Project Runway - Project Placement?

A reality show about fashion without a stylish sponsor is like... a dorm room without Ramen noodles. It's just not complete. So it shouldn't come as any surprise that Project Runway, Bravo's reality show hosted by Heidi Klum, places products in every scene. From brands on sewing machines to complete show sponsorships, Bravo has perfected the art of selling product placement and then weaving it into a program so it makes sense.

One episode (and also one from last season) was sponsored by Banana Republic. Designers were challenged to create a dress that would fit the style of a "Banana Republic woman". At the beginning of the show, I had no idea what a Banana Republic woman was. At the end of the 60 minute episode, I could define the ins and outs, hobbies and interests, of a Banana Republic woman. That's the beauty of it. The challenge revolves around using the product (or store's style), so you become immersed in it.

The winners of the competition had their dress design (see bottom image) mass produced for sale in Banana Republic stores. Their new "product", the dress, started out with an hour of advertising behind it, having been the focus of the entire show.

Reality TV is a great way to have product placement be involved, but not overt. Because we encounter these products in our lives, the "reality" of the television show makes us more comfortable with seeing the products. It's a smart way to show your product in action.



For more info:
Project Runway's Website

Which Product Placement Works Best?

When I watch TV on any given night, I'll see a variety of product placements (I'm watching for them, and, trust me, they're everywhere). Some are blatant (Coke cups on American Idol), some better hidden (a character's choice of toothpaste, for example), and some that show goodwill (Extreme Makeover: Home Edition).

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is an example of how product placement can serve both advertising and public relation functions. Sears donates a budgeted amount of materials to the show to help rebuild a deserving family's home from the ground up. Other donors include Sony, Panasonic, and Ford. Families receive all new appliances, furniture, and bonuses like new cars, college educations, or having their mortages paid off. Throughout the show, viewers are shown clips from the family's plea for help and video from their trip to (where else?) Disney World. Designers take shopping trips to Sears and watch as trucks drive up bearing Lumber Liquidators logos.

What's fascinating about this type of product placement is how wise it is for advertisers. Not only do they get exposure through the purchase and use of their products, but the exposure is shown in a positive light. Their donations to goodwill are highlighted without any extra work from PR staffs and news releases. Viewers are much more open to these messages because of the context they are shown in.

Sears ties this product placement into advertisements that run during the show. These commercials show the products that were used and then say "Welcome home, _________ family". In the end, a family gets a new home, new appliances, and a new life, and the sponsors get a new way into consumers' hearts.

For more info visit:
Extreme Home Makeover Website


Photo from www.upack.com (ABF company website)

Spongebob vs. Bugs Bunny

I was trying to think of something to write about, so I plugged in "product placement" into New York Times' article search engine. I found this article. It discusses a report from the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies which found that there was "compelling evidence linking food advertising on television and the increase in childhood obesity."

What was most interesting to me was the paragraph in the article that stated, "The report acknowledges that marketing to children has gone far beyond TV advertising to include, among other things, computers and video games that feature branded products, product placement in movies and television, and school-based marketing like signs and exclusive contracts with soft-drink companies."

It makes sense. When I was little, every time I watched an episode of Looney Tunes I would run into the kitchen and ask for a carrot. I mean, Bugs made them look so good! Unfortunately, now, influential cartoon characters (that's right. Influential.) are more likely to munch on a bucket of popcorn than a carrot. Cartoon shows and even other shows that children watch always have the best looking food, particularly to a younger age group. Spongebob Squarepants cereal, which now has marshmallows (yay!) is geared to this very naive and impressionable young audience. It's part of a complete breakfast, provided you drink a glass of orange juice, one of milk, and have a side of fruit. But, seriously, it's good for you.

(Most) children aren't mature enough to grasp the difference between carrots and marshmallows, except for the taste. Calories, sugar content, etc. don't mean anything to them. Spongebob works in a fast-food place, and Crabby Patties (I'll admit it) look absolutely delicious. But we know the difference between a veggie and a burger, so shouldn't advertisers serve as a gatekeeper to these impressionable kids? I think it's time to reevaluate product placement in children's shows and make it beneficial for all.




That carrot still looks good to me.

For more info:
New York Times Article

Picture sources:
www.eveningtimes.co.uk
scoop.diamondgalleries.com

quick picture

To add to my last post... here's a picture of Shaun White after winning yet another snowboarding competition: (image from skatelog.com)

Let the (product placement) games begin!

I wish I were an Olympic skier. I’d strap on my Rossingol skis, put on a pair of Oakley glasses, and swoosh down the run, helping myself to a bottle of Dasani at the end.

The Olympics are providing advertisers with another great outlet for product placement. After all, what’s better than being held up in the background during a gold medal interview? The U.S. snowboarding team even points to their boards after runs, giving them credit for their awe-inspiring tricks. Helmets, skis, boards, gloves, goggles, and jackets all have brightly displayed logos that are impossible to miss. Shaun White, the “Red Tomato” propped his board up behind him during his winning interview, displaying “Flow” behind him.

This Olympic athlete sponsorship can either be solicited or unsolicited by the company. Sometimes athletes just prefer a certain brand over another, or sometimes sponsorships or free merchandise can change an athlete’s mind. To the viewer, it’s an indication of quality, because if a gold medal winning athlete is willing to wear your product, it means it’s good.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the product placement legacy that Gatorade has created. Gatorade has become a staple of football games, from sponsoring drink bottles to the traditional Gatorade dump on the coach by victorious teams. These athletic equipment companies are associating themselves with winners in just the same way.

For more info:
NBC Olympics Site

Harrison Ford Goes Chrysler

“Very generally, product placement involves placing a product in highly visible situations. The most common form is movie and television placements.” – Wickipedia

Harrison Ford has gone Chrysler. Probably unintentional at first, but his latest movie, Firewall, is a poster child for product placement. I hope he got a free Chrysler 300 out of the deal.

I don’t mind product placement. Today, to cut through that infamous clutter, companies are going to have to be as innovative as they can get. For car companies, that means distancing themselves from commercials that simply show the car, the car, and, just in case you missed it, the car. According to Joseph Jaffe in the book “Life After the 30-Second Spot”, “Marketers have long held that by beating their prospects over the head with the same mundane message, consumers will eventually submit or succumb” (Page 13). I’m not sure about you, but I can’t tell the difference between a Ford and a Chevy commercial, and Lexus and BMW ads are so over-the-top elegant it’s ridiculous.

The problem with product placement is the difficulty in measuring its effectiveness. Right now, the movie Firewall has only pulled in $13.8 million in its first weekend (http://www.imdb.com/chart/). Not exactly a blockbuster. Not only does this hurt those who had a hand in making the movie, it’s hurting Chrysler too. Their product is only shown through indirect impressions in Harrison Ford’s car choice in the movie. But as Dave Rooney, director of Chrysler brand marketing said, "we're not trying to make a two-hour commercial, but rather cast our products in an entertaining environment."

Harrison Ford speeding away from bank robbers is certainly more entertaining than 360s of a generic model. Particularly for Chrysler’s target market. But the question that I’m sure I’ll spend a lot of time trying to answer is: did it work?

For more info:
Chrysler's Firewall Page
Firewall Movie Site
Detroit Free Press Article