guys. On the other hand, Coca-cola was strategically placed on scenes that showed the
Americans, the so-called good guys in the film (7). This negative placement can have much
impact on how the viewers perceive both cola: Coke and Pepsi.
Lastly, tie-ins between the movie industry and the for-profit sectors could create clutter
(438), which can soon make product a sore in the eyes of the viewers.
Types of Product Placement
Hudson, Hudson & Pelosa divided placement into two general types:
Implicit and explicit
(291). Implicit placement is generally not intrusive. For example, in the movie Spider-man,
Spider-man was seen fighting with the antagonist on top of a Carlsberg truck. It subtly promotes
the brand Carlsberg but it doesnt have anything to do with the story in the movie. This is not a
new formula in a superhero-starred movie. In the 1980s, the movie Superman II showed the
superhero himself and the antagonist in a fight scene taking place in the Marlboro truck.
Explicit placement, on the other hand, allows marriage between the script and the brand.
Hudson, Hudson & Pelosa gave the movie I Am Sam as an example of movie containing explicit
placement (291). In the movie, the main actor works at Starbucks. In this case, the brand of
coffee shop does not just serve as backdrop but as a major part of the story where some
important scenes developed (The Persuader).


Movies with Product Placement
The list of movies which include product placement, which may be implicit or explicit, seems to
be endless because this concept is being practiced for decades now. The Media Education
Foundation analyzed movies which implicitly or explicitly used brands in movies, particularly
during the 1980s, the 1990s and early 21st century. Also, brandchannel.com has a detailed list of
movies during the 21st century, from 2001 to the present year showing the featured brands on the
movies. In its list, it is apparent that most movies released feature several brands.
MOVIES
PRODUCTS/BRANDS
Source
ET- The Extra Terrestrial

(1982)
3 Men and a Baby (1987)
Reeses Pieces; Coca-Cola
Baby Boom (1987)

Tequila Sunrise (1988)
Days of Thunder (1990)
License to Kill (1989)
Demolition Man (1993)
For Love of the Game (1999)
Back to the Future (1985)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle
(1990)
Ghostbusters (1984)
Good Will Hunting (1997)
Summer of Sam (1999)
The Thomas Crown Affair
(1999)
Wild at Heart (1990)
Armageddon (1998)
Bowfinger (1988)
At First Sight (1999)
Happy Gilmore (1996)
Youve Got Mail (1998)
Huggies
Cuervo Gold
Exxon
Larks Cigarette
Taco Bell
V-8 Juice
Pepsi
Dominos Pizza, Pepsi
American Marketing
Association (AMA)
Media Education
Foundation (MEF)
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
Miller , Coca-Cola
Dunkin Donuts
Pepsi
Pepsi
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
Marlboro
Animals Cracker
FedEx
Coca-Cola
Subway
Starbucks, AOL, NY Times
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF
MEF; AMA
Pampers
Figure 3
EXAMPLES OF BRANDED PRODUCTS FEATURED IN FAMOUS FILMS

DURING THE 80s AND THE 90s

FEATURED BRANDS ON MOVIES RELEASED IN 2008
MOVIES
The Dark Knight
Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Hancock
WALL-E
Get Smart
The Incredible Hulk
Kung Fu Panda
Sex and the City
FEATURED BRANDS
Bang & Olufsen, Belstaff, Bentley, Dodge, Ford, Harris Bank,
Lamborghini, Magnum Products, Mercedes, MV Agusta, Nokia,
Powerball, Scottrade, Volkswagen Beetle
Ford, Iams, Regal Entertainment Group, Tecate
BMW, Cadillac, Capitol Records, Chevrolet, Christian Dior,
Coca-Cola, Dasani, Datascope, Dodge, Dunkin' Donuts,
Everest, FedEx, Fitovers, Ford, Greenpeace, Headline News,
Jiffy Pop, Kenworth, Korean Air, Macalester College,
McDonald's, Mercedes, Motorola, Nike, Polar Air Cargo, RayBan, Sony, Sony VAIO, Spalding, Sprite, State Farm, Swatch,
Wells Fargo, Wish-Bone, YouTube, Zagnut
Apple, NASA, Playmate, Rubik's Cube, Zippo
Apple, BMW, Cadillac, Chanel, Dell, Disney, Ernst & Young,
Ferrari, Ford, Freightliner, GMC Yukon, Land Rover, LG,
Lincoln, L'Oreal, Lumber Liquidators, Magnum (gun),
Mercedes, Nike, Post-It Notes, Rimowa, Sierra Mist, SIG
Sauer, Sky Mall, Subway, Sunbeam (car), Verizon, Vespa,
Victorinox Swiss Army, Visa, Volkswagen Beetle, Walther
Amstel, Apollo Theater, BlackBerry, Budweiser, Chevrolet,
Coca-Cola, Dell, Ford, Harvard University, Hummer, Iron
Man, Jeep, Norton, Ortobom, Panasonic, Pingo Doce, Polar,
Pringles, Ray-Ban, Sharp, Symantec, Volkswagen
NONE
Adidas, American Airlines, Apple, Bag Borrow or Steal, Bang
& Olufsen, BlackBerry, Bluefly, Botox, Buddakan, Burberry,
Carolina Herrara, Cartier, Chanel, Christian Dior, Christian
Lacroix, Christian Louboutin, Christie's, Clean & Clear,
Crayola, Cuisinart, Cup Noodles, Dell, Desert Pepper Trading
Co., Diane von Furstenberg, Dove, Duane Reade, e.p.t.,
Entertainment Weekly, Escada, Ford, Four Seasons, Garnier
Fructis, Gucci, Harvard University, Heinz, Hello Kitty, Henri
Bendel, Herms, Hershey's, HSBC, IWC, Jergens, Junior's,
KeyFood, Kit Kat, Lanvin, Lincoln, L'Oreal, Louis Vuitton,
Lumi, M&M's, Manhattan Mini Storage, Manolo Blahnik, Marie
Claire, Mercedes, Merrill Lynch, MetLife, Montegrappa,
Motorola, Netflix, New York Magazine, New York Post, New
York Public Library, Nike, Nivea, Oscar de la Renta, Page Six,
Pantene, Piazza Sempione, Post-It Notes, Prada, Pret a
Manger, Princeton University, Roger Vivier, S. Pellegrino,
Salvatore Ferragamo, Scoop, Skyy, Smartwater, Sony, Sprint,
Starbucks, Swarovski, Tiffany & Co., TV Guide, U-Haul,
Uniden, Van Cleef & Arpels, Vera Wang, Versace,
VitaminWater, Vivienne Westwood, Vogue, Wall Street
Journal
(Source: http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_films.asp?movie_year=2008#movie_list

MOVIES
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom
of the Crystal Skull
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince
Caspian
Iron Man
Baby Mama
The Forbidden Kingdom

Prom Night
21
Horton Hears a Who!

