The seemingly overnight popularity of product placement among scholars in the 1980s raises the question of whether product placement was truly present before E.T. History suggests that it was present, and used from the beginning of cinema. The next question raised is how product placement changed in the 1980s to become the subject of academic scrutiny. First, a brief history of product placement will be presented to illustrate where current beliefs about product placement stem from.
History of Product Placements
Although the term “product placement” seemed to have been coined in the 1980s (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006), the practice actually dates back to before the beginning of motion pictures. There are clear examples of product placements in stage performances and art that predate motion pictures (Lehu, 2007). In Edouard Manet’s painting Un bar aux Folies-Bergère, for example, there is clear portrayal of Bass beer (Lehu, 2007). Charles Dickens’s The Pickwick Papers also could be considered product placement as the name Pickwick comes from a carriage line that appears in the novel. On the stage, Sarah Bernhardt wore La Diaphane powder and also served as a spokesperson appearing on the brand’s posters (Lehu, 2007). Likewise, cinema innovators the Lumière brothers worked with Lever as early as 1896 to showcase Sunlight Soap (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006; Lehu, 2007). Other brands to create early advertising films include Admiral Cigarettes, Pabst’s Milwaukee Beer, and Nestlé (Segrave, 2004). In an article titled “Camera! Action! Sales!” Business Week (1939) relates the story of an early commercial film for Dewar’s Scotch:
It came to him, we assume, one bright Spring day when, walking down Broadway, he observed all the giddy menfolk standing in line to get into the peep shows that were the current rage of the town. Perhaps the gentleman had a peep himself. Anyway, the idea came: Why not run a peep show to advertise Dewar’s Scotch whisky? And as a result a commercial motion picture was born.
The article goes on to mention examples of commercial films for Columbia bicycles and Piel’s beer, stating that the practice of making films with real products happened as early as 1894. While many of these films were created for specific brands, they were also produced to be shown in mainstream theaters as entertainment pieces (Segrave, 2004). Thus, while they do not fit into modern definitions of product placement, it is clear that such films laid the groundwork for modern product placements.
Newell, Salmon, and Chang (2006) suggested that product placement began through the use of family ties and grew into a means of reducing the cost of producing motion pictures through the use of free products and giving those products exposure at no cost. The practice of using real products in a film was called many things prior to the term product placement, such as exploitation, tie-ups, tie-ins, plugs, and trade outs (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). While the Lumière brothers started product placement in films, Thomas Edison turned it into a viable part of the film business, using branded rail lines and cigarettes in his films (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006).
By the 1920s, American films were selling products worldwide. For instance, a Brazilian lumber baron started using an American-made saw blade after seeing one used in an American film (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Segrave (2004) quotes Will Hays, the head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA), as saying, “[The motion picture] is the greatest agency for promoting the sales of American-made products throughout the world.” Many early product placements were cross promotions in which the films would feature products and the product manufacturers would create advertisements promoting the film (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). The New York Times noted the trend of brands getting their products in films in a 1929 article. According to the Times (1929), “Automobile manufacturers graciously offer the free use of high-priced cars to studios. Expensive furnishings for a set are willingly supplied by the makers, and even donated as permanent studio property,” and also “agents eager for publicity for jewelry or wearing apparel approach movie stars directly.” The article also states that there were times when monetary compensation was offered.
Segrave (2004) suggests that in the early days of the studio system, the studios were not heavily involved in advertising because there was not very much money to be made. As the industry began to grow, however, members of the motion picture industry and the business world began to notice the impact of film to persuade audiences even without direct advertising attempts (Segrave, 2004). Film actors, who were contracted to the studios, were also sought out to become spokesmen for brands. While the MPPDA banned stars from endorsing products, this quickly became impossible, particularly with the branded radio programs such as General Motors radio time (Segrave, 2004). By the end of the 1920s, movies began using products in the production, and at times showing them. However, this practice was still largely barter agreements rather than paid placements.
President of the MPPDA, Will Hays, was a major lobbyist for the benefits of placing American-made products in films. In a 1930 radio address on a coast-to-coast network, Hays told Americans “The motion picture carries to every American at home, and to millions of potential purchasers abroad, the visual, vivid perception of American manufactured products,” (New York Times, 1930).
In the 1930s, the Walter E. Kline agency had a list of products available for placement in movies that studio executives could use, such as Remington typewriters, IBM tabulating machines, and appliances from General Electric (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). These deals were called tie-ups and the products were free to use with the only stipulation being that the movie allow images of the product in the film to be used for advertising purposes (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006).
By the 1940s product placement specialists at public relations firms and advertising agencies became known as exploitation agents (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). It was not until the end of the 1940s that product placements, or tie-ups as they were called, became profitable. Newell, Salmon and Chang (2006) cite documents that show the director of Love Happy, the Marx Brothers’ final film, sold signage in the climax of the movie to three companies (Cowan, 1949b; Lahon, 1949).
By the 1950s and 1960s, studios had lists of contacts for tie-up merchandise and by the 1970s, some production companies kept warehouses stocked with brand-name props ready for use (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Finally, in 1982, the use of Reese’s Pieces in the film E.T. brought the practice of product placement to the forefront and inspired scholarly research on the practice (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006). Thus, this study proposes to address this question in order fulfill Newell, Salmon, and Chang’s (2006) call for “understanding of the long-term development of product placement.” Specifically, this research will examine this through two research questions.
RQ1: What is the extent of product placement in top-grossing films from each decade from the 1920s to the 2000s?
This first question serves two purposes. The first is to find concrete evidence that there were instances of product placement in mainstream Hollywood films from the 1920s on. The second is to examine changes in the number of instances of product placement from decade to decade. Presence of a quantitative change, particularly from the 1970s to the 1980s, will hopefully lend some insight to why product placement became such a hot topic in the 1980s. Qualitative changes will also be important, and so the second research question asks:
RQ2: How did the characteristics of product placements in top-grossing films from the 1920s to the 2000s change from decade to decade?
This question seeks to assess the evolution of product placement over the last 90 years. Specifically, it will compare movies from the 1920s to the 1970s with movies from the 1980s to the 2000s to see if there are qualitative differences that suggest reasons for the increase in scrutiny by scholars in the latter period.
