How Much Do Advertisers Spend on Product Placement in Films?

1 Aug

Ah! Yes, you sit down in a movie theater hoping to be entertained only to be bombarded with not one but eleven abrupt soft drink, computer and fast food advertisements in-between an actor’s performance.  In 2010 it was revealed that Apple placed 41% of its products in films.[1] They beat out Pepsi and Ford who’ve been top contributors in recent years.  So if these corporations use films to advertise then surely it must work! Right! How much do corporations spend on product placement in films? What’s the psychological influence on consumer spending? You’ll be surprised by what we found.

What’s the psychological influence on consumer spending? On LIH, one of our regular commentator’s inspired us to look into this topic more closely after they found a great article on MSN entitled Product Placement: the Worst Offenders.[2] It mentions E.T. was responsible for Hershey’s 65% increase in sales of Reese’s Pieces after Steven Spielberg’s included the little candies in his hit film.[3]  Many believe E.T. is responsible for the over-saturation of product placement in films today.  Yet, BMW ran out of the Mini car in the USA after it appeared in the remake of the film The Italian Job.[4] Commercials are an annoyance to many. Actually, today products subtlety placed in films is the most ideal form of advertising. Especially, films geared toward children and teens where advertising is more obvert. But you notice in films geared toward adults it’s more obscure. Why? It may be because adult film audiences feel put off if advertising takes over their movie going experience. Yet, it is necessary for films to use product placement to make a film believable. For example, What’s one of the most in demand products set decorators are in need of? Computers! In an article on Business Insider’s called Apple is a Product Placement Machine by Jay Yarrow he claims,

More impressive than all those product placements over its rivals is the price Apple pays, which would be zilch. According to the Abe, “Apple does not pay for any of this exposure.” Set decorators want their sets to look realistic, so they need computers.

The problem here: 12% of the homes in the U.S. have Apple computers, says Abe. So, there’s clearly a bias. What’s more, Apple computers managed to find their way into places that just don’t have Apple computers normally, like hospitals and government offices.

How much do corporations spend on product placement in films? You would be surprised Advertisers are paying Hollywood about 360 million a year to feature their products in films. It is believed an average of 11 brands appeared in the top 24 films of 1994 and believed to be more cost effective than television commercials. [5]

Although product placement can be annoying it can be informative and reflective of our cultural values today. Yet, product placement where it’s not well integrated into a film and disrupts the narrative some say is a sign of poor marketing. Today, the study of how people process brand messages embedded in such entertainment media has emerged as an important research topic in advertising and information-processing literature.

What films in the last decade do you think are the worst offenders of product placement?

Please join us for a discussion on: Tuesday 8/2/2011@7pE/12UTC

Advertisements

159 Responses to “How Much Do Advertisers Spend on Product Placement in Films?”

  1. comic relief August 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM #

    Open Book,

    This is a great article. Because I think I am immune to product placement strategies, I’m probably the biggest sucker for this kind of marketing. What you said about Apple computers is absolutely right. The research firm Canalys found that the I-phone was the most popular in the US. See below…

    http://www.redmondpie.com/iphone-most-popular-phone-android-most-popular-mobile-os-in-america/

    But Apple’s computers sales, though impressive, still lag behind other brands. In steps the creative driven movie business to give Steve Jobs a hand; if I did not love my apple computer I would scream foul!

    But what happens when American car builders, which have much poorer gas mileage, have an unfair advantage over international brands?

    http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/news/columns/biofuels-economics/new-energy-economics-challenges-to-increasing-american-vehicle-fuel-mileage

    Can’t wait for the discussion 

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 3:14 PM #

      Great articles CR! What I found fascinating was the second article u provided. How do u think the challenges of new energy will impact product placement in films? I have an idea but wanted to get your take on the subject.

  2. Littlebells August 1, 2011 at 4:25 PM #

    This is really fantastic OB. I definitely think phones and computers have made a huge leap in movies. I love this topic and although I’m not real savvy with this info, I am really looking forward to studying up on it for our discussion! 🙂

    • Open Book August 1, 2011 at 9:24 PM #

      Thanks LB & CR!

