Product Placement: Is it Ethical?

By Alex Dodds

Product placement has played a key rule in the production of many films in recent history. There are thousands of films that would have never made it to the screen without the help of product placement. Not only is product placement great because it helps films actually be produced, but it also brings a sense of “believability for us as audience members” (Plaisance, 2014). While product placement may seem like a good thing at a rudimentary level, one must ask how ethical it truly is.

The audience is not aware they are being advertised to with product placement. This can create many problems, especially with kids. The issue arrises when we can’t tell if a brand is being used for an artistic purpose or a financial agreement. Plaisance (2014) says, “For most of us, product placement is of little concern, but critics argue that behind-the-scenes deals impose artistic constraints to ensure that the film or TV show provides a ‘friendly’ environment for the brand.”

One of the most infamous scenes in history regarding product placement is the dinner scene from Talladega Nights. This is quite an extreme example of product placement, but it is product placement none-the-less. The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is another great example of product placement in films.

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is a documentary by Morgan Spurlock that exaggerates the presence of advertising in films. Spurlock is known for his controversial filmmaking, especially in his film Supersize Me. In The Greatest Movie Ever Sold Spurlock attempts to shed light on the presence of branding in films by creating a film that is completely funded by the presence of branding in the film. While it may seem confusing, it is one of the best documentaries out there. Throughout the film Spurlock struggles to get brands on board with the idea and demonstrates the ridiculous contracts with each brand that does agree to support the film.

Plaisance (2014) speaks to this idea when he says, “The imperative of corporate branding threatens to dominate even our artistic endeavors–especially when audiences can’t tell the difference between art and ads.” While The Greatest Movie Ever Sold is completely exaggerated and the audience is aware it is one massive billboard disguised as a documentary, Spurlock gets people to think about product placement and its effect on filmmaking.

In the trailer, Spurlock asks a guest what should be done about product placement–it is important to note that this interview is taking place in one of JetBlue’s new locations, which Spurlock was contractually obligated to do. The guest suggests that the audience should be warned they are being advertised to with a watermark or some sort of text. While there are many solutions to the problem, I do not believe this is one of them. To have a watermark or text pop-up in the middle of a TV show or movie would be completely distracting and take the audience out of the story. It would no longer be believable and no filmmaker would agree to do it.

Plaisance (2014), discusses some other ways filmmakers have tried to make product placement more ethical. Some films put what brands sponsored the TV show or movie in the credits. While this may be a way of informing the audience of the advertising, you must ask yourself if it is too late at that point. You could also argue that many people do not even look at the credits.

There are no foolproof solutions to the ethical issue of product placement in films yet, but it is important to consider the role brands play in the production of films. For now it is crucial for audience members to be self-aware of what they are watching on the screen and not fall victim to the ideas proposed in cultivation theory.

References:

Plaisance, P. (2014). Media ethics: Key principles for responsible practice (2nd ed., pp. 13-14). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Blog #2: Quiz Show (Film) Ethics Analysis

By Ash Monks

(Retrieved from http://themacguffinmen.com/2013/08/28/episode-136-quiz-show/)

Citation: Redford, R., Jacobs, M., Krainin, J., Nozik, M. (Producers), & Redford, R. (Director). (1994). Quiz Show [Motion picture].  United States: Buena Vista Pictures.

“If someone offered you all this money to be on some rigged quiz show—instant fame, the works—would you do it?” – Charles Van Doren (Quiz Show, 1994)

Quiz Show (1994) is a historical drama film based on quiz-show-rigging scandals in the 1960s, with focus on the NBC show Twenty-One.  From an ethical standpoint, it is about truth vs. money vs. pride.  The driving value of the film is truth, with lawyer Richard “Dick” Goodwin investigating the quiz-rigging issue in hopes of uncovering deception within NBC.  Financial stability conflicts with truth when the rigging is initiated to obtain higher ratings and payoffs for all involved, including contestants Herb Stempel, Charles Van Doren, and producer Dan Enright.  The NBC and sponsoring Geritol officials covertly enforce this behavior.  Pride becomes a secondary driver, as each contestant wishes for recognition, both by the public and by loved ones, and everyone is trying to avoid the negative publicity that fraud would bring to their reputations.  In contrast to the other values—truth and financial stability—pride motivates the characters to commit the deception and/or refuse to admit it, and Stempel initially chose to sacrifice his pride for the sake of gaining money.  Individual motivations and ethics are more fully discussed below:

