Talk:Product placement/Archives/2012

Tropic Thunder
Wondering about the above, the scene where the fellow in glasses discusses the HD-DVD format vs Blu-Ray. Perhaps it should be under the 'Self-criticism' section as the he talks about how the format war was won by geeks and porn and the character played by Robert Downey Jr then says 'Were you talking to me?' as apparently he was presenting his monologue to no one in the scene, therefore it is a not to subtle breaking of the fouth wall. As Dreamworks/Viacom have no monetary stake in Blu-Ray nor Sony, as the PS3 also receives a mention is this worth including?

User:Stefanzi 21:18, 31 December 2008

Clear examples of product placement
Talking about product placement? The movie Cellular is so full of Nokia products and references that I consider it to be more of a really long advertisement than a movie with some pp in it.

Dirty Harry
Dirty Harry should really be mentioned as one of the most successful examples of early product placement. 44 Magnum sales were practically non existent before the film (people believed it was a pointless calibre). After the film, everyone wanted a 44 magnum. (87.114.154.31 (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Controversy
How about adding Casino Royale? The movie has been under fire because of the blatant usage of Sony Vaio laptops, Sony-Ericson mobile phones, and Sony Blu-ray equipment - especially since this is the first Bond movie to be released by Sony pictures. Also, every vehicle bond used in the movie was a Ford-owned brand (Ford, Aston Martin, Jaguar, Land Rover).

I agree. I think most cases where some logo "flashes" a couple of times throughout the movie pale in comparison to these kind of movies (also referring to the Cellular example). I agree that automobiles are the most common "placed products" but mobile phones are not far behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.102.205 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad examples
I don't believe that the following is "product placement": Product placement on television dates to its earliest days. Soap operas earned their moniker because they were brought to us by the soap companies. Classic shows such as Bonanza were filmed in color because the show’s sponsor was RCA and they wanted to sell more TV sets. Cigarette companies took advantage of the practice as well. The good guys smoked, not the villains so more cigarettes could be sold. The above relates to marketing and adverts, but is not product placement. Asa01 07:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) The important distinction here is that there is sponsorship, where the company underwrites the cost of the show (this is how soap operas got their name - they were funded by firms such P&G); brand integation, where the product is woven into and integral to the plot, e.g. the GM Camaro in Knight Rider, or the Absolut bottle used to discretely hide parts of the naked model on a billboard in Time Square, used in Sex in the City; and, product placement. Product placement falls into two discrete categories according to ERMA the product placement association: one type of product placement is done primarily to lower the cost of producing video content; the second type is featured video content where money is exchanged in order to get a product a preferred location. Most viewers tend to be aware only of the more obvious product placement, but there is a great deal of product placement that goes relatively unnoticed.

Alistairdavidson 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)alistairdavidson

Reverse Product Placement?
Pop Idol started out in Britain, with no (obvious to me, at least) product placement. Then American Idol came out in America, and all the judges had these HUGE "Coca-Cola" cups placed prominently on the desk - obvious PP.

But, now, ITV1 (the channel that carried Pop Idol originally) is showing American Idol, but with the Coca-Cola cups blurred out.

I think that's worthy of note in the article, but I don't know of any other examples, and I don't know specifically WHY they've blurred it, and I'm not sure of my ability to put it in proper encyclopaedic language, with no "weasel words" and things.

Can anyone else help? iPhil 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reasons I could think of are that either they chose not to have product placement for Coca-Cola (perhaps they have agreements with other competing companies that would conflict with it?), or they're taking a subtle pot-shot at the Americans. Or else Coca-Cola didn't want to pay whatever fee the station wanted in order to air the product placement. Runa27 05:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the coca-cola cups were blurred out in the UK versions of American Idol, is because Ofcom guidelines currently prevent product placement within UK broadcast shows under the "undue prominence" section of the Ofcom code. This code doesn't appear however stretch to film broadcasts.
 * This would make an interesting addition to the article, but only if properly cited. ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone mind this addition?
The blatant Cadillace placement in Matrix: Reloaded. -Kasreyn 05:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Intend to revise and edit this entry
I've been researching product placement for years (see for example my new website Brand Hype), and will be working on revising and editing this entry over the next few days. I look forward to community feedback. Mattsoar 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Self-contradictory and just plain confusing!
The intro should be shot as it is right now. I'm about to show you why...

The intro states (bolding mine, by the way): Product placement appears in plays, film, television series, music videos, video-games and books, and is a relatively new idea (first appearing in the 1980's). Yet in the first post-intro subsection, we get this tidbit: A very early example of product placement in film occurs in the 1949 film Love Happy, in which Harpo Marx cavorts on a rooftop among various billboards and at one point escapes from the villains on the old Mobil logo, the "Flying Red Horse".

(And shouldn't that be "1980s", on a side note?)

Now, the intro also defines "product placement" as: ''occurs with the inclusion of a brand's logo, or a favorable mention or appearance of a product. This is done without disclosure, and under the premise that it is a natural part of the work. Most major movie releases today contain product placements'''

Hey, I thought... oh wait! What was it that it said a little before that? Oh, yes: Product placement (PPL) is a promotional tactic used by marketers in which a real commercial product is used in fictional media, 

You can't have it both ways people. What the heck is that "without disclosure" business supposed to even mean, anyway?

And if it's exclusively a promotional tactic used by marketers, then in order for the 1949 example to be genuine "product placement" (or "product plug", rather, as the current article defines it), it would have to have been basically sold to the Mobil company, would it not? That's the only reason I didn't edit that portion of the intro.