      This article was for Francesa given the curiosity and concern for the matter. The article Francesa provided provoked some wonderful Q’s and this topic is so vast I hope to do it justice in our discussion tomorrow.

  3. Francesa August 1, 2011 at 9:58 PM #

    Open Book you rock!!! Not only is product placement at every turn, but also corporate sponsorship of films. Take Cars 2 for example, only Chevy cars were used. The foreign cars were paired with the nationality of the actor and the bad cars were all cars that were no longer in production. Talk about a thought process, Wow!

    I will not be able to join tomorrow night. Nephews birthday tomorrow, 3 years old and am only in town for the day. I will read comments and then comment.

    I feel very out of touch since I have not been able to participate recently. Hopefully soon.

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 3:01 PM #

      Say Happy B-Day to your nephew from everyone here at LIH!

      Although, u will be missed tonight. Chime in when u can……Also, great points brought up about corporate sponsorship of films. I have a few things to add to that topic during the discussion tonight. LOL!!

      Take Care!

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 3:17 PM #

      Francessa,

      The example you mentioned from “Cars” is really sickening because it suggests a kind a national nepotism perpetrated in another wise international market place.

      This might not be so bad if there was full disclosure concerning product placement but because this practice is largely hidden one doesn’t know one is receiving these messages.

  4. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 3:39 AM #

    I thought this was REALLY interesting!

    http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/10/product_placements_in_movies_w.php

    And I do believe marketing has had to step it up with the use of DVRs and TiVo. I know I DON’T watch commercials if I don’t have to.

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 3:42 AM #

      Also this;

      http://worstproductplacement.com/transformers/

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 3:39 PM #

        LB,

        …regarding product placement in Transformers.

        I shouldn’t be critical, (because I saw the first two movies), but if you’re going to a movie about Toy’s R’ US action figures how can you complain about product placement? Go to that movie or “Toy Story” and I guess you’re saying you prefer commercials over traditional story telling.

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:07 PM #

          Oh no I’m wasn’t complaining. I just found the article interesting.

          • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:46 PM #

            I didn’t think you were literally complaining. Sorry I’m wonder how I could have paid for two of those.

            • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM #

              Oh, ok! 🙂

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 3:07 PM #

      LB! Wonderful article. I had not thought about DVR’s and TiVo hurting advertising which would explain the heightened demand for product placement in films.

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:12 PM #

        I remember when a show would go to commercial break you were hear an announcer say, “*name of show* brought to you by *name brand*”. Then that disappeared and we had more and more commercials. We talked about this before, but movie theaters are now running commercials and I think it’s because most people don’t care about them unless they are Superbowl Commercials. TV and Film are using more and more product placement I think because of this.

        • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

          We sometimes have mini adverts stuck on the beginning and end of each break (it’s so annoying) say this programme is brought you by what ever that product is.

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 3:19 PM #

      LB,

      I really liked the link to the Cognitive Daily article. It’s amazing how they tried to figure out what would have the most powerful impact on consumer buying of the product. Just being there (background, foreground, whatever, etc.) or having the product pay a role in the story.

      The research team of Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen didn’t seem to believe the expense for affording the latter was all that necessary. Some product recognition was likely anyway.

      That doesn’t sound very effective to me.

      When watching “Horrible Bosses’ I thought the online navigation system was “Onstar’s” brand. Now that I know it wasn’t, I think HB”s product placement attempt was a poor example of product placement because the actual brand wasn’t remembered by me.

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 3:22 PM #

        LB,
        Speaking again of the Cognitive Daily article link you posted:

        An example of the power of branding I frequently will say, “….pass me a Kleenex…” instead of “….pass me a tissue…” This proves Kleenex has already convinced me they are the only brand.

