Ryff Inc. - Disrupting Product Placement

For the exclusive use of B. Woods, 2022.
W20764
RYFF INC.: DISRUPTING PRODUCT PLACEMENT
R. Chandrasekhar wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Kirk Kristofferson solely to provide material for class discussion.
The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised
certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality.
This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized, or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Our goal is to publish
materials of the highest quality; submit any errata to publishcases@ivey.ca. i1v2e5y5pubs
Copyright © 2020, Ivey Business School Foundation Version: 2020-09-17
In July 2019, Roy Taylor was reviewing the business plan for Ryff Inc. (Ryff), a technology start-up he had
founded a year previously in Los Angeles, California. The city of Los Angeles was not only a global
entertainment capital where film and television studios made their home but also a media hub where mega-
advertising campaigns, which fed and sustained the global entertainment industry, were developed. Ryff
had positioned itself in the bourgeoning advertising technology (ad tech) sector in the city, dealing with the
“range of software and tools that brands and agencies use[d] to strategize, set up, and manage their digital
advertising activities.”1
Taylor had built a technology platform, Placer, which was targeted at advertisers, advertising agencies, and
film and television studios. The platform helped marketers and advertisers place brands digitally into
specific scenes in films and television shows. Virtual product placement used digital technology to insert a
branded product, which was not part of the original script, into a film or television scene. Its core function
disrupted the physical product placement industry because the platform facilitated the virtual placement of
brands in real time—that is, the product was placed while the scene was being played to the audience rather
than when it was recorded. Placer’s virtual placement capability was also disrupting traditional physical
product placement in another way: each virtual placement was customized to match the digital profile and
viewing habits of an individual viewer.
Taylor considered the several moving parts in his business plan as he sat in the makeshift office he was using
before relocating with his 25-member team to their new office in the city. Ryff was still prospecting potential
candidates to join the team; Placer was still being fine-tuned; and the ad tech sector was still evolving. In
addition, the broader advertising industry, of which product placement—both physical and virtual—was a
part, was itself in the middle of disruptive innovation triggered by new technologies such as Placer.
Taylor reflected on his challenges:
Amid the chaos that surrounds me, I am facing three dilemmas in taking Ryff forward. First, an
advertising agency is structured along autonomous business divisions, whereas virtual product
placement cuts across them. These divisions operate like separate companies within the agency, often
with their own CEO [chief executive officer] and CFO [chief financial officer], and have historical
loyalties, tension points, and motivations. How should Ryff find its fit with an advertising agency?
This document is authorized for use only by Brittany Woods in MKT 599 STRATEGIC MARKETING IN THE CREATIVE INDUSTRIES taught by JOSEPH NUNES, University of Southern
California from Jan 2022 to Jul 2022.
Page 2 9B20A074
Second, virtual product placement is programmatic. Its interactions are between software programs
and not, as with an agency, between humans. How should Ryff bring the brand managers into
alignment with its technology?
Third, virtual placement enables Ryff to go global—different placements can be inserted in real
time depending on where the TV show or film is being viewed. As Ryff takes Placer global, how
should it manage the cross-cultural nuances of virtual product placement?
PRODUCT PLACEMENT INDUSTRY
Product (or brand) placement was defined as “a paid product message aimed at influencing movie (or television)
audiences via the planned and unobtrusive entry of a branded product into a movie (or television program).”2
Product placement as a marketing tactic first appeared in feature films. One of the earliest recorded product
placements that was specifically identified as a marketing tactic was of the Hershey Company’s chocolate in the
silent war film Wings in 1927.3 The execution of the placement was admittedly awkward.
The beginnings of refined placement execution were laid in the 1951 movie The African Queen in which
Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn were seen with a bottle of Gordon’s Gin. Product placement as
a marketing tactic truly came of age in the 1982 movie E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial in which the near-seamless
placement of Hershey’s Reese’s Pieces led to a 65 per cent increase in product sales within three months.4
This surge in sales vaulted Hershey ahead of Mars Incorporated, Hershey’s long-time rival in the ultra-
competitive US confectionery industry, and represented the first widely recognized evidence of a business
outcome from product placement. Hershey’s ascent was a pivotal event in a near century-old battle of
market shares between the two companies.5
Soon, the economics of product placement went into overdrive. It was led by three developments during
the mid-1980s: movie budgets were increasing exponentially; studio executives began viewing product
placement as a revenue stream; and brand managers were keen on paying additional fees to secure a more
