The Inescapable Product Placement

What was your earliest memory of an actual product placement? Mine comes from "E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial" back in 1982 in this scene where Elliott was luring E.T. with Reese's Pieces.

Oxford Dictionaries define "product placement" as:

a practice in which manufacturers of goods or providers of a service gain exposure for their products by paying for them to be featured in films and television programmes.

from: "product placement". Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. Oxford Dictionaries. April 2010. Oxford University Press. 21 January 2012. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/product placement/

Of the many case studies in Patterson and Wilkins' "Media Ethics: Issues & Cases" (7th Edition), Case 3-D, "Was That an Apple Computer I Just Saw? A Comparison of Product Placement in U.S. Network Television and Abroad" by Philip Patterson of Oklahoma Christian University was the issue I was most drawn to.

To evaluate the ethics behind product placements, I opted to use the "Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics" from the Institute of Advertising Ethics (IAE), which was jointly established by the Reynolds Journalism Institute (RJI) of the University of Missouri School of Journalism and the American Advertising Federation (AAF).

In the Preamble, it states:

"The explosion of new technologies is changing the marketing and advertising landscape both domestically and globally.
"...
"The one constant is transparency, and the need to conduct ourselves, our businesses, and our relationships with consumers in a fair, honest, and forthright manner.
"...
"It is particularly fitting in such times that we remind ourselves of the ethical behavior that should always guide our personal and business conduct.
"..."

Interesting enough, the AAF website includes their specific stand on product placement (see here):

"AAF Position
Product placement is a legitimate source of advertising revenue and is not deceptive. It benefits both content producers and consumers and adds verisimilitude to fictional programming. We oppose proposals that would require simultaneous ‘pop up’ notices of every instance of product placement, believing this would make television unwatchable. We instead believe the current practice of disclosures at the end of a program works well."

The "Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics" lists eight principles that are helpful in evaluating the ethical considerations of this case study. Specifically, Principles 2 to 4 seem most relevant.

"Principle 2: Advertising, public relations, and all marketing communications professionals have an obligation to exercise the highest personal ethics in the creation and dissemination of commercial information to consumers."
But are these professionals truly living up to this obligation? Are they even questioning whether or not they should be barraging their audience with ads 24/7?

"Principle 3: Advertisers should clearly distinguish advertising, public relations and corporate communications from news and editorial content and entertainment, both online and offline."
This principle, in theory, seems admirable. However, the fine line between news and entertainment are blurring nowadays (reality TV comes to mind). Nowadays, we see the realization of McLuhan's concept of "hybrid energy" (Marshall McLuhan, "Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man", 1994), now called "synergy". "All media are active metaphors in their power to translate experience into new forms." (McLuhan, 1994, p. 57). As a result, everything is crossing over everything else. This makes it all too easy to extend product placements from the entertainment sphere to the news realm.

"Principle 4: Advertisers should clearly disclose all material conditions, such as payment or receipt of a free product, affecting endorsements in social and traditional channels, as well as the identity of endorsers, all in the interest of full disclosure and transparency."
I'm all for full disclosure and transparency. At the very least, put the relevant information in the srolling end credits. People are so mediated nowadays that we know all about endorsements. Paid or unpaid, it's better to err in the direction of transparency and disclosure.

Patterson & Wilkins raised two questions that I'd like to address here:

(1) "Are products placed into television shows the 'price' you pay for free television, just as watching 30-second commercials were the 'price' your parents and grandparents paid?"
If product placement's the price to pay nowadays, then it's definitely a high price. With 15- and 30-second ads going on, plus product placements on TV, film, radio and music industries, there is no getting away from advertisements. How is the audience reacting to all of these? Is it something they welcome or absolutely detest? How many people are still paying attention? Personally, being bombarded with ads, both overt and covert, tends to make me tune out all the more. Some days, it feels like enough is enough.

(2) "In trying to 'thread the needle' between effectiveness and offensiveness, what are some of the guidelines you would write for product placement?"
If I can write some guidelines on product placement, I will definitely make it short and sweet.
     -  Admit that there are product placements.
     -  Ensure that the product placements make sense.
     -  Practice discretion.
     -  Limit the number of product placements.

In addition, this issue can be further analyzed using the concepts of pluralism and utilitarianism.

The concept of pluralism - "multiple competing values, not one ultimate value" - goes at the forefront of the issue. Product placements benefit various sectors of the society. Everyone's in it for different reasons. Everyone's selling something. Everyone wants to make a profit off something or someone else. Everyone wants to get your attention and your money.

But are those in-charge asking whether or not the community-at-large is interested in or even need what they're selling? Sure, you can create wants in people's minds, but inundating them with ads might put your relationship with them at risk.

Mill's Utility Principle can ideally be used more often too. By bombarding us with things to buy, are advertisers aware of the outcomes they really want out of these product placements? If they are, are they merely focused on those outcomes - to sell and to make people buy? Are they still thinking of the greatest good for the greatest number of people or merely the greatest good for the small number?

Among the three tools I used in analyzing the issue of product placements (AAF's "Principles and Practices for Advertising Ethics", pluralism and Mill's Utility Principle), I find that the best method was actually a combination of all three. As I mentioned in my blog post "Ethics and Immunity", "[O]ne does not need to select one tool and use it exclusively. What is important is to actually come up and have a set of tools, and use them."

Though it might seem like product placements are inescapable, I do find comfort when I find media that pokes fun at the whole concept of product placement. Here's an old example.



All is not lost, as long as there are media professionals who are aware of what's going on, and will hopefully try to keep these practices in check.