Product Placement on British TV

‘The future of product placement on British Television’ Xenia Kingsley Final Year Dissertation (abridged version) University of Brighton, School of Service Management 2010

STUDY RATIONALE While the rest of the world has been using product placement as a promotional tool for decades, Britain has historically held a rare position against the practice.

In light of a challenging economy, Ben Bradshaw, Culture Secretary to the United Kingdom suggested a re‐evaluation of this position in September 2009.

A consultation was held on the potential introduction of product placement to British television between November 2009 and January 2010, at the end of which, it was announced that product placement would be allowed on British television by the end of 2010. The consultation brought attention to a number of concerns regarding product placement such as the protection of children and the regulation of contentious products. In response to these concerns, it was announced that restrictions were to be put in place, such as the exclusion of alcohol, tobacco and unhealthy food products and the banning of product placements from children’s airtime and programming. These restrictions have not satisfied all concerned parties, and one of the suggestions has been that in addition to the products named by the Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS,) all food and drink products should be banned outright from product placements.

Product placement has been the subject of academic scrutiny for many years, though little attention has been given to the viability of this practice in a British context, with the notable exception of the work of Tiwsakul and Hackley (2005),

1

and Tiwsakul, Hackley and Szmigin (2005). In light of the DCMS consultation and subsequent change of regulation, this area needs readdressing academically. It has been suggested that British consumers are more ‘shrewd’, sceptical and critical of advertisements generally compared to American audiences (Bradley et al, 2004), to whom a large proportion of the current literature pertains. This compounds the need for a culturally relevant, current study on this topic.

As such, the purpose of this study was to review the general issues relating to product placement with a particular emphasis on the British context, which would highlight pertinent issues that warranted further investigation.

LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION One of the bedrock principles of a free‐market system of commerce is the notion of a free flow of information to afford a level playing field for all decision makers (Shrum, 2002:xv).

In a commercial society, the promotion of goods through marketing is necessary in ensuring this free flow of information. Within the practice of marketing exists a mix, or ‘toolbox’ of techniques and practices including many familiar tools, such as traditional advertising, public relations, sponsorship and product placement.

These tools, while successful individually, are most effectively wielded in combination. This is known as an integrated marketing mix. Thorson and Moore (1996:1) define integrated marketing communications as “those messages that address multiple consumer and non‐consumer audiences and achieve synergy of messages and timing”.

The use of integrated marketing communications strategies in modern marketing “has fostered an awareness of how pieces of public perception can complement each other” (Wenner, 2004:105). Product placement has become an integral part of building brand awareness and improving public perception through an integrated marketing mix in combination with advertising and public relations (Chabria, 2002). This marketing strategy also has the benefit of being

2

able to “get under the radar of the target market” (Auty & Lewis, 2004A) and catch media consumers “in a moment of pleasure, as opposed to when their defences are up– as they are when seeing an advertisement” (Wenner, 2004:105). Further to which, Erdelyi and Zizak (2004:24) state that […] too much consciousness triggers critical or defensive evaluations of the message and may well lead to its rejection.

In an age of media channel proliferation and the use of ad avoidance devices such as TiVo and Sky+ as well as online media players such as the BBC’s iPlayer and 4OD, that enable viewers to circumvent traditional advertising by skipping (also referred to as ‘zapping’ or ‘zipping’) through them (Krauss, 2003), reaching target markets with traditional advertising has become a challenge.

Eric Schmitt of Forrester Research declared, Monolithic blocks of eyeballs are gone. In their place is a perpetually shifting mosaic of audience microsegments that forces marketers to play an endless game of audience hide‐and‐seek (quoted in Bianco, 2004:2).

Product placement, arguably, has the benefit of being able to cut through the “clutter” of channels and bypass consumer ‘editing’ and audience hide‐and‐seek by not interrupting the programming and being embedded in the content itself (Erdogan, 2004).

As Shrum (2004:8) explains, “media consumers do in fact tend to process entertainment (narrative) and promotional (rhetorical) information differently” and while it can be proven that these two types of information are processed in different ways, Baerns (2003) highlights the assumption based on this, that “advertisements receive greater attention when disguised as editorial content”.

This assumption has not been proven by empirical evidence, rather the evidence pertaining to product placement is often “ambiguous and does not extend beyond brand memory and evaluation” (Bhatnagar, et al. 2004), such as implicit/ explicit memory models (Law & Braun‐La Tour, 2004). Indeed, “understanding of consumer response to that kind of message is still very limited and superficial” (Cavia et al. 2009). Furthermore, empirical evidence relating to the efficacy of

3

product placement is difficult to generate, because […] the entwined nature of joint promotional campaigns makes it difficult to tease apart the effects of placements from other forms of marketing efforts (Bhatnagar, et al. 2004:100).

Product placement has existed for many years, at least since the 1940’s (McCarty, 2004) and arguably, earlier still (Murdock, 1992; Lehu, quoted in Powell, 2007). Placements largely came about through the practical motives that studios required props for their films, and rather than fabricate generic, un‐ branded vehicles, locations, clothing, food and drink and jeopardise the verisimilitude and credibility of the film or show, many chose to use the familiar branded items at hand (DeLorme and Reid, 1999; Brennan et al, 1999).

