The
Hollywood Economist
The numbers behind the industry.
A
front-page article in the Wall Street Journal
recently cited the on-screen brand choices of two movie
stars—Steve Martin driving a Mercedes Benz S-Class sedan
in Shopgirl and Matthew Broderick driving one
in The Stepford Wives —as empirical evidence that
this model of Mercedes “has practically become an icon for
corporate chieftains, movie stars and diplomats.” Since
it was not the movie stars themselves who drive that brand
of car, but their fictional characters, all the front-page
mention demonstrates is how effective product placement
can be in movies.
The
casting of cars goes back to the 1974 James Bond film The
Man with the Golden Gun , whose producer, Albert “Cubby”
Broccoli, made a deal to use American Motors vehicles in
all the chase scenes in exchange for advertising dollars
to promote the movie. The function of such product placement
is to subtly associate the car brand with a class of people.
Hence the choice of Chrysler Jeeps in Lara Croft: Tomb
Raider 2 , Audis in I, Robot and The
Transporter 2 , General Motors cars in The Matrix
Reloaded , and Ford cars on X-Files and 24
. Product placement now includes products ranging from
Apple computers in Mission: Impossible to Nokia
phones in The Saint to almost any brand mentioned
on NBC's The Apprentice .
The
persistence of a brand in a studios' movies often signifies
nothing more than a package deal. The Weinstein Company,
for example, entered into a multi-year marketing alliance
with L'Oreal Paris, the world's largest “beauty” brand,
which will result in the “integration” of L'Oreal's products
in the Weinstein bothers movies. And, with digital technology,
even if a L'Oreal product was not shot in the movie itself,
it can be inserted later (as is now being done with old
TV series.) One successful producer, whose movies have been
distributed by the Weinstein brothers, noted in an email,
“Product placement gigs will become a major source of production
financing in the future, in which a movie provides a controlled
world of good-looking stars wearing a certain brand of clothing
for an hour and a half, in exchange for which the brand
manufacturer pays for a large share of the production.”
Product
placement, though at a much smaller (and discrete) scale,
has a long history in Hollywood. In the 1930s, De Beers,
for example, had its agents give studio executives sample
diamonds to use in roles that showed women being swayed
by the gift a diamond jewel. Not uncommonly, the diamonds
were never returned. As brands took on more global significance,
product placement became more open—and routine. Most product
placement nowadays are barter deals. A manufacturer finances
a cross-promotional ad campaign in return for their product
being placed in a movie. In the recent James Bond movies,
such as Die Another Day and The World Is Not
Enough , for example, such ads for product placement
deals were valued at over $30 million dollars. Cash deals
are much rarer—and minuscule by comparison—but can prove
useful in covering unforeseen contingencies. In Terminator
3 , for example, the cash committed for product placements
was used to guarantee the deferred part of Jonathan Mostow's
$4,960,000 director's fee.
Not
all product placement deals accrue to the profit of the
production itself. In the case of Natural Born Killers
, for example, a producer arranged for the director
Oliver Stone and other members of the production to get
two free pairs of cowboy boots in return for showing the
boots' brand name, Abilene, on a truck passing by the open
convertible driven by the character Mallory Knox (Juliette
Lewis). This meant that the two vehicles—Mallory's car and
the Abilene boot truck—coming from opposite directions,
had to arrive in front of the camera at precisely the same
time. Over and over again, both drivers, starting their
approach a half mile apart, had to be continually cued with
walkie-talkies as the camera, which was mounted on a crane,
swooped down. So, to get his free boots, Stone had to shoot
numerous retakes, which delayed a production running at
$300,00 a day.
For
smaller independent movies, the fees for product placement,
whether cash or barter, are much less (The going rate for
a single product inclusion in an independent movie usually
ranges between $50,000-250,000). According to one knowledgeable
independent producer, “The most that's gained from the placements
is some free products, some cash for the production, and
some shared advertisement placement,” and, that is usually
conditioned on the product making the final cut and the
film getting a US release. Even so, for productions on a
tight budget, bartering airplane tickets, hotel rooms and
automobile leases for product placement slots can result
in more money being available for the filming itself—or
post-production work.
Nor
is there any reason that product placement should not be
part of the pseudo-reality of a movie. All the Oscar ceremony
blather about social reality notwithstanding, movies are
fictive concoctions. What goes into that concoction—including
stars chosen for their ability to pre-sell foreign markets,
locations chosen to qualify for government subsidies, and
brands chosen for their production placement value—doesn't
alter its fictional status. The only problem comes when
the illusion of a movie is confused with the reality of
the consumer Zeitgeist—which of course is the ultimate purpose
of the product placer.
[back to
archive]
|