The latest 007 movie has over 20 product placements. Apparently, a recent Sylvester Stallone movie had over 100 product placements (more than one a minute). Companies spend a LOT of money (sometimes tens of millions of dollars!) to get their product into a movie. But does it work?
A recent report on AdAge says not only does it not work, it works against the brand. A brain scan of people watching a movie showed that at times, when a product appeared on the screen, it actually gets deleted from the brain.
Hey companies, tell you what, I've got a great service for you: just give one million usd, and I'll promise not to place it in a movie. I now have evidence my campaign will work better than yours!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Fact: majority of product placements are secured via barter/product loan.
Not shocking that Madison & Vine would denounce the entertainment marketing industry.
My sources say companies pay for placements, perhaps in addition to product loan, though I'm sure there's more going on behind the scenes. Any good examples of barter to share?
I didn't get the impression from the study that there was any denouncing going on. Rather the study sheds useful insight into the way placements affect consumers. It may be better, for example, to target a few products rather than 10s or hundreds, and perhaps to use more modalities than merely the visual to enhance the consumer's perception. For example, have Bond talk about his deodorant and his shoes, or play the theme song from the commercial as background. But just image image image will compete with story story story, and apparently only the latter will win.
Post a Comment