(Retrieved from http://unobtainium13.com/2013/11/30/44-days-of-paranoia-13-quiz-show-dir-by-robert-redford/)

Herb Stemple: Money, pride.  Stemple wants to escape his financial dependence on his mother-in-law and retain the heightened sense of pride obtained by winning the quiz show.  After being let go, he creates several justifications for his poorly-perceived anger (evident ethnic bias on behalf of the studio in favor of “gentiles” over “Jews,” Van Doren obtaining a better deal for superficial reasons, malicious intent to humiliate him, etc.). Charles Van Doren: Honesty, pride.  While initially reluctant to be given the questions or answers in advance, he submits to the cheating in order to impress his successful father via a lengthy winning-streak.  His later motivations also included concern about losing his job if he is found out, and not injuring his family’s reputation.  In the end, he feels guilty about his ill-begotten gains and indirectly admits the truth.

(Retrieved from http://www.rogerebert.com/far-flung-correspondents/the-fix-was-in)

Dan Enright: Job security, money.  Producer of Twenty-One, Enright coerces the contestants toward the rigging in order to boost ratings.  His job is to locate people who will play well with the audience (the underdog in Stempel’s case, the pretty-boy with a big name in Van Doren’s).  When questioned at the end about his actions, he argues that no one was hurt.  Everyone made money, the public was entertained.  It is a consequentialist approach.  He does not admit to having been pressured by NBC to rig the show.

(Retrieved from http://www.andsoitbeginsfilms.com/2015/02/in-character-david-paymer.html)

Richard “Dick” Goodwin: Truth.  Goodwin tries to get to the bottom of the scandal and hopes to change the face of TV by eliminating the rigging to make it more honest, though NBC and Geritol are never held responsible for the fraud.

(Retrieved from http://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/23/quiz-show-1994/)

Thus, while the film maintains its overarching ethical lesson, it also contains the ethical dilemmas of each character, as driven by their individual motivations.  Aside from the president of NBC and the CEO Geritol, all parties are led toward truth.

Why Sex Sells

After reading Between the Summits by Tom Cooper, I realized that the core bias and opinion of the media is based off of integrity. It is encouraging that the greater picture of ethics such as integrity and honesty are held higher than smaller subjects. As the study shows, respondents top six concerns revolve integrity, rather than a slightly more narrow minded subject, or topic, such as violence. This is a two sided debate, on one side, the statistics show that respondents opinions hold greater value in integrity and honesty than narrow subjects (violence, sex). On the other hand, the exposure and saturation of these subjects has been dulled over time. During the of the study the represented topics have become less of a concern to the societal norm. Even though the ethical integrity has seemed to develop it still hasn’t changed in the media. People get used to the smaller topics because it is in our face all of the time with mass communication being the way it is. Due to technology over the past two decades the accessibility and exposure of media has greatly increased the downfall in subjective issues in the media. Technology combined with mass communication has made these subjects impossible to ignore, therefore the statics on issues such as sex and violence become embedded in our culture. Reversely honesty, integrity and representation have developed.

Another observation to note also stems from technology and the growth of the media over time. As the article went on and the time frames changed, the topic of exaggeration and hyped news became an apparent subject. As the media is constantly in our faces, our privacy and exposure to the news has become increasingly saturated. Subjects in media ethics have continued to be represented on an old framework of ethics. Remain to continue on this framework has allowed subjects like sex to be a large part of our societal norms and especially advertising. In Coopers article sex as a subject was not seen as a larger issue in any of the statistics. The fact of the matter is simple, time after time, sex sells. Sex in our culture and society has always been a cornerstone of humor, innuendo and most of all sales.

There are a few examples to support the use of sex in advertising. Starting with an older example representing the initiation of sexualized content into mass media. Secondly an example of edgier content as a brand strategy and concluding with more relevant example for brands today. The first example of Abercrombie and Fitch found in Tom Reichert and Courtney Carpenter’s article An Update on Sex in Magazine Advertising: 1983 to 2003. I chose to use this as an example because it represents one of the first mainstream brands during the birth and expansion of mass media, Abercrombie. The results of the study found that during the 90’s sexually explicit content in advertising increases in a nature and in frequency. The article goes on to identify this social as a social trend. Abercrombie was one of this first brands to display this sort of sexualized edgy content. Looking back at in now, no one can argue that during this time it sold. Currently, their brand isn’t doing so well and it is no surprise due to the changing dynamics of advertising and social trends.

