{"id":26721,"date":"2021-09-10T05:03:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-10T05:03:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=26721"},"modified":"2021-09-12T04:00:32","modified_gmt":"2021-09-12T04:00:32","slug":"the-science-of-product-placements-and-why-some-work-better-than-others","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/the-science-of-product-placements-and-why-some-work-better-than-others\/","title":{"rendered":"The science of product placements \u2013 and why some work better than others"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Beth L. Fossen<\/a>, Indiana University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In \u201cThe Variant,\u201d an episode from the Disney+ hit streaming show \u201cLoki<\/a>,\u201d it\u2019s tough to miss the barrage of product placements, with fast-paced action and dialogue taking place in front of Charmin toilet paper, Dove soap and Arm & Hammer deodorant. At one point, Loki barrels down an aisle with vacuum cleaners and fights off an opponent with a corded vacuum while iRobot vacuums are prominently featured on the shelf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As someone who studies such advertising techniques as product placements<\/a>, I\u2019m starting to notice them crop up more and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With viewers migrating to streaming services and web videos, this trend makes sense. (Who actually watches the full ads that appear at the beginning of a YouTube video?) But not all product placements work as intended, and my research has shown that advertisers need to engage in a delicate dance with viewers to effectively influence them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ads that you can\u2019t skip or mute<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with a little background. Product placement is a form of advertising in which a company pays a content creator to place its product on the set of a movie, TV shows or music video. While many product placements are the result of such paid relationships, some product placements happen because of creative decisions, such as a writer wanting a character to wear Gucci to convey the character\u2019s affluence. Viewers aren\u2019t typically given information to distinguish between paid and unpaid product placements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Product placement isn\u2019t new. The oldest examples of products appearing in films date all the way back to the invention of motion pictures, when the Lever Brothers\u2019 Sunlight Soap appeared in the Lumiere films in Europe in 1896<\/a>. In the 1930s, Procter & Gamble sponsored daytime dramas to feature their Oxydol soap powder, beginning shows with lines like \u201cnow here comes Oxydol\u2019s own Ma Perkins\u201d \u2013 an advertising technique that birthed the colloquial phrase<\/a> \u201csoap operas.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This form of marketing really started to take off after the release of the 1982 blockbuster \u201cE.T.<\/a>,\u201d in which Elliott leaves a trail of Reese\u2019s Pieces to cajole his alien friend out of hiding. Since then, box office hits ranging from \u201cHome Alone<\/a>\u201d to \u201cCast Away<\/a>\u201d have memorably incorporated brands into their storylines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Man
Tic Tacs were among the many product placements in the 1990 film \u2018Home Alone.\u2019 Product Placement Blog\/Columbia Pictures<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But as streaming has become more popular, product placements have become an even more attractive option for advertisers. Global spending on them is expected to top US$23 billion in 2021, about a 14% increase over 2020<\/a>. At the same time, marketers plan to decrease their spending<\/a> on traditional advertising, like TV and print ads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My research<\/a> highlights one key driver of this shift: We\u2019re more prone than ever to avoid traditional ads. We\u2019re watching less and less linear TV<\/a> \u2013 the kind that has a slate of ads interrupting the entertainment every seven or eight minutes \u2013 and thus are exposed to far fewer traditional TV ads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And when watching web videos, about 90% of consumers either skip or ignore<\/a> those ads that run before the video starts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So as advertisers struggle to reach consumers, they\u2019re increasingly turning to product placement, spending their advertising budgets to get their ads into media content in ways that can\u2019t be skipped or muted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not all product placements are equal<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also the fact that product placements work really well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Studies have shown they increase viewers\u2019 awareness of products and their positive attitudes toward them<\/a>. They can also make people more likely to talk about the products and search them online<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not all product placements are equally effective, though. Those that seem to influence viewers the most are those that strike the careful balance between being noticeable and not too overt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research I conducted with marketing professor David A. Schweidel<\/a> shows that viewers tend to be turned off if the product placement is too prominent \u2013 as when a character in the show holds the product and talks about it. They\u2019re also averse to product placements surrounded by other advertising \u2013 say, a Nike ad that autoplays before a YouTube video followed by a product placement for Nike in the first few minutes of that same video. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/oQYwFND7rHE?wmode=transparent&start=0 A product placement that\u2019s too obvious can be a turnoff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These kinds of prominent placements annoy viewers for two main reasons. First, they make it obvious that they\u2019re trying to sell us something, triggering something called \u201cpersuasion knowledge<\/a>\u201d \u2013 the phenomenon of getting defensive when we know someone is trying to persuade us. In general, product placements are less likely to trigger persuasion knowledge than traditional ads, as they tend to be more subtle<\/a>. But that doesn\u2019t mean product placements are immune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second \u2013 and in some ways related to the first point \u2013 prominent product placements can annoy us because they interfere with our viewing experience<\/a>. Most viewers don\u2019t want to be immersed in an intense drama only to be reminded that they\u2019re being targeted by corporations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to strike the right balance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So how do marketers find the right balance of being noticeable without prompting persuasion knowledge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our research<\/a> offers two key insights. First, we\u2019ve found that viewers are most influenced by product placements in which the product or brand name is spoken by one of the characters<\/a> but not shown \u2013 what\u2019s called \u201cverbal product placement<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These product placements are more likely to be noticed by viewers than products that are simply shown on the screen. And they\u2019re also less likely to trigger persuasion knowledge than placements in which the product is both shown and spoken about. Verbal placements seem to find a sweet spot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, our research shows that viewers may be more susceptible to product placements that appear earlier in a show or movie<\/a>. I believe that this might happen because we become more engrossed in the plot and characters of a show or movie as it progresses. If a placement appears at the climax \u2013 the moment when our attention is fixated on what will happen next \u2013 we\u2019re either less likely to notice the placement or more likely to be annoyed by it if we do notice it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now that you know the tricks of the trade, perhaps you\u2019ll be more likely to spot product placements on TV. Will this trigger persuasion knowledge \u2013 and, with that, cause the power of these ads to wither?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.<\/em> Sign up for our weekly newsletter<\/a>.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beth L. Fossen<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Marketing Kelley School of Business, Indiana University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beth L. Fossen<\/a>, Indiana University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In \u201cThe Variant,\u201d an episode from the Disney+ hit streaming show \u201cLoki<\/a>,\u201d it\u2019s tough to miss the barrage of product placements, with fast-paced action and dialogue taking place in front of Charmin toilet paper, Dove soap and Arm & Hammer deodorant. At one point, Loki barrels down an aisle with vacuum cleaners and fights off an opponent with a corded vacuum while iRobot vacuums are prominently featured on the shelf.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As someone who studies such advertising techniques as product placements<\/a>, I\u2019m starting to notice them crop up more and more.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With viewers migrating to streaming services and web videos, this trend makes sense. (Who actually watches the full ads that appear at the beginning of a YouTube video?) But not all product placements work as intended, and my research has shown that advertisers need to engage in a delicate dance with viewers to effectively influence them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ads that you can\u2019t skip or mute<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start with a little background. Product placement is a form of advertising in which a company pays a content creator to place its product on the set of a movie, TV shows or music video. While many product placements are the result of such paid relationships, some product placements happen because of creative decisions, such as a writer wanting a character to wear Gucci to convey the character\u2019s affluence. Viewers aren\u2019t typically given information to distinguish between paid and unpaid product placements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Product placement isn\u2019t new. The oldest examples of products appearing in films date all the way back to the invention of motion pictures, when the Lever Brothers\u2019 Sunlight Soap appeared in the Lumiere films in Europe in 1896<\/a>. In the 1930s, Procter & Gamble sponsored daytime dramas to feature their Oxydol soap powder, beginning shows with lines like \u201cnow here comes Oxydol\u2019s own Ma Perkins\u201d \u2013 an advertising technique that birthed the colloquial phrase<\/a> \u201csoap operas.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This form of marketing really started to take off after the release of the 1982 blockbuster \u201cE.T.<\/a>,\u201d in which Elliott leaves a trail of Reese\u2019s Pieces to cajole his alien friend out of hiding. Since then, box office hits ranging from \u201cHome Alone<\/a>\u201d to \u201cCast Away<\/a>\u201d have memorably incorporated brands into their storylines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Man
Tic Tacs were among the many product placements in the 1990 film \u2018Home Alone.\u2019 Product Placement Blog\/Columbia Pictures<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

