70 — The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications • Vol. 1, No. 1 • Winter 2010 The Evolution of Product Placement in Film Alex Walton* Corporate Communications, Senior Elon University Abstract The current study examines product placements in Hollywood films over the last 90 years.After a presentation of how scholars have defined product placement and its effectiveness, a brief history of prod- uct placement in Hollywood cinema is given. A content analysis was performed on nine films, one from each decade starting with the 1920s, to determine the number and quality of product placements in each film as a representative of the decade. The findings were then analyzed and what they suggest about the evolution of product placement in Hollywood film is discussed. I. Introduction Balasubramanian (1994) used the term “benefit-mix” to describe organizational efforts to combine aspects of both advertising and publicity to utilize the advantages of each, while avoiding their respective shortcomings (1994, p. 29). While advertising allows organizations to have control over their message and its dissemination, it is often viewed as less credible with audiences. With publicity, organizations work through the media to transmit messages (or branding efforts). Although organizations give up some degree of control over the message (or brand representation), it is commonly believed that the message is viewed as more credible since it is being disseminated via the media rather than an organization (Guth & Marsh, 2003). Mes- sages that achieve this benefit-mix are known as “hybrid messages” (p. 29-30). One type of hybrid message is a product placement, or a paid product message aimed at influenc- ing movie or television audiences via the planned and unobtrusive entry of a branded product into a movie or television program (Balasubramanian, 1994). While many cite Steven Spielberg’s film E,T.: The Extra-Terres- trial as the beginning of product placement, closer examination shows that products were present in cinematic films from the creation of the medium (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006; Lehu, 2007).Thus, the current study seeks to examine the evolution of the use of products in cinema. * Keywords: product placement, Hollywood, cinema, film, advertising, Wings, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Best Years of Our Lives, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Graduate, Jaws, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, Independence Day, The Dark Knight Email: [email protected] The Evolution of Product Placement in Film by Alex Walton 71 II. Literature Review Scholarly research on the topic of product placement is largely limited in focus to films and televi- sion programming produced during the 1980s and after (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Beyond histories of product placement written in recent years—such as Newell, Salmon, & Chang (2006), Lehu (2007), and Segrave (2004)—product placements prior to Reese’s Pieces in E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) have not been examined. Following the use of Reese’s Pieces in E.T., scholarly research has focused on numerous topics sur- rounding product placement, such as defining product placement (Balasubramanian, 1994; Gupta & Gould, 1997a). The most popular topic is product placement effectiveness, which encompasses product placement practitioners’ views (Karrh, McKee, & Pardun, 2003), audience views on product placement (DeLorme & Reid, 1999), specific characteristics of placements that make placements more effective (Gupta & Lord, 1998), and studies about how audiences remember product placements (D’Astous & Chartier, 2000; Law & Braun, 2000; Cowley & Barron, 2008; Roehm, Roehm, & Boone, 2004; Russell, 2002). There have also been content analyses of television programming and film to determine the number of product placements present in these popular entertainment forms (Ferraro & Avery, 2000; LaFerle & Edwards, 2006; DiSisto & Miller, 2008). The seemingly overnight popularity of product placement among scholars in the 1980s raises the question of whether product placement was truly present before E.T. History suggests that it was present, and used from the beginning of cinema. The next question raised is how product placement changed in the 1980s to become the subject of academic scrutiny. First, a brief history of product placement will be presented to illustrate from where current beliefs about product placement arise. Although the term “product placement” seemed to have been coined in the 1980s (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006), the practice actually dates back to before the beginning of motion pictures. There are clear examples of product placements in stage performances and art that predate motion pictures (Lehu, 2007). In Edouard Manet’s painting Un bar aux Folies-Bergère, for example, there is clear portrayal of Bass beer (Lehu, 2007). Charles Dickens’s The Pickwick Papers also could be considered product placement as the name Pickwick comes from a carriage line that appears in the novel. On the stage, Sarah Bernhardt wore La Diaphane powder and also served as a spokesperson appearing on the brand’s posters (Lehu, 2007). Like- wise, cinema