Seriously, folks. That's from the first three paragraphs. This needs fixing, and I'm not sure how to do it in many cases. : \ Runa27 06:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Without disclosure means, essentially, not telling the viewer they're watching a commercial, and instead allowing them to mistakenly assume that the product was chosen the way props are otherwise assumed to be chosen: for whatever artistic, creative, or story value which they lend to the project.  Product placement allows the viewer to assume that the product was chosen either randomly, or due to its creative or artistic merit, rather than due to, say, a big fat paycheck from the product's manufacturers...


 * Of course, the line is awfully blurred these days. A lot of commercials make no effort to inform the viewer that they're watching a commercial; many of them are like 30-second stories or action scenes.  Sometimes they even eschew having a bit at the end where they tell you what the product is, or what it does.  Heck, for some drug commercials, they show weeks of commercials which have nothing but scenes of people smiling and dancing and they never even tell you the name of the product, or that it's a drug rather than, say, dancing lessons or tuxedos being sold.  When a price is mentioned, or a place to buy, or loan repayment terms, or some such, I would consider that to be disclosure.


 * I don't know what you mean regarding the Marx bros. Mobil advert. The purpose of the advert was to link Harpo (who was a positive figure associated with laughter and good times, being a comedian) with the Mobil logo and mascot.  The reason product placement works is because of the associative tendencies of the human brain.  Two stimuli experienced at the same time, even if they actually have nothing to do with one another (such as Michael Jackson and Coca-Cola), become linked.  What marketers discovered was that if you liked Jackson's singing and associated it with good times and happiness, and if you saw Jackson drinking coke, and saw coke logos on him as he sang, you would come to associate coke with good times and happiness as well.  Essentially, the associations "rub off".


 * The trouble is, this is an unconscious process, because the conscious mind is rational and skeptical. If you walk right up to someone and say "you should like coke because Michael Jackson drinks it", they could easily show why this was nonsense:  their conscious mind is alert and paying attention, and they are easily able to analyse the claim and reject it as groundless.  It's been shown, however, that while viewing television, a person's conscious mind can be easily distracted.  One method is the constant fast cutting of commercial television, usually a cut every two seconds or less.  This keeps the mind off-balance and unable to deploy any analysis or perform any critical thinking on something it has seen before the next image begins and brings with it another image to critique - overload.  The end result is that some images are able to sneak by without being subjected to the conscious process of analysis at all.  It is at this point that the image of Michael Jackson drinking coke forms an irrational but effective association.


 * Did this help any? Kasreyn 07:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

link spam on this article
Just so you all know, Wikipedia is not a vehcile for advertising. I have just removed a number of external links to promo agencies and alike. This is completely unacceptable to have such links in this article. Please don't add them back without good reason. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Product Placement in Fight Club?
"The movie Fight Club, directed by David Fincher, bites the hands that feed it by depicting acts of violence against most of the products that paid to be placed in the film. Examples include the scene where the Apple Store is broken into, and the scene in which Brad Pitt and Edward Norton smash the headlights of a new Volkswagen Beetle. However it is arguable that the negative portrayal of these ads is cancelled out since they are in fact still paid-for product placements within the film."

I don't seriously doubt that the products used were in fact paid for, despite the fact that the part of the theme of the film is based around being anti-corporation and such, but is there any verification that the products were paid for in this case? I believe some of the brand names (such as Starbucks) were actually mentioned in the book, which was made before the movie. -68.114.154.249 04:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure all pepsi in the film is only shown in fight scenes ... (22:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Flintstones in the 60's
If we're mentioning early not-quite-product-placement ("greekized"?) examples, we might want to include Welch's Grape Juice on "The Flintstones" in the 60's. In accompanying commercials, baby Pebbles calls the product "Woo woo gape do" (or something close to that). And then in an episode or two, we hear her make a request for "Woo woo gape do," the same as in the commercials, and her parents comment that Pebbles "sure loves" that grape juice. danwWiki 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

is it really product placement?
is it really product placement if the creators of the "art" in which the real-life products are being showcased, aren't using the products for advertising purposes or for personal income, but rather just prefer to use real products for artistic purposes and do use real products when the oppurtunity arises? shouldn't there be a motive behind using real products in tv, film, ect.? this directly applies to the south park reference of using dr. pepper. as it was stated by matt stone and trey parker that they wanted to use diet dr pepper on an earlier episode because it would have been (at least to them) funnier than a fake product. ...Patrick (talk, contributions) 04:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Baz Luhrmann
I know Baz Luhrmann is known for placing Coca-Cola imagery in his movies, praticulary Strictly Ballroom, however I'm not sure where to mention it in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mhrmaw (talk • contribs) 03:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Ricky Bobby
I really think that Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby should be included somewhere in this article. I know that this certainly isn't a place to include every instance of product placement ever included in a film, but I think this is the first movie I've seen that included an actual commercial in the middle of the movie. It must have been at least thirty seconds long - not to mention the references to Wonder Bread, Big Red, Taco Bell, Domino's, KFC, PowerAde... Ministry of Silly Walks 03:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of Will Ferrell at all, I saw Talladega Nights and was apalled at the amount of product placements. The in-movie commercial was unbelievable and I truly believe it should be mentioned in the article. Draknfyre 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

any ideas?
Ok, this will be very vague, but hear goes: I seem to remember a certain company offering to pay music artists for every time their product/company name was heard on the radio during one of the artists songs...i also remember hearing about an artist who made a song with the product/company name repeated ten times followed by "now where's my cheque?". does anyone else know what im talking about and who/where/when this was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.4.74.65 (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

image add?
would it be ok to add this image? Canislupusarctos 10:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Herbie anyone?
A mention of the herbie movies must be added as it's probably an example of product placement: VW Beetle! The film transformers was supplied with General Motors cars which should be mentioned as a new example in 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Product placement in the United Kingdom
Worth mentioning is that unlike the US, product placement, as in product placement as part of a script is against broadcasting regulations in the United Kingdom, that is why you won't see any of it on