10,000 BC
FEATURED BRANDS
Chrysler, Clorox, Ford, Good Humor Ice Cream, HarleyDavidson, New Britain Transportation, Pabst Blue Ribbon, Pan
American Airways, Spam
Daily Express
Apple, Audi, Blthner, Brown University, Bulgari, Burger
King, Cadillac, Cadillac Escalade, Caesars Palace, Chevrolet,
Cisco, CNBC, Dell, Dolce & Gabbana, Esquire, Forbes, Ford,
Goodyear, LG, M.I.T., Maxim, MySpace, Newsweek, Nissan,
Operation, Perrier, Persol, Ray-Ban, Rolling Stone, Rolls
Royce, Saleen, Segway, Shelby, Tesla, Texaco, The Apogee
Foundation, U.S. Air Force, University of California,
Berkeley, Vanity Fair, Verizon, Voss, Wired
7-Eleven, American Idol, Apple, Audi, Blimpie, Boo Boo
Busters, Budweiser, Clif Bar, Coca-Cola, Deer Park, Doctors
Without Borders, Dogswell, Dr. Pepper, Exxon, Forbes,
Infiniti, Jamba Juice, Marriott, Maytag, Mazda, Motorola,
Pam, Penn State University, Perrier, Persol, Philadelphia
Eagles, Pringles, Red Bull, Red Vines, Rolling Rock, S.
Pellegrino, Sega, Sharp, Silk, Sony, Suzuki, Tastykake, Terra
Chips, USA Today, White Castle, Yamaha
American Express, Boston Bruins, Boston Red Sox, Enyce,
MasterCard, Tennessee Titans, Xbox
Brown University, Ford, GMC, Jones Soda, Klonopin, Life &
Style Weekly, Midol, Samsung
Bally's Hotel and Casino, Beefeater Gin, Bombay Sapphire,
Budweiser, Caesars Palace, Casino Royale and Hotel, Cathay
Corner, Chrysler, Circus Circus Casino, Dunkin' Donuts,
Everlast, Freitag, GMC, Grey Poupon, Gucci, Hard Rock Cafe,
Harvard University, Jansport, Lincoln, Louis Vuitton, M.I.T.,
Mandalay Bay Casino, MGM Grand, Mirage Casino, Monte
Carlo Casino, Palms Hotel and Casino, Pepsi, Planet
Hollywood, Pony, Red Rock Casino, Reebok, Republic, Rio All
Suite Hotel and Casino, Samuel Adams, Sony PlayStation,
Sunplus Technology, The Boston Language Institute, The
Riviera Hotel and Casino, Treasure Island Casino, Twinkies,
VitaminWater, Volkswagen
NONE
NONE

MOVIES
Semi-Pro
Vantage Point
Jumper
Fools Gold
Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus:

Best of Both Worlds Concert Tour
Meet the Spartans
Cloverfield
The Bucker List
National Treasure: Book of

Secrets
FEATURED BRANDS
adidas, Budweiser, Busch, Cadillac, Converse, Denver
Nuggets, Hitachi, Indiana Pacers, NBA, New Jersey Nets,
Penthouse, PUMA, San Antonio Spurs, Shasta, Sports
Illustrated
Chevrolet, Dasani, Mercedes, Perrier, Peugeot, Sony, Sony
Ericsson, Sony VAIO, Volkswagen Beetle
Alitalia, Apple, Aquafina, Armani, Budweiser, Carhartt,
Delta, DODA, Dodge Magnum, Emigrant Savings Bank, Epson,
Ford, Houlihan's, Jeep, Marvel, McDonald's, Mercedes,
Meridian, MetLife, NBA, Nokia, NY1, Oprah Winfrey,
Quiksilver, Samsung, Sierra Mist, Tanqueray, The North Face,
University of Michigan, USA Today, Verbatim, Visa
Apple, Arby's, Budweiser, Bushnell, Chris Craft, Dive Rite,
Eve's Addiction, Frito Lay, Howard Johnson, Kalik, Mapquest,
Mares, National Enquirer, OK! Magazine, Piaggio, Rip Curl,
Sony PlayStation, Tabasco, T-Mobile
adidas, Aropostale, Alesis, Apple, Baldwin, BMW, CocaCola, Converse, Nike, Range Rover, Sabian, Yamaha
American Idol, Apple, Barbie, Black & Decker, Boost Mobile,
Botox, Cadillac Escalade, Chanel, Chevrolet, Coca-Cola,
Dentyne, Dummies, Gatorade, Grey Goose, Hooters, JDate,
Krispy Kreme, MySpace, Neutrogena, Nintendo, Palms Hotel
and Casino, Pedigree, Red Bull, Subway, UPS, YouTube
Aquafina, Belvedere, Budweiser, Campari, CNN, Ford, Frito
Lay, Jolly Rancher, Lacoste, Mercedes, Mountain Dew,
Nationwide, Nike, Nokia, NY1, Panasonic, Philips, Sephora
Apple, Bell, Cadillac, Chock Full ONuts, Chrysler, Cisco,
Ford, Ford Mustang, Hill-Rom, HP, Lacoste, Listerine, Los
Angeles Dodgers, Mercedes, Motorola, Pepsi, Philips,
Pontiac, Pyrotect, Rolls Royce, San Francisco Giants, Sharp,
The North Face, The Riviera Hotel and Casino, Timberland,
Toyota, United States Parachute Association
Apple, Aquafina, BlackBerry, Borders, Cadillac, Cisco,
Converse, Ferrari, Ford, Fuller's London Pride, HP, Land
Rover, Mayflower, Mercedes, Motorola, MSN, Red Bull, Rolex,
Seattle's Best Coffee, Tracker Boats, Volvo, ZTV
Figure 4

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT: IS IT WORTH
ITS WORTH?
It is no accident that brands are placed on movies, of course. Brand integration on
TV and movies, according to Stewart-Allen, does not actually involve money
changing hands (8). It involves, in fact, a mutually beneficial business that
promotes the brand while offering a realistic atmosphere. However, many sources
are openly disclosing the dollars involved in product placement. For example, in
an interview by the Media Education Foundation, the director of Armageddon, Michael Bay,
admitted having saved $75,000 for using Tag Heuer clock and TAG logo in the film (Behind
the Screens 6).
Susan Douglas, a professor from the University of Michigan, said that in the past, film producers
rely on investors for a kick-off of any production. This time, on the other hand, producers no
longer set their eyes exclusively on investors, but also on advertisers. For example, she cited
Pampers paying $50,000 in 1987 for its appearance on 3 Men & a Baby; Huggies paid $100,000
to Baby Boom for featuring the product; Cuervo Gold gave $150,000 for appearance on Tequila
Sunrise; Exxon paid $300,000 for Days of Thunder; and Larks Cigarette paid $350,000 for
appearing on License to Kill (Behind the Screens 6 ).
Miller supported this claim by saying that since it that advertisers like him
is very expensive to produce and promote a movie, producers are endlessly looking for ways on
how to cut the budget short without sacrificing the show itself (Behind the Screens 6). In a
video report, Rushkoff said that advertisers are losing faith on the traditional 30-second ad

(The Persuader). In fact, giant advertiser American Express

chief marketing officer John Hayes said during an interview are paying more to reach less
(The Persuader).
Hayes continued by saying, The definition of insanity is to continue doing the same
thing over and over and expect different results (The Persuader). This is the reason
advertisers and marketers set eyes on films as the newest venue for selling. Precisely, product
placement is selling.
In an article authored by Neuborn Whats Your Worth? It was revealed that manufacturers pay a
great deal, though not as great as the 30-second airtime in terms of reach, just to penetrate TV
shows and movies. Heres what Neuborn disclosed:
Product: M&M's
Show: ER
Placement: In a quiet moment, one doctor buys another a package of M&M's from a
hospital vending machine. Value: $430,618
Explanation: "In this scene, the candy is part of a romantic conversation between the
two characters. The product is mentioned by name and is the focus of one character's
act of kindness toward another. The presence of verbal and visual elements heightens
the value of this placement."
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=20&did=977550951&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1217003997&clientId=57020

Product:Coca-Cola
Show: American Idol
Placement: Two red Coca-Cola glasses sit on the table as the three judges review
American Idol hopefuls.
Value: $1.8 million
Explanation: "It would cost any marketer $350,000 for a 30-second commercial on this
show. Coca-Cola gets almost nine minutes of screen time in this placement. The
glasses, logos visible, are present throughout the extended segment. At one point,
one judge raises his glass and takes a drink."
Product:Ragu Express
Show: Everybody Loves Raymond
Placement: Ray is spying on his wife at the supermarket. When it looks like she might
spot him, he quickly ducks behind an end-cap display of Ragu Express boxes.
Value: $83,125
Explanation: "There are two clear shots of the product. In both, the show's star, Ray
Romano, has his hands on the product. The brand name is clearly visible. The second
shot is a close-up."
If there is one particular brand that is brand-conscious, its the Bond. Chu said that The Bond
Franchise is one of the pioneers in product placement (129). David Wilson, EONs vice
president of global business strategy reiterated that Bond has always been a brand-aware
character(Chu 129).