A few years later, another example can be found. in the early 2000’s to around 2010, Cosmopolitan magazine is recognized for the amount of sexual and objective content of the woman in their magazine. In this example the content of the article finds that using sex and woman was frequently used as a marketing strategy. Many times in the exemplified ads the woman and their sexual identities are highlighted more than the product or service being sold. (Gudekl, 2004). In comparison during these time periods, if we were to seek two large sources of trends and media content that influenced the social trends and societal norms, Abercrombie and Cosmopolitan were leaders  for producing this type of content and culture. Skipping a few years forward, as our culture has changed, there have been movements to change these norms in our society and break the framework that advertising has been sitting on for so long.  American Apparel, a very popular and edgy brand has found themselves in hot water multiple times for the content that they produce in their advertising and banned ads. As brands have evolved and smartened up enough to change their brand identity to match the social trends, their new CEO hopes to give them a new direction.

When I spoke about the topic of sex and objectivity of woman with some classmates, there still isnt a clear direction for the dynamic of this argument. The majority of the woman that I interviewed agreed that sexism and objectivity of women in advertising exists but the topic of sex in our culture is not a prioritized issue.  Sex does sell and in fact it may be more accepted in our culture than we realize. When speaking bluntly with the male audience I interviewed it was contrary (and somewhat obvious) that they didn’t really mind the sexualized content in today’s marketing and advertising. To no surprise, but on the other hand the majority of the males in my interviews did at least recognize how women are objectified in advertising.  As societal demands have it, most content shies away from the immense sexism of women in advertising compared to past years. When it does still excist in our advertising the sexized male content over the past few years has greatly increased. It clearly isn’t as present in the women’s debate but over the years we can’t ignore the the other gender in this category. In conclusion the sexulaized style of our society poses as no secret. Weather or not it will expand into a topic that can uproot the foundation of advertising and restructure the “sex sells” culture is unknown. As long as it keeps selling it will still exist and despite the acknowledgments of this contemporary ethical issue in the media it doesn’t seem like anyways priority.

References

Cooper, T. (2008). Between the Summits: What Americans think about media ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23. 15-27. DOI: 10.1080/08900520701753106

Gudekl, I. A & Celik, I. (2014). Using woman in advertsiment as a symbol of sex: cosmopolitan magazine example. Journal Of Yasar University, 35(9), 6129-6137.

Reichert, T. & Carpenter, C. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1993 to 2003. Journal of Mass Communication,81(4), 823-837.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/507499451730932141/

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/438538082435637196/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/american-apparel-swedish-controversy_n_3285613.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/10/american-apparel-asa-banned-ads_n_3051751.html?utm_hp_ref=american-apparel

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-02-09/american-apparel-ceo-adds-new-angle-to-edgy-brand

Blog Post 1: Can We Trust the Media?

By Ash Monks

According to Cooper (2008), America has a long history of mistrusting the media industries.  “There is ample evidence to suggest that Americans at large no longer trust, if they ever did trust, the American media,” says Cooper (2008, p. 25).  He and a group of others involved in a media ethics summit examined professional polls dating back to 1986 and data from a then-newly-created survey in 2006.  When focusing on the news industry, Cooper (2008) found the following:

---

In 1993, when the Los Angeles Times asked what Americans are most disturbed about in the news media, the top six reasons were all linked to the perception of unethical practices: too sensational, hyped news (28%), biased, not balanced in coverage (22%), inaccurate, don’t tell truth (15%), rude, intrusive, violate people’s privacy (11%), too negative (10%), and pushing their own agenda (7%)… Three years later, a similar set of issues emerged, although the order of concerns had shifted (Princeton Survey Research Associates, 1997). (p. 21)

---

In the new order, sensationalism had moved from 13% to 25%, earning it the top spot.  Distortion of facts, while only gaining 1 percentage point, moved from last place to third place in public concern, pushing negativity and invasion of privacy below it.  Resultantly, public perception of news credibility has made a deep decline.  Perhaps a reason for this shift could be related to cases like the recent (early 2015) Brian Williams case.