        I also say things like; “will you Xerox that document for me…” instead of “will you copy or reproduce that document for me?” This statement also proves the corporation has also brain washed me also.

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:14 PM #

          I completely agree with you and for as long as I can remember, I thought Kleenex was just another name for tissue and not a brand! That’s how well they got me!

          • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM #

            LOL!!!

  5. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 3:58 PM #

    Everyone-

    We are going to start the discussion at 6:00pE instead of 7pE. I hope u can join me if not join the discussion when u can.

  6. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 4:24 PM #

    Here is a great interview. Please watch video!

    http://www.firstshowing.net/2011/interview-morgan-spurlock-chats-product-placement-making-docs/

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM #

      One of the best things about this article was the way director Morgan Spurlock discusses how getting product sponsors has more to do with getting other getting other sponsors. Not the quality the film, the interests of the novel authors, not how the screenplay might impact local politics, etc,etc,.

      No film deals get made until Hersheys and Proctor and Gamble sign on.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:40 PM #

        I know….Right!! It really gives consumers a false sense of reality. I mean u go to a bio-pic and u find out Abe Lincoln likes a Whopper with cheese. O.k. I’m being extreme. But u get what I mean? When will filmmakers say o.k. stop!

        • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:47 PM #

          LOL.

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:59 PM #

          hahahahahahahaha!! And then LIncoln turns to the camera and breaks the 4th wall, saying, “Brought to you by Burger King”.

  7. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 4:46 PM #

    Now, this is what it’s like for a film produced by committee. Please read this article and let me know your thoughts.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/business/media/05screen.html

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:05 PM #

      My comments on this article and why I posted it? We’ve discussed how films early on in the developmental process before an actor is involved can get branding sponsorship. Francesa mentioned Cars 2 script was developed to relate to a certain demographic based on the cars it paired them with this is not only discriminatory but offensive….. Anyway, the psychological impact of branding in films aimed at children can be huge. What are your thoughts after reading what Francesa said as well as this article from NY times?

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:21 PM #

        I think it is extremely disturbing that story line has to be integrated with all this product and advertising. Very interesting that how you eat a hamburger affects marketing as well!

        • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:27 PM #

          So now that u know this. Do u think Twilight went through this type of branding and developmental process? How much do u think R/K were involved? Remember all this goes on sometimes even before an actor is selected.

          • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM #

            Oh my gosh, Twilight, twilight…I seriously have blocked my brain from that nonsense. Remind me of some of the branding, please?

            • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:44 PM #

              I mean, plaid seemed to really make a comeback because of R & K but that had nothing to do with the film.

            • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:45 PM #

              Yes! In New Moon…..Virgin Airlines, Porche, Volvo, Harley Davidson, Kodak camera those are just a few….

              • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:49 PM #

                Bella’s Apple computer is burned in my head.

                • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:52 PM #

                  Yep! Forgot that!!

              • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM #

                Oh my, thank you OB. Seriously, I’ve banned certain images. Well the Porche was inevitable as it was in the book. Again, i don’t mind subtlety but blatant overuse….eh. Now I feel like I need to watch those films again and count all the product placement. I probably won’t though!!! haha! 🙂

                • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

                  I don’t mind the cars because they were mentioned in the book but when I found out my beloved Virgin Airlines was in it I was annoyed! 🙂

                  • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:25 PM #

                    Do Virgin Airlines even do international flights?

                    • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 7:30 PM #

                      Yes, I always travel with Virgin Atlantic to the USA.

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:15 PM #

      OB,

      Open Book as much as I found the link and Times article about “branding” interesting, I could’nt hope but notice that the whole trend tends to see movie making as an advertising space, not a place to explore the terrain of the story at all.

      Watching Captain America, in scenes that discussed news reels, I found myself wondering whether radio journalism was discussing him also. Yet I imagine those branding professionals were probably there trying to sale Oval tine or decoder rings. Worried about the bottom line and balance sheets, these kinds of people don’t know anything about what really sells a movie.

