A Better Course

“thou hast councilled a better course than thou hast allowed”

A Better Course header image 1

links for 2007-10-04

October 5th, 2007 · Comments Off on links for 2007-10-04

Comments Off on links for 2007-10-04Categories: links
Tags:

links for 2007-10-03

October 4th, 2007 · Comments Off on links for 2007-10-03

Comments Off on links for 2007-10-03Categories: links
Tags:

In the right place, Part II

October 3rd, 2007 · Comments Off on In the right place, Part II

This CNN article on product placement for pharmaceuticals raises another interesting question about how we, as audiences, react to product placement – does the reference to the product necessarily have to be positive? Frequently, references to named drugs in popular culture are negative – the addictive properties of Vicodin have formed plots in more than one TV show. Although this almost certainly increases the salience of the named brand, it is hardly the kind of advertising a company would be willing to pay for.

One piece of research into the topic, from Penn State that it is likely that the viewer’s feelings towards the show in general are likely to directly affect the viewer’s feelings towards the products mentioned throughout the show. However, the nature of the placement in the experiment, in this case, is fairly neutral – the most negative emotion shown being frustration with a ketchup bottle.

Related to this is a similar question; does the reference to the placement itself have to be positive? An episode of Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip recently spend 45 minutes complaining heavy-handedly about product placement in TV shows, in a TV show that is, itself, about a TV show. To go back to a previous post’s theme of flagging products to the viewer, this was an incredibly effective technique. Many brands could be mentioned many times – more times, possibly, than they could be in TV shows not written by Aaron Sorkin (“Are you saying our cast members should all listen to iPods on set?” “Are you saying you don’t like iPods? I like iPods” “I like iPods”, ad infinitum).

How much does any of this matter – is salience, or positive endorsement for the product, more important for those who would have their product featured within TV shows or movies? If the former, is it likely, or possible, that drug companies will pay to have characters form crippling addictions to their products rather than those of their competitors?

Comments Off on In the right place, Part IICategories: branding · marketing
Tags: , , , ,

links for 2007-10-02

October 3rd, 2007 · Comments Off on links for 2007-10-02

Comments Off on links for 2007-10-02Categories: links
Tags:

links for 2007-10-01

October 2nd, 2007 · Comments Off on links for 2007-10-01

Comments Off on links for 2007-10-01Categories: links
Tags:

In the right place, Part I

October 1st, 2007 · Comments Off on In the right place, Part I

Working for a business school means that my opportunities to explore product placement as part of my job are extremely limited. However, it’s something that I notice, consciously, in the movies and TV that I watch. This year, I’ve been noticing a lot of clustering in the product placement – it’s not evenly distributed throughout the movie, or even amongst the characters in the movie.

Sometimes, this makes sense. In The Bourne Ultimatum, it makes more sense to load the scene in Waterloo Station with adverts and prominent shop logos, because that’s what Waterloo Station actually looks like. It’s not worth pretending that the film takes place in an alternate reality Britain in which there is no advertising at train stations, so finding out who wants their station advertising to last a bit longer than usual (the 3 music store and the Carphone Warehouse, as far as I remember) is probably a logical step.

In Transformers – which is, in effect, one long piece of product placement anyway – only certain characters got to use the big name products. The first time we see Tyrese Gibson’s character, he alone of all the other characters in the scene is listening to an iPod and wearing Oakleys. This kind of distribution continues into the high school plot strand :

The girl in this picture, throughout the film, never wears branded clothing. You’ll notice that the guy on the right is wearing a Strokes t-shirt; later in the movie, he’ll get cold, and put on a G-Star Raw hoodie. While he is in handcuffs. That’s an unusual level of commitment to getting the advertiser’s product out there.

Very little research has been done about what is and is not effective in product placement; however, I’m interested in the effects this kind of clustering has. Does it dilute recognition for each of the brands, or do we key in more closely when they are all in the same place – when they are constantly flagged for our attention?

Comments Off on In the right place, Part ICategories: branding · marketing
Tags: , , ,

Better what?

October 1st, 2007 · Comments Off on Better what?

Sometimes, adverts succeed in saying the exact opposite of what they meant. One of Sky’s “Believe in Better” adverts – generally quite a good campaign – achieves this:

It wants to be about Sky’s multicultural credentials – that it shows a lot of non-English-language programming. However, the advert is entirely in English, but some of the letters that have been made to look at bit “foreign” – from which it might be fair to assume that the non-English-language programming is going to be dubbed into English. It also bears a remarkable resemblance to Martin Lukes’ attempt to make a-b global appear more global by rebranging as a-b glöbâl, which is surely not an association any brand would strive for.

Comments Off on Better what?Categories: advertising · branding
Tags: , , ,

links for 2007-09-30

October 1st, 2007 · Comments Off on links for 2007-09-30

Comments Off on links for 2007-09-30Categories: links
Tags:

links for 2007-09-29

September 30th, 2007 · Comments Off on links for 2007-09-29

Comments Off on links for 2007-09-29Categories: links
Tags:

Show your working

September 28th, 2007 · Comments Off on Show your working

Despite my respect for it as an excellent piece of business development, I’ve remained slightly unconvinced by the Starbucks / iTunes crossover. There’s no clear reason, other than one entirely motivated by marketing (“We appeal to yuppies. Maybe we should talk.”) why the two brands should work together; and whilst I’ve no doubt it will be a successful service, it would have been good to have seen a bit more reasoning behind it on the part of both companies.

Whilst operating in a completely different market (from Apple, Starbucks and each other) Lego and Paul Frank do very well at showing their working in their recent t-shirt lines:

Lego Julius Monkey:

Lego Man Choosing T-Shirts

There are more than these two, but together these do the best job of demonstrating an interaction – in the first, one company’s product builds the other’s main brand symbol, and in the second, one company’s brand symbol chooses the other’s products. It’s a nice visual solution, and consistent with the Paul Frank and the Lego brands, both of which espouse playfulness and, to an extent, childishness, for adults.

Likewise, the Marshall / Pure radio, which is just a brilliant product:

Here, there’s a more obvious reason why the two companies should work together – the obvious association of both radio in general and Marshall with music as well as the similarity of their products (both, essentially, boxes that make sound) mean that it makes sense that there could be a radio to appeal to a single segment of the radio-listening population.

Of course, both the t-shirts and the radios are purely aesthetic products – they’re not providing a useful service, in the way the the Apple and Starbucks’ deal does – but the ideas and reasoning behind both of them feel worked through in a way that deal doesn’t but, I think, could have done.

Comments Off on Show your workingCategories: branding · marketing
Tags: