The primary outcomes from product placement

Opinions on the primary outcomes of product placement are contrary to the effectiveness much more differentiated among the interviewees. Looking at figure 13 below, one can find the codified answers from the qualitative interviews, which show the interviewees thoughts of what the primary outcomes from product placement are.

Question  Statements  % 

Primary effects 

Increased brand awareness  92 

Increased image through endorsement/ 

Positive brand associations  54 

Larger audience reach  46 

Figure 13: Most important outcomes of PPL 

Looking at figure 13 it is clear that almost all the interviewees believe that brand awareness is the main driver for product placement. Interestingly this, as previously mentioned in the theory section of the thesis, does not automatically lead to increased sales.

One of the advantages, as mentioned, of product placement is that it integrates the product or brand in a realistic setting, enabling the product or brand to show its assets in a positive light.

This means that product placements can be very useful in, for instance, a product launch situation, because it will show the features of the product, without appearing as a commercial statement. Furthermore, getting the chance to have the product endorsed by a celebrity may enhance credibility and liking due to the relation between the celebrity and the product in question, in accordance with McCracken (1989). This factor is supported by 54 % of the interviewees as an advantage of PPL.

Also, there is an increased credibility factor that exists around product placements. Consumers know that brand holders normally try to persuade them to buy their products, and therefore they have their guards up. Having the product endorsed by a third party creates that special credibility, and perhaps even a “coolness factor” which is important for certain types of consumers and products. This is also the case for the environment/setting of which the placement is in. If a product placement is done well, it is in a setting that illustrates the product from its best angles, and highlights its best features.

However, even if a product placement is done well, it doesn’t necessarily lead to a sale. There are different reasons for this. As mentioned by B&O, product placement works most effectively if the viewer is already thinking about buying the product in question. Therefore, even though a viewer may like a product that is seen on screen, it may not trigger a purchase intention, because the viewer is not in need of such a product. The person exposed to a product placement will not necessarily believe that he/she should purchase the product. What may lead to a purchase is a properly integrated and executed activation campaign that can support the placement (CO-TV, 2009).

7.1.4 Thoughts on product placement and prominence

Earlier on in the thesis, the levels of product placement prominence have been described. The results from the interviews, when we asked about prominence and the different levels of integration of PPLs were not unanimous, which surprised the authors. One could suspect that a high level of plot integration equals success. This view is supported by Media Works, saying that

“integration is the most important thing. Everything else is not very interesting”. It is important to stress, that reading between the lines there can be too much of a good thing, meaning that a product placement should be integrated but not to the point where it is disturbing. Another view is shed by Daniel Beran. He believes that a high level of prominence helps, but it is not a guarantee for success. He believes that the all levels of prominence work if done correctly. This is because, as stated by Daniel Beran, most product placements are done with a low integration, since there is a limit to how many plot related placements can be fitted into a media. Arden Doss from Propaganda GEM in L.A doesn’t believe in the “billboard kind of placements”, by which he means the placements Andersen (2006) identifies as screen placements.

For some companies a may be important to have as much exposure and as high a level of prominence and integration as possible, but according to Professor John Hird this is most often not a preferable strategy to follow. In his opinion brand holders must not overexpose their brands and products, since this will only have a negative effect on perceived brand image by consumers.

In conclusion we have found that there is no consensus on what level of prominence is preferable for brand holders, and simply showing the placement as much as possible is not necessarily the right way to go.

7.1.5 Why many brand holders do not use product placements

The brand holders all mentions that they believed product placement to be an effective marketing tool. However, it is interesting to note that even though they feel this way, none of them are pursuing it more or spending more resources on it than earlier on. The issue seems to be that they don’t have the knowledge internally to further pursue it or integrate it better in the marketing mix.

In other instances, as with Tuborg, the company does not wish to promote the tool too obviously, because it can result in a lack of credibility. This is because the company may appear as being too commercial and therefore risk losing its “coolness factor”.

Another reason for not utilizing product placement more is because of the lack of knowledge within the area. Kuanhsi believes that the reason it is not utilized more in Denmark, is that most media agencies competencies lie within measurement and not implementation, and especially not PPL.

Another reason that the Danish brand holders don’t use it more frequently is, as it is the case with B&O and Louis Poulsen, that they utilize product placements for free, by which we mean that they don’t pay for the placements but are often contacted by production companies who like the products and wish to use them. Ironically, not paying for placements comes with a price in that both Louis Poulsen and Bang & Olufsen have very limited possibilities of activating their

placements. Normally brand holders have to pay for the rights to activate placements, but none of the mentioned brand holders have the PPL budgets to do so, at least not when it comes to major Hollywood productions.

7.1.6 Summing up

Looking at the results from the General part of the interview several things stand out:

ƒ Danish companies think positively of product placements

ƒ The primary effect of product placement is brand awareness, making it useful for product launches. Other effects are changes in brand associations through endorsements and larger audiences

ƒ Few resources are spend on product placement by Danish brand holders

ƒ Product placement has a global reach, and the ability to reach customers that companies usually can’t

ƒ There is no clear indicator of what level of PPL prominence works the best

ƒ Endorsement of a third party, such as an actor can show the product in a “real life setting”

and is very effective

ƒ Danish companies are often not paying for PPLs, and have a hard time obtaining activation rights

We will now focus on the results derived from the part of the interviews involving the process of implementing a product placement.