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:17 PM #

        In fact individuals like Jordan Yospe, seem more like hucksters who seem more excited about their corporate lunches and deal making than they even care about the film at all.

        • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM #

          Yep!!

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:19 PM #

        What’s scary about all this is the lack of concern for subtlety. Today advertisers don’t even care if they are alienating an entire demographic or if it’s supporting the narrative.

  8. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 5:54 PM #

    Hi-

    Welcome new and returning visitors to our discussion tonight. We’re starting a little early today because I have to leave early. None, the less please feel free to join in with your thoughts on this topic.

  9. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:08 PM #

    Hi OB!

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:11 PM #

      Hi LB!!

      How are u…..I will give u a minute to get caught up. I’ve posted a few things. LOL!!

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:13 PM #

        Hi Ob and LB.

  10. ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 6:14 PM #

    Hello all!

    Catching up right now!

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM #

      Hi, Ozzie.

  11. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:15 PM #

    Hi CR & Ozzie!

  12. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:19 PM #

    Ok, OB, that part of the NY times article regarding the Hilton Hotel….wow…Just wow…going back to finish reading.

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:20 PM #

      I know………SMH!!!

  13. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:23 PM #

    The truth is filmmakers need money to make their films and need corporate sponsors to pay the bills. But my concern is that the developmental process is not as organic and now being orchestrated for branding opportunities.

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:38 PM #

      yes, OB, I agree. It seems that working in branding opportunities is just as important as the story.

      What would be another way of getting corporate funding without the use of so much product?

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:00 PM #

        Well as films get more and more expensive and ticket sales slip off. Filmmakers really have no other options. Consumers would have to speak up especially in the case of product placement in films aimed at children and teens.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

        LB! Did u see the video interview with Spurlock I provided? He mentioned where some countries have banned all billboards, and product placements in films. They are trying to get rid of all visual pollution. Anyway, this has had a positive impact on how people feel in that country. What are your thoughts on that?

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:40 PM #

          I read something about that in Germany, I believe. That’s awesome! I think word of mouth does wonders. We don’t need product placement everywhere and I commend those countries. Honestly, when I drive into LA, I always ask myself a thousands times, “Where are all the trees?” because there are so many billboards. I think studios and filmmakers should focus on finding the talent to sell the film than products.

  14. Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 6:39 PM #

    Hi everyone!

    Sorry i’m late.

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM #

      U are not late I started early!! So u are actually early. LOL!!

      Anyway. How are u?

      • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 6:47 PM #

        good how are you?

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:52 PM #

      Hi, Paris.

      • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM #

        Hi CR

        How are you?

        • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:57 PM #

          Great!!!!

  15. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 6:40 PM #

    I will say that I don’t mind the subtlety as much as the IN YOUR FACE advertising. Show it to me once, ok. A second time, ummm, ok. But if it keeps repeating itself, I get annoyed.

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM #

      Yes! I think what annoys me is when it’s not well integrated into the narrative. I mean if audiences are seeing products show up in the most unlikely of places.

      • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM #

        I agree. If it’s subtle I don’t mind. I can think “oh that’s whomever’s product” and move on, but if it’s right in your face I want to shove it away. I want to concentrate on the film not the product!

        • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

          hi ozzie!

          • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 7:18 PM #

            Hi Paris! *hugs*

  16. Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 6:48 PM #

    Has anyone noticed the product placement in soap operas? its in your face sometimes. at least to me it is.

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:04 PM #

      Hmmm! No…..I don’t watch them. But I have heard stories about the PP in them.

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:41 PM #

        I haven’t watched soaps in a long time, but I’m not surprised. Do you think it’s due to lack of viewers and so they are trying to make money this way? So many shows have been cancelled or will be.

  17. Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 6:51 PM #

    I have a question………I’ve noticed some things on reality shows that bug me recently. Why do the editors have to blur out certain products? Why don’t they just ask the company if they can show their product?