It is true, however, that product placement has evolved into a popular way to raise funds for productions, both cinematic and televisual (Elliott, 2006), though this investment occasionally carries conditions that have the potential to jeopardise the artistic integrity of the film or show (Lehu, 2007). For this reason, some critics have challenged the argument that product placements can add realism or truth to cinematic works, as products and brands that are included “are, almost without exception, positively cast” (Wenner, 2004:124), which reflects a false reality. Furthermore, the selective use of brands can help to communicate complex messages about characters (such as beliefs, social status and lifestyle), plot development, settings and situations (De Chernatony & McDonald, 2005) that generic or fictional brands could not. As Chris Hackley (2009:1) explains, “Brands provide a symbolic shorthand which consumers understand and which directors and actors can use”, they “are not static but dynamic elements of the script or scene”. Polge (2007) describes them as “emblems of reality”.

Despite these various issues, product placement has been embraced around the world, from China (McKechnie & Zhou, 2003) to Brazil (La Pastina, 2001), including America, Australia and most of Europe‐ excluding only Denmark (Neate, 2010). However, Britain has until as recently as September 2009,

4

strongly resisted product placement as a permitted marketing tactic (Basso, 2009).

DEFINITIONS

Product placement comes under many guises and has been described variously as branded entertainment (Lehu, 2007), ad intrusion (Atkinson, 2003), hybrid messages, combining elements of celebrity endorsement and sponsorship (Ford, 1993; Baker and Crawford, 1995, cited in Hackley et al.; 2008; Balasubramanian, 1994), brand placement (Karrh et al, 2001), embedded persuasion/ integrated advertising (Murdock, 1992), blurred communication (Solomon & Englis, 1996), subliminal advertising (Packard, 1957), peripheral advertising (Petty et al., 1983), stealth marketing (Roy & Chattopadhyay, 2010), within‐programme brand exposure (Roehm et al., 2004) and advertising disguised as entertainment (Samuel, 2004). Many of these terms carry negative connotations (“intrusion”, “persuasion”, “subliminal”, “disguise”, “stealth”) and it would be fair to state that the practice of product placement is subject to great scrutiny and criticism (Atkinson, 2003; Gould et al, 2000; Gupta & Gould, 1997).

Product placement is defined as “the paid inclusion of branded products or brand identifiers, through audio and/or visual means, within mass media programming” (Karrh, 1998:33). However, as explained by DeLorme and Reid (1999; see also, Karrh, 1995; Russell & Belch, 2005), not all placements are paid for, rather a bartering arrangement may be met (Crisafulli, 1995, quoted in Wenner, 2004). Therefore, for the purpose of this review, the Le Ferle and Edwards (2006) revised definition, which takes into account the work of Zeithaml et al. (1985) and Abernethy and Butler (1992), disregards the notion of ‘paid inclusion’ and also highlights intent and content type, shall be used. Their definition states that product placement is “the intentional inclusion of brands through audio and/or visual means, within entertainment, educational, or informational content.” (Le Ferle and Edwards, 2006:66).

5

According to Smith (1985) and later expounded upon by Russell (1998), there are three types of product placements: visual (or “screen placement”), verbal and plot placement. Visual placement integrates the brand visually while verbal placement refers to the brand being mentioned in dialogue or “heard” onscreen (such as a jingle or catchphrase). Plot placement is usually a combination of verbal and visual placement and is evident when the product forms a key role in a story line or in building the persona of a character (1998:357).

An offshoot of the phenomenon Russell refers to as ‘plot placement’, is ‘product integration’ (Wenner, 2004). Product integration, Wenner states, is associated largely with television. It is a process in which the product not only helps to build the persona of a character but also becomes a character through its central plot integration. The example given is the use of Doritos, Bud Light and Mountain Dew as rewards for contestants on the American reality show, Survivor. Mark Bennet, the executive producer of the show referred to these products as the adventure’s “17th character” (quoted in Wenner, 2004). For the purpose of this review, the practice of product integration will be considered a subsidiary of product placement rather than a practice within it, as its integration into programme content is unusually prominent and more akin to that of a plug, therefore it is more incongruous than standard product placement.

The differentiation between product placement and “plugs” must also be made.

Roehm, Roehm, and Boone (2004) characterised plugs as a discussion of a brand or product, delivered by a personality “in the style of a public relations tactic”, these are less congruous than placements and therefore more pervasive. Despite this, Atkinson (2003) found that the majority of consumers also viewed product placement as pervasive, additionally, they found it distracting rather than entertaining. Consumers in the “prime advertising demographic of 18 – 34” however, were apparently receptive to product placement generally (Atkinson, 2003).

The importance of product placements was recognised by academics such as Vollmers and Mizerski (1994) and Karrh (1998) in the 1990’s. Since then

6

interest has continued, leading to high volumes of literature on the topic regarding both films and television, however, due to their lack of enthusiasm for the practice, it has seldom been considered in the British context (with the exception of Tiwsakul and Hackley, 2005; and Tiwsakul, Hackley and Szmigin, 2005). Although literature pertaining to product placement on television is not scarce (see, particularly: Ferraro & Avery, 2000; Krauss, 2003; La Ferle & Edwards, 2006, etc.), literature that focuses on the film industry appears to be more prevalent (see: Babin & Carder, 1996A/ 1996B; DeLorme & Reid, 1999; Gould et al, 2000; Karrh, 1995, etc.).

The role of memory, recall and recognition has received great attention from Babin and Carder (1996A), d’Astous and Chartier (1999), d’Astous and Francis (2000), Gupta and Lord (1998), Janiszewski (1993), Macklin (1984), Russel (2002) and many others.

Ethics and consumers attitudes and acceptance of product placement is possibly the most common theme of the available literature on the topic (aside from introductory texts). Significant contributors to this area of research include; Amy Rungpaka Tiwsakul, Chris Hackley, Stephen Gould and Pola Gupta (see: Tiwsakul and Hackley, 2005; Tiwsakul et al., 2005; Hackley et al., 2008; Hackley, 2009; Gould et al,, 2000; Gupta et al., 2000; Gupta and Lord, 1998).

The effect of product placement on children has also been a subject of scrutiny; Auty and Lewis’ 2004 psychological studies are frequently and consistently cited as a quality source, although other texts such as Macklin (1994) are also relevant.

Ferraro and Avery (2000) looked at placement prominence with regards to how close to the foreground a brand is shown, how prominent the logo is, the length of time it appears on screen, whether it is seen in the same shot as a celebrity or main character and how relevant to the scene the placement is. In addition to the visual characteristics identified by Ferraro and Avery in their content analysis, La Ferle and Edwards (2006) identify the manner in which products are placed as Primary (the product or company name are featured in their natural context, i.e. a can of Coca Cola) or Secondary placements (the brand or company name

7

could be seen on another item, i.e. the ‘Coke’ logo on a t shirt). They also state that placements may come in the form of “traditional advertisements”, such as billboards in the background of a scene and that these placements deserve their own subcategory. Verbal cues were also considered by both of the content analysis studies. Ferraro and Avery (2000) measured the rate of product placements in 1997 and more recently, La Ferle and Edwards (2006) undertook a content analysis to assess placement techniques, placements in different types of programming, the prevalence of placements versus plugs and the growth of placements over time.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS & ISSUES

Those consumers who prefer their entertainment unbranded ‐ that is, without the products, logos and other trappings of advertisers embedded in the content ‐ are in for a disappointing decade (Elliott, 2006).

The UK government took part in a consultation in 2008 on the AVMS Directive, at the end of which, it was decided that the current regulations did not need reform.

At that time, the regulations were as follows; Current rules mean UK television broadcasters cannot include product placement in programmes which either they have made or have been made for them. As part of the EU Audiovisual Media Services (AVMS) Directive member states have to legally prohibit product placement but are allowed to grant exceptions for certain types of programmes (DCMS, 2009B).

However, on September sixteenth 2009, Culture Secretary to the UK, Ben Bradshaw made a speech to The Royal Television Society in which it was made apparent that regulatory changes regarding the introduction of product placement on British television were being seriously considered, “we are [not] interested in regulation for regulation’s sake” (Bradshaw, 2009). This ‘u‐turn’ was greeted with mixed reactions, including open criticism from campaign

8

groups and lobbyists.

The consultation on the introduction of product placement to UK television programming began in November 2009, ending in January 2010 and was lead by Ben Bradshaw. The speed of the consultation was criticised by campaigners from the National Union of Teachers, the National Heart Forum, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the Children’s Food Campaign, amongst others, as being too brief to fully consider the ramifications of any decisions made (Johnson, 2009). These concerns over potential health issues associated with the promotion of specific products (alcohol, products high in salt, fat and sugars, tobacco etc.) highlight one of the many sets of ethical issues affiliated with product placement. In response to these particular concerns, the government stated that “safeguards” would be in place to ensure the prohibition of the placement of such products as; unhealthy foods (also known as HFSS foods), gambling and alcohol drinks (DCMS, 2009) as well as smoking accessories, over‐ the‐counter medicines, infant formula and follow‐on formula (DCMS, 2010). It has been suggested that these restrictions are not stringent enough, and that all food and drink brands and products should be banned from placements (Halliday, 2009; Consumerfocus, 2010), though this represents a minority opinion in the literature.

The financial benefits of product placement as an advertising tactic are arguably immeasurable (Chunovic, 2002), making the governments apparent ‘u‐turn’ on the topic hard to justify. However in light of a current “challenging economic climate”, in which “commercial broadcasters are suffering” (Bradshaw, quoted in DCMS, 2009), British broadcasters and advertisers seem keen to tap into any new and potential revenue streams available (Basso, 2009). Hackley (2009) however suggests that the current estimates of the potential revenue to be gained in the UK from product placement put forward by the DCMS are based on unrealistic, “static notions” which disregard the changing nature of digital technologies and consumer viewing, specifically 3D and interactive technologies (Sauer, 2010).

9

While traditional advertising is often designed to generate immediate sales, product placement creates awareness and positive attitudes for products and brands, and in sales terms, this is far less quantifiable (Lehu, quoted in Powell, 2007). Companies have struggled to assess the value and potential of placements, as return on investment is difficult, if not impossible to calculate (Mandese, 2004; Kaplan, 2005).

Opposition to the allowance of product placement on British television has been broad and often surprising. Bob Wootton, Director of Media and Advertising at the ISBA (the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers), made a submission during the DCMS 2009/2010 consultation in which he stated [any] increase in the cost to advertisers of paid product placement would result in an increase in their expectation as to the prominence of products thus placed, leading to an increased likelihood of viewer disenfranchisement and, in turn, complaint (quoted in Sweeney, 2010).

The ISBA’s submission suggests that the allowance of product placement in British programming would be detrimental to advertisers, programme makers and audiences, despite their having tentatively supported the reregulation in 2006. Pardun and Brittain McKee’s 2000 study showed that Public Relations practitioners were generally more receptive to and enthusiastic about product placement than traditional advertising practitioners, who view product placement, as Bob Wootton has demonstrated, as a threat to their practice.

Referring to the Ferraro and Avery (2000) and La Ferle and Edwards (2006) studies, however, it does appear that overt prominence of placement negatively affects the verisimilitude of a narrative and in turn, consumers receptiveness to a film or programme.

The DCMS (2010) regulation (to be enforced by Ofcom) will allow product placement, in accordance with the existing EU Directive, in the following four genres; “cinematographic works, films and series made for television or on‐ demand services, sports programmes, and light entertainment programmes”.

The definitions of the four allowed genres, specifically ‘light entertainment’, were accused of being too broad (Consumerfocus, 2010) and it was suggested that

10

advertisers would exploit and abuse this flexibility. Many critics of the regulation are concerned that product placement will appear in ‘family programming’ that has high exposure to children. The Ofcom statistic that “71% of children’s viewing occurs outside of children’s airtime” (Ofcom, 2004) is widely cited by critics of the DCMS ruling that only entertainment programmes within “children’s airtime” will be banned from containing product placement. Given examples of programmes that should also be considered are Coronation Street and Britain’s Got Talent (Sustain, 2010). The DCMS suggest that it will be Ofcom’s responsibility to “intervene in the event that broadcasters unacceptably stretch the envelope and include product placement in programming which cannot properly be seen as falling into any of these permitted categories” (DCMS, 2010).

However, Consumer Focus, a UK Non Governmental Organisation, argue that there are many TV programmes that fall outside of children’s airtime that still attract a large number of child viewers. While Ofcom assesses audience figures using the BARB (Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board) index, this is done so on a scale of proportion rather than absolute figures. A television programme may be deemed to be attracting a ‘disproportionately high child audience’ only if the ratio of child viewers to adult viewers is unbalanced. Consumer Focus highlights that Ofcom’s figures will show that a programme is attracting for example, ‘only’ twenty percent child viewers, however that percentile may account for millions of children and is therefore pertinent. The BARB index has been previously criticised as an accurate measure of audience figures during a previous consultation on advertising food and drink products to children by Jane Landon, Deputy Chief Executive of the National Heart Forum (2006).

In the context of product placement, it is suggested that the restrictions are extended beyond specific children’s airtime to include “family” programmes such as “X‐Factor, Harry Hill’s TV Burp and Britain’s Got Talent”. Consumer Focus (2010) believe “the priority should be protecting children from unnecessary and insidious advertising”. However, Cavia et al’s 2009 study of the subliminal influence of product placements on children suggested influence was minimal,

11

and therefore “the supposed defencelessness of children” in this context needs to be re‐evaluated (though it must be noted that this study was carried out on Spanish children and cultural differences may exist).

Tiwsakul and Hackley (2005:4) propose that “ethical concerns surrounding placement practices can be viewed in terms of two main aspects: general ethical concerns about the practice and specific concerns about particular product categories (McKechnie and Zhou, 2003; Gould et al., 2000)”. Their “general concerns” aspect, however, could be further divided into two sub categories; concerns over the protection of consumers, and concerns over the protection of the editorial content of programmes.

Huge concern that the line between editorial content and commercial messages will become too blurred was voiced during the consultation period, by a range of organisations, consumer bodies and health promotion groups, including The Church of England (CofE, 2009) and the British Medical Association (Nathanson, 2009). Sarikakis (2007:246) summarises the concerns that “these surreptitious forms of branding may unduly influence the purchasing habits of vulnerable groups [including children] and undermine the editorial autonomy of programme content”.

Marketers aim for their brands and products to be featured positively, which will lead to positive associations of “contentment, happiness or prestige” in consumers’ minds and potentially lead to purchases (Morton and Friedman, 2002) and brand loyalty (Hart, 2003), though it has been suggested that consumers do not always accept this “false reality” of positively cast products (Wenner, 2004). Additionally, Tiwsakul et al (2005) claim that there is no relationship between product placements and purchase behavior due to the more shrewd nature of the postmodern consumer.

These “shrewd” postmodern consumers often perceive product placement to be paid for, and this type of incentivised testimonial (such as celebrity endorsements, plugs and paid for product placements) are acknowledged as

12

being less “believable” than unpaid testimonials (such as the voluntary forwarding on of messages, as with viral marketing, Sternthal et al, 1978; Dobele et al, 2005).

If consumers are indeed aware of the commercial nature of placements, then serious implications arise for the level of credence that is put in claims made [by advertisers regarding placements efficacy] and, importantly, the degree of trust that is placed in the medium (Bhatnagar, et al. 2004:100).

A further thought arises from Bradley et al’s (2004:142) comparison of American and British advertising techniques. While America has a long established history of product placement and audiences are arguably more “conditioned to the “sell society””, British audiences are noted as having a more cynical, slightly pessimistic attitude towards television in general and a scepticism towards advertising specifically. This may initially seem like a challenge to the future of product placement on British television, however an interesting observation is made; that “advertisers in Britain have been forced to make their messages subtle and entertaining in order to gain the attention of an unwilling and skeptical [sic] audience”. In light of this, a more subtle approach towards placements intended for a British audience may be more effective. Law and Braun (2000) do suggest that products central to a plot are remembered and recalled more often than subtly placed products but, as previously asserted, there is no reliable evidence to reflect purchase behaviour.

LITERATURE REVIEW CONCLUSION

It is apparent that many consumers are not only aware of product placement but have no strong objection to seeing familiar brands in film and television programming, as long as that product placement is not given undue prominence (d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; DeLorme and Reid, 1999; Gould et al., 2000; Gupta et al., 2000). British audiences, particularly, may be more sensitive to overtly branded messages (Law & Braun, 2000). “If the placement is blatant,

13

inconsistent or irrelevant, the product or brand's reputation will suffer” (Lehu, quoted in Powell, 2007:29). Though obvious placements may be more easily recalled, British audiences are more likely to reject these as “hard sell” messages, therefore a soft sell “positioning strategy” (Ong & Meri, 1994) that incorporates a more subtle approach must be used by advertisers to utilise this promotional tool successfully in the UK. Although Ofcom have been tasked with the responsibility of policing the new regulation and ensuring broadcasters don’t “stretch the envelope” (DCMS, 2010), the establishment of an additional industry body, similar to the Entertainment Marketing Association (EMA) in America may be advisable. Such an organisation could consist of corporations who seek to get their brands placed into television programmes, the television channels and production companies that seek products to be placed into their programmes, and general advertising or public relations firms that offers placement services to their clients. The purpose of such an organisation would be “to promote the profession and to ensure that it has a high standard of ethics” (Harrison, 1999, quoted in Wenner, 2004), with a broader focus on the ethical responsibility to the audience.

Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, Hackley (2009:2) suggests in his response to the DCMS Consultation that; An Ofcom sub‐committee, independent and guided broadly by the AVMS principles, ought to be allowed to exercise case by case judgment on placement issues within a regulatory principle that invests the TV producers and director with the authority to decide on their own arrangements for placed brands.

According to Balasubramanian (1994), a key element of product placement is that its promotional motive is hidden, however, Avery and Ferraro (2000:24) pose the question “Do viewers have the right to know when they are being appealed to on a commercial level?” Many consumer groups believe so, and it has been suggested that explicit warnings be issued at the start of, or within a programme to alert viewers of forthcoming commercial content (McCarty, 2004). However, a previous study by Bennett et al (1999) of product placement

14

warnings preceding movies, showed that these warnings enforced placements by acting as a memory cue and did not effect viewers’ brand evaluation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of the focus group transcripts uncovered six main themes relating to product placement. The three most dominant themes were subliminal advertising and manipulation, children and vulnerable people and the restriction of specific products. The remaining themes included realism in programming, product placements versus traditional advertising and ‘other observations’.

These themes, while largely relating to ethical issues as predicted in the literature (Tiwsakul and Hackley, 2005:4; McKechnie and Zhou, 2003; Gould et al., 2000), also cover more practical issues such as the cost of regulation.

The results are reported in relation to these themes, with specific reference to the aims and objectives of this study. Greater dominance of particular themes emerged between groups, specifically between older and younger participants and participants with children and those without. Atkinson’s (2003) suggestion that viewers in the “prime advertising demographic” of 18‐34 were more receptive to product placements was not supported in this study, though the sample size of the study was too small to refute the claim entirely.

SUBLIMINAL ADVERTISING AND MANIPULATION

The notion that product placements have powers to subliminally influence or manipulate consumers was widely accepted in all four focus groups. This was underpinned by the idea that “People don’t necessarily expect to be sold something in a programme…” (Participant S, F, 21, Focus Group1) and therefore their defences might be down (Wenner, 2004:105), though the inference that the participants themselves were likely to be influenced was largely dismissed.

15

“I have to say, I’m not that easily influenced” (Participant N, F, 55, Focus Group2).

Identifying who would be influenced was a contentious issue that, in two instances, caused conflict between participants.

For example, in one group, when the conversation moved onto subliminal advertising one participant suggested “[…] some people are more easily influenced [than others]”. When prompted to elaborate, she responded “Am I allowed to say less educated..? People with less money… lower income groups?”

(Participant N, F, 55, Focus Group2). This riled another participant, who asked, “Are you saying less educated people are poor? Or. Poor people are stupid?”

(Participant R, M, 41, Focus Group2). Though this challenge created temporary tension in the group dynamics, it highlighted an interesting issue to the researcher. Many of the participants in the study appeared to hold the belief that “subliminal advertising” and manipulation was only applicable to vulnerable people, such as small children and uneducated people. Therefore the participants were indirectly implying that‐ if they believed product placement’s primary role was to influence behaviour, they thought it would not be a successful tactic for wide spread advertising, as the majority of the population was resilient to it.

As asserted in the literature review however, it has been argued that the role of product placements is to build brand recognition, familiarity and loyalty rather than generate immediate sales (Morton & Friedman, 2002; Hart, 2003).

It was observed by the researcher that participants would use descriptors such as ‘they’ and ‘some people’ to distance themselves from their opinions on this theme of manipulation and subliminal advertising. In the first focus group, one participant offered the opinion: “I can see how some people would think that product placement will have sort of… subliminal powers and actually be a bit dangerous (…) I can see how it will influence people, but I think we’re all here [in the focus group], really, savvy enough not to have to worry about being controlled or whatever” (Participant H, F, 23, Focus Group1).

16

Participants projected their concerns indirectly as a representation of general public opinion. Personal experiences and feelings were shared but then disowned as generic observations.

For example: “But you’re entitled to watch… To get some stimulus and watch a programme without having to defend yourself. You walk around every day just having to bat back things saying “BUY ME! BUY ME! BUY ME!” When you’re having your down time, say you’ve just got in from work and you want to chill out and watch TV, you shouldn’t have to keep your guard up against advertising. It causes stress. (…)When your guard’s down maybe you can’t be arsed to spot it. Not saying me particularly. But you know, you shouldn’t have to go through that” (Participant P, M, 24, Focus Group3).