prominent role in the scripts.6
Taylor elaborated:
Following the surge that started in the 1980s, it was during the heydays of reality TV in the late
1990s, which typically portrayed participants in unscripted situations, that product placement came
of age. It also became less of a tactical tool at the time and was being integrated with strategic brand
marketing. The latter development gradually led to joint promotional marketing in which the
brand also advertised the film or TV show through its own marketing channels as part of the
placement agreement.
An often-cited example of joint promotional marketing was the Dutch beer brand Heineken benefiting from
placement in the 2012 James Bond movie Skyfall, and the film producers benefiting from Heineken
mentioning the movie in its own advertisements.7
Product placements took three general forms: visual placement in which the branded product was positioned
in the scene in camera view, spoken placement in which the branded product was mentioned by name during
a scene, and usage placement in which an on-screen personality held the product.8 Product placement was
effective with viewers because, unlike in a 30-second advertisement spot, product placement was not
necessarily understood as an explicit persuasion attempt. Viewers could also relate to the brand in a fashion
similar to how they related to the character, particularly in scenes involving usage placement.9 If viewers
could lose themselves in the story, the link between the character and the brand became stronger.
Page 3 9B20A074
The business of product placement revolved around three players: studios, clients, and placement agencies.
Studios were the producers of movies and television programs. Clients were the brand owners seeking to
promote their products with viewers. Placement agencies were the intermediaries that secured a fee from
the clients for placing their products into studio scenes. Product placement was part of the Hollywood
subculture, especially in Los Angeles, where factors such as power, trust, and legacy played a major role in
the interactions among studios, agents, and clients. Social relationships drove decisions and often overrode
rational elements, such as value for money or brand selection, at various levels.10
The product placement process would begin with the announcement by studios of the films planned for the
next year and television shows for the next season.11 Studios would send scripts to agents or sometimes
directly to clients whose permissions were legally required to incorporate their brands. The studios’ own
people, such as prop masters, set decorators, casting directors, and stylists, often leveraged their personal
contacts with brand managers. There was often a conflict of interest between brand owners and producers
or directors. The latter wanted no interference in their art, whereas the former, driven by maximizing
commercial interests, would often ask to see the “daily” (the raw film footage created that day) even as it
was being rushed to the editing room to ensure the product was visible and prominent.
Brand managers usually had the final say in the selection of scenes in which the placement occurred. They
would evaluate network credibility and prioritize shows based on three factors: buzz, visibility, and
feasibility for renewal. They would further choose between “proven” shows and those they thought showed
“promise.” An overriding factor in the brand manager’s decision for television shows was the television
rating point for a show, a metric that indicated the percentage of the target audience reached by the show.
The task of determining the value of product placement was complex and done by specialized market
research agencies. Some relied on the monetary value, whereas others focused on outcomes such as recall
and association. Others used placement characteristics (e.g., screen time and character building), context
characteristics (competitive messages and opportunity for distraction), and audience characteristics
(size and demographics) as the basis of placement valuation.
The economics of product placement was evident in the following example. When the popular television
show Friends aired between 1994 and 2004, it was known to average over 20 million viewers per episode.
A branded product placed in Joey’s apartment on his microwave, for example, would count as a guaranteed
exposure. If 10 guaranteed exposures were contracted for approximately US$100,000,12 the cost of each
exposure, lasting 15 seconds, worked out to $10,000. In contrast, a 15-second advertising spot on a single
episode of Friends would cost $250,000. An additional advantage of placement was that the television
exposure would have multiple reruns, whereas the commercial was a one-time event.13
The first comprehensive global survey of consumer responses to product placement was undertaken
in 2004 by the WPP Group, one of the world’s largest advertising agencies. The survey revealed that “16-
to-24-year-olds were more likely to notice product placement and consider trying the products they saw in films.”14
At 53 per cent, Mexico topped the list of countries where consumers would consider trying brands advertised
through product placement, followed by Singapore (49 per cent), India (35 per cent), Hong Kong (33 per
cent), and the United States (26 per cent). In contrast, consumers in France (8 per cent), the Netherlands
(9 per cent), and Finland and Denmark (both 14 per cent) believed that product placement “interfered
with the filmmaking process.”15
Page 4 9B20A074
VIRTUAL PRODUCT PLACEMENT

History and Trends
On March 7, 1999, the first live video insertion system or L-VIS (pronounced elvis), as it was known at the
time, was tested during a prime-time entertainment program. The core technology had been used in the past
during sporting events to create virtual logos that could be seen only by viewers watching the events on TV
screens, but this was the first instance of virtual brand placement in a prime-time show. Four electronic
product images—from beverage maker the Coca-Cola Company, fashion retailer Kenneth Cole Productions
Inc., mineral water brand Evian, and financial services firm Wells Fargo & Company—were inserted into
the background of scenes on Seven Days, a time-travel drama series on the United Paramount Network.16
What was significant about the testing was that the insertions were made after the episode had been filmed.
The event marked the formal unveiling of virtual product placement. The principal players in virtual product
placement were the same as those in traditional product placement.
Taylor explained:
Virtual placement gained traction on network TV for two reasons: mass-media consumers were
becoming wary of 30-second spots which had dominated the TV business for more than four decades
and advertisers were looking for ways, other than commercial breaks, to reach consumers. The launch
of video-on-demand services by Netflix Inc. in January 2007 in the US changed the rules of the game
further. The streaming service carried no advertisements and relied on monthly subscription fees from
individual consumers. Streamers, like Netflix, could be just the right digital platform to integrate virtual
product placement. They could benefit from revenue from non-intrusive advertising while brands could
access a valuable paywalled subscriber base. Studios, the content owners, could also make between
$50,000 and $250,000 per episode from fresh brand integration deals for back catalogue.
The subscription model worked for Netflix for 10 years. By September 2018, Netflix was operating in over
190 countries with 130 subscribers worldwide, 73 million of whom were located in the United States
alone,17 which was considered the most robust market for streaming. During this market dominance,
however, the number of competing streaming services worldwide had also risen to 200, setting in motion
subscription wars that diluted revenues.
Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Vudu, Disney+, Apple TV+, and HBO Max gained significant market share,
which, together with Netflix, started increasing their “brand integration efforts” (as product placement
initiatives were also known) to make up for losses in subscription revenue. In 2018, PQ Media reported that
74 per cent of Netflix original content contained brand integrations. At Hulu, it was 91 per cent.18 Hulu
found a 74 per cent increase in brand awareness with product placement compared with traditional 30-
second spots.19 This change highlighted not only the growing role of product placements but also the
dilution of the traditional advertising model. As an industry insider put it, “We don’t believe brands are
built from advertising anymore. They are built from an amalgamation of customer experiences.”20
Further evidence of a trend in marginalizing mainstream advertising was that, for the first time, four non-
advertising agencies had cracked Ad Age’s 2017 ranking of the 10 largest advertising agencies in the world
(see Exhibit 1). The marketing services units of Accenture plc, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), IBM, and
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Ltd. (Deloitte) were part of the shift from the traditional model.21 These
consultancy firms did not specialize in conventional creative ideas in consumer communications but had
strong digital divisions focused on the delivery of customer experiences by leveraging technology tools.
For example, Accenture, a global professional services company, vaulted ahead of large incumbents in the
global advertising industry by using advances in ad tech to personalize the products appearing in digital
content. It also acquired a string of advertising agencies to offer a fully integrated service.
Page 5 9B20A074
Function
There were three forms of virtual product placement: inserting a product that was not in the original
scene, removing a product that was in a scene, and changing a product that was in a scene. All forms
of virtual product placement were rooted in three basic principles.
The first principle was that a video was a series of still images that, when viewed at a certain speed,
gave the appearance of motion. It was akin to flipping the pages of a book wherein the speed at which
the pages were flipped tricked the brain into perceiving the motion as crisp. The rate at which the still
images were shown was expressed as frames per second (FPS). Each image represented a frame;
therefore, if a video was captured and played back at 24 FPS, it meant that each second of the video
showed a total of 24 still images. (Movies were usually displayed at 24 FPS.) Videos that were
broadcast live, such as sporting events, or videos with considerable motion, such as video-game
recordings, would have a higher FPS.
Second, an artificial intelligence (AI)-based software program would analyze the content of a movie
or television series frame by frame. Each frame would be numbered in a serial order. The software
would identify physical spaces captured in frames where the three-dimensional (3D) model of a brand
could be placed. These spaces were designated as virtual placement opportunities (VPOs). The 3D
models would be provided by the brand owner or its agency. These models, unlike physical products
or photographs, could be digitally altered in terms of their shape, size, colour, and contour to fit the
placement in sync with camera angles and light sources.
Third, when the viewer clicked “play,” a command would be executed and sent to the server to retrieve
