{"id":20773,"date":"2023-07-05T18:05:08","date_gmt":"2023-07-05T12:05:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bbf.digital\/new\/?p=20773"},"modified":"2023-07-31T11:28:11","modified_gmt":"2023-07-31T05:28:11","slug":"product-placement-is-over","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bbf.digital\/new\/product-placement-is-over","title":{"rendered":"Product Placement is Over- or is it?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u201cProduct placement is over\u201d – or so says Anthony Lane in his article in the New Yorker. While reviewing the latest film directed by Ben Affleck based on the story behind the creation of Air Jordan, Lane quite sarcastically pointed out the \u2018\u2018lameness\u2019\u2019 of product placement. To quote him- \u201cWhy smuggle an item of merchandise into a movie, like contraband, and have people snicker at the subterfuge, when you can declare your product openly and lay it on the table?\u201d
\nWell, sarcasm or not, Lane raised a critical concern for brands- is product placement really over?<\/p>\n

First, to understand if product placement is on the verge of becoming obsolete, we need to identify what new trend will replace it. Thanks to Lane, we have a good idea of the upcoming trend. Movies, where the protagonist is a specific company or a specific product of a company, have been in demand recently. For instance, \u201cThe Founder\u201d (2016) unfolded the creation myth of McDonald\u2019s; \u201cSteve Jobs\u201d (2015) did the same for Apple; with \u201cJoy\u201d (2015), Miracle Mop and Joy Mangano broadened their horizon to an unimaginable level. And Apple TV+\u2019s \u201cTetris\u201d and the upcoming \u201cBlackBerry\u201d are the two most recent examples. These movies and shows are very different from product placement on many levels.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nUnlike product placement, where the product gets exposure for a few glimpses, brands have ample time to retell their birth story more alluringly in movies. Two to three hours is more than enough for brands to get real with their customers and put across a new brand image for audience acceptance. In \u201cThe Founder\u201d (2016), the story of Ray Kroc and the genesis of the giant burger empire has hardly any moral value. But it does have one thing that customers admire in the brand, authenticity. Ray Kroc, in many ways, reflects McDonald\u2019s as we know it, a mass-producing food chain overshadowing small businesses with its cheap price and quick service. In the movie, Ray Kroc also steals the intellectual property of the original McDonald\u2019s brothers in his signature cunning way, leaving them fending off themselves from their own creation. Still, there is something about Ray Kroc that intrigues you. His self-awareness is admirable and, in a way, mirrors the self-awareness of McDonald\u2019s as a brand. Coincidence or clever marketing, but after the movie\u2019s release, the sale of McDonald\u2019s skyrocketed.<\/p>\n

Previously in 2016, McDonald\u2019s announced its second-quarter earnings, reporting that its revenue dropped by 4% to $6.26bn as the burger giant\u2019s turnaround efforts stumbled both at home and abroad in the face of growing uncertainty among consumers. And in the fourth consecutive quarter, positive same-store sales across all of McDonald\u2019s business segments were visible, but investors were disappointed that growth appeared to be slowing. But on January 30, 2017, McDonald’s released its fourth-quarter and full-year results. Customer traffic grew by 1.9% for the full 2017 year, which marked the first increase on that metric in five years. Moreover, the 2017 global comparable sales increased by 5.3%, reflecting positive guest counts in all segments.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
\nSimilar positive growth was seen in \u201cJoy\u201d (2015) and Miracle Mop. The hero of the movie was undoubtedly the mop. As Richard Brody wrote in his article, \u201cThere\u2019s a wealth of narrative built into the Miracle Mop. The humble object bears the backstory of its creation (which may have remained for the most part unknown to the consumer). From now on, whenever you pick up a household product, imagine the struggles of a business, from the engineers and the factory workers to the advertisers and the attorneys whose tense and daring efforts brought it into being. But, just as much, the object also bears the story of the consumer, into whose daily activities it fits and whose daily life it will\u2014however subtly\u2014transform.\u201d The already-famous mop took a new height right after the movie’s release. The mop and other products invented by Joy Mangano started selling in major retailers such as Bed Bath & Beyond, The Container Store, Macy\u2019s and Target. At one time, Mangano sold over $2 million worth of products in an hour on HSN, the shopping channel where Mangano has made most of her business so far. But there are also many risks attached to this marketing strategy. Yes, when created to perfection, it can become a heroic saga of marketing. But there is also an equal and real chance of the movie failing to create the impression brands expect. One example can be the 2015\u2019s critically-acclaimed but box-office flop \u201cSteve Jobs.\u201d Moreover, making movies is an expensive business with a 50% chance of success.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In comparison, product placement is a safer and budget-friendly option. It is not necessary that product placement has to be a paid collaboration. For instance, Ray-Ban did not pay a penny to the film producers of \u201cRisky Business\u201d and \u201cTop Gun\u201d for its prominent placement. But in return, Ray-Ban witnessed a dramatic increase in its sale from 18,000 to 360,000 after \u201cRisky Business.\u201d Similarly, Reese\u2019s Peanut Butter Cups saw a 65% spike in sales after \u201cE.T.\u201d Yet, the art of perfection is harder to crack with product placement. Too subtle, and the audience will miss the product in the background of the film; too prominent, and it will trigger the audience\u2019s \u2018persuasion knowledge.\u2019 And once the persuasion knowledge is triggered, the audience will become defensive, and it will risk the chances of annoying them.<\/p>\n

Still, movies will opt for product placement, not for the benefit of the brand but for themselves. As previously mentioned, movie-making is an expensive business. And a huge sum of its budget goes to production costs. With product placement, a production house can reduce its expenses which can be reinvested into better music, special effects, etc. According to an article in The Hustle- \u201cBy getting free stuff \u2014 hotel rooms, cars, fancy clothes, kitchen appliances \u2014 a big production might trim its budget by $250k to $5m+.\u201d So, it is safe to say that as long as movies need props, brands and production houses will reap the mutual benefit of product placement.<\/p>\n

Author- NAYEEMA NUSRAT ARORA<\/p>\n\n

\n\n\t\t\n