Participant P’s concern that the effort required to “defend” oneself from advertising messages causes stress was not the dominant view held by the groups, but represented an interesting perspective of unease about the practice of product placement and of advertising generally. Concerns over subliminal advertising and “brainwashing” or “underhand” tactics were voiced most strongly by participants in Focus Groups 2 & 3, though these concerns were voiced in the context of “other people” or “vulnerable people”.

These participants indicated that they believed the people most likely to be influenced by product placements were “less educated” or less “savvy” than themselves, with a particular concern for children.

Other participants expressed an opinion that the notion of subliminal influence was “insulting”.

“I’m not so sure that the public are that simple minded” (Participant H, F, 51, Focus Group2).

There was a consensus that very small children may not be able to differentiate advertising messages from narrative messages but older children and adults

17

(excluding less educated people) would have the sophistication to identify those messages.

“We all agree that very little children at least are more impressionable, even if older children aren’t. But after that. As an adult I want to make those decisions for myself” (Participant N, F, 55, Focus Group2).

CHILDREN AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE

Despite the mix of participants across the four groups (parents and non‐ parents), it was largely agreed that children are more vulnerable and impressionable than adults and that children need more “protection” from this type of covert advertising. It was interesting to note that the parents expressed more faith in children’s ability to resist advertising messages than the non‐ parents.

“I do think children are more aware of the media than before and less likely to be won over by advertising…” (Participant H, F, 51, Focus Group2).

According to Cavia et al. (2009) children may be less ‘defenceless’ than it is often assumed with regards to advertising and product placements. Perhaps the parents in the focus groups expressed this opinion because they have greater insight on the behaviour of children than the other participants.

Though there was widespread agreement that very young children will “want” things regardless of advertising.

“I don’t think it makes any odds if they’re seeing a brand that they’re gonna want it if they see it in a shop, or they’re gonna want it if they see their giant furry hero on TV holding it […] It’s all about peers with children. […] They want what their friends have got” (Participant T, F, 32).

In light of this, it was suggested in two groups that an additional product category that should be banned from placements would be toys.

18

“I think toys should be banned. Anything related to children, that children could see it or want it. I think it should be banned” (Participant M, M, 35, Focus Group3).

“The adverts that bother me most where children are concerned involve toys…” (Participant H, F, 51, Focus Group2).

Most participants agreed that banning placements from children’s programmes and children’s airtime was a sound decision.

“I agree with it. Children are more impressionable so obviously it’s going to effect them more” (Participant M, F, 21, Focus Group1).

Though it was observed that children are likely to view television outside of these defined parameters and be exposed to the placements in other settings.

“But I think even if product placement is banned from kids shows children will still be exposed to these products one way or another, anyways” (Participant O, M, 36, Focus Group2).

“[…] either way kids are gonna see it aren’t they? I mean you can ban it on the stuff that kids are meant to be watching but there are always kids who are gonna stay up til 11 o’clock watching TV” (Participant F, F, 21, Focus Group1).

Each group suggested a number of ways to control and monitor children’s exposure to product placements and the regulation of placements generally, including a watershed or a watchdog. However, the prevalent suggestion was that the restrictions proposed by the government were adequate and that beyond this, parents and guardians should be trusted to exercise parental control. This opinion was most strongly voiced by participants with children.

“I think we’re in danger when we have Watchdogs… when we’re handing over the responsibility of how we would teach our children to discriminate against things that are not good for them. We’re… abdicating

19

our authority and handing it over to a committee and I don’t think that’s a good idea” (Participant N, F, 55, Focus Group2).

THE RESTRICTION OF SPECIFIC PRODUCTS

The proposed list of restricted products was shown to the groups, with a variety of responses. One participant questioned the composition of the list, specifically who had devised it.

“I do find it ridiculous that someone sits there and decides on our behalf what should be on or off the 'list', you know? […] But who decides? […]

Why weren’t we asked, you know? It feels like another case of the nanny state in action…” (Participant R, M, 42, Focus Group2).

Although the product categories on the list were the result of the DCMS consultation, which considered thousands of responses, alcohol, medicine, infant formula, follow on formula and unhealthy food and drinks were all challenged by the focus group participants as valid categories for inclusion, with only tobacco and gambling products being unanimously accepted. “[I am concerned] that certain things have been banned, when we should have the right to see what products are available to us, as consumers” (Participant H, F, 51, Focus Group2).

This participant’s argument was that if products exist in real life then consumers have a right to be made aware of them. It was a view that was echoed in other groups, though not as explicitly.

In response to the banning of unhealthy food and drink or of food and drink entirely, it was interesting to observe that every focus group used Coca Cola as an example of a product that supports the proposition to ban food and drink entirely. It was an unexpected phenomenon in the focus groups, that Coca Cola was referred to as “evil”, “pretty much the devil”, and a product that will “eat your insides”, and widespread concern was expressed that, despite these

20

unanimously negative feelings and agreement that it was an ‘unhealthy’ product, it would somehow circumvent the ban on unhealthy food and drink and “get in […] anyway”. “[…] we don’t want Coca Cola all over everything and convincing everybody it’s healthy when it’s not” (Participant O, M, 36, Focus Group2).

“Because Coca Cola is disgusting and it doesn’t matter if it’s got no sugar and it is caffeine free. It’s still unhealthy. It’s still Coca Cola and it’s bad for you and it will eat your insides. […]But they’ll probably get in […] anyway” (Participant J, F, 34, Focus Group4).

“The problem with the government is, Coca Cola will go, “here’s some money, our product’s ok, it’s not unhealthy”, and it will just be all over... It will be corrupt” (Participant P, M, 24, Focus Group3).