While it is well-publicized that many producers get the best deals in terms of dollars and other
perks through product placement, there are also instances when the producers of a program
featured a brand on the movie but did not demand for any dollar-based tie-ins (Stanley). For
example, Disney/Pixars Finding Nemo, which according to Hudson, Hudson & Peloza, based on
their research on brandchannel.com had three featured brands, disclosed that the company had
nine marketing partners, yet no paid product placement (Stanley). Universal Pictures vice
chairman, Marc Shmuger, says, If we go to a brand and basically tell [the marketer] we're only
interested in their media dollars, then that's not valuing the relationship (Stanley).
Behind the Scenes: Why Advertisers and Marketers Favor Product Placement
Welsh calls the economic scenario as a win-win situation for both advertisers and
producers:
Consider this, studios typically spend $30 - $50 million to promote
a new feature release. Once a product has been attached to a film,
it can leverage equity from that film across multiple communication
channels. The 2004 release of the film Garfield is a good example.
Lisa Licht of the 20th Century Fox said the studio got the idea for placing
Pepperidge Farms Goldfish crackers in the Garfield movie. The win for
Pepperidge Farms is the exposure and brand awareness that a major film
release is able to lend to Goldfish crackers among a highly desirable
target audience. In exchange for a guaranteed placement, of Garfield
eating Goldfish crackers in the film, Pepperidge Farms agreed to promote
the film on millions of packages of Goldfish crackers, while at the same time

conducting a Garfield contest and including film mention in national FSIs
and national advertising (68).
No marketer, no advertiser, and no movie mogul would deny the truth that product
placement promises good business deals. Manufacturers are investing millions of dollars not for
nothing, but for more and more dollars. If it doesnt work, it wont prosper. If it does prosper,
then, it means it offers excellent
return on investment. The most
remarkable increase in sales which is attributed to product placement, so far, is the tie-in between
Reeses Pieces and ET The Extra Terrestrial which was reported to have its sales increased by
60 to 65 % (Welsh 70). In 2001, BMW Motors created what Douglas Rushkoff called the
perfect hybrid of ad and movie (The Persuader). The movie titled The Hire was not just
sponsored by BMW Motors but they are also the producer. The Editor in chief of Advertising
Age, Scott Donation, called this venture an advertising as a piece of entertainment in and of
itself that people not only
will tolerate but will actually go in search of (The Persuader). Donation also said that BMW
sales increased dramatically years following the airing of this film (The Persuader).

PRODUCT PLACEMENTS IMPACT ON THE CREATIVE ASPECT OF MOVIE
MAKING
Could the Castaway plot and setting be the same if there were no Fed Ex and Wilson
Sports placement? In the movie, the main actor, Tom Hanks, played the role of an executive
from Fed Ex who was stranded in an island by himself --- with only Wilson to talk to.
Wilson is the name of the volleyball which is also the brand name of the makers of the
volleyball itself.

Fed Ex seemed to enjoy a full-length-film exposure to the audience knowing that the
main character could not be detached from the company where he supposedly works for.
The film did not only heighten brand awareness but also increased the reputation or
image of the featured brand since it was associated with the drama and realization that transpired
in the movie. Definitely, the real executives from Fed Ex knew exactly where the film would
lead them. As Mitch Kanner of the Integrated Entertainment Partners said, At the end of the
film, not only did we deliver the packages, but we found romance. How much better could you
feel about the brand? (The Persuader).
Another movie that became controversial because of strategic product placement was
Missing which was produced by Columbia Pictures Entertainment which was purchased by
Coca-Cola.
Missing, a film released in 1982, is about an American student who was killed by
members of Pinochet regime (Behind the Screens). In the film it was obvious that there is a
featured divide between the good or Coke and the bad or Pepsi. Douglas analyzed the
scenes and said that it was apparent that the violent scenes with the Pinochet regime are shot
with Pepsi logo on the background while the good guys in the film, supposedly the Americans,
are seen enjoying their glasses of Coke (Behind the Screens). Definitely, there is no
coincidence to the Pepsi logo and Coke scenarios in the movie. They were, as Douglas pointed

out, strategically placed to relay an unspoken message to the viewers. Of course, the director
and writers should have been aware of the background of the owners of Columbia Pictures and
the so-called cola wars.
Needless to say, it seems apparent that Douglas Rushkoff has a reason to say that the
boundaries between content and advertising are blurring in nearly every popular medium (The
Persuader). Eisenberg and Bradford of TIME call this phenomenon the blurring of the lines
between content and commerce which is very popular in Hollywood (38).
Writers and directors start doing their jobs thinking of answers to the questions like Who
is the producer? What other brands does it own? Who are sponsoring the show? How can the
brand be strategically placed in the movie? How long should the brand be exposed?
Considering the answers to all these questions leads to only one thing: Control and
manipulation on the creativity and storyline -- no matter how much the producers deny it.
A former executive at J. Walter Thompson, Eugene Secunda supports this claim saying,
There are agencies, for instance, in Hollywood who go through every script before it is
produced and find specific opportunities for automobiles, for beer, for virtually any product that
you might want to name (The Persuader). This is clearly the economic sides of product
placement unveiled.
THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT PLACEMENTS ON MOVIES

Hudson, Hudson & Peloza are concerned about advertising, particularly product
placement on movies for children. In their research article titled Meet the Parents: A Parents
Perspective on Product Placement in Childrens Films, they mentioned that it seems like no
existing body is concerned about regulating product placement on movies, considering that
children are still not capable of distinguishing between content and advertising (289). No
regulating body is concerned primarily because the people still believe that the children are the
responsibilities of the parents.
Hudson, Hudson & Peloza surveyed among parents in the UK and Canada about their ethical
evaluations of product placement. They found out that explicit placements of ethically charged
products were perceived as the most unethical type of placement (298). Ethically charged
products, in Hudson, Hudson & Pelozas research, include tobacco, alcohol, fast food and soda
(296). In Australia, a congress of world consumer rights advocates wants soft drink marketing to
children under 16 be banned (Call to Ban). According to report, the congress wants companies
of soft drinks to "cease the marketing of all sugar-laden beverages to children under 16,
including print and broadcast advertising, product placement, the internet, mobile phones,
athletic sponsorship, signage, packaging promotions, merchandising and other means" (Call to
Ban). The reason for this action is that the soft drink advertisements contribute to the rate of
childhood obesity.
Its also interesting to note that parents dont actually talk about advertising or product
placement with their children and that almost one-third of their respondents are not even aware
of brand integration in movies (299). This result needs serious attention because it could imply

