EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Morgan Spurlock Launches Assault Against Onscreen Product Placement
The maker of Supersize Me has targeted advertisers who are increasingly muscling in on films and TV shows
He took on fast-food giant McDonald's in the documentary Supersize Me. Then he targeted the "war on terror" in Where in the World is Osama bin Laden? Now hit film-maker Morgan Spurlock has a new target: the advertising industry.
Spurlock, whose cinéma-vérité style has made him one of the world's best-known documentary-makers, has decided to take on the increasingly active phenomenon of product placement, whereby advertisers pay to have products used in films and TV shows.
His new film, called The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, was a smash at the Sundance festival earlier this year and will be released in the US next month. It follows Spurlock as he tries to get funding for his film from numerous corporations – an endeavour that results in a sort of exploration of the way advertisers have increasingly started to place their brands in films and television programmes.
"What I want to do is make a film about product placement, marketing and advertising where the entire film is funded by product placement, marketing and advertisement," Spurlock explains in the movie. He managed to persuade 15 brands to stump up cash. Testament to his success, the film's full-length title is POM Wonderful Presents The Greatest Movie Ever Sold; a California-based pomegranate juice drink agreed a hefty sponsorship.
The film is coming out at a time when product placement is becoming increasingly controversial amid huge changes in the advertising industry. The rise of devices like Tivo – which allows people to record shows and skip adverts – and the increasing number of viewers who watch films and TV through the internet has meant that fewer people are exposed to traditional advertising. One recent statistic estimated that perhaps 90% of prime-time TV viewers in the US aren't prepared to watch the adverts. "People record shows or watch them online. I haven't watched a TV commercial in a long time," said Jeff Greenfield, the publisher of Product Placement News.
That situation has placed huge pressure on advertisers to get their products in front of viewers' eyeballs in more subtle ways. American Idol judges now sit with Coke in front of them. Car chases have the hero driving certain makes of vehicle. Actors wear clothes from particular fashion labels. Key scenes take place in well-known coffee stores. The product placement industry has become such a key part of entertainment that the BrandChannel blog doles out annual awards. In 2010 it proclaimed Apple the most successful product placement brand, noting that its products featured in 10 of the 33 number one box-office movies in the US that year. The film with the most placements was Iron Man 2, which notched an incredible 64.
The trend is now coming to Britain. Earlier this year ITV's This Morning show struck a deal with Nestlé to publicise its Dolce Gusto coffee-maker. Channel 4 is considering deals for its Hollyoaks soap opera this summer.
Not surprisingly some – including Spurlock – have warned that the invasion of corporate interests and advertising is a threat to artistic integrity. "If there is any idea that the placements are driving the movie, then it is in no one's best interests," said Professor Herbert Rotfeld, a marketing expert at Auburn University in Alabama.
In the US, concerns have been raised about news shows that feature product placement. Cups of coffee from McDonald's are put in front of presenters on some regional stations, raising a potential clash of interests if a story involves the hamburger giant.
But defenders of product placement insist that there is no problem. They point to a long tradition of Hollywood prop teams using certain products simply because it gives an air of reality.
Rotfeld believes critics of product placement underestimate how savvy viewers are. "The power of product placement is overblown," he said.
"Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
21 Comments so far
Show AllI think (Apple) as long (GM) as it is done (Ford) subtly, there really isn't (Starbucks) anything (General Mills) wrong with placing products (GE) in movie and tv (Sony) shows. I bet in (Microsoft) most cases (Dodge) viewers (CBS) will hardly (NBC) even notice it.
It is (Cisco) such a (Nissan) small price (Kellogg's) to pay (Mobil Oil) to keep (INTEL) the price of movie (Walmart) tickets down.
Very Cute NC-Tom. Gave me a chuckle this rainy Sunday morning in the PNW.
Dito Tom. Nice.
I don't so much think that it is about how effective it is, as much as the message and artistic integrity. The message re-enforces that you are a consumer at all times. Bush said it appropriately after 9/11, when giving his first comforting words afterwards, which were something to the effect of, "everything's ok America. Go back to the malls and start buying stuff. Nothing to see here." Commercial "cheapens art/ and or puts a price tag on it. There's a reason that "commercial" music sucks; the soul, which has nothing to do with money, has been bought off and sucked out.
ha ha!
Good Humor!
