Codul audiovizualului Decizia CNA 220 2011

CAPITOLUL III Plasarea de produse Art. 100 (1) Prin plasare de produse se nelege orice form de comunicare comercial audiovizual constnd n includerea unui produs, serviciu sau a mrcii acestora ori n referirea la acestea, prin inserarea n cadrul unui program, n schimbul unei pli sau contraprestaii. (2) Plasarea de produse se semnaleaz, la nceputul i la sfritul programului, precum i la reluarea dup fiecare pauz publicitar, prin meniunea Acest program conine/a coninut plasare de produse., precum i prin simbolul PP de culoare alb pe fond negru, afiate lizibil, cu o dimensiune de minimum 30 de puncte n format SD, definiie standard, respectiv 60 n format HD, nalt definiie, i pentru o durat de minimum 5 secunde. (3) Meniunea scris prevzut la alin. (2) va fi eliminat dup o perioad de 6 luni de la intrarea n vigoare a prezentului cod. (4) Plasarea de produse nu exclude sponsorizarea i/sau difuzarea de publicitate pentru aceleai produse sau servicii, n cadrul aceluiai program, cu respectarea dispoziiilor art. 97 alin. (9), precum i a celorlalte condiii impuse de Legea audiovizualului.

Introducere
Parte integrant a mixului de promovare plasamentul de produs este definit de ctre James Karr ca fiind introducerea contra cost a produselor de marc sau a elementelor de identificare ale unei mrci prin mijloace vizuale sau auditive n programele mijloacelor de informare n mas. Dei termenul este recent, practica este la fel de veche precum industria cinematografic, cu toate acestea forma actual de plasament de produs a aprut n anii 80 ai secolului trecut. Un factor important a fost creterea permanent a filmelor i a serialelor produse de studiouri, precum i apariia de noi canale de comunicare: televiziunea prin cablu i satelit, internetul, jocurile video, etc. care au introdus numeroase oportuniti de promovare . Ali factori care au dus la dezvoltarea plasamentului sunt tendina telespectatorilor de a evita pauzele publicitare, costurile din ce n ce mai mari generate de instrumentele tradiionale de promovare i concurena acerb existent pe pia. (Balasubramanian, 1994) principalul avantaj: plasamentul de produs este un mesaj hibrid care are dubla calitate de a transmite un mesaj credibil ce pare a veni dintr-o surs nu neap*rat integrat ntr-o campanie de promovare dar asupra cruia specialistul de marketing are un control total. Dar tocmai din acest avantaj pornesc i disputele legate de aspectele etice i legale ale acestui mijloc de promovare, aa cum o demonstreaz i ndelungata lui istorie.

Reebok's Suit Over 'Jerry Maguire' Shows Risks of Product Placement

In the hit movie ''Jerry Maguire,'' Cuba Gooding Jr. portrays Rod Tidwell, a high-spirited and ambitious football player who nurses a film-long grudge against Reebok for ignoring the gridiron talents he so passionately believes he possesses.- poart ur fa de Reebok pentru c i ignor talentul. Tidwell's tirades continue until the closing credits -- when, with the help of Maguire, his agent, he achieves his dream: a Reebok endorsement deal, promoted in a glitzy commercial in which Reebok declares, ''Rod Tidwell. We ignored him for years. We were wrong. We're sorry.'' At least that's how Reebok executives say they thought ''Jerry Maguire'' would end. But as millions of moviegoers know, the film concludes without any make-believe, kiss-and-make-up Reebok spot. And that has Reebok International Ltd. squaring off against Tristar Pictures in a multimillion-dollar legal battle that offers a revealing glimpse at product placement, the increasingly prevalent advertising device that seeks to turn name brands into Hollywood stars. Reebok, the No. 2 marketer of athletic footwear, is suing Tristar in Federal District Court in California, claiming that the studio that produced and released ''Jerry Maguire'' reneged on a promise to present Reebok in a positive light. Reebok had obtained its role not by auditioning or schmoozing producers, but by providing Tristar more than $1.5 million in merchandise, advertising, promotional support and other benefits. A hearing on a Tristar motion to dismiss the case is set for Monday. The suit against the studio, owned by the Sony Corporation, levels 12 complaints including breach of contract, firing the film's catch phrase ''Show me the money!'' back at its creators by seeking damages of more than $10 million each for most of the complaints. In the dispute over ''Jerry Maguire,'' Reebok says it was promised that highly complimentary ad, while Tristar says it was understood that such an ending could wind up, as it did, on the cutting-room floor. Indeed, according to the suit, the Reebok-Tristar agreement, reached in April, called on Reebok to flood America with tie-ins that consumers would see before ''Jerry Maguire'' opened on Dec. 13. There were tags on Reebok products promoting the film, and a sweepstakes that consumers entered by visiting the Champs Sports stores owned by the Woolworth Corporation. There were also ads in Sports Illustrated and USA Today for the sweepstakes.