the consumer’s personal profile, highlighting the viewer’s location (via IP address) and online
browsing behaviour. The command would trigger an instruction to insert the 3D model at, for example,
2 minutes, 10 seconds, and 4 milliseconds into the show, displaying frame number say 4547. Thus,
the product was virtually placed in real time.
Video games were becoming another content channel for virtual product placement. Their immersive
environment in which players could interact with the products they saw enhanced the perceived realism of
the gaming experience. The positive reactions among video game players increased brand awareness of the
placed brands. An additional benefit of this channel was that video game consumption was highest among
the coveted 18 to 34 demographic market.22
LAUNCHING RYFF
Graduating with a degree in business in 1985 from MidKent College in southeastern England, Taylor had
set up his own business in London that provided sales and marketing services in Europe for companies
based in Asia and the United States. Clients were largely from the electronics sector that manufactured
high-volume products such as microprocessors. These companies included Nvidia Corporation, a US firm
specializing in graphics processing units (GPUs), which were used in the visual computing industry. Taylor
later joined Nvidia as vice-president with a mandate to build and develop sales and marketing operations
in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. In 2005, Taylor moved to the company’s head office in California
and became responsible for sales and marketing of GPUs worldwide. In 2013, Taylor joined Advanced
Micro Devices Inc. (AMD), a California-based semiconductor multinational, to manage its channel sales
in more than 60 countries.
Page 6 9B20A074
Taylor left AMD in 2018 to launch Ryff. By then, he had set up a studio for AMD in Hollywood while
advising film directors on what was becoming Taylor’s passion—using technology for storytelling. He also
had served as director on the board of the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) in Los
Angeles. Through these networks, Taylor witnessed the huge technology-driven changes that were
influencing the delivery of entertainment in the United States.
By September 2018, Ryff had developed its first product. Known as Placer, it facilitated real-time
manipulation of moving images in films and television shows (see Exhibit 2). Ryff became an image
technology company that used AI to change the way entertainment was delivered and the way it was
experienced. Its platform would change any part of a moving image and insert a virtual object in real time.
According to Taylor,
Placer enables Ryff to target product communications and placement in such a way that the
[branded] object being virtually placed in a video is unique and pertinent to the specific person who
is watching it. It is possible, for example, for a car company that is placing a single model of a car
into a scene as a permanent fixture to place different models of the car for different viewers in the
same show at the same time. A family watching a TV series at prime time might see a sedan in a
scene, whereas a single person watching the same serial at the same time might see a coupe. That
is the power of customization that Placer provides to Ryff’s technology licensees.
Taylor saw Ryff as a technology platform rather than as a product placement agency. The long-term goal
was to scale the technology in such a way that one could place different kinds of objects, with foreign
languages as needed, to address different audiences and specific consumers around the world.
Ryff was also planning to use online gaming engines, which routinely dealt with high-resolution images,
to render unique products in real time for viewers of streaming videos. The technology was still evolving
but edging closer toward true photorealism. Ryff’s ambition was to become, as he put it, “the Google
AdWords for moving images, where any advertiser can bid for each virtual product opportunity.”
Taylor had estimated the company’s market size in relation to two metrics: total available market (TAM)
and serviceable addressable market (SAM). TAM was arrived at based on actual portions of movie and
television content produced in a year minus the content that was not amenable to integration of foreign
objects (e.g., period narratives and sci-fi pieces, which were visually distinct). The content was also
confined to a 10-year window considered by the industry as “current.” Taking into consideration the third
factor of budgets for digital media and content established by film studios and television production houses,
TAM was estimated at $50 billion annually. Of this, SAM was arrived at based on the number of episodes
and hours in a season for prime-time television, estimated at $18 billion. Ryff was targeting 4 per cent of
SAM, equivalent to annual revenue of $700 million. It was a market share that, in Taylor’s view, was
consistent with the first-mover advantage in a nascent market.
By June 2019, Ryff had 25 employees (see Exhibit 3). They included digital content and marketing veterans
recruited by Taylor from organizations such as Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., DreamWorks Pictures,
AMD, and Nvidia.
Ryff was an integral part of current industry-wide practices such as programmatic media buying, which
involved the digitization of media buying processes. Programmatic media buying had two subsets:
programmatic direct (in which brand owners would buy premium VPOs directly from content owners) and
programmatic real-time bidding (in which brand owners would bid for VPOs in an auction through the
medium of what would be called VPO Exchange). There were also back-end initiatives wherein algorithms
would filter consumer behavioural information through big data and enable advertisers to fine-tune their
goals and budgets to derive maximum return on investment.
Page 7 9B20A074
IMMEDIATE CHALLENGES
As he was trying to grasp the various moving parts in front of him, Taylor was also seeking a resolution to
each of the three dilemmas he was facing. Each moving part directly affected each of his three dilemmas
and their respective resolutions. Taylor needed to decide how to move forward.
Finding a Fit with the Business Divisions of an Advertising Agency
The advertising agency business was in the middle of a transformation that was being driven by several
major trends. First, there was consolidation. A regular stream of deals, beginning in the mid-1980s, had
established a clear pecking order at the top of the industry. WPP, Omnicom Group Inc., Publicis Groupe,
the Interpublic Group of Companies Inc., and Dentsu Inc. were the five largest advertising agencies (see
Exhibit 1). The consolidation had also witnessed the gradual decline of iconic global advertising brands
such as J. Walter Thompson (acquired by WPP and merged with Wunderman23), Grey Global Group (also
acquired by WPP24), and Young & Rubicam (Y&R, also acquired by WPP and then merged with the digital
network VML to create VMLY&R25).
Second, large agencies had moved toward a holding company structure. Rather than offering a variety of
marketing services under a single banner, the large agencies were holding several disparate business
divisions (e.g., media planning, client services, consumer research, radio, television, and films), each
specializing in a domain and operating as a strategic business unit.
The third trend was that ad agencies had erected firewalls among their divisions to avoid conflicts among
competing clients. Although the agency divisions were united by a common business purpose, as laid down
by the corporate office, of maximizing overall agency value, the agencies functioned as silos as far as their
individual operations were concerned.
However, the biggest trend was that advertising agencies—historically rooted in the predominantly
analogue media of radio, print, outdoor, and television—were under pressure to go digital. Some had
succeeded in this evolution, whereas some were struggling. However, they were all being overwhelmed by
the pace at which the digital divisions of management consulting firms were moving ahead.
Taylor said,
The challenge before us at Ryff is to work out which part of the advertising agency we should deal
with. Each business division within a large agency has its own organizational structure. The agency
overall would be keen on increasing its enterprise value, which reflects its value in the market, but
each division, in turn, would also be keen on increasing its own individual value in the market. That
is a source of tension in a large incumbent agency. It is also an entry barrier for small players like
Ryff. We have difficulty finding our way for two reasons. Our technology cuts across multiple
activities and multiple divisions within an agency. And ownership of decisions even within a single
division vests in different power centres and, as it happens in such situations, it is difficult to
identify a single individual with a true sense of ownership. People in an advertising agency have
difficulty relating to Ryff. They tell me, “You are no doubt doing something of value. It is different.
But, frankly, we don’t know what to do with you guys.”
Some large agencies were beginning to recognize the problem and were experimenting with solutions
around streamlining their individual holdings to bring in accountability and flexibility. Each large client
would be serviced by a captive team, known as the “global client team,” with members drawn from different
business divisions worldwide. Each team had a point person acting as a gateway to the client for the
collective capabilities of the agency.26 The concept, known as “horizontality,” was catching on.27
Page 8 9B20A074
Taylor was not sure if the trend was part of the solution or was actually the problem. The global client team
could well become one more touch point he would have to navigate within an agency.
In the interim, Taylor had found a potential way out of his dilemma. He would look for a sponsor within an
agency’s business division who not only understood the solutions that Ryff’s virtual placement technology could
provide but also had the greatest need and would secure the greatest benefit from Ryff. Although the approach
worked, it was time-consuming. Taylor wondered whether there were better ways of resolving the dilemma.
Seeking Alignment with Client Managers on Programmatic Placement
The technology of virtual product placement was still a work-in-progress. Programmatic advertising helped
automate the decision-making processes in media buying by targeting specific audiences and demographics.
VPOs were loaded into a software system that then generated the content that advertisers could buy.
Programmatic product placement was an up-and-coming opportunity in the product placement industry. It
leveraged big data and digital technology to provide relevant experiences to targeted consumers across
distribution channels. It involved the automatic insertion of brands based on individual viewers’ interests,
location, and browsing history. Each placement was customized and targeted to the individual viewer.
Ryff was preparing to seize this opportunity in two ways. First, it was building skill sets by hiring specialists
in programmatic business modes. Second, it was strengthening the technology platform on both the supply
side (creating advertising content) and demand side (meeting customer/advertiser needs) to help monetize
its inventory of available VPOs.
Historically, when an advertiser wanted to carry advertisements on television, they would contact the
agency connected to the content owner to purchase advertising inventory directly. The process involved an
insertion order, which was a formal order to run an ad campaign that included information such as program
