Matt Leap Capstone 11/17/13 Product placement is becoming an increasingly prevalent part of todays leisure activities.

Product placement is defined as a practice in which purveyors of a good or service gain exposure for their products by paying for them to be featured in entertainment media. This practice has become common in television, movies, and video games. In any given sitting, an average viewer may see hundreds of strategically placed products. Though most people think little about the brands shown on screen and how they came to be there, product placement is big business for the companies and entertainment providers involved. As marketers continue to press the boundaries of product placement with new strategies and larger budgets, the profession as a whole seeks define the proverbial line in the sand. Certain product placement practices have made the subject an ethical grey area. For marketers, the ethical issues around product placement stem from its implications on both expressive integrity and transparency. The first set of issues around product placement stem from its impact on expressive integrity. Expressive integrity is concept of keeping creative work true to roots or an original artistic vision. For a work to maintain expressive integrity, it should not be altered for reasons outside of the creative realm, specifically monetary reasons. That is not to say that a character or story can never be changed, but rather that changes should be logical and in character. Creative integrity prevents unnecessary changes and helps viewers achieve the suspended disbelief needed to immerse in these entertainment platforms. In some cases, product placement can actually benefit immersion and remain in line with expressive integrity. There

are certain points in a movie, TV show, or game when it would be fitting or natural for a branded product to appear. For example, a movie might have a scene in which friends sit around a table, playing poker and drinking beer. The studio might approach Budweiser and ask to have the friends drink their beer at the table. If Budweiser agreed, the product placement would actually add to the scene; rather than having generic labels the friends could be drinking Budweiser a believable scenario. On the other hand, product placement can also be a source of outside influences that undermined expressive integrity. When marketers pay huge amounts of money for their good or service to appear on screen, they seek to get the most out of the investment. Often times, they will maintain a presence on set during shooting or development to ensure their offering portrayed in an optimal way. Marketers may pressure creative staff to include or exclude specific shots, position the product in a certain way, display the product in a certain context, and even what characters say while interacting with the product. These constraints may even be written into product placement deals, further binding those in charge of media production. These type of action leads to unnatural or commercial-like shots that destroy the fantasy created by the show or game. The issue of expressive integrity in product placement stems from the distinction of natural placement opportunities and unnatural placements shoehorned into creative content. The second ethical component to product placement is transparency. With the lack of strict guidelines and the failure of legal action such as the Product Placement Disclosure Act, companies can often integrate their products without drawing much attention (4). Without significant effort on the consumers part, finding information like who has paid to appear and the amount of payment is difficult. Things can be further muddled when companies donate

products or sums of money to be placed in a game, show, or movie. Questions also arise from the portrayal of products. The viewer is often left wondering if portrayals were accurate and if they really represent the opinions of those involved. For example, the Audi cars used throughout the Transporter movies were shown to be near-indestructible; they survived bullets, crashes, explosions, and stunt after stunt. Audis are certainly not this durable offscreen. Continuing with the same example, Jason Statham swore by his car during the movie, though this may not reflect his true feelings. Similarly, if Statham endorsed the cars at an interview after the movie, it would be impossible for consumer to tell if it was a true endorsement or just another stipulation of the product placement deal. Without knowing the funding sources and motivation of the portrayal, the line is blurred between commercial and entertainment. Viewers are left to wonder what is a commercial and what is not. This forces viewers to approach all media with skepticism and impairs their ability to enjoy and immerse. The issue of transparency in product come down to clarifying creative work from paid advertisement. The ethical issues of creativity integrity and transparency in product placement have gained attention recently as they were played out in the high-profile blockbuster movies, Skyfall and Transformers. Both movies came under scrutiny for over the top product placement deals that pushed the movies closer toward commercials and farther from entertainment. In the case of the James Bond movie, Skyfall, producers entered at $28 million product placement deal with Dutch beer company Heineken (Cooper). Heineken became the largest of many the many movie sponsors. Sponsorship is nothing new to the James Bond franchise. For example, viewers may notice Vaio laptops throughout the movie or longtime sponsor Omega