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:55 PM #

      Good Q! I have to check it out but I don’t know. My only guess is that they do not want to give them free advertising. Meaning they may have the rights to use the product but they are not paying for it. Does that make sense?

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 6:56 PM #

        The company is not paying for the advertising. That’s what I meant to say.

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

          Yes!

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:55 PM #

      Placement among T.V. actors and reality show personalities is one thing, but feature film actors eems to be acompletly different story pertaining to magnetism

  18. comic relief August 2, 2011 at 6:56 PM #

    OB and Paris (thank God you’re here),

    I hate to bring this up because actors reluctantly have to go along with to make sure the enterprise even gets off the drawing board, but here goes…..

    Many actors are very persuasive and attractive people, in fact their magnetism and seductiveness is part of what advertisers want to get consumers buying. If I’m turned on by Angelina or Denzel, I’m ten times more likely to want to wear what they are wearing, drive what their driving, and eat what their eating.

    Obviously you may not get any of this sexual stimulation from between show T.V. commercials.

    • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:02 PM #

      That’s true CR. I understand what you are saying but sometimes i think using actors to sell products is a double edge sword their private live might not live up to what the company is trying to portray. For example, Tiger Woods. Even though he’s not an actor he was an influential person to many people. Once his private life got out he was dropped like a hot potato from pretty much all his agreements with companies.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM #

        Oh! Great point Paris!!

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:07 PM #

        TIGER WOODS, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        Thanks for bringing me back to reality.

        Smirk, giggle, giggle, chuckle snort.

        • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:08 PM #

          LOL my pleasure.

          • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:14 PM #

            Yes, I agree with you Paris. Actors need to be very careful. And not just Tiger Woods, but remember Michael Phelps????

            • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:15 PM #

              Ok, yes, Michael Phelps is not an actor, but pretty big being a Gold Medal Winner. Highly recognizable!

            • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:15 PM #

              yes michael and his weed.

              • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:17 PM #

                when i saw him do that I was like “stupid move man. Stupid move.

                • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:22 PM #

                  ITA!

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:02 PM #

      Yes! But if a movie sucks big time. It can have the opposite effect. IMO!!!

      • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:05 PM #

        That’s true.

        I was just reading some of the above comments about Twilight. Honestly and this is my opinion. I cannot stand those products featured now….i’ll still use them but i always have a negative connotation attached to them because of R-sten and Twilight.

  19. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:09 PM #

    Everyone is saying what I’m thinking!!!! *quick brain, think of something else fast!*

    • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM #

      great minds think alike. 🙂

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:12 PM #

      LOL!! Take your time…..

  20. comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:16 PM #

    I assume they, the advertisers, are not being introduced during the pitch stage. So aren’t these advertisers trying to take these artists for a ride? 3 months after filming has started, Mrs. Pheiffer “let’s talk about this scene again. This is Bill from Motorola, and in this refilmed scene, could you lean up against these stereos an purr about how listening to the classics makes you nostalgic for the old days.”

    One can imagine they must get pissed when suddenly they become pitch men when that aspect of their career may not have ever been considered.

  21. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:18 PM #

    Slightly off topic, but I love how you can date a movie by the type of cell phones being used!! 🙂

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:20 PM #

      Yep! That’s why a good Prop Master is Golden!!

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:26 PM #

        Remember the brick sized cell phones? hahahahahaha!!! I would love to know how props goes about organizing information and props.

  22. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:19 PM #

    Something u bring up Paris is how corporate sponsors can insist on moral clauses from actors to sponsor a film. Sometimes a studio has no other choice but to demand the private lives reflect a certain image. What do u think of this?

    • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:24 PM #

      imo, i don’t think a person’s private life should be brought into it at all in order to sell a product. That’s ridiculous and stupid. You might as well sell the person. I know this is OT (well slightly) but R-sten is great for product placement because they are followed around anyway although i don’t think much would be bought from one half of the Sten now that i think of it.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:27 PM #

        ITA about the first half of your statement. LOL!! at the second half.