The common thread I get from folks on product placement is the instant suspension of belief in a film when your brain acknowledges a product as being placed in the film. Never mind that somewhere around 90% of all computers are PCs of various brands; in movies Apple has always spent the most for product placement. It's also obvious when these products are placed in such a way that you can always tell what brand it is. It's sort of like a bad actor stepping into a scene and reminding you that you are watching a movie instead of being engrossed in the plot.
This is the effect it has on me as well. It's like being poked in the eye. My husband and I seem to prefer 'period pieces" that is movies where the setting is significantly in the past, right around World War II or earlier. We're not even that old, it's just the suspension of disbelief is impossible to sustain, otherwise.
To understand America and its utterly emasculated societal values one need only watch its corporate commercial advertising.
Advertizing on t.v. was half the reason I stopped watching t.v., the other half was pure crappy empty of content bs from hollywood.
I can't remember the last time I WENT to a cinema to pay to watch a movie.
I do watch movies but only the ones I like and enjoy. I most likely buy those so I can enjoy them when I want and without suffering through some inane hoopla that destroys the movie before it starts.(previews of other movies)
And finally, no matter the objections and the denial, ADVERTIZING IS PROPAGANDA and any attempt to keep you from coming to an informed decision.
"The power of product placement is overblown," "Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works."
"The power of product placement is overblown," "Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works."
"The power of product placement is overblown," "Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works."
"The power of product placement is overblown," "Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works."
"The power of product placement is overblown," "Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works."
And now, back to the show...
How much did Mars pay to place their bars in Saddam's rathole?
In addition to the stash of Mars candy bars there was found - allegedly - $750K in cash. Proof positive the big bucks are always in endorsements.
You'd think they'd be satisfied with having a planet named after their company...
"The power of product placement is overblown," he said."Just because a lot of big companies spend lots of money doing something does not mean it is a good idea or that it works." Jeez! What did you expect this transparent liar to say? So THINK about it; if it doesn't work, why would they do it?
I don't dig it either. But this has gone on for ages. The recent "Pioneers of Television" featuring the history of game shows, (shown on some PBS stations --yes, I do watch on occasion) shows some pretty outlandish product placement in the 40's forward.
Tacky? Yes. But this is America after all.
I have noticed product placement in movies and shows but I guess it doesn't bother me a whole lot. The place where I find product placement really irritating though is during the Biggest Loser. The show appeals to people trying to lose weight and live healthier lifestyles, so when there are these fake conversations and the trainers tell the contestants about extra gum or progresso soup, I can't stand it. Seems to me that the trainer-trainee relationship is a special one of trust, not unlike that of lawyer-client, doctor-patient, and the product placement seems to be an abuse of that trust.
The only difference between "fiction" and "non-fiction" is one doesn't tell you the story isn't true before telling it to you. Practically every non-fiction book I read 20 or more years ago has since been found to be full of innacuracies.
As a social commentary artist, I've made a study of truth. And, I think I'm more confused than ever. Branding, however, is a particularly disturbing beast. The newer forms of branding (and product placement) are looking more like mind-control. I hate conspiracy stuff. And, I'm not a big fan of science-fiction. But, I'm now thinking that is what I should have been reading all these years. Maybe I was.
Product placement: weapons, all kinds, MIC? Drugs; legal, illegal, pharma, Mexican cartels? Wars, any! Governments? As one can see it is all product placement; if that is what chooses to see. Tony
Haven't seen many feminine hygiene products placed smack-bang in movies or on TV, or dangling out of news presenters cups of coffee showing how more absorbent they are than the competition. -- They're missing out on valuable exposure there I'm sure.
Perhaps if 'balloon boy' had been supposedly launched on a chair suspended under a hundred thousand helium filled name-brand condoms then the sponsor could've paid for their court cases.
Product placement?
Sure, that's the big problem Morgan.
Empire and Oligarchy we'll take care of later, right now let's get those annoying product placements out of our movies and TV shows so we can sleep better in our Manhattan apartments.
Spurlock is an entertaining fellow, but we really shouldn't expect much (or pay much attention to) a fellow who only noticed McDonald's food was bad for you in 2004.
-matti.
don't watch tv...
don't watch movies...
don't watch...
One can avoid this annoyance by not watching television and avoiding Hollywood schlock whenever possible. Enormous advantages accrue, such as recovery from toxic propaganda, the result of which is better critical thinking, but wait! there's more -you also get years of your life back. In essence live longer for free and without miracle drugs! No down payment, never pay anything!
Just reach for that switch, pull that plug. Become a believer!
I ought to be able to bottle this and sell it! I need to advertise! -Oh!