watches providing Bonds signature spy watch (Cooper). As is the situation with many other movies, Skyfall would have been impossible to make without this influx of cash from product placement sponsors (Cooper). Though Heinekens deal, star Daniel Craig (James Bond) drinks Heineken beer throughout the movie and stars in associated television ads (Cooper). The Heineken placement differs from other sponsorship deals due to nature of the product and character. Drinking beer is intrinsically opposed to the character of James Bond. Bond has been known for drinking Vodka Martinis shaken, not stirred, since the phrase appeared in Ian Flemmings 1956 bond novel, Diamonds are Forever (Cooper). This catchphrase is as much a part of James Bonds character as his black tux or license to kill. The decision screams of a lack of expressive integrity. There is no reason why the character of James Bond would suddenly forsake his signature drink and pick up a beer. The decision speaks to writers and producers either willingly auctioning off their characters identity or being forced to into such a situation due to lack of funding. In either case, the decision was made with the consideration of money above that of the character, the story, or the audience. There is a fine line between a respected fictional character and a mascot, this action threated that line. When changes are made to service the highest bidder rather than the story or character, media becomes a sales pitch rather than storytelling. This begins to encompass the issue of transparency. If characters will dance for whoever pays rather than act in accordance with their established values, beliefs, and signature activities, then nothing separates a movie from a complicated multi-product advertisement and a character from a complicated multi-product mascot. In the case of Skyfall, transparency also comes into play outside of the movie. Following initial controversy, Daniel Craig was questioned about his thoughts on product placement in the movie, specifically

Heineken. Craig came out largely in support of Heineken, citing that the only important thing was that movie was made. One cannot help but to question whether this option came from Craig himself or was influenced along the way by Heineken. Because Heineken likely paid a big part of Craigs salary, it is possible he may have felt obligated to support the company or he may have been coached by Heineken public relations on how to handle such questions. Unfortunately, viewers have no way to separate the true feelings of actors or producers from the sentiments they were paid to relay. The James Bond movie, Skyfall, stands as an example of product placement negatively impacting both the expressive integrity and transparency of a film. Another highly documented incident of egregious product placement was the 2007 movie, Transformers. For the movie, General Motors (GM) donated over a million dollars worth of cars to play major roles in the movie (Associated Press). This donation led to several on-set changes. Fan favorite transformer, Bumblebee, suddenly became a Camaro, despite the fact he had been a VW Beetle since the original 1980s toys and cartoon series (Associated Press). The rest of the movies good guys, the Autobots, were changed to be represented by vehicles from across the GM family, including Pontiac, GMC, and Hummer (Associated Press). Inexplicably, the villainous Decepticons were represented with Ford vehicles, GMs major competitor (Associated Press). Ford had no part in the casting (Associated Press). Additionally, the Camaro used for Bumblebee was not yet released to the public (Associated Press). The release date of the new vehicle happened to coincide with the premier of the film. Throughout the movie, all of the GM cars get ample scree time between driving scenes and stunts (Associated Press). The GM impact can also be seen in shot selection as strategic shots provide

close-ups of logos and key product features (Associated Press). GM associate director of branded entertainment, Dino Bernacchi, said in an interview about Transformers, Youre going to see these cars as the heroes. Youre not going to see the other actors. These cars are the stars, literally, in the movie. (Associated Press). The combination of statements, circumstances, and strategic display has led many to question whether the whole movie was a branded GM commercial. Few would dispute that GM impacted the film decision making in every area from vehicle casting to shot selection. One can only speculate how the interwoven release date of the Camaro may have impacted the production schedule of the movie. At any rate, this product placement deal was an obvious and far-reaching detriment to the movies expressive integrity. The transparency side of the case begins with the funding. By donating to the movie, GM is able to better obscure the circumstance surrounding the deal. Rumors circulated based on GMs standing relationship with Transformers directory Michael Bay, who is a fan of GM and has shot commercials for them in the past (Associated Press). Not to mention, the car presented on screen as the new Camaro was actually a totally different car (Associated Press). Though the exterior of the car was the same as that of the new Camaro, the chassis and engine actually came from a Pontiac GTO a totally different GM vehicle (Associated Press). In other words, the car viewers thought they were seeing was a completely different product than the one they could actually buy. The Camaro was not the only doctored vehicle, the Pontiac Solstice, Hummer H2, and GMC Topkick (the other three main characters) were all slightly modified (Associated Press). Film viewers watch the whole movie, being none the wiser to the funding deal or car alternations. Through nearly every aspect of the movie, Transformers serves as an example of a brand removing expressive integrity and acting without transparency.