But as streaming has become more popular, product placements have become an even more attractive option for advertisers. Global spending on them is expected to top US$23 billion in 2021, about a 14% increase over 2020<\/a>. At the same time, marketers plan to decrease their spending<\/a> on traditional advertising, like TV and print ads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My research<\/a> highlights one key driver of this shift: We\u2019re more prone than ever to avoid traditional ads. We\u2019re watching less and less linear TV<\/a> \u2013 the kind that has a slate of ads interrupting the entertainment every seven or eight minutes \u2013 and thus are exposed to far fewer traditional TV ads.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And when watching web videos, about 90% of consumers either skip or ignore<\/a> those ads that run before the video starts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So as advertisers struggle to reach consumers, they\u2019re increasingly turning to product placement, spending their advertising budgets to get their ads into media content in ways that can\u2019t be skipped or muted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not all product placements are equal<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s also the fact that product placements work really well.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Studies have shown they increase viewers\u2019 awareness of products and their positive attitudes toward them<\/a>. They can also make people more likely to talk about the products and search them online<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not all product placements are equally effective, though. Those that seem to influence viewers the most are those that strike the careful balance between being noticeable and not too overt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Research I conducted with marketing professor David A. Schweidel<\/a> shows that viewers tend to be turned off if the product placement is too prominent \u2013 as when a character in the show holds the product and talks about it. They\u2019re also averse to product placements surrounded by other advertising \u2013 say, a Nike ad that autoplays before a YouTube video followed by a product placement for Nike in the first few minutes of that same video. https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/oQYwFND7rHE?wmode=transparent&start=0 A product placement that\u2019s too obvious can be a turnoff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These kinds of prominent placements annoy viewers for two main reasons. First, they make it obvious that they\u2019re trying to sell us something, triggering something called \u201cpersuasion knowledge<\/a>\u201d \u2013 the phenomenon of getting defensive when we know someone is trying to persuade us. In general, product placements are less likely to trigger persuasion knowledge than traditional ads, as they tend to be more subtle<\/a>. But that doesn\u2019t mean product placements are immune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second \u2013 and in some ways related to the first point \u2013 prominent product placements can annoy us because they interfere with our viewing experience<\/a>. Most viewers don\u2019t want to be immersed in an intense drama only to be reminded that they\u2019re being targeted by corporations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to strike the right balance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So how do marketers find the right balance of being noticeable without prompting persuasion knowledge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our research<\/a> offers two key insights. First, we\u2019ve found that viewers are most influenced by product placements in which the product or brand name is spoken by one of the characters<\/a> but not shown \u2013 what\u2019s called \u201cverbal product placement<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These product placements are more likely to be noticed by viewers than products that are simply shown on the screen. And they\u2019re also less likely to trigger persuasion knowledge than placements in which the product is both shown and spoken about. Verbal placements seem to find a sweet spot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, our research shows that viewers may be more susceptible to product placements that appear earlier in a show or movie<\/a>. I believe that this might happen because we become more engrossed in the plot and characters of a show or movie as it progresses. If a placement appears at the climax \u2013 the moment when our attention is fixated on what will happen next \u2013 we\u2019re either less likely to notice the placement or more likely to be annoyed by it if we do notice it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now that you know the tricks of the trade, perhaps you\u2019ll be more likely to spot product placements on TV. Will this trigger persuasion knowledge \u2013 and, with that, cause the power of these ads to wither?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.<\/em> Sign up for our weekly newsletter<\/a>.]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beth L. Fossen<\/a>, Assistant Professor of Marketing Kelley School of Business, Indiana University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Beth L. Fossen, Indiana University In \u201cThe Variant,\u201d an episode from the Disney+ hit streaming show \u201cLoki,\u201d it\u2019s tough to miss the barrage of product placements, with fast-paced action and dialogue taking place in front of Charmin toilet paper, Dove soap and Arm & Hammer deodorant. At one point, Loki barrels down an aisle with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":44,"featured_media":26722,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[293,8025],"tags":[10461,310,9436,335,184,2225,652,6713,593,536,1791],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26721"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/44"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26721"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26721\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":26737,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26721\/revisions\/26737"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26722"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}