that there is actually a need for a regulating body who is more informed about the hidden agenda
of one-way form of advertising in movies.
According to Hoffman, a group called Commercial Alert, which is a small group against product
placement supported by a certain Ralph Nader, wants movie producers to inform viewers that a
certain company paid the producer in order for the product to be featured in the film (34).
However, Hoffman contradicted this by claiming that this is not necessary because product
appearance on films does not include a litany of the benefits, attributes or effectiveness of the
product. He even posed a question asking, Where is the harm to viewers? (35). The harm to
viewers is embedded in the fact that the viewers readily accept what they see on films thinking
that every angle or every scene is a product of the creativity and the
demands of the story, and not based on the deals closed between producers and marketers
(Schejter 23).
Moreover, the controversial harm to the viewers is best explained by researchers who
pursued tobacco product placement in the movie industry. In 2006, Le Gresley, Muggli, and
Hurt reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages taken from the British American Tobacco
Company from March 2003 to May 2005. They found out that despite public denial of tobacco
companies regarding placing advertisements on movies, documents proved otherwise (505).
According to Le Gresley, Muggli and Hurt, promotion of smoking had its debut in the
Hollywood when tobacco companies secretly paid producers so that their products would make it
to the scenes in the movies (505). The issue here is that another research found out that smoking

instances in movies for teenagers are as prevalent as those in movies targeting the adults (qtd. in
Le Gresley, Muggli, and Hurt 505; Sargent, et. al 30).
Sargent, et. al. mentioned that when a cigarette brand appears in a film, it gives the brand
a favorable distinction by being associated with the characters and the tone of the film (29).
In their studies, they content analysed contemporary films taken from a ten-year period.
They actually watched and analysed the contents of the top 25 US box-office films for each year
from 1988 to 1997 then they compared the prevalence of brand appearances for movies which

were released before the voluntary ban on paid product placements and after the said ban took
effect (30). The result of their study alarms critics. Sargent, et. al. found out that 85 % of the
films from their samples contain tobacco use, where the tobacco brands appear in 70 films. The
more alarming result suggests that tobacco use is apparent even in films targeting children (30).

THE METHODOLOGY
The focus of this research aside from the comprehensive literature review on product
placement is to find out what the viewers attitudes are toward the ethical, economic and creative
implication of product placement on movies.
The questionnaire has three parts: part 1 asked about the profile; part 2 aims to
measure the brand recall of the respondents; part 3 aims to find out the respondents attitudes
toward the ethical, economic and creative implications of product placement. The questionnaires
were distributed online using snowball sampling to 100 respondents.
After the result of the survey was tallied, four (4) online focus group discussions
(through Yahoo messenger conference) were scheduled inviting 8 members from each of the age
groups. The FGDs revealed remarkable and interesting ideas which contributed to the research.
THE ONLINE FOCUS GROUPS

A focus group discussion or FGD is a qualitative method of data gathering that aims to discover
unique opinion and thoughts of each discussant in the group (International Devt Research
Centre). With the help of a facilitator, the group is expected to openly and spontaneously relate
their thoughts and even their inhibitions regarding the selected topic.
Four online focus groups were made possible through Instant Messaging (IM) software. The
eight participants from each age group spent over an hour reading messages in the IM window

and typing their thoughts so that the other members would be able to decode them. FGD 1
included 8 respondents whose ages range from 40 to 49. FGD 2 included 8 respondents from 30
to 39 age bracket; then FGD 3 included 8 from 20 to 29 years old and finally, FGD 4 included
participants who are 19 years old and younger.
The FGD started by sending the participants video clips showing product placement,
particularly of those which was asked in the questionnaire. Without asking any question, the
discussion started with the participants comments on what they saw in the video clips.
To guarantee confidentiality, each of the participants was given a code. For example, members
of FGD 1 were coded as FGD1-A, FGD1-B, and so on. FGD 2 members were given codes like
FGD 2-A, FGD, 2-B, etc. The same pattern was followed in coding FGD 3 and FGD 4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the respondents
1.
AGE DISTRIBUTION

below 20; 13%
40-49; 13%
30-39; 17%
20-29; 57%

2.
GENDER
Male; 38%
Female; 62%
Over half of the respondents are female and their ages range from 20 to 29 years old.
How often, on the average, do you watch movies?
Theater
28
30
25
22
20
15
10
5
0
1-3 times amore
w eek
than 4 times a1-3
w eek
times amore
month
than 4 times a1-3
month
times amore
yearthan 4 times a year
Many of the respondents prefer to watch movies on cinema. During the online FGDs, it
was revealed that all of the participants have preference on theatre over other media although
all of them have DVD players and original DVDs at home. FGD4-B mentioned that she
loves watching films in theatre because she gets to spend time with her close friends. FGD

3-F also emphasized that the choice of movie to watch is not actually big deal, but the fact
she is with her friends is whats important. However, this is opposite of what FGD 1-B who
admitted that she would not go to theatre unless the movie is to die for.
Berman conducted a study on brand recall and one of the information found out was that the
younger generation prefers watching in theaters although they have other media in their
homes. This is also true with the respondents in this research.
VCD
42
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35
2
0
1-2 tim es amw

ore
ee kthan 4 tim e s a1-2
w etim
ek es m
more
onth
than 4 tim e s a 1-2
m onth
tim es amyear
ore than 4 tim es a year

DVD
29
30
25
21
20
15
14
11
12
13
10
5
0
1-2 times a w eek
more than 4 times a w eek
1-2 times a month
more than 4 times a month
1-2 times a year
more than 4 times a year
Results on the frequency on viewing reveals that all of the respondents watch movies in theatres
and using DVDs but only 79 % do watch films with their VCDs. About 39% of the respondents
watch theater for 1 -3 times a month and 42% watch for more than 4 times a month using VCDs.
This implies that those respondents with VCDs still prefer to watch using them compared with
DVDs or with theater. Most of the respondents who watch in theaters are those between 20 and
29 years old. The older respondents prefer DVDs in watching movies.

Did you notice product placement in the movies youve watched?
No; 14
Yes ; 86

In the survey, there are 14 respondents who didnt notice any product featured when
they watched movies. On the online FGDs conducted, only one participant, FGD 1-C did not
notice any product placement. According to him, he misunderstood the question. He thought
that the question was pertaining to the list of films given. If the answer is based on the
movies in the list which he had viewed, then, hes sure he did not remember any product
displayed or featured in the movies. However, he cited American Idol as the show that
obviously capitalizes on products so much. FGD 1-C said plugging on the American Idol
is too much and no longer tolerable. It was taken note of but then, the research focuses on
product placement on movies so the American-Idol plugging was not explored despite the
other members of the online FGDs agreeing to how FGD 1-C feels about it.
BRANDED
PRODUCT RECALL
25
20
21
20
14
15
Male
10
Female
6
4
4
1
0
0-10%
11-20%
21-30%
31-40%
41-50%
51-60%
00
61-70%
0
71-80%
00
8190%
00
91-100%
00
The study revealed that only 4 female respondents have a brand recall which is between
61 and 70%. None of the male respondents had reached 50% of brand recall. This result implies

that viewers dont really remember which brand appeared on which movie. Although most of
them are aware that branded products appeared on the movies theyve watched.
The participants were asking why they needed to recall the products when most of the
movies were released years ago. FGD 2-C said, You dont expect me to remember the brand.
First, I didnt watch to look for any brand. I was not even aware of it. FGD 3-F remarked, I
can tell you the details of the movies Ive watched but not the product involved. On the other
hand, FGD 3-A remembers clearly that AOL and Starbucks are among the stars in Youve Got
Mail. I just remember them because my first time to try coffee at Starbucks was after watching
Youve Got Mail with my boyfriend then.

Then the conversation went on:
Researcher:
So you admit that featuring Starbucks in Youve Got Mail would make
a viewer go to the nearest Starbucks to have some coffee?
FGD 3-A:
It happened to me and my boyfriend.
FGD 3-C:
Interesting huh
FGD 3-A:
But back then, I didnt consider that advertising. I think its normal
thing for people to consume branded products. Its normal. Besides
I prefer to see the products being used by a character.
FGD 3-G:
Same here. If I see the actor or actress use the product, I feel more
confident that the product wont go wrong. For example, Samantha in
Sex and the City will not use any item that looks absurd or weird.

In general, according to the participants, if they were already aware of the term product
placement when they have seen the movies, they might be able to identify most of the products.
FGD 1-C directly said that she didnt really make any effort in remembering the brands in
movies because she said the products were not important part of the movies so nobody would
deliberately remember them! FGD 1-F answered by saying, Its no big deal anyway.
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT
PLACEMENT ON MOVIES
13%
Featuring brands on movies in order to reach

more viewers is not acceptable because it
distracts the viewers from concentrating on
the movie.
87%
If featuring brands on movies can
reach more viewers at less cost, then
it should be acceptable because it
gives more consumers the freedom to
choose without the brand intruding
our space.
The result suggests that most of the respondents do not really mind seeing featured
products in the movies. For most of them, product placement gives consumers the freedom to
choose without the brand intruding their spaces unlike what traditional advertising does. FGD

1-E and FGD 2-B both agreed on separate FGDs that any advertisement that does not talk to us
directly, just like the telemarketer and the face-to-face sales clerk, is acceptable for them. This
means that if the advertisement does not intrude their privacy, then there is no problem.
However, almost all participants said that if product placement is too much and too manipulative
and all become movie-turned-ad, then, no one will like it. FGD 2-G commented, Im sure if
theres too much placement of brands on movies, the Hollywood would run out of excellent
directors. For sure, directors like Steven Spielberg and even respectable actors like Mel Gibson
would not want to become mouthpiece of commercialism.
42
58
I favor product placement

over the traditional 30second commercial
because of the lower
advertising cost.
The lower advertising cost on product

placement can not yield favorable results for
the featured brands because the viewers
dont really notice their brands.
Over half of the respondents believe that the lower advertising cost on product
placement cannot yield favorable results for the featured brands. FGD 4-E started talking about
this part saying, I hate commercials

FGD 4-E continued, Imagine, when I watched Sex and the City with my friends, we
were bombarded with so many many commercials. I already finished my Pringles and the
commercials were still running!
She said product placement is better because she thinks a 30-second advertisement is a
waste of money for advertisers because nobody watches commercials.
Only the producers gain

from product placement,
not the viewers.
88
12
The viewers are empowered by the
featured brands because they give
them the right to choose without the
brands intruding their space.
Almost all of the respondents agree that only the producers gain from product
placement. FGD 2-A remarked, I dont really care if they gain from that product placement
thing. Thats the whole point of making movies, to gain so good for them. FGD 4-C said she
thought product placement can empower viewers by not having any pitch or sales talk for them
to purchase the product.
This remark implies that hard sell doesnt work for FGD 4-C but soft sell, like product
placements, do. This preference on advertising strategy is the same with the preference of
French consumers, who as found out by Taylor, Holy and Haley, prefer soft sell over hard sell
(qtd. in Gould, Gupta & Grabner-Krauter 46). In their study however, Gould, et. al. considered

product placement as intrusive and a hard sell. In this study, it appears that products placed
on movies are considered as soft sell primarily because of the lack of pitch on consumer benefit,
product performance, etc. This concept of product placement being a form of soft sell ad is
consistent with how Hoffman perceives product placement to be (34).
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE CREATIVE IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT

ON MOVIES
89
11
Featuring brands on
movies can make the story
more realistic.
Featuring brands on movies can

make the story look artificial and
actually more unrealistic.

This result shows that most of the respondents believe that product placement can
actually make the story more realistic. Very few respondents think that featured brands make the
story look artificial and more unrealistic.
According to most of the participants, the brand names make the story come alive. If
there are no branded products, the participants think that the movie is just like fairy tale where
every character or every item is nameless or imaginary. FGD 1-H said that in real life,
everything we use has names. The same thing applies to movie characters. FGD 1-G explained
that in real life, We actually dont want to buy products which we never heard of before.
Besides, FGD 3-A believes that for Castaway, Fed Ex was used primarily because Fed Ex is the
famous delivery service. FGD-3-A believes that if Fed Ex were not famous, it wont be used by
the director in the movie.
This respondent has no idea on how deals are done for product placement- related
matter. FGD 3-A actually thinks that the choice of the director is dictated by whoever is
famous although in reality, manufacturers set their eyes on product placement to make their
products famous.
There are many instances when manufacturers deliberately set relatively huge amount to
be used for marketing, particularly for product placement.
For example, in an article by Madden published at Advertising Age in April of this year,
she reported about the plan of Unilever to provide big-time sponsorship to the Chinese version of
Ugly Betty in China. Unilever, according to Madden, is promoting three brands: Dove shower
cream, Clear anti-dandruff shampoo, and Lipton tea milk-in (12). This implies that the main

actress is expected to use Dove and to show shes using Lipton tea in the office during tea breaks.
The media director for Greater China, Patrick Zhou, said, The `Prettiest Ugly Girl will take `a
relatively large proportion of the total media budget for the three brands (Madden 12).
Product placement can hinder

the creativity of the writers
and director.
26%
74%
Product placement has no
influence on the creativity of
the writers and director.
Almost a quarter of the respondents agree that product placement does not at all
influence the creativity of the writers and the director.
There are participants who think that creativity is affected. For example, instead of
making the writer think of brand name for a necessary item in the movie, it would be much
easier to just choose one brand that already exists in the market. By doing this, the creativity of
the writer and the director is not maximized.
A good example of this point is the movie Shrek the Third which did not use any brand
in the movie. According to www.brandchannel.com, the writers of Shrek the Third just invented
some brands, which didnt exist in reality. The idea of creating original and unrealistic brands
like The Far Far Away kingdom creates a more imaginative and creative atmosphere.
However, in this study, more participants think that featuring any brand has nothing to
do with the creativity of the writer and director.

Product placement can
cause the storyline to
change.
39
61
Product placement does not
influence the storyline.
Over half of the respondents agree that product placement does not influence the
storyline. However, reports would reveal that even before the concept or storyline is finished, the
sponsor already has in mind how the product will be placed strategically in the movie, so as to
guarantee brand awareness and positive association.
Madden cited in her article that Bausch & Lomb is sponsoring a show in China and as
such, the lead female character in the show will transform from being a person with glasses to
someone who displays contact lenses manufactured by Bausch & Lomb. Aside from this, the
shows supposedly stylish characters will be wearing contact lenses in the show (12).
In that cited show, the switch from eye glasses to contact lenses is already an
unsolicited part of the storyline. If the show did not have any partnership with the branded
lenses, perhaps the writers wont even think of such a brand being used by the famous Betty La
Fea of Mexico.
Marketers and manufacturers wont be as sponsor without being placed strategically in
the movies or in any show. If they allot a huge amount of budget for a movie, they, for sure,
expect a huge amount of return on investment. This is the economic aspect that most of the
viewers are not even aware of.