demographic appeal, time of day, or ad network to receive the order, what ads to run, when to run them,
and for how long. Ad time length, rates, and a myriad of other details would also be included. The data
were scattered across agencies, networks, and regions; therefore, tracking results was a major problem. It
was a manual process that involved a great deal of human interfacing, which was often slow and costly,
particularly when executing thousands of orders at a time.
Taylor explained the change of pace:
Traditional advertising agencies typically indulge in face-to-face meetings and paperwork. That
can slow down the entire process. They are also not as capable in reviewing the standards of things
that they cannot see. Since agencies work with visual creatives, the agencies are not required to be
clued into what cannot be easily seen, like code quality or loading time scores. In addition, they are
used to working on platforms like print, hoardings, and TV, where the technology and tools move
at a glacial pace. Traditional agencies are culturally wired to perfect the output before putting it
out. They are not used to fixing things on the go. Digital marketing agencies move fast to capture
opportunities and change things on the fly with their software.
Taking the Placer Platform Globally Across Markets
The business was fundamentally amenable to globalization because television and movies were about “great
storytelling,” and—as a media executive put it—they could “transcend borders.”28 But the challenges of
Page 9 9B20A074
going global with Placer were unique for Ryff because the business of television and movies was not just
about storytelling, but about ensuring that the stories were culturally relevant at local levels. An
understanding of local regulations, customs, and norms in each market was critical. The software platform
had to be built locally, and both the demand- and supply-side programming had to be localized to ensure
that local rules were followed.
Partnerships with local media organizations were the preferred route to expansion. As Taylor saw it,
physical presence in a country would only be part of the next phase that would build market depth by
reinforcing local connections. Taylor was in negotiations with potential partners in nine countries:
Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Russia, Spain, and Singapore. Agreements were close to
being finalized with partners in some of these countries.
Taylor believed three attributes to be essential in a potential partner. First, the organization had to have a
successful track record of marketing brands to local consumers. Second, it should have already undergone the
evolution of becoming a digital organization and be familiar with the concept of programmatic selling. Finally,
it should have systems in place for compliance with local regulations on matters such as content rights.
Taylor commented on the global nature of Ryff’s challenges:
At a broader level, I have two concerns. The first is about the slower pace of doing business in markets
outside the United States. In America, where I have spent a major part of my professional life, the
business world moves quickly. The decision making is also, by and large, clinical. But, in other
countries, as my experience so far has shown, business is as much a personal event as it is professional.
I wonder how I could turn that to my advantage in deal-making? The second is that given that Ryff is a
start-up that is approximately one year old, it is not easy to persuade a foreign customer to partner with
it. I must work harder to convince the potential partner to license the Placer platform.
Taylor was convinced that Ryff would have the first-mover advantage in new markets it would enter. He
saw two opportunities in converting them to winner-takes-all markets. The first was to get into local-
language programming. Unlike the United States, where English was a common language across the
country, a country such as India had 22 official languages, each a flourishing market for movies and
television programs.29 That was where depth would come into play. Second, mobile was the primary method
that most consumers used to access the Internet in emerging and developing economies. Therefore, it was
necessary for Ryff to keep in mind the importance of improving the mobile experience for customers in
new geographical markets.
Knowing he must move quickly, Taylor pondered how he could resolve the three dilemmas facing him:
How should Ryff find its fit with large advertising agencies? How should Ryff convert people-driven
interactions to program-driven interactions? And, how should Ryff go global?
Page 10 9B20A074
EXHIBIT 1: TOP TEN ADVERTISING AGENCIES GLOBALLY
2018 Billings
Ranking Agency Headquarters Location
(US$ billions)
1 WPP plc London, UK 20.8
2 Omnicorp Group Inc. New York, USA 15.3
3 Publicis Groupe Paris, France 11.7
4 Interpublic Group of Companies Inc. New York, USA 9.7
5 Dentsu Inc. Tokyo, Japan 9.2
6 Accenture Interactive Dublin, Ireland 8.5
7 PwC Digital Services Toronto, Canada 5.4
8 Deloitte Digital New York, USA 5.3
9 IBM iX New York, USA 5.0
10 Cognizant Interactive New Jersey, USA 4.9
Source: “Agency Report,” Ad Age, April 29, 2018, accessed September 2, 2020, https://adage.com/article/datacenter/ad-
age-agency-report-2018-rankings-analysis/313176.
Page 11 9B20A074
EXHIBIT 2: RYFF PLACER VIRTUAL PRODUCT PLACEMENT EXAMPLES
(a) Honey Nut Cheerios (General Mills)
Scene as Originally Filmed
Virtual Product Placement Added
Page 12 9B20A074
EXHIBIT 2 (CONTINUED)
(b) Patrón Tequila
Page 13 9B20A074
(c) Dunkin’ Donuts
Page 14 9B20A074
(d) Perfectomundo Tequila
Source: Company files.
Page 15 9B20A074
EXHIBIT 3: RYFF ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (JUNE 2019)
President &
Chief Executive Officer
Executive Assistant
Chief Research Chief Financial Vice President Chief Technology