Concern was voiced over what the definition of ‘unhealthy’ food and drink would be and the parameters for allowing one product over another. Suggestions were made regarding limits on sugar, fat and salt content and the possible creation of a “table” to refer to, though participants were generally concerned that whatever these parameters were, they would likely be abused and manipulated by large corporations.

“Plus companies like Pepsi, big companies, I’m sure they have enough money to do their research and manipulate it so that we’d, you know, it would be classed as healthy” (Participant R, F, 29, Focus Group3).

Concern was also voiced that companies such as Coca Cola would have the financial clout to create a monopolistic control over product placements of soft drinks (for example) and that there would need to be regulations in place to avoid such monopolies forming.

A further concern voiced by the groups regarding food and drink was that this product category is more financially accessible than any other and therefore not only potentially more effective, but also more dangerous.

21

“The problems with drinks and food is that they’re probably a lot cheaper than other things that might be placed, and are probably a lot more likely to govern, slash, ruin someone’s life, if you know what I mean? If they’re constantly bombarded with fizzy drinks and something like that, they’re a lot more likely to go out and buy them than when you’re trying to flog them £200 watches and really expensive mobile phones” (Participant P, M, 24, Focus Group3).

This opinion was expressed in more than one group, though with less emphasis on the negative potentials.

“I think it would effect the food and drink industry more… Most effectively. Because those products are more attainable. Like, say your favourite character was drinking a soft drink, you would totally buy the soft drink… and that’s much easier than buying a phone. And that would be very beneficial for that… sector…” (Participant H, F, 23, Focus Group1).

The benefits of product placement to industries, specifically food and drink, was recognised by a number of participants, and some interesting observations were made in this respect. A conversation developed in focus group four in which the benefits of product placement to British products in terms of creating global awareness was discussed.

“I also think, for some products that are English. This might raise their overall profile. You know. Marmite for example. Things like that are very English […] Things like crisps and chocolate bars over here. You know, we all know about Oreos, but do they know about Digestives in America?

Probably not. […] It might actually help British products” (Participant J, F, 34, Focus Group4).

It was suggested by a number of participants that branded food and drink products inevitably appear on television in the form of traditional advertisements so the use of branded items within programmes would not be unacceptable (with the exclusion of banned products). It was even suggested

22

that branded products could add realism to a narrative and furthermore, communicate social issues such as family income.

REALISM IN PROGRAMMING

The use of branded products as “emblems of reality” (Polge, 2007) was recognised by the participants and used as an argument in favour of product placement, particularly in the context of food and drink.

“But on Shameless, they’re like, a family on benefits so like… I grew up in quite a poor family, and like. We wouldn’t have Coca Cola, we’d have own brand Coke. So I think it would be quite odd on Shameless if they had like, bottles of Coke sitting around […] I think they’d go for the cheaper option like Happy Shopper, like my mum used to. […] if you had the cheaper brands for the poorer family’s, it would definitely add realism” (Participant T, F, 32, Focus Group4).

Though the counter argument that this might detract from the “mysticism” (Participant A, M, 24, Focus Group3) of television was also raised, the consensus across the groups seemed to be that, “When done properly and when it doesn’t take anything away from the film, [product placement] can sort of compliment it” (Participant A, M, 24, Focus Group3).

PRODUCT PLACEMENTS VERSUS TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING

A number of participants revealed that they watch a large proportion (if not all) of their television online, or using digital recording devices that allow them to ‘avoid’ traditional advertisements and acknowledged that people’s habits are changing, generally (Krauss, 2003).

“You can watch stuff online now. You know… More and more. I mean, when I was growing up. You know, mum and dad would have the TV guide and they’d plan their watching and yeah, now you can just pick and

23

choose what you want to watch. When you want to watch it. You don’t have to sit through adverts. Your viewing is quite… You can cater your viewing to your own needs […] I guess, if er… No‐one’s watching the adverts anymore, they have to do something” (Participant T, F, 32, Focus Group4).

The participants who made these observations recognised that the effectiveness of traditional advertising was waning and that product placement was a logical progression in marketing terms. When discussed in terms of this ‘logical’ progression of advertising practices, product placement seemed more agreeable to participants.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

Generally, in spite of one or two participants who expressed particularly negative feelings about product placement, the participants were critically accepting of the changes. Citing imported American programmes and films, some participants expressed that they derived a sense of amusement from product placements.

“I’ll be honest. And this is just me personally. But I find it quite funny when I see product placement. And I, I end up just thinking, I wonder how much that cost them? And just having a little chuckle to myself” (Participant M, M, 36, Focus Group3).

“If I see someone drink a can of Coke it might amuse me, but it’s not going to make be buy or drink Coke rather than the things I usually drink” (Participant H, F, 51, Focus Group2).

The inference of the focus group discussions seemed to be that participants were able to empathise with the financial motivations for introducing placements in Britain (though some were cynical of how the regulation would be funded and were concerned that this may “come out of our taxes”). However, there was

24

concern that these placements would disrupt programming. While it was acknowledged that placements have the ability to add realism to a programme, prominence and positioning was a key concern as ‘obvious’ placements caused amusement, resentment or annoyance (Ong & Meri, 1994) and may lead to avoidance. It appeared that subtlety and congruence were essential in making placements ‘acceptable’ to British audiences. This finding was not unexpected, as various authors in the literature review (including Erdelyi and Zizak, 2004:24) found “too much consciousness triggers critical or defensive evaluations of the message and may well lead to its rejection.”