In
a
recent article titled Product Placement Becomes Part of the Plot published
online at the International Herald Tribune, Clifford mentioned that, These days consumer brands
not only appear on shows, but are also elaborately woven into the plot, with advertisers calling a
lot of the shots. Their agencies approve television scripts, suggest plots that hinge on the product,
attend and critique the episode shoots, and review the rough cuts of episodes (Clifford).
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT

ON MOVIES

Featuring brands on movies has

ethical implication.
Featuring brands on
movies has no ethical
implications.
97%
3%
This result shows that only 3 out of 100 respondents think that product placement has
ethical implication. The four sets of FGDs devoted a lot of time in discussing this part.
FGD 3-A said she doesnt find anything unethical in movies carrying branded names.
She specifically cited Sex and the City as a product-placement-rich movie but she said she
actually liked the placing and the mention of different brands in the movie and said, Its a movie
about culture and fashion, I think, so I watch it also to get more ideas about what brand is in
right now. On the other hand, FGD3-C, one of the participants who believe that product
placement has ethical implication, said that placing a brand on the movie is advertising that does
not tell the viewer that it is advertising. FGD 3-C calls it selling without warning. He
explained that product placement is worse than any 30-second commercial on TV because unlike

TV commercials, viewers can choose not to expose themselves to the product by simply using
the remote control to change channel. However, FGD 3-C explained that with the product
injected on the movie, the viewers are left with no choice but to be exposed to the product.
In another group, FGD 1-B gave a different point of view. He said that in this issue or topic, the
most affected are the competitors of the branded products.
Heres the transcript of the discussion:

FGD 1-B:
When we say ethical we refer to values or morality, right?
Researcher: Yes.
FGD 1-D:
Yep.
FGD 1-B:
I think product placement is not about values or morality.

Whats wrong with that? They dont even lie, unlike
in television ads. Some lotion ads tell us well have smooth
and attractive tan complexion in just a single drop spread
on our skin but of course thats a lie. Thats unethical.
FGD 1-D:
There are many ads that lie. They make promises. They make
burgers look mouth-watering but when it looks different
in reality!
FGD 1-D:
As a viewer, its all right for me to see Samantha using Prada

or Tom Hanks of Youve Got Mail hanging out with Meg Ryan
at Starbucks. But the main people who will be affected are

the competitors like Caribou Coffee as competitor of Starbucks.
Well, we know movie-making is profit-oriented and the movies
wont be able to accommodate all existing brands plus not
all businessestablishments are rich enough to penetrate
Sex and the City or James Bond films.
Product placement should
be banned on some movies.
14%
45%
39%
2%
Some brands should not

be allowed to be
featured on movies.
This result shows that the respondents have various views on product placement on
movies. Many of the respondents agree that some brands should be banned
All kinds of brands
may be featured
on movies.
on movies. Only 2 respondents believe on total ban on product placement.
Branded products should

be totally banned on
movies.
from being featured

Almost half of the respondents agree that some brands should not be allowed to be placed
on any movie. During FGDs, the participants mentioned several brands that they think should not
land on the movies. These include cigarette, fast food, soft drinks, liquor. Almost all of the
participants said that cigarette and liquor should be out of the picture. In fact, three of the
participants even said that its not the kind of cigarette that is the problem in product placement,
but the scene in the movie. They said that no movie should show any character smoking.
Promoting smoking through characters that look tough or strong is, according to FGD 1-D, is
what makes a movie unethical. She explained, To promote smoking, regardless of the brand, is
to make people believe that smoking is acceptable.
While FGD 1-D is concerned about showing smoking scenes on movies, Dr. Stanton A.
Glantz, a professor of Medicine at the University of California in San Francisco, is specifically
concerned about smoking in movies targeting children. In an interview on NYC podcast titled
On the Media, Professor Glantz mentioned that there is high correlation between exposure of
kids to movies with smoking and the likelihood that they will actually smoke. This means that
kids who see a lot of smoking in the movies are about three times more likely to actually start
smoking than kids who dont see a lot of smoking on movies ( Smoke Gets in Their Eyes).
Professor Glantz actively advocates smoking ban on movies, especially those for kids.

In his web site titled Smoke Free Movies, there is a list of movies from 1990 to 2005
which they content analyzed in terms of the number of instances smoking appeared. The result
showed that Time Warner, Sony and Disney are the top three producers of films with tobacco
brand displays (Brand Identification). The more alarming result is that more than forty
percent of tobacco brand appearances since 1990 have been in movies rated G, PG, and PG-13
(Brand Identification).
People like Professor Glantz and FGD 1-D are the types of persons that Philip Morris,
which owns 50% of US cigarette market and 37% of world cigarette market (Brand
Identification) would like to get rid of. The transcript of the speech delivered by Hamish
Maxwell during their Marketing meeting in 1983 revealed that large tobacco companies are
willing to resort to every possible means to ensure that their products would land on the hands of
their no-age-limit target market. A significant part of the speech said:
Recently, anti-smoking groups have also had some early successes at eroding
the social acceptability of smoking. Smoking is being positioned as unfashionable,
as well as unhealthy, custom. We must use every creative means at our disposal to
reverse this destructive trend. I do feel heartened at the increasing number of occasions
when I go to a movie and see a pack of cigarettes in the hands of the leading lady.
This is in sharp contrast to the state of affairs just a few years ago when cigarettes
rarely showed up on camera. We must continue to exploit new opportunities
to get cigarettes on screen and into the hands of smokers (Big Tobaccos Secret 10).
Indeed, the tobacco companies would not hesitate to do every means to promote their
product. Le Gresley, Muggli & Hurt found out in their research in 2005 that in order to ensure
sales without being controversial on paying huge amount to producers, the British American
Tobacco (BAT), the maker of Lucky Strike, company attempted to produce a movie of their own

where they could promote their brands outright (2). This is aside from the fact that they
discreetly promote their brands in movies through engaging in various deals.
Professor Glantz is currently lobbying for
the solutions to the problem of smoking, especially
of branded cigarettes, in movies. Glantz, with the
help of support groups, wrote a letter to six media
giants to discourage them from striking deals with
tobacco companies in exchange for smoking scenes
in the movies. The letter was addressed to Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Sony,
Time Warner and Viacom. In the letter, Glantz was proposing a four-part policy that will,
according to Glantz, will avert tobacco addiction, disease and death on a massive scale (The
Solution).
The four-part policy was clearly outlined in the letter and reached the offices of the media
giants through the New York State Department of Health with Richard F. Daines as
commissioner.
In the letter, it says, first, for the film producers to rate new smoking movies R.
Exempted in this proposal are the programs that clearly show the negative effects of smoking to
ones health. Second, for the film producers to certify no pay-offs. This means that the film
industry has to declare nobody in the industry receives anything, in cash or in kind, in exchange
for exposure of cigarettes on films. Third, for films to run anti-smoking advertisements prior to
showing of any film targeting adults. Fourth, for the media giants to simply stop identifying
tobacco brands in their movies.

The respondents/participants also have their own solution or suggestion about product
placement as a growing issue among marketers and film producers.
First, some of them believe that some products should not be placed on movies. Among
these products which the participants see as ethically charged include cigarette, fast food,
condoms, beer and soft drinks. FGD 4-D believes that showing the people that a particular
brand of condoms works better is to fool the audience. Besides, sometimes, we cant avoid very
young kids watching movies with adults. When they see the condoms brand they ask `What is
that? and its not always easy to answer on-the-spot
FGD2-A, on the other hand, does not want to tolerate main characters ordering at fast
food because she thinks it has big influence on the viewer, especially if the viewer is hungry
when he watches the movie. This remark was contradicted by FGD 2-E who said that If you
dont see any character ordering at any fast food, it means the movie is not realistic. Everybody
orders at fast food these days.
More participants are eager to offer other suggestions. Instead of banning some products
on movies, they suggest making some movie genres brand-free. Among these types of movies
are war movies, political film, environment-awareness movies, and childrens films.
Most of the participants agree that childrens films should be totally brand-free.
However, one participant, FGD 1-C said, If you take away brands from movies for kids, its
kinda boring. I cant imagine Toy Story without Mattel or Barbie.
This remark leaves a question worth pondering upon. Can a movie become a hit without
a mention of any brand in the market?

A web site monitoring brands in the movie industry, www.brandchannel.com, has a
compilation of movies released since 2000. In their list, they included information which is not
easily accessible to all the viewers.
To answer the question, Can a movie be a hit without a mention of any brand in the
market? an analysis of the list of movies in 2007 was conducted.
In 2007, the web site listed down 40 movies released. Out of the 40 movies, only 7 has
no featured brands. Among these are 300, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle, Pirates of the
Caribbean, Saw IV, Beowulf, and The Golden Compass. A quick analysis of the list reveals that
the number of featured brands does not guarantee gross of films. For example, the Pirates of the
Caribbean was successful but it did not have product placement. Shrek the Third also was a hit
though the brands in the films were all made-up by the writers. In this new version of Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles, the web site (www.brandchannel.com) commented that if in the past,
TMNT used branded products for pizza and soda, this time it used some make-believe brands
called Checcos Pizzeria and Turbo soda.
At first, it might appear that TMNT is no longer attached to any marketing strategy, with
the fact that it ended its business relationship with Dominos Pizza and Pepsi. However, a
closer look at the official web site of TMNT reveals that it does not stop its marketing. In fact, it
already carries its own name the movie title and the name of its stars in various brands from
toys to bubble gum to pizza!

http://www.xentertainment.com/articles/0946/
CONCLUSION
Product placement is nothing new in the advertising, marketing and media industry. For
years, movies have been featuring brands either in exchange for dollars, or some just to build a
relationship with the manufacturers. All these deals happen behind the scenes. The viewers
are not aware that there is money or relationship-building involved in movie making if the actors
or actresses are using branded products. Even if the viewers have knowledge on these deals,
they dont really care much about the deals because they think that only the producers gain
something from the deals. For most of the viewers, at least as of this time, product placement is
actually no big deal.
However, there are some groups which actively monitor product placement both in
television and films. Commercial Alert, Brandhype, and Smoke Free Movies are just few of the
active organizations that advocate sound product placement. They dont necessarily want
product placement to be totally banned but they remind the industry that too much clutter creates
more problems, not only to the society but also to the advertising and marketing industry.
Product placement in movies, as seen by viewers, is not really a bad idea. However,
these days, most marketers eye on the potential of product placement on movies as the answer to
the current problem of more people zapping than ever.
Indeed, marketers and advertisers are brilliant and brave. They could cross the
borderline just to make their clients happy. They are more than willing to penetrate all possible
means just to bring the dollars from the consumers pockets to the manufacturers treasure. After

all, that is what marketing and advertising are all about. Although this is true, they have to
understand that clutter could, in the end, make their clients unhappy and unwilling to hire them
again so they need to do something about the clutter problem in movies even before it starts.
The challenge now is for the parents to be more vigilant in making their kids media
literate, for the marketers to be considerate of the societys needs, for the manufacturers to think
not only of their own pockets but also of the societys concerns, for the policy makers to see the
importance of popular culture like movies, and for the producers not to forget how powerful
movies remain to be in shaping and reshaping culture across the globe.
Finally, movies are entertainment media with captive audience. Researches conducted by
academically oriented individuals like professors of Business and Media related courses dont
fail to highlight the fact that the captive audience looks for entertainment, not for any form of
pitch. Miller might be correct when he said, Imagine now, think ahead and try to picture
yourself say forty years from now when maybe there is no more Starbucks and AOL has been
long since replaced by some other service. Imagine what youd make of a movie like this. It
will be like some artifact from a distant era. I mean, who cares? If the drama, if the dialogue,
the pacing, if these things arent enough then theres nothing there (Hollywood goes Hypercommercialism).

RECOMMENDATION
The result of literature review and the qualitative study conducted shows that marketers
have a huge opportunity to create a niche in the movie industry through product placement,
considering that this study, which is consistent with other researchers studies, found out that as
of this moment, viewers dont really see product placement as an alarming phenomenon.
However, the following stakeholders in the product placement phenomenon should make
necessary precautions in embracing product placement on movies:
Marketers and advertisers need to be careful not to create clutter in the film so as
not to drive away movie goers;
Giant media networks need to be reminded that movies are made for
entertainment or information, not as vehicles for promoting consumerism;
Film viewers must be on guard for any soft or hard sell injected in the movie so
they wont end up heading to the nearest store or food chains after watching their
favorite actors in their favorite films.
Parents need to monitor even the media consumption of their kids and at least
educate them about how they could become literate media consumer;
Teachers and professors need to influence their students on how critical they
should be in consuming media particularly in choosing contents to believe in
in the movies that they watch;

Policy makers need to address problems caused by media and businessmen,
taking the common good, not the selected groups, as the basis.
Researchers in the field of Advertising, Marketing, and Communications need to
promote media literacy by publishing results of their studies in order to make the
society more informed, more critical, and more responsible media and product
consumers.

WORKS CITED
Online Journals/Books/Newspapers
Balasubramanian, Siva K., Karrh, James A. & Patwardhan, Hemant "Audience Response to
Product Placement: An Integrative Framework and Future Research Agenda. " Journal of
Advertising 35.3 (2006): 115-141. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
index=21&did=1143318231&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQ
D&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1216916644&clientId=57020
Belch, G. & Belch, M. Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications
Perspective. [7th Ed] US: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2007.
Big Tobaccos Secret History in Hollywood. Smoke Free Movies. Project of Stanton A.
Glantz. (n.d.) Sponsored by grants from American Legacy Foundation, the Arimathea
Fund of the Tides Foundation, etc. Accessed on 25 July 2008 from
http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/solution/index.html
Brand Identification: Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge. Smoke Free Movies. Project of Stanton A.
Glantz. (n.d.) Sponsored by grants from American Legacy Foundation, the Arimathea
Fund of the Tides Foundation, etc. Accessed on 25 July 2008 from
Chu, Jeff. "For your wallet only. " Time 18 Nov. 2002: 93. Accessed on 25 Jul. 2008 from

index=1&did=236321171&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&
RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1217005576&clientId=57020
Clifford, Stephanie. Product Placement Becomes Part of the Plot. International Herald
Tribune. 14 July 2008. Accessed on 25 July 2008 from
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/14/business/product.php
Cowley, Elizabeth & Barron, Chris. When Product Placement Goes Wrong: The effects of
Program Liking and Placement Prominence. Journal of Advertising 37.1 (2008): 8998. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from
index=3&did=1474598171&SrchMode=1&sid=6&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD
&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1216912417&clientId=57020
DeLorme, Denise E & Reid, Leonard N. "Moviegoers' experiences and interpretations of brands
in films revisited. Journal of Advertising 28.2 (1999): 71-95 Accessed on 24 Jul.
2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1216938140&clientId=57020b
Eisenberg, Daniel & Bradford, Laura. "It's an ad, ad, ad, ad world. " Time 2 Sep. 2002: 3841. Accessed on 25 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
"FED: Call to ban soft drink marketing to under-16s. " AAP General News Wire
29 October 2007 1. Accessed on 1 Aug. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?

