Tuesdays with Media: Product Placement

One of the big complaints that I kept encountering a couple of years ago with Man of Steel was all of the blatant product placement used through out the film.  I'm here to defend that practice.

First of all, I often feel like critics of product placement feel that it gets in the way of the art.  Though movies are a form of art, filmmakers still have a job to do, and that job is to make money.  We don't complain about commercial breaks on TV, mostly because we're accustomed to them, but for a long time, TV hosts would say that a show is "brought to you by" some brand of laundry soap or cigarettes.  So product placement in movies is newer (except that it isn't), but that doesn't mean that it corrupts the integrity of the producers who approved the use of product placement.

Going back to Man of Steel for an example, one of Clark Kent's friends from grade school grows up and becomes the manager of the local IHOP in Smallville, Kansas.  The restaurant is never named and the fact that it's an IHOP rather than a Denny's, a Waffle House, or a Bob Evan's is completely irrelevant.  By using IHOP's logo, it was quick shorthand for the audience that Clark's friend has a lousy job.  I noticed the IHOP logos, but Ian didn't.  I don't think that I'm more observant, I simply noticed because I worked at an IHOP for two and a half years.

Another reason that product placement can be good is that it's often more distracting if a fake product is used in its place.  For example, in the better-than-expected World War Z, Brad Pitt's character takes a quick break from running from zombies to have a refreshing drink.

"Ah!"

Yes, the Pepsi logo is prominently displayed, but wouldn't it be more distracting if the machine was filled with Zing Cola (which I just made up)?  By using a real-world product, it makes the film experience more immersive.

Whenever I see a movie that has noticeable product placement, I ask myself a couple of questions:

1) Does the particular product play a role in plot?
2) Is the product ever mentioned by name?

If the answer to both questions is "no," then I don't see a problem with it.  For example, in the nineties classic Honey, I Blew Up the Kid, the only way to get the shrink ray to work is to focus part of a laser beam through a coke bottle.  Bad science aside, that's really blatant because it breaks my two rules.

In the end, filmmakers' jobs are to make money.  We live a weird society that is built on the idea that if you work hard and are smart you will be rewarded with wealth, but if your pursuit is purely for wealth (which is the reward), than you are a bad person.  When producers are sitting down to figure out how to fund a movie, especially a movie that will require lots of expensive special effects, using product placement can be an easy way to secure more funds.  That doesn't mean that the movie will be better because it has better effects, just as it doesn't mean that a movie will be bad if uses product placement.  Man of Steel was not a perfect film, but the fact that it uses product placement does not make it terrible, either.