Reebok filed its suit just days after ''Jerry Maguire'' opened to critical acclaim and box-office success. The film has already sold more than $116.6 million worth of tickets. Clearly, Reebok is rankled by what executives see as a lost opportunity to evoke warm and fuzzy feelings about the brand in all those moviegoers. Worse yet, the suit claims, the only perceptions about Reebok that the film may now instill are ''highly derogatory and negative.'' The suit charges that Reebok's participation was contingent upon the movie having a happy ending -happy, that is, for Reebok as well as for Maguire and Tidwell. The ending was crucial, Reebok argues, because Tidwell is so bitter about what he considers Reebok's unfair treatment of him that he uses a four-letter epithet to dismiss the company, complaining, ''All they do is ignore me. Always have. Always have.'' But on Nov. 27, according to the suit, 16 days before ''Jerry Maguire'' opened, Reebok executives were notified that the Tidwell spot -- shot by Reebok at the company's expense -- had been edited out because it ''no longer fit creatively in the film.'' The notice came after many of Reebok's tie-ins had hit the marketplace. ''The swearing about Reebok sits in the minds of consumers,'' said Mr. Muller, who is no longer associated with Reebok. ''It's almost as if it were scripted by Nike.'' Ed Russell, a spokesman for Tristar in Culver City, Calif., would not comment because, he said, ''there's still litigation going on.'' But in its motion to dismiss, Tristar said that Reebok always knew that the ad might be dropped. Product placements must ''balance the needs of advertisers with those of film makers,'' added Mr. Workman, who joined the studio after the dispute began. ''A sophisticated soft-drink or shoe maker realizes film makers at the end of the day have to be true to their visions.'' On that, Ms. Goodell of Reebok agrees with Tristar. ''One of the reasons we were attracted to 'Jerry Maguire' was that endorsements are a fact of sports life and the film was about that process,'' she said. ''And part of that process is about what your passion is, having the heart, the dedication, playing a much bigger game than 'Show me the money!' '' But unless Tristar borrows a page from the George Lucas playbook, re-releasing ''Jerry Maguire'' with the Tidwell ad as bonus footage, a court may have to decide just who must show whom the money.

A promise for a prominent product placement isn't always such a good thing. Just ask Reebok International Ltd. about its involvement with the hit movie Jerry Maguire and the lawsuit it filed against the film's makers, Sony Corp.'s TriStar Pictures of Culver City, Calif.

Stoughton, Mass.,-based Reebok said it provided more than $1.5 million in product and marketing for the film so audiences would remember a Reebok commercial that was supposed to be in the film, but was cut.

Reebok International and TriStar Pictures settled out-of-court a lawsuit Reebok filed against the Sony-owned movie studio over a promotional program linked to the 1996 hit "Jerry Maguire." Terms weren't disclosed. Reebok's key complaint was the omission of a faux-Reebok TV spot that was to have played over the closing credits featuring one of the movie's characters. The director of the film reportedly opted to cut the scene in the final stages of editing. The only other reference to the marketer was a very colorful denouncement of the brand issued by that same character. Reebok and TriStar said they plan to work on future projects.