In terms of product placement’s influence, the general belief communicated in the focus groups was that placements would only really have an effect on the very young and the uneducated, though this was viewed in terms of a ‘hypodermic’ model of influence, rather than an aggregate process of raising awareness and building familiarity with brands and products.

STUDY CONCLUSIONS Overall, though some participants expressed negative feelings and did not agree with the concept of product placement on British television, those same participants accepted that the decision had already been made and suggested ways in which to make it more acceptable to them throughout the course of the discussions.

“I think I’d prefer it if it wasn’t coming here. But seeing as it is coming here, I’d like to see it done in a way that is in a responsible manner” (Participant R, F, 29, Focus Group3).

The focus groups echoed and re‐enforced the issues, concerns and views brought to light in the literature review, such as ‘subliminal advertising’ and unethical influence, the protection of children and vulnerable people (Sarikakis, 2007; Erdelyi and Zizak, 2004) and the necessity of regulation. They also raised issues not covered in the literature review, such as the potential cost of regulation to the consumer through taxes and the suggestion of additional product categories to be banned (toys) as well as identifying potential benefits of product placement to British products in terms of expanding global awareness.

25

The participants expressed a sceptical acceptance of product placement as a marketing tool. That the placements should not be too prominent, incongruous or disruptive to the narrative was a concern, with the suggestion of limits on either the percentage of placements per show, a “cap” on the income earnable by programmes from placements, or more generally a regulatory body to monitor and control these issues (though some participants thought Ofcom would do this job proficiently). Furthermore, the groups were not receptive to the suggestion of ‘warnings’ prefixing shows, the most common argument against which being that there are not warnings prefixing traditional advertisements or films that contain product placement shown in cinemas, and “They can’t put a warning on every thing… That would be ridiculous” (Participant F, F, 21, Focus Group1).

With regards to the placement of food and drink, only one participant agreed with the suggestion that this product category should be banned outright. There were concerns raised in each group regarding the definition of “unhealthy” food and drink, with suggestions that this definition be based on scientific parameters such as sugar, salt and fat content, so that there is no room for interpretation or manipulation from “big companies” (such as Coca Cola). Otherwise, the placements of food and drink products were acknowledged as being potentially beneficial in terms of; improving realism (by communicating socio‐economic contexts, for example), benefitting the food and drink industry as these products are more attainable to consumers, and raising awareness for British products abroad.

While the participants demonstrated the ‘shrewd’ and ‘cynical’ characteristics predicted of British consumers in the literature review (Bradley et al, 2004) this did not appear to be an issue in terms of the potential efficiency of product placement as a marketing tool. Suggestions were made in terms of ensuring that placements were not overtly prominent to ensure that they were ‘acceptable’ to British viewers, including controls over the amount of placements per show. “[…] it seems like a good way of funding television but I could see it getting out of control and being more akin to a tour around a supermarket than a programme […]” (Participant H, F, 51, Focus Group2).

26

The financial benefit of placements to programme makers (in terms of improving quality) and to the economy (from taxes on profits made my placements) was recognised as potentially outweighing the ‘annoyance’ of product placements in British programmes, assuming they were not, as previously stated, overtly prominent.

“Say channel 4 commissioned a TV show and said, here’s your budget, here you go. Go make something great. But what if that wasn’t enough?

And they needed a bigger budget… They’re going to need to source more income and product placement is probably going to be the best place to do that” (Participant H, F, 23, Focus Group1).

In addition to this point however, it was noted that the BBC might suffer as a result of not being able to benefit from this revenue, which was a concern raised in three of the four focus groups.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While Tiwsakul and Hackley’s 2005 studies form an excellent point of departure for the topic of product placements on British television, recent developments have prompted the need for further, more detailed research. The aim of this study was to evaluate British consumer’s perceptions of product placement practices in the context of food and drink marketing and to highlight any current issues surrounding the topic.

This aim was met through the gathering of secondary data in a detailed literature review, as well as a short series of focus groups in which primary data was collected. The limitations of this study (including time and resource restrictions) have meant that the findings could only be suggestive rather than conclusively indicative of the concerns of British television viewers. It is acknowledged that a more lengthy and rigorous study, which uses triangulation of methods and a wider, more representative sample, may offer more specific findings.

27

It was concluded that product placement may be a successful marketing tool in Britain only if the attitudes and preferences of British viewers are taken into consideration, such as the preference for subtle ‘soft sell’ advertising techniques (Bradley et al, 2004). It is recommended that a more thorough investigation be undertaken by marketers with regards to screen placement, positioning, plot integration and prominence in the context of British viewers in order for this technique to be most successfully and profitably yielded.

Furthermore, it is imperative that placements be considered as a subtle tool within the wider marketing mix, used to build and fortify brand awareness within a wider context, not a tool to generate immediate sales. It seems that British consumers are far too aware and sceptical of the potentially manipulative powers of marketing and any attempt to use product placement on British television in this way would be foolish and potentially damaging. Brand managers, television executives and marketers must not be naïve on this point.

With regards to food and drink marketing, the definitions of “unhealthy” products must be transparent and accessible so that “shrewd” British consumers do not feel that they are being in any way manipulated or swindled by products pretending to be healthy when they are patently not. The economic accessibility of food and drink products to the consumer in comparison to expensive technological goods, for example, makes product placement a potentially powerful tool for marketers of food and drink products and brands. As such, representatives of the food and drink industry must defend their right to use this marketing tool in the face of opposition and lobbying, but they must do so responsibly and cautiously, at the risk of being ‘rejected’ by consumers.

28