Hollywood and Product Placement

Level 1 Introduction to Media Studies.

Assignment 1.

Wasko's piece dates from 10 years ago: how has the market changed (if indeed it has)?

When watching any Hollywood blockbuster it is very difficult to ignore all the commercialisation that surrounds film. Even if you're just watching a Hollywood blockbuster, that you know no background about, it is almost impossible to ignore the product placement in the film, the merchandising that is made readily available to you, and the endless about of shops, brands and restaurants that advertise the film. In Janet Wasko's "Hollywood meets Madison Avenue: the Commercialisation of U.S. Films", she makes the film industry's need to advertising so obvious.

Wasko describes Hollywood as 'vehicles for even further commercial activity in the form of advertising and merchandising.' Wasko's article is split into three different sections, product placement, merchandising and tie-ins. Wasko describes Hollywood as becoming a business or 'commodity' rather than being the entertainment industry that it is meant to be. Since the beginning of film, it seems that product advertising has always taken place in Hollywood. However Wasko argues that instead of a script being written to create a film, it is written to fit in as much advertising as possible, to make as much money as possible.

Product placement is a very big part of the film industry, Wasko draws on the example of Pepsi whom have featured in 'approximately seventy feature films since 1919' (Wasko

2). Pepsi is an example I will also use later in this study; I have found Pepsi to play a very big part in the product placement game. It is hard to ignore the amount of Pepsi placements that exist when watching a film, even Mike Myers picks up on Pepsi in his film Wayne's World, in which there is a sketch of a television show in which they make a blatantly obvious Pepsi placement. Wasko's argument on product placing is obviously that it is turning the film industry into a 'commodity' but she does include other people's views on the argument of product placement. One point I found particularly interesting was that made by Lois Sheinfield,

'The movie industry may not realize the legal problems attendant upon this valuable resource [corporate America] and the commercialization of film. Take for example a movie version of Macbeth. What if Lady M tries to get the damned spot out with a can of Ajax? If Ajax is Kovoloff's client and has to be presented in a positive manner, then naturally the Lady will get the spot out. Well, that's a problem. No matter that Shakespeare didn't want her to get the spot out. He's dead and can't complain. The problem is Truth in Advertising Can Ajax get out a blood spot on the brain? Aye, there's the rub!!' (Wasko 2)

The point that Sheinfield makes here is very important, when is enough, enough? Are films scripts being written to include product placement deals or do they just happen to fall into place? According to Wasko movie producers 'generally argue that they chose subjects of choice and then listen to product placement appeals' and that product placement does not 'influence artistic interpretation', however there is no way of proving this statement, obviously in Wayne's World the Pepsi 'spoof' placement was made especially for the script but Wasko argues that Hollywood is becoming a money lead co-operation. To prove this point Wasko draws upon the example of Twentieth Century Fox Licensing and Merchandising Corporation, who will charge anything from $20,000 to $100,000 for product placement in a 'major motion picture'. This to me seems a hugely overwhelming amount of money for a product to appear in a film. Cigarettes seem to be the starter product that appeared in placements, for example The Flintstones were the first programme to advertising a particular brand. Wasko draws upon the verbal mention of cigarettes in the film Wall Street 'Get this kid a Molson Light', product placement of cigarettes is always going to be around as characters in blockbusters are always going to smoke and therefore Hollywood would create a prime spot for cigarette product placements. Wasko's makes the point of making it clear to the audience just how important it is to Hollywood to include product placements. Wasko claims that product placements create extra revenue for films, before they are even released, and the product's company have (almost) guaranteed advertising. The kind of advertising the products would be getting give the impression of a certain kind of lifestyle for example if you drive an Aston Martin you will be like James Bond. Which makes product placement a win - win situation for both the film and product producers.

Jan Kean, national director of promotions for Orion Pictures Corporation presents tie-ins as 'joint promotions' that help the cost the marketing of the movie' (Wasko). Tie - ins are products that are around all year round, but at the time of a film's release promotional products are released, there is no reason that these products appear in the film although they may do. Wasko draws upon the examples of three major Hollywood blockbusters Willow, Oliver and Company, and Land before time. Whenever a big blockbuster it is hard to ignore the entire tie - ins that occur. With, for example, the resent release of Disney Pixar's Cars McDonalds released play cars