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:27 PM #

        *slams head on desk* Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssss

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

          I thought it was talent that sold a movie, not products…..oy vey.

          • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

            ITA.

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:29 PM #

        You don’t believe any teen girls would want the black bra or white sweater worn by Kristen as Comic Con.

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

          I can guarantee you there are girls who have already bought them…..

        • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

          Seems like that would be exactly what you should wear to make the parents angry about your rebellious wardrobe choices.

        • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:31 PM #

          the one that made her look like a street walker?

          • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

            Exactly.

            • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:39 PM #

              why does she always look like a street walker? does she not have a stylist? *SMH* So much for her image make over.

          • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

            I would absolutely deny that clothing choice to my child on moral grounds.

            • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

              LOL!!!!!

              • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 7:45 PM #

                I would also deny that clothing choice to my child on the grounds of it being a crime to fashion! 🙂

                • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:53 PM #

                  LOL! SMH>>>>>Ozzie do u do stand up?

            • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

              My thoughts exactly. And the character she is representing would NEVER wear something like that….

          • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

            (and interesting how she polished up and brushed her hair for Sw panel…)

            • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:45 PM #

              that doesn’t matter. she was bad on that panel.

  23. comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:26 PM #

    I imagine because they professionally can’t, I’ve never heard an actor discuss this aspect of their career.

    Some very well known actors, like Morgan Freeman choose to do commericials.

    Seems some are dragged into it by studios after contracts are signed.

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:34 PM #

      I enjoy Morgan Freeman and love when he narrates for Discover or National Geographic.

      • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:36 PM #

        Me too, but he chooses this work. Many environmentally conscious clelebrity actors might even have an aversion to some products because they know the environmental history of the company.

  24. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:32 PM #

    Well let me explain myself. If a movie studio get’s offered say 10 million to feature a product with an actor on the condition that the actor’s personal life resembles the image he or she portrays on screen? Do u think the studio will turn them down if they are desperate for funding?

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:33 PM #

      By “them” do you mean the advertisers.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

        Yes! Sorry…..

    • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

      no but they better make darn well sure that the actor doesn’t have any skeletons in the closet. I.E. a burned lover that could sell stories about the actor.

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:35 PM #

      Nope. I don’t, because I don’t think they care about the actor’s personal life that much. As long as they can look good and bring in the dough.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:40 PM #

        So what kind of position does it put the actor in? If say they are trying to make a name for themselves? Do u think they have a choice in terms of the deals studios set up with sponsors?

        • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:43 PM #

          IMO They may have some say but not much. IDK.

          • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:44 PM #

            I have no idea and I would never want to be in that place. I agree with what Paris said about making sure there are no skeletons in their closets.

            • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:49 PM #

              Speaking of “skeletons in their closets”…

              This may be more pertinent when we discuss paparazzi in greater depth but some celebrtities promote their skeletons.

              Some may not realize that this is exactly why they may not be ending their careers with film contracts.

              • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:51 PM #

                can you expand on how they promote their past?

                • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:54 PM #

                  I shouldn’t discuss Lady Gaga or the late Amy Whinehouse being that they are primarily musicians.

                  But I’ve heard that Justin Timberlake, who is doing a lot more acting, is very open about his weed.

                  • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 8:00 PM #

                    I wonder if that’s so they have control of how it is given to the public. It could be a sign of being ok with past mistakes and owning them. I don’t really know, I’m just making an assumption.

                    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 8:08 PM #

                      Actually, I’m sure you are right. Admitting to an indiscretion can deminish a controversy in such a way that it cannot be used against you.

  25. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:46 PM #

    Ok, for everyone, are there any films where you think the PP was well done?

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:50 PM #

      Here’s an example…

      Toy Story.

      • Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:51 PM #

        yes toy story was like going through a toys r us catalog.

        • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #

          And different from Transformers it did not claim to be anything else but that.

