Pages

Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Pom Wonderful Presents: Blog Post Number 3

Product Placement. Something which has been utilised by marketers for many decades, seems to be increasing in its use in recent years. From subtle to extremely obvious. From Smirnoff Vodka featuring in James Bond's Martini in almost every 007 movie, to Apple products featuring in nearly every single episode of 30 Rock. Morgan Spurlock's newest film 'Pom Wonderful presents The Greatest Movie Ever Sold' tackles the issue of product placement and really takes it to the next level, with every single scene and every single aspect of the film featuring product placement. If you haven't seen it, it's worth checking out the trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJvl5JTuKV8.



The recent trend towards product placement has not spared forms of digital media and social media, either. Celebrities, and other people who have a strong following on social media websites, are being sought out by companies to 'name drop' their products into their updates or blogs. It may be difficult to claim this type of advertising as 'product placement', due to product placement traditionally referring to television or films featuring a subtle advertisement for a product where you traditionally wouldn't expect to see one. This has spurred a new found definition, 'tweet sponsorship' - which I still personally see as a form of product placement. It was featured by the Daily Mail that 'socialites' such as Kim Kardashian are paid up to $10,000 per tweet which feature a particular product (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1238285/Is-worth-10-000-tweet-Kim-Kardashian-earns-big-money-using-Twitter-account-advertise-various-products.html). Furthermore, it is widely known that popular YouTubers are often sought after for products to be placed within their videos, which YouTube cracked down upon, due to it not receiving payment for these advertisements. Clearly, this is starting to become big business.


I believe it is reasonable that product placement transcends into digital forms of media such as social networks as they explode in popularity. However, where do we draw the line between advertising and simply irritating consumers? I know personally, I find this type of 'tweet sponsorship' on Facebook or Twitter by celebrities annoying, and it seems quite blatant and obvious rather than often subtle forms of product placement in some films or television shows. I find it really cheapens the image of the celebrities, and I usually just don't bother following them. But then again, I'm probably not the exact target audience for Kim Kardashian's Reebok EasyTone shoes. Despite this, I think that the future holds much more for digital forms of product placement, and we will probably see it take a much more subtle form as consumers begin to become more aware, if it hasn't already. 

3 comments:

Wags said...

I believe, as you said, that subtlety is the key to success. If it's blatant, then the average consumer will switch off. Interruption is bad, subtle embedding is OK.

What do others think?

Sarah said...

I agree also, although if it is a product I am interested in I'm likely to click on the link or check it out even though I am aware of the 'product placement' and finding it irrating

David Williamson said...

Sarah: I agree, if I'm already interested in the product, I'll click anyway, even if it is an extremely blatant or annoying form of product placement. Although I guess this defeats the purpose?

Post a Comment