Gould, Stephen J., Gupta, Pola B. & Grabner-Krauter, Sonja. "Product placements in movies: A
cross-cultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers' attitudes toward this
emerging, international promotional medium. " Journal of Advertising 29.4 (2000): 4158. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
Hudson, Simon , Hudson, David, & Peloza, John. "Meet the Parents: A Parents' Perspective on
Product Placement in Children's Films." Journal of Business Ethics 80.2 (2008): 289304. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
Koszarski, Richard. "Introduction: Movie Business. " Film History 19.3 (2007): 211212. Accessed on 28 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
La Ferle, Carrie & Edwards, Steven M. "Product Placement. " Journal of Advertising
35.4 (2006): 65-86. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
LeGresley, Eric M., Muggli, Monique E. & Hurt, Richard D. Movie Moguls: British American
Tobacco's covert strategy to promote cigarettes in Eastern Europe. " European Journal of

Public Health 16.5 (2006): 505-8. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from
Madden, Normandy . "Unilever sponsors 'Ugly Betty' in China. " Advertising Age
21 Apr. 2008: 12. Accessed on 25 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
McKechnie, Sally A. & Jia Zhou. "Product placement in movies: a comparison of Chinese and
American consumers' attitudes. " International Journal of Advertising 22.3 (2003): 349374. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
McPherson, Keith. "Product placement: facing yet another dark art. Teacher
Librarian 35.3 (2008): 66-70 Accessed on 28 Jul. 2008 from
Nebenzahl, Israel D, Secunda, Eugene. "Consumers' attitudes toward product placement in

movies. " International Journal of Advertising 12.1 (1993): 1Accessedon 28 Jul.
2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?

index=6&did=933676&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQ
T=309&VName=PQD&TS=1217218318&clientId=57020
Neuborne, Ellen. "MARKETING: Ready for Your Product's Close-up? " Inc 1 Oct. 2004: 4850. Accessed on 25 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?

Neuborne, Ellen. "What's That Worth? " Inc 1 Oct. 2004: 50. Accessed on 25 Jul. 2008 from
Sargent, James D., Tickle, Jennifer J., Beach, Michael L., Dalton, Madeline A et al. "Brand
appearances in contemporary cinema films and contribution to global marketing of
cigarettes. " The Lancet 357.9249 (2001): 29-32. Accessed on 24 Jul. 2008 from
Stanley, T L. "Beer choice crucial to 'Sahara's' tone. " Advertising Age 2 Feb. 2004: S4-S5.
Accessed on 1 Aug. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
Stewart-Allen, Allyson L. "Product placement helps sell brand. Marketing News
15 Feb. 1999: 8. Accessed on 25 Jul. 2008 from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?
The Solution. Smoke Free Movies. Project of Stanton A. Glantz. (n.d.) Sponsored by grants
from American Legacy Foundation, the Arimathea Fund of the Tides Foundation, etc.
Accessed on 25 July 2008 from

Online Video Clips
Behind the Screens: Hollywood Goes Hyper-commercial. Edited by Susan Ericsson, Directed
by Susan Ericsson and Matt Soar, Produced by Matt Soar for Media Education
Foundation. 2005. Accessed on 28 July 2008 from
http://www.brandhype.org/videos/BTS-1.mov
The Persuader. Directed by Barak Goodman & Rachel Dretzin, Written by Barak Goodman &
Douglas Rushkoff, Produced by Barak Goodman, Rachel Dretzin and Muriel Soenens for
PBS. November 9, 2004. Accessed on 25 July 2008 from
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/
Podcast
Stanton A. Glantz. Interview with Brook Glanstone and Bob Garfield. On the Media. NY
Public Radio: WNYC. 2 March 2007. Accessed on 29 July 2008 from
http://www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/about.html

QUESTIONNAIRE

Name (optional):
Age :
Gender :
I.
1. How often, on the average, do you watch movies?
Theater:
_____ 1-3 times a month______ more than 4 times a month
_____ 1-3 times a year ______ more than 4 times a year
_____ 1-3 times a week ______ more than 4 times a week
_____ other answer. Kindly indicate your answer.
VCD
DVD
_____
_____
_____
_____
1-3 times a month______ more than 4 times a month

1-3 times a year ______ more than 4 times a year
1-3 times a week______ more than 4 times a week
other answer. Kindly indicate your answer.
_____
_____
_____
_____
1-3 times a month______ more than 4 times a month

1-3 times a year ______ more than 4 times a year
1-3 times a week______ more than 4 times a week
other answer. Kindly indicate your answer.
2. Did you notice product placement in the movies youve watched?

________ Yes
________ No
3. Which of the following films have you watched? Please put a check on the left side of the
movie title that youve watched then on the right side, kindly choose from the list of products
below the brands that you remember appearing on the movies youve checked.
* Please note that some brands below appear in more than one film in the list.
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
______
Castaway _____________________
Spider-man _____________________
Superman _____________________
Sex and the City _____________________
Youve Got Mail _____________________
ET The Extra Terrestrial _____________________
I am Sam _____________________
Armageddon _____________________
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles _____________________
Good Will Hunting _____________________
Forrest Gump _____________________
Fantastic Four _____________________
Finding Nemo _____________________
The Chronicles of Narnia _____________________
Back to the Future _____________________

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
Dr. Peppers M. Dunkin Donuts

Dominos Pizza
Fed Ex
AOL
Starbucks
Pepsi
Reeses Pieces
Animals Cracker
Great Western Railway
Wall Street Journal
Marlboro
E-Bay
* If you think the list misses on some brands which were featured on the movies youve checked, kindly
write them down on the space provided. Thank you!
II.
Check ( ) the statement that applies to your belief and put an X on statement that opposes your belief
about product placement on movies.
________ 1.If featuring brands on movies can reach more viewers at less cost, then it
should be acceptable because it gives more consumers the freedom to choose without the brand
intruding our space.
________ 2. Featuring brands on movies in order to reach more viewers is not acceptable
because it distracts the viewers from concentrating on the movie.
________ 3. I favor product placement over the traditional 30-second commercial because
of the lower advertising cost.
________ 4. The lower advertising cost on product placement can not yield favorable
results for the featured brands because the viewers dont really notice their brands.
________ 5. Only the producers gain from product placement, not the viewers.
________ 6. The viewers are empowered by the featured brands because they give them
the right to choose without the brands intruding their space.
________ 7. Featuring brands on movies can make the story more realistic.
________ 8. Featuring brands on movies can make the story more artificial and actually
more unrealistic.

________ 9. Product placement can hinder the creativity of the writers and director.
________ 10. Product placement has no influence on the creativity of the writers and
director.
________ 11. Product placement does not influence the storyline.

________ 12. Product placement can cause the storyline to change.
________ 13.Featuring brands on movies has ethical implications.

________ 14.Featuring brands on movies has no ethical implications.
_________ 15. All kinds of brands may be featured on movies.

_________ 16. Some brands should not be allowed to be featured on movies.
If yes, please name some products which should not be featured on movies:
_______________________________________________
_________ 17. Branded products should be totally banned on movies.
_________ 18. Product placement should be banned on some movies.
If yes, what kind of movies should not feature any brand?
____________________________________________________

Product Placement On Movies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

You might also like

Product Placement On Movies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Product Placement On Movies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

IMPLICATIONS OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT ON MOVIES

Viewers Attitudes Toward Ethical, Economic and

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

Product Placement: What Started it All 3

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Profile of the Respondents 27

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

Age Distribution of Respondents

Gender Distribution of Respondents

Frequency of Film Viewing

Did you notice product placement

Branded Product Recall

Attitudes Toward the Economic Implication

Attitudes Toward the Creative Implication

Attitudes Toward the Ethical Implication

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ETHICAL,

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) defines product placement as a form of

It was reported in Belch

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

Advantages of Product Placement

Belch, G. & Belch, M. Advertising and

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

AJ (Ben Affleck): You know what Im thinking right

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

Disadvantages of Product Placement

Advertising and Promotion:

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

Types of Product Placement

Implicit and explicit

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

ET- The Extra Terrestrial

Reeses Pieces; Coca-Cola

Baby Boom (1987)

EXAMPLES OF BRANDED PRODUCTS FEATURED IN FAMOUS FILMS

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

The Incredible Hulk

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

The Forbidden Kingdom

Horton Hears a Who!

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus:

National Treasure: Book of

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

(The Persuader). In fact, giant advertiser American Express

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

VIEWERS ATTITUDES TOWARD ETHICAL, ECONOMIC AND CREATIVE

then, it means it offers excellent

return on investment. The most