With such apparent real-life implications, it is important to fully understand the ethics of product placement by considering it through the lens of various ethical theories. By considering product placement through consequentialism, categoricalism, and virtue ethics, one may achieve a more complete view of the ethical issue and a more grounded ethical stance. A consequentialist views ethics in terms of the pain and pleasure brought on by certain actions. In this thinking an action that causes greater pleasure than pain is ethical. A consequentialist would be in favor of product placement because as mentioned above, it often allows the movies to be made. This creates pleasure for the cast and crew of the movie, who gain pleasure through the sense of accomplishment in making the movie and the monetary compensation for their time. The movie itself creates more pleasure by offering jobs and stimulating the economy. At the same time, the movie also creates pleasure for the marketers and businesses involved through increased sales and brand awareness. The increased sales again benefit the economy. Finally, the movie itself is a form of pleasure for the many moviegoers who use the movie to escape everyday hassles for a short while and relax. Consequentialists would oppose product placement because in causes pain for creatives who have increased pressure to alter their work to better accommodate brands. They would also note the pain on the part of longtime fans who are disheartened when their beloved characters are sold-out to brands. Overall, a consequentialist would be in favor of product placement on the grounds that it creates a greater amount of pleasure for a greater number of people. Categoricalists, on the other hand, are concerned with the ethical rights and duties around and issue. On the pro side, categoricalists would understand that the media production companies have a duty to deliver results for their sponsors. On the other hand, the major issue

for categoricalists is that product placement violates the right of freedom of expression and creative freedom. Such a thinker would strongly oppose any sort of constraint or limitation on expressions without a significant support from another major right or duty. A categoricalist may also hold that business has a duty to be transparent with the public and thus oppose the practice because product placement often lacks transparency. Overall, a categoricalist would oppose product placement because they do not see enough rights or duties in support of product placement to justify its limitations on freedom of expression. Separate from each of the other theories, Virtue Ethics examines actions in relation to admirable, ethical character traits. In this case, the subject of comparison would be the virtues of the ideal ethical marketer. In support of product placement, one considering virtue ethics would not that the practice is effective for marketers. Product placement allows marketers to advertise in a world where technology has made it simple to skip commercials (Williams et al.). Product placement has also been proven to aid a brand in awareness and positive associations (Williams et al.). The practice can also benefit both marketers and media producers by adding realism to a scene. On the negative side, product placement can put pressure on creatives. This pressure can lower creativity and decrease the returns for marketers, while simultaneously spurring media companies to charge more for the added hassle. Additionally, misused or overdone product placement can also be detrimental for a brand by creating fan outrage and leading to negative associations. Finally, product placement can undermined the trust in movies, TV, and games. This would force viewers to look at all media with skepticism because they could not tell advertisement from entertainment. The outcome would be negative for all involved as marketers would see diminished returns from both product placement and

traditional ads. Overall, virtue ethics would approach product placement on a case by case basis; in some cases, it would support the practice as ethical, while it would oppose product placement in other situations. With the ethical issues involved in product placement defined and the three major ethical theories considered, one can construct and accurate stance on the matter. Product placement is only ethical if conducted in a certain manner. First, product placement should only appear in natural situations. Content should never be rewritten or changed to accommodate products. Product placement marketers should not be an active part of media production and product placement offers should be facilitated by production companies rather than marketers. Secondly, product placement sponsors should be clearly outlined to the audience before a film, TV show, or game begins. Product placement sponsors and amounts should be readily available on movie, show, or games website. Any modifications done to products appearing in the movie should be clearly outline in the credits following the movie, similarly to current legislation around commercials. This approach handles the issue of expressive integrity by removing marketers from the product process and allowing production companies to select the brands that fit the film. This tactic approaches transparency by informing the viewer as they interact with the media. The system also allows product placement to remain in natural situations, where it can be a benefit to brands, media production companies, and viewers through added realism. The most effective avenue for delivering these guidelines would be through an American Marketing Association (AMA) best practices. This would keep unnecessary government action out of the industry, but still spur respected marketers toward ethical behavior.

Product placement is a powerful tool for marketers. Product placement has the capacity to be both ethical and unethical. In using product placement, marketers must pay special attention to the areas of expressive integrity and transparency. At its best, product placement is seamless and nature. It benefits marketers through recognition, positive association, and sales, while simultaneously making the movie more realistic and immersive. In order to keep product placement at this level, instead of a more intrusive and unethical approach, marketers must self-regulate and assume responsibility.

Bibliography: Associated Press. "Transformers a GM Ad in Disguise." NBCNews.com. NBCNews.com, 3 July 2007. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. Cooper, Rob. "James Bond Just Sold Out: Daniel Craig Swaps Vodka Martini for a Bottle of Heineken to Star in Controversial New 007 Beer Ad." Mail Online. Associated Newspapers Ltd., 21 Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. Williams, Kaylene, Alfred Petrosky, Edward Hernandez, and Robert Page, Jr. "Product Placement Effectiveness: Revisited and Renewed." Academic Business Research Institute. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.