By Sarah Sluis
When the star of a movie chooses Coke over Pepsi, pops into a retail location or shows off his/her new gadget, you have to wonder: Is that product placement, or was that there "originally"? The New York Times posted an article last weekend offering a rare glimpse into the dealmaking surrounding movie product placement. Filmmakers start by identifying places in the script that can be
branded--like the action hero's car--and then brainstorm ways to write
other brands into the script, which is the less authentic way to create
branding possibilities. Companies pay for branding either through a
"straight payment, which usually runs in the mid-six to mid-seven
figures," "a barter arrangement," where the company's goods and
services are offered gratis, or, finally, in exchange for help
marketing the movie.
The article brought to mind, first, the many times I've been irritated by branding within movies. Finding a brand that fits organically into a script is difficult. More often, adding in brands leaves recognizable traces apparent to those watching the movie. Just this weekend, I almost did a double take while watching The Blind Side. Sandra Bullock grabs her kids and goes into a Borders bookstore to "grab a design book" while her stunned husband waits outside the restaurant where they have reservations. The characters end up having a "moment" with the children's books Ferdinand and Where the Wild Things Are. The only thing is, the scene is extraneous, since the same "moment" also occurs while Bullock is reading her son a bedtime story. When I Googled "Blind Side product placement," I wasn't the only one on the Internet to have chafed at this reference.
I'm not against product placement. It's an economic reality, and can
create a mutually beneficial relationship between the company and the
movie. The problem is when the balance gets out of whack and a
reference seems more like a commercial than an honest use or opinion of
the product.
While brands are reluctant to be portrayed in movies in a less than a 100% positive light, doing so not only makes the reference more "organic," it often makes the reference more honest or memorable, and gets viewers to question whether it's a product placement or simply a brand called for by the story. I didn't have nearly as much of a problem with the product placement in Up in the Air, which references American Airlines and Hilton (both of whom apparently paid for their placement with marketing). George Clooney's character is very attached to his "points" and "miles," and seems like a brand-conscious person, so to have an actual brand and not a fictional one attached to his mile-accruing quest adds authenticity to the story. Plus, he actually feels ambivalent about his pursuit of such superficial things over actual relationships. It's not enough of a negative to disparage the brand, but it is enough to make the placement seem less like a commercial and more like a mostly positive recommendation or user review from someone.
Few genres or categories of films are safe from branding. Films set in the past can benefit from product placement (Forrest Gump drinking Dr. Pepper, anyone?), and those set in the future, like Minority Report, also include brand names. Far from being only the purview of commercial, populist fare, Oscar-nominated films like The Blind Side and Up in the Air feature prominent product placement. But when scenes are written into the script just to include a branding reference--that's where I draw the line. In the New York Times article, a consultant suggests having the lead actor in an upcoming film stop in a fast food restaurant--an idea that is, gratefully, nixed.