Brian Williams has been the NBC anchor for the last ten years, tying him tightly to the network’s reputation.  The discovery that that he has been lying in both his personal and professional lives regarding events he claims to have taken part in has caused uproar.  Roig-Franzia, Highman, and Farhi (2015) of the Washington Post write that Williams reported on air that he had been in a helicopter under fire, when in truth he had not.  The lie was viewed as highly offensive—and equally unethical.  However, it seems that the discovery of his fraudulence was not so much a discovery as it was a slow progression into the light.  Roig-Franzia, Highman, and Farhi (2015) continue to reveal that his exaggerations and alterations of events had been water-cooler talk at the office for some time.  Williams’ fabrications were given little attention because it was believed that these stories were contained to his own personal social sphere and had not damaged the reputation of NBC, despite a growing number of concerned citizens remarking upon his fibs.

To further examine the public ethical orientation, I conducted a series of five interviews, including individuals of various ages and backgrounds, and questioned them about their opinions about deceit in reporting as a general ethical dilemma, as well as their views about the Brian Williams case specifically.  There are a range of answers regarding the ethical severity of a reporter lying on social media.  On one end of the spectrum, interviewees claim that a reporter’s freedom of speech allows him to tell his own personal stories as he wishes, embellishment and all, so long as his account is not directly affiliated with the network.  On the other end, remarks are made that so long as he is involved in the press, he is required to be truthful about events at all times.  “If you were an engineer,” says one interviewee (personal communication, February 15, 2015), “you wouldn’t incorrectly tell someone out of the workplace how to design/build something.  People would trust you to give them the right instructions.”

Then there is the middle ground: those that say the answer depends on the severity of the situation.  Another member of the interviewed group (personal communication, Febraury 15, 2015) exhibits a consequentialist approach in explaining:

---

If the lie were harmful or offensive in any way, or if it clearly gave the network negative publicity and worsened credibility, then the employee would have to be suspended or fired.  My trust in the reporter would depend on my understanding of why he lied, and the reporter’s background. I would probably be initially reluctant to trust him.

---

In multiple cases, the reporter’s background was mentioned as a variable in determining the action to be taken.  In the case of Brian Williams, who had been on-air for ten years and regarded as very popular, the majority of the interviewees said that they would allow him back on air in a lower position after a period of suspension.  Only one noted that she would fire him due to a lack of trust.  No one said that his popularity or his tenure exempted him from punishment.  NBC’s choice reflected these views.

Williams was ultimately given a six-month, unpaid suspension, during which he was prohibited from making non-NBC-approved appearances (Roig-Franzia, Highman, & Farhi, 2015).  The following is an excerpt from Roig-Franzia, Highman, and Farhi’s (2015) article on the matter, including an interview with an NBC insider:

---

“We felt it was very important that he come off the air,” a person familiar with the discussions said. “We didn’t want to force him off the air, because we didn’t want to be perceived as rushing to judgment. All the facts weren’t in. But you can’t have an anchor on the air while his judgment and credibility are being questioned on every front page in America. The priority for us was to get him off the air, not to demonstrate that we were mad at him.”

---

The Williams case became an ethical dilemma from the network’s standpoint.  While it was morally wrong for Williams to report incorrect information, the network’s decision on their course of action forced them to weigh their values of accuracy and fairness.  Ultimately, their decision sounds to have been based on the consequences of their options, though also seems to implement Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean by choosing the middle ground for action.  Regardless, the story did become large and wide-spread, as stories involving popular figures tend to do, and perhaps it is this kind of negative publicity about the news that led to the decline in trust American audiences have for the media, as mentioned by Cooper (2008).  The visibility of the case may raise the public’s awareness of the problem beyond its actual presence, establishing it as a notable concern in the public eyes and, subsequently, decreasing faith in the news industry and broader media.

References

Cooper, T. (2008). Between the Summits: What Americans think about media ethics. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 23. 15-27. DOI: 10.1080/08900520701753106

Los Angeles Times survey. (1993, March 6–9). Retrieved September 4, 2006, from the LexisNexis database. The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

Princeton Survey Research Associates survey. (1997, February 20–23). Retrieved September 4, 2006, from the LexisNexis database. The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

Roig-Franzia, M., Highman, S., & Farhi, P. (2015, February 11). Within NBC, an intense debate over whether to fire Brian Williams. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/within-nbc-an-intense-debate-over-whether-to-fire-brian-williams/2015/02/11/8e87ac02-b22f-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html