Product Placement of Fast Food and Tobacco Brands

Product Placement of Fast Food and

Tobacco Brands

Alex Dowgiert

Mallory Lynch

This article presents research on the effects of advertising on consumers for unhealthy products.

The products examined are cigarettes and fast food. Through evidence from various academic journals, the article draws conclusions based on traditional forms of advertising to emphasize the effects of product placement for the specified products. To this day, the two leading causes of death in the United States are due to obesity and tobacco-related conditions. Product placement has proven more effective than traditional forms of advertising, therefore is that much more influential on viewers. Without regulations on certain types of product placement such as fast food and cigarette brands in television programs and movies, unhealthy behaviors among

Americans will continue to increase.

Introduction

In 2006 the world wide spending on product placement increased from $3.4 billion to $4.4 billion in 2007. Of this spending, the United States accounted for more than two thirds of it

(Neijens et al. 2009). The reason for this tremendous amount of spending is obvious enough: product placement is effective especially in television series and movies. After Reese’s appeared in the blockbuster hit movie E.T. the extra terrestrial they experienced a 65% increase in sales

(Eisend 2009). This incredible jump in sales can be explained by an experiment conducted by the

Journal of Advertising Research. People who were exposed to movie and television programs that included product placement more often chose the placed product in a choice test that those who were not exposed to product placement even though they do not remember seeing the particular brand in the film (Reijmersdal et al. 2009). Furthermore, product placement is most effective in television shows and movies because the average American devotes 8 hours a day to watching television (Stelter 2009). Since Americans watch so much television, thus, increasing their exposure to product placement, it further influences their consumer habits and when those product placements are fast foods and cigarettes people become more inclined to consume unhealthy products.

A link between fast food advertisements and obesity

Throughout the years obesity has become a rather dominant issue. Though there is not one particular explanation, advertising for fast food restaurants has certainly been named as one of the culprits. (Based on an article featured in Brandweek), in a simple 20 minute period of watching the popular prime time reality television show “The Apprentice” there was an average of 184 occurrences of placed fast food products. When these products are seen or used on television shows such as these viewers become more accepting of the product and are thus, more likely to consume it. For example a recent study conducted by Grossman, Rashad, and Shin-Yi in the Journal of Law and Economics in 2008 looked at the effect that fast food restaurant advertising on television had on childhood obesity. Most prior studies had concluded that there is indeed a link between children watching television and obesity but this study focused on television advertising and obesity in particular. From the years of 1963 to 1970, 4% of children ages 6-11and 5% of 12-19 year olds were defined as overweight. Yet, shockingly by 1999 the amount of overweight children increased to 13% and adolescents to 14%. Though correlation does not equal causation a trend that helps explain this sudden increase in obesity was the rising number of household television sets. In 1950 approximately 2% of households contained televisions. By the 1990’s 98% of American households had televisions and 60% of those households had cable. Along with these percentages, between the years of 1980 and 1997 the amount of fast food advertisements increased with 5% to 28% of all food advertisements. The results concluded that because children were watching more television since the 1990’s than they were in the 70’s and 80’s they were being exposed to more advertisements of fast food thus contributing to their rise in obesity. Therefore, this study showed that there was indeed “a strong positive effect of exposure to fast-food restaurant advertising on the probability that children and adolescents are overweight” (Grossman et al. 2008).

Another study conducted by Milbank Quarterly compared lower income families with the types of advertisements they are exposed to. Studies have shown that lower income families tend to have the greatest obese populations in the United States (Brown et al. 2009). One probable explanation includes the findings that the most “unhealthy low-nutrient high-calorie foods” such as fast foods, sodas, candy, and liquor are advertised much more in magazines and T.V. shows targeting low-income and minority families. Similarly, advertisements for healthier foods and beverages (fruits, vegetables, low-fat meats, soy, and dairy) occurred more frequently in primarily white areas (Brown et al. 2009). For instance, low-income zip code areas had 2 times as many unhealthy products advertisements as high-income zip code areas (the exact numbers:

1,481 to 782) (Brown et al. 2009). These studies simply confirm that consumers are indeed highly affected by the advertising that they see. If they are influenced primarily by advertising for fast food compared to nutritional foods then they will more often choose the fast food option.

Moderation of fast food advertising would arguably decrease its demand and perhaps even steady the sharply rising obese population.

Tobacco: costly and harmful advertising

Exposure to cigarette advertising increases the odds of non-smokers moving from never smoking to starting by 79–91%. Similarly, this exposure increases the odds of progressing from experimental smoking to more regular smoking by about 12% (Fryer et al. 2009). Smoking advertisements not only initiate people to smoke but in 2004 it also “cost the United States over

$193 billion… including $97 billion in lost productivity and $96 billion in direct health care expenditures” (American Lung Association 2010). Smoking also contributes to such diseases as: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, including chronic bronchitis and emphysema), coronary heart disease, stroke, abdominal aortic aneurysm, acute myeloid leukemia, cataract, pneumonia, periodontitis, and bladder, esophageal, laryngeal, lung, oral, throat, cervical, kidney, stomach, and pancreatic cancers (American Lung Association 2010). It is from these smoking-related diseases that tobacco claims an estimated 440,000 American lives each year (American Cancer Society 2010). Yet, these fatalities have continued to rise even after the 1969 Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act. It was passed by Congress to ban the advertisements of cigarettes on television and radio in the hopes of preventing exposure of tobacco to people through two of the most popular media avenues of the time (Center for Disease

Control 2010).

Though the advertisement of tobacco was banned after 1969, there were never any specifications that banned tobacco products from participating in product placement. Though product placement was not addressed in the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act it had not been forgotten. After renowned researcher James Sargent released his results of a study that had been in the works from 1988-1997, major concerns were raised. The study examined the top 25 grossing films of each year and their implementation of cigarettes (New York State Department of Health 2002). It found that 85% of the movies had tobacco use in them, one in five of those movies were geared towards children and 28% of them had displayed brand logos. It is because of placed cigarettes such as these that “non-smoking teens whose favorite stars smoke on screen are 16 times more likely to develop positive feelings toward smoking.” On top of that, “teens who view lots of smoking in movies are two and half times more likely to start” (New York State

Department of Health 2002).

It was because of startling facts such as these that in 1998 the Master Settlement

Agreement was passed in an effort by the government to limit the overall use of tobacco products

(Lee 2008). Under this agreement tobacco companies could not pay a studio to include their products bearing the manufacturers brand name in any motion picture, television show, video game, recorded music etc (Lee 2008). Though this agreement was made to reduce the number of appearances of placed tobacco products, unfortunately the tobacco companies were able to find loopholes. Rather than paying movie studios to show their brand, they simply provided them with free promo products (New York State Department of Health 2002). Thus, since the enactment of the Master Settlement Agreement not much has changed. According to a study conducted by the American Lung Association of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails’ Thumbs Up!

Thumbs Down! (TUTD) Program brand exposure through actor use even increased after it was enacted from 1% to 11%. Moreover, the frequency of tobacco use also augmented after the ban.

Before, tobacco appeared once every ten to fifteen minutes. While after, it increased to once every three to five minutes. Finally, nine out of every 10 Hollywood films depict the use of tobacco (Lee 2008).

Product placement and its regulation

As we can see advertising for these products have a detrimental effect on Americans and their well-being. Though companies in the United States should have the freedom to advertise and place their products in different media outlets, regulations on what they can place and how often should be put into effect. We realize that there are indeed already a few regulations on product placement. For instance, “the FCC requires networks and television stations to disclose paid placements and list all sponsors” (Lee 2008). There have also been many states that have engaged in agreements with major tobacco companies such as the Minnesota Agreement that ban them from using product placement of any sort (including free promo) as a form of advertisement (Lee 2008). Yet, we believe that more extreme measures would be appropriate in the efforts of creating healthier Americans. In the past, our government has restricted the advertising of cigarettes and tobacco and it has demonstrated indirect yet successful results. The ban reduced the competition among tobacco companies which consequently raised the price of cigarettes thus decreasing consumption (Tremblay 1999). Furthermore, the research conducted by Grossman (2008) and associates allowed its researchers to estimate that by banning advertising of fast food restaurants on television alone would reduce the number of overweight children by 18% and the number of overweight adolescents would decrease by 14%. It is apparent that advertising has a significant impact on influencing what consumers buy. So, without restrictions on these types of products in movies and television shows we would continue to see an increase in their high levels of consumption. Though these examples all use traditional forms of advertising such as commercials, billboards, and newspaper or magazine ads etc. we can draw the same conclusions for product placement; this conclusion being that advertisements of cigarettes and fast food increase the consumption of the advertised products. However, we must assume that because research has proven product placement in television and movies more effective than conventional forms of advertising then regulations on product placement would prove just as effective if not more in reducing the consumption of the unhealthy products being advertised. This holds especially true because movies and televisions shows are most influential due to the status of actors. When actors use the product that is being placed in the film or show, consumers become more accepting of that product brand memory increases when an actor mentions or shows a brand that is prominently placed (Eisend 2009).

Therefore, to prevent people from being subjected to using products which are all over our television and movie screens there needs to be more effective and powerful regulation and enforcement of fast food and tobacco advertising. References:

American Cancer Society. (2010). Cigarette Smoking. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Cigarette_Smoking_and_Canc er.asp

American Lung Association. (2010). General Smoking Facts. Retrieved March 20, 2010, from http://www.lungusa.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/general-smoking- facts.html

Brown, R., Cole, B., Hillier, A., Kline, R., Williams, J., Yancey, A. (2009). ‘A Cross-Sectional Prevalence Study of Ethnically Targeted and General Audience Outdoor Obesity-Related Advertising’, Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 155-184. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Smoking and Tobacco Use. Retrieved March 20,2010, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

Eisend, M. (2009). 'A Cross-Cultural Generalizability Study of Consumers' Acceptance of Product Placements in Movies', Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 31(1), 15-25. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Fryer, C., Tharp-Taylor, S. & Shadel, (2009). ‘How Does Exposure to Cigarette Advertising Contribute to Smoking in Adolescents? The Role of the Developing Self-Concept and Identification with Advertising Models’, Addictive Behaviors, 34(11), 932-937. Retrieved from Science Direct datatbase. Grossman, M., Rashad, I. & Shin-Yi, C. (2008). 'Fast-Food Restaurant Advertising on Television and Its Influence on Childhood Obesity', Journal of Law & Economics, 51(4), 599-618. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Lee, Sandra. (2008). 'Product Placement in the United States: A Revolution in Need of Regulation', Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 26(203), 203-233.

Neijens, P., Reijmersdal, E. & Smit, E. (2009). 'A New Branch of Advertising', Journal of Advertising Research, 49(4), 429-449. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

New York State Department of Health. (2005). Hollywood's Romance with Tobacco Exposed. Retrieved March 23, 2010,from http://www.realitycheck.org/RCNY/RC_links/ProductPlacement.htm

Reijmersdal, E., Smit E., & Neijens, P. (2009). 'Today's Practice of Brand Placement and the Industry Behind It', International Journal of Advertising, 28(5), 761-782. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.

Stelter, Brian. (2009). 8 Hours a Day Spent on Screens, Study Finds. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/media/27adco.html Tremblay, C., & Tremblay, V. (1999). 'Re-Interpreting the Effect of an Advertising Ban on Cigarette Smoking', International Journal of Advertising, 18(1), 41-49. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.