This post, just one item in MediaPost’s Daily News section, illustrates the increasing importance product placements are taking in the media mix for many consumer brands. Just in the past week, Dairy Queen, Westin Hotels, Aston Martin and BP have managed to get major airtime not with commercial messages but more subtly, as part of the storyline.
This isn’t exactly a new phenomenon. Product placements have been part of the mass media landscape for about as long as there has been a mass media. For that matter, the fact that a paying customer (i.e. the advertiser) has sway over the editorial output of a medium isn’t all that unusual, either. After all, in the early days of all media (with the exception of the Internet) relied on corporate sponsorship or underwriting to stay alive. And the price for that financial support was often paid in coverage, commercial or otherwise.
But what’s interesting to note now is that as mass media – and especially television – tries to maintain some form of economic growth, the media is now actively courting brands with offers to work them into storylines.
Writers and other studio professionals have a problem with this, of course. These sponsorships directly effect their work and they feel they should receive their fair share of the spoils. This residual income is relatively small now but everyone knows it could (and probably will) grow to be much more significant. Staking a claim in the grubsteak early is key.
But smart media consumers have to ask: “What is driving this resurgent interest in product placements?” The answer, I think, is primarily technological.
You see, we consumers have a short memory and an even shorter attention span. Most of us don’t remember when television shows had keynote sponsors that were worked into their shows through a combination of live commercials, celebrity tours or cameo mentions in skits performed during “variety” shows.
Instead, what we remember is that the Internet was, primarily, a venture funded by the government, research institutions and universities and as a result, was devoid of commercial messages. That is no longer the case, of course. But there are still a number of Internet “purists” who decry the commercialization of the world-wide web.
Technology has had its impact as well, making it possible to remotely excise some of the media clutter that invades our homes on a daily basis. TiVo and other DVR’s can cut out commercials automatically; cable and satellite service providers tout programming that is “commercial free.”
In reaction to the possibility of subscription-based, satellite radio, many radio stations now limit the amount of commercial messages per hour to make sure there’s room for more “programming.”
Even newspapers and magazines, in an effort to generate more revenues, are providing a variety of inserts and outserts that are easily pulled from the publication and discarded in the trash bin.
So, brands have to find a relevant way to reach the consumer. Product placements provide that opportunity – especially if the brand is an integral part of the story. The “fuzzy grey line” in all of this, though, is in determining where a brand can be considered an integral part of a story compared to where a placement becomes a “gratuitous plug” for a sponsor.
What is the litmus test? That remains to be seen. Something tells me the creative types (e.g. directors, writers, producers) will all weigh in on this conversation and influence it greatly.
One thing is for certain, though: Wherever the line gets drawn, consumers will be paying to put it there.
The AdPulp Blog gets all techno on us with this post about automated milking machines and a dairy farm that allows the cows to decide when it’s time to come in for a squeeze.