Officer Officer Operations Officer
Sales Marketing Finance Operations Engineering
Client Development Vice President

Digital Accountants Legal Science Advisor Chief Scientist
Los Angeles Production

Search Engine
Client Development Human Resource/ Optimization/
Visual Effects Celebrity Relations Software Architect Software Architect
New York City Finance Information
Technology
Client Development
Strategic Planning Data Analyst Software Architect
London
Compliance/
Sales Planner Key Performance
Indicator
Source: Company files.
Page 16 9B20A074
ENDNOTES
1
Indrajeet Deshpande, “What Is Advertising Technology (Adtech)? Definition, Ecosystem, Programmatic, and Trends,” Toolbox,
May 15, 2020, accessed June 11, 2020, https://marketing.toolbox.com/articles/ads/what-is-adtech-advertising-technology.
2
Siva K. Balasubramanian, “Beyond Advertising and Publicity: Hybrid Messages and Public Policy Issues,” Journal of
Advertising 23, no. 4 (1994): 29–46.
3
“1st Hollywood Product Placement Wings 1927,” YouTube video, 0:28, posted by “Olivia Shen,” April 7, 2016, accessed
November 10, 2019, https://youtu.be/baprt7dx32w.
4
“Did M&Ms Turn Down ‘E.T.’?,” Snopes, July 24, 2001, accessed September 30, 2019, www.snopes.com/fact-check/say-no-to-et.
5
“Bar Wars: Hershey Bites Mars (Fortune, 1985),” Fortune, December 22, 2013, accessed April 2, 2020,
https://fortune.com/2013/12/22/bar-wars-hershey-bites-mars-fortune-1985.
6
PwC, “Product Placement in Movie Industry: Strategic Insights and Fashion Apparel Case Studies” (presentation slides,
2012), accessed September 25, 2019, www.pwc.com/it/it/publications/assets/docs/product-placement-movie.pdf.
7
Jared Newman, “More Product Placements May Come to Netflix (But Don’t Call Them Ads),” Fast Company, July 13, 2019, accessed
August 15, 2019, www.fastcompany.com/90380266/more-product-placements-may-come-to-netflix-but-dont-call-them-ads.
8
Cristel A. Russell, “Toward a Framework of Product Placement: Theoretical Propositions” in Advances in Consumer Research,
vol. 25, eds. Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson (Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1998), 357–362.
9
Tom Van Laer, Ko De Ruyter, Luca M. Visconti, and Martin Wetzels, “The Extended Transportation-Imagery Model: A
Meta-Analysis of the Antecedents and Consequences of Consumers’ Narrative Transportation,” Journal of Consumer
Research 40, no. 5 (2014): 797–817; and Jennifer Edson Escalas, “Self-Referencing and Persuasion: Narrative
Transportation Versus Analytical Elaboration,” Journal of Consumer Research 33, no. 4 (2007): 421–29.
10
Cristel Antonia Russell and Michael Belch, “A Managerial Investigation into the Product Placement Industry,” Journal of
Advertising Research 45, no. 1 (2005): 73–92.
11
Ibid.
12
All currency amounts are in US dollars unless otherwise specified.
13
Russell and Belch, op. cit.
14
Emma Hall, “Young Consumers Receptive to Movie Product Placement,” Ad Age, March 29, 2004, accessed October 5,
2019, https://adage.com/article/news/young-consumers-receptive-movie-product-placement/98097.
15
Ibid.
16
Stuart Elliott, “The Media Business: Advertising; A Video Process Allows the Insertion of Brand-Name Products in TV
Shows Already on Film,” New York Times, March 29, 1999, accessed October 30, 2019, www.nytimes.com/1999/03/29/busi
ness/media-business-advertising-video-process-allows-insertion-brand-name-products-tv.html.
17
Louis Brennan, “How Netflix Expanded to 190 Countries in 7 Years,” Harvard Business Review, October 12, 2018,
accessed December 13, 2019, https://hbr.org/2018/10/how-netflix-expanded-to-190-countries-in-7-years.
18
Rae Paoletta, “For Digital-First Content Providers, Product Placement Takes Center Stage,” Ad Exchanger, August 27, 2018,
accessed August 15, 2019, https://adexchanger.com/digital-tv/for-digital-first-content-providers-product-placement-takes-center-stage.
19
Ibid.
20
E.J. Schultz, “The Race Is On!: How IBM, Accenture, PwC and Deloitte Are Shaking Up the Marketing Industry,” Ad Age,
April 2018, accessed December 12, 2019, https://adage.com/article/news/consultancies-rising/308845.
21
Ibid.
22
Nancy Cohen, “Virtual Product Placement Infiltrates TV, Film, Games,” E-Commerce Times, February 23, 2006, accessed
August 7, 2019, https://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/48956.html.
23
Patrick Coffee, “WPP Will Merge J. Walter Thompson with Wunderman to Form Wunderman Thompson,” AdWeek,
November 26, 2018, accessed September 2, 2020, https://www.adweek.com/agencies/wpp-will-merge-j-walter-thompson-
with-wunderman-to-form-wunderman-thompson.
24
Erin White and Jason Singer, “WPP to Acquire Grey Global Group in $1.52 Billion Deal,” Wall Street Journal, September
13, 2004, accessed September 2, 2020, https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB109501433271415575.
25
Patrick Coffee, “WPP Officially Merges VML and Y&R, Creating a New ‘Brand Agency Experience,’” AdWeek, September
26, 2018, accessed September 2, 2020, https://www.adweek.com/agencies/wpp-officially-merges-vml-and-yr-creating-a-
new-brand-experience-agency.
26
E.J. Schultz, “Leo Who? What Happens When Holding Company Client Teams Swallow Agencies,” Ad Age, June 12, 2018,
accessed December 13, 2019, https://adage.com/article/agency-news/holding-company-teams-swallow-agencies/313787.
27
Michael Krauss, “The Power of Horizontality,” Marketing Management 48, no. 11 (2014): 24–26.
28
Brennan, op. cit.
29
New World Encyclopedia, s.v., “Languages of India,” March 17, 2020, accessed July 29, 2020,
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Languages_of_India.

Ryff Inc. - Disrupting Product Placement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ryff Inc. - Disrupting Product Placement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ryff Inc. - Disrupting Product Placement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For the exclusive use of B. Woods, 2022.

RYFF INC.: DISRUPTING PRODUCT PLACEMENT

Copyright © 2020, Ivey Business School Foundation Version: 2020-09-17

Taylor reflected on his challenges:

PRODUCT PLACEMENT INDUSTRY

VIRTUAL PRODUCT PLACEMENT

Finding a Fit with the Business Divisions of an Advertising Agency

Seeking Alignment with Client Managers on Programmatic Placement

Taylor explained the change of pace:

Taking the Placer Platform Globally Across Markets

Taylor commented on the global nature of Ryff’s challenges:

EXHIBIT 1: TOP TEN ADVERTISING AGENCIES GLOBALLY

EXHIBIT 2: RYFF PLACER VIRTUAL PRODUCT PLACEMENT EXAMPLES

(a) Honey Nut Cheerios (General Mills)

Scene as Originally Filmed

Virtual Product Placement Added

(b) Patrón Tequila

Scene as Originally Filmed

Virtual Product Placement Added

(c) Dunkin’ Donuts

Scene as Originally Filmed

Virtual Product Placement Added

(d) Perfectomundo Tequila

Scene as Originally Filmed

Virtual Product Placement Added

Source: Company files.

EXHIBIT 3: RYFF ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (JUNE 2019)

Chief Research Chief Financial Vice President Chief Technology

Sales Marketing Finance Operations Engineering

Client Development Vice President

California from Jan 2022 to Jul 2022.

Source: Company files.

You might also like