The hidden history of product placement

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Dec, 2006 by Jay Newell, Charles T. Salmon, Susan Chang

Negative Reaction to Product Placement

The use of trademarked merchandise on screen has been controversial almost from the start. In the 1910s European theater owners were accused of obliterating the trade marks of American products seen in films (Tichenor, 1926). Even within the motion picture community, there was not full agreement on the use of product placement. The movie exhibitor newsletter Harrison's Reports railed against the use of on-screen advertising for products such as Kellogg's Toasted Corn Flakes and Corona typewriters, arguing that "the act of a person who steals your screen is no different than the act of a person who steals your watch" (Harrison, 1925, p. 1). United Artists advertising chief Hal Horne defended the use of actors to promote products for tie-ups to studio head Howard Hughes by arguing that "no matter where the picture plays you will find exhibitors using the faces of our stars in all sorts of local tie-ups.... [Tie-ups have] become part of the fabric and custom of picture exploitation" (Home, 1931, p. 1). The dispute about product placement spilled into the public arena with a New York Times editorial that accused advertisers of

   sneaking onto the screen in dark and devious ways. Articles for
   advertising are offered to films in the making. Automobile makers
   graciously offer the use of high-priced cars by studios ... for
   kitchen scenes the manufacturers of nationally advertised food
   products willingly fill clipboard shelves. ("Topics of the Times,"
   1929, p. 8)

The Hays Office, source of the Production Code drawn up in 1927 to forestall national regulation of motion pictures, did not specifically restrict the use of trade names in motion pictures (Belton, 1996). But as a lightning rod for any grievance about movies, the Hays Office files contain multiple complaints from companies whose competitors had received screen time. The Hays Office routinely advised producers to avoid the use of trade names in motion pictures. When settings were impractical to fabricate, such as an airplane exterior, the Hays Office asked that the shots of aircraft not highlight the airline's logo (Moley, 1945). Notwithstanding the complaints, the tie-ups continued because of their ability to bring no-cost props to the producers, additional advertising to motion picture distributors, and the association with Hollywood to manufacturers of sometime mundane products. However, negative reactions to product placements from theater owners, foreign distributors, and motion picture critics seemed to drive underground the practice of product placement.

Product Placement as Revenue Generator

The value of tie-ups was in the reciprocal promotion of movies arid merchandise, not in the creation of a profit center for the moviemaker. However, at least one picture did charge for placement--the Marx Brothers final feature film, Love Happy (Cowan & Miller, 1949). Producer Lester Cowan had financing trouble throughout the production, which culminated in his running out of money before the completion of principal photography (Arce, 1979). Chico Marx, who coproduced the feature, devised a closing chase sequence above a replica of New York's Times Square that required Harpo Marx to scamper from one animated billboard to another. The signage rights were sold in advance to Socony for $25,000 (Cowan, 1949b), Curtiss Baby Ruth for $25,000 (Lahon, 1949), and Bulova Watches for $4,500 plus $150,000 in advertising (Cowan, 1949a). Gruen Watches had initially been offered the placement that eventually went to Bulova, and Fisk tires paid $2,000 for a momentary appearance (Smith, 1949). In a 4-minute, two-part sequence that is the climax of the film, Harpo, with a string of stolen diamonds in his pocket, rides the Mobil Oil mascot Pegasus, swings from a gigantic Bulova clock pendulum, and is thrown into the mouth of a smoking Kool penguin, only to emerge blowing smoke himself.