innovators the Lumière brothers worked with Lever as early as 1896 to showcase Sunlight Soap (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006; Lehu, 2007). Other brands to create early advertising films includeAdmiral Cigarettes, Pabst’s Milwaukee Beer, and Nestlé (Segrave, 2004). In an article titled “Camera! Action! Sales!” Business Week (1939) relates the story of an early commercial film for Dewar’s Scotch: It came to him, we assume, one bright Spring day when, walking down Broadway, he ob- served all the giddy menfolk standing in line to get into the peep shows that were the current rage of the town. Perhaps the gentleman had a peep himself. Anyway, the idea came: Why not run a peep show to advertise Dewar’s Scotch whisky? And as a result a commercial mo- tion picture was born. The article goes on to mention examples of commercial films for Columbia bicycles and Piel’s beer, stating that the practice of making films with real products happened as early as 1894. While many of these films were created for specific brands, they were also produced to be shown in mainstream theaters as enter- tainment pieces (Segrave, 2004). Thus, while they do not fit into modern definitions of product placement, it is clear that such films laid the groundwork for modern product placements. Newell, Salmon, and Chang (2006) suggested that product placement began through the use of fam- ily ties and grew into a means of reducing the cost of producing motion pictures through the use of free prod- ucts and giving those products exposure at no cost. The practice of using real products in a film was called many things prior to the term product placement, such as exploitation, tie-ups, tie-ins, plugs, and trade outs (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). While the Lumière brothers started product placement in films,Thomas Edison turned it into a viable part of the film business, using branded rail lines and cigarettes in his films (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). By the 1920s, American films were selling products worldwide. For instance, a Brazilian lumber baron started using an American-made saw blade after seeing one used in an American film (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Segrave (2004) quotes Will Hays, the head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), as saying, “[The motion picture] is the greatest agency for promoting the sales of Amer- ican-made products throughout the world.” Many early product placements were cross promotions in which 72 — The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications • Vol. 1, No. 1 • Winter 2010 the films would feature products and the product manufacturers would create advertisements promoting the film (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). The New York Times noted the trend of brands getting their products in films in a 1929 article. According to the Times (1929), “Automobile manufacturers graciously offer the free use of high-priced cars to studios. Expensive furnishings for a set are willingly supplied by the makers, and even donated as permanent studio property,” and also “agents eager for publicity for jewelry or wearing apparel ap- proach movie stars directly.” The article also states that there were times when monetary compensation was offered. Segrave (2004) suggests that in the early days of the studio system, the studios were not heavily involved in advertising because there was not very much money to be made. As the industry began to grow, however, members of the motion picture industry and the business world began to notice the impact of film to persuade audiences even without direct advertising attempts (Segrave, 2004). Film actors, who were contracted to the studios, were also sought out to become spokesmen for brands. While the MPPDA banned stars from endorsing products, this quickly became impossible, particularly with the branded radio programs such as General Motors radio time (Segrave, 2004). By the end of the 1920s, movies began using products in the production, and at times showing them. However, this practice was still largely barter agreements rather than paid placements. President of the MPPDA, Will Hays, was a major lobbyist for the benefits of placingAmerican-made products in films. In a 1930 radio address on a coast-to-coast network, Hays toldAmericans, “The motion picture carries to every American at home, and to millions of potential purchasers abroad, the visual, vivid perception of American manufactured products,” (New York Times, 1930). In the 1930s, the Walter E. Kline agency had a list of products available for placement in movies that studio executives could use, such as Remington typewriters, IBM tabulating machines, and appliances from General Electric (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). These deals were called tie-ups and the products were free to use with the only stipulation being that the movie allow images of the product in the film to be used for advertising purposes (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). By the 1940s product placement specialists at public relations firms and advertising agencies became known as exploitation agents (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006).