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:51 PM #

      U have to give me a moment for this LB!! LOL

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:54 PM #

        Oh don’t worry! My brain blanked at my own question. 🙂

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:56 PM #

      Ray Ban Aviator glasses in Top Gun!!!

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

        Excellent!!

        Also-Harley Davidson in Top Gun.

        • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 8:02 PM #

          And The Navy! Think how many young men and women went and enlisted after that film!!!!

  26. Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:52 PM #

    OB and everyone:

    Why are companies pushing their products so overwhelmingly. The products are great, but are they hurting for money? I don’t think so. I love Raisin Bran. I buy it all the time. I don’t need RB commercials to sell me on it, and funny enough, I have not seen a RB commercial in a very long time.

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:53 PM #

      I meant to say, “I don’t think so, but I don’t know.”

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:58 PM #

      They are pushing there products so hard in films aimed at children and teens. Do u know it was discovered films in the 80’s that had a lot of smoking in them aimed at children and teens is believed to be the reason twenty something’s today are big smokers?

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

        BEcause that age group is so impressionable!!! Ugh, now I’m totally pissed off that studios and companies are leaching off of young kids!

  27. Parisienne August 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #

    i need to go for the night. Great discussion have a good night!

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 7:57 PM #

      Night night!

    • comic relief August 2, 2011 at 7:58 PM #

      Night Paris.

      Unfortunately I need to go also.

      See everyone later.

      • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 8:00 PM #

        Goodnight CR!

      • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 8:01 PM #

        Good night CR!

    • Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

      Goodnight Paris thanks for your great insight and comments.

  28. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 7:59 PM #

    Actually, everyone do u have any more questions or comments for me before I go?

    • Littlebells August 2, 2011 at 8:02 PM #

      NO but thanks so much OB! this was a great discussion and one that I’m going to follow more closely in the next few films I see. 🙂

      • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 8:05 PM #

        I have no more. Everyone’s said what I wanted to say too!

  29. Open Book August 2, 2011 at 8:04 PM #

    Well thanks everyone for all your thought provoking comments. Have a great night!!

    Take Care!!

    • ozzie20 August 2, 2011 at 8:06 PM #

      Bye everyone!

  30. Francesa August 2, 2011 at 10:53 PM #

    Question…
    Why is it okay for an athlete to have indiscretions (Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods for example) and still keep all/or most of their endorsements, but companies would add morals clauses etc to an actors? Is there a double standard? I know there are some athletes that have had their contracts pulled (Kobe Bryant for one), but you usually don’t hear about the other.

    • Open Book August 4, 2011 at 11:50 AM #

      Hi Francesa-

      Your right there is a double standard, but I think it has more to do with low overhead then anything else. Meaning because filmmakers require so much money upfront to produce a film sponsors can and will make certain stipulations of actors to guarantee a return on their investment. Where u have Sports figures are getting sponsors outside of whatever franchise they are working for. Does that make sense?

      P.S. That’s why it’s really beneficial if an actor can also act as a producer on a film.IMO!!

  31. comic relief August 3, 2011 at 12:11 PM #

    Francesa,

    IMHO, I don’t pay that much attention to athletes. Though responsible for excellent athletic performances like shooting, hitting, or catching balls I don’t assume that those performances would necessarily impact one’s adultery activities with sleazy prostitutes, theft, or pedophilia.

    These activities might not impact a skilled actor’s performance but I tend to expect a lot more from them as intellectuals. No offense to athletes; but frequently the coach gets the credit for great plays. Celebrity alone doesn’t provoke trust; there are a lot of famous jerks in the world.

    Hearing certain actors background vocals will likely make me believe in the effectiveness of the service or product. After all, like dancing w/ wolves pertaining to Kevin Costner, I seemingly trust actors in numerous other narratives.

    • comic relief August 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM #

      Three paragraphs of inappropriateness. Sorry.

    • Open Book August 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM #

      Interesting take CR! I had not thought of that aspect to things. But I imagine if u are trying to sell a narrative knowing to much about an actors personal life can be a destraction from the character they are portraying.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: