Product placement has a global reach, and the ability to reach customers that companies usually can’t
There is no clear indicator of what level of PPL prominence works the best
Endorsement of a third party, such as an actor can show the product in a “real life setting”
and is very effective
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.
When brand holders decide to use to external partners, it is usually because of their high level of expertise. The downside is that it disables the company to gain full control of the process and overview, and therefore they may not be able to build such capabilities internally. But, as
mentioned by all 4 interviewed companies, since few resources are spend on product placement, the resources aren’t there internally, and the brand holders can gain the benefits from product placement experts, and their experience. Even though many Danish brand holders choose to outsource PPL to agencies, there are companies who do handle it internally, and successfully. In Denmark, Fritz Hansen is known to be doing product placements without the involvement of third party agencies to facilitate the process. Kuanhsi criticizes this choice, because they feel that a brand like theirs can do much better than what they are doing presently. Obviously they have to say this is not done well, because otherwise they would not be able to justify their own existence.
Media Works’ Hans Theisen believes that companies should use an agency because of their insights in the business. It has been mentioned that agencies have core competencies and relationships that gives them the advantage, but another thing is the time and resources. First, Danish brand holders usually do not have enough time and resources to scout the market for attractive manuscripts etc., and even if they do, they do not have the insights to distinguish a good manuscript from a bad one. Also, since manuscripts are not being turned into films immediately but over a longer period of time, it is very difficult for companies to manage the time frame.
Agencies generally charge brand holders either by a retainer fee or project fee. The brand holders interviewed for this master thesis had all used retainer fees, because they feel that it gives more freedom to the agency in question, to find a project(s) that is suitable for the brand holder.
Although retainer fees were preferred, some companies had occasionally also been involved on a project based contract as well. A retainer fee means that the agency is given a yearly amount of money to work with and implement different placements, while a project fee is an amount given to implement a previously specified placement project.
7.2.2 The product placement process from start to finish
Generally speaking, the process of implementing a product placement does not seem too complicated. As explained by both Daniel Beran, Arden Doss, and Kuanhsi, they all receive
manuscripts daily for movies etc., which enables them to find a place where they can implement a placement. Thereafter, they contact the given client that they feel may have a suitable product for the given scene. The contract between the three parties (agency, production company and brand holder) is then negotiated in regards to seconds of exposure, payment, etc. Another
scenario that can happen as well is that the production company contacts either the agency or the company directly. This could be because a production company has seen a certain product that would fit in their media, and therefore contacts either the agency or brand holder to determine the possibilities of loaning the product. This is usually the case when it comes to both B&O and Louis Poulsen due to their high-profiled products.
Although, one should be aware, as stressed by the all the interviewees, that even though a contract has been negotiated this doesn’t always lead to complete success. Often the placement ends up being left out of the media, or the placement is not done according to what was agreed upon. Therefore it is an advantage to have an agency who knows these pitfalls and how to operate around them.
7.2.3 Bottlenecks in the product placement process
There are definitely many bottlenecks in the product placement process that companies should be aware of, ranging from internal bottlenecks within their own company, to bottlenecks from the relationship to the production company. The figure below, shows the codified results from the qualitative interviews.
Question Bottlenecks in the
PPL Process
Yes / No %
Yes No
77%
23%
Underlying issues Logistiscs Lead Time Internal resources
End result Figure 14: Interviewees thoughts on bottleneck issues
The figure above illustrates that 77% of the interviewees believe that there are bottlenecks present in the product placement process. These results are derived from both companies and agencies, making this an issue of concern. The primary underlying issues in regards to bottlenecks are logistics, lead time, internal resources, and end result.
50% of the interviewed companies mention the problem regarding the logistics of the placement.
As mentioned, since they are contacted very frequently, it is difficult for them to appear in all of the media that they might want to do, because they have to have products ready for the given media. Since both B&O and Louis Poulsen manufacture high-end luxury items, they do not have the resources to send large numbers of their products to the different production companies, because these are often not sellable after use, and if they are, they need to be shipped to another location for the next placement. This means that they also have internal bottlenecks in regards to resources that are made available for them to spend.
Furthermore, the uncertain nature of for example a movie will make it difficult to predict the outcome of the placement, since it may not always work as well in reality, compared to what might have been thought originally.
Further, as mentioned by Kuanhsi, the time horizon or lead time from when a company knows that the placement has made the final cut, to the media being in aired is often very short.
Therefore, if a company doesn’t know whether or not their placement has been approved to appear in the media, it is difficult to create an activation program to support the placement.
Additionally, Arden Doss mentions that the time horizon of a film also can lead to problems. This is because film and TV productions can often be delayed for a period of time. This can have serious consequences for a company that places a brand, because if the production has been delayed for a while, and the company’s product easily is outdated (i.e. consumer electronics), the company may risk promoting a product which is soon to be replaced.
Another bottleneck is the way the industry works. The North American market is extremely commercialized, and media here often try to obtain as much financing as possible. The opposite can be said about the European market, and especially the Danish. Here, the concept of art is very present, making it difficult to integrate products, because the production companies and set directors are not interested in commercialized commodities exploiting their creative vision. Here, Kuanhsi believes that the Danish, and European market, simply not worth pursuing because of the small audiences, and also the difficulties of integrating a product. This is supported slightly by Hans Theisen from Media Works, who believes that it is difficult and not very profitable for companies to do placements in Danish films and series. However he believes that these
insecurities that production companies once had are slowly being eliminated, because they can see the benefits that the placements can lead to.
Although there are bottlenecks that influence the process, it doesn’t necessarily have a negative effect on the results that the company gets from product placement. Looking at figure 15 it is clear that both companies and agencies believe that there are good results to be obtained despite the mentioned bottlenecks. These results are from question 3 in the questionnaire that tries to identify how well the process works compared to the outcomes of PPL.
Figure 15: Results based on how interviewees rate the PPL process.
The scores are very similar rating the process close to 4 (good), with outliers Mannov and Kuanhsi. Mannov was not very positive towards the uncertainties regarding the time frame, and also the fact that one was never sure if the placement was included in the media or not. In the opposite end Kuanhsi believed that there are no process issues, because it can be handled in the contract. They add, that the issue that can be present is, that the companies don’t understand the process and therefore think that there might be issues. This statement however seems odd, since even their corporate partner, Propaganda GEM, acknowledges that the mentioned bottlenecks are legitimate issues for brand holders to be concerned about.
7.2.4 Summing up
The analysis on the product placement process identified several important points for brand holders to be aware of. Some of the most significant are:
Agencies have experience and close relationships enabling them to get better deals.
Logistics are an issue if the product is expected to be resalable once returned.
Time horizon can affect the placement because companies may not know if a placement made the final cut, or if the media is being released as scheduled.
Despite the bottlenecks, the process was rated close to 4 (good) compared to the possible outcome from PPL
Next, the results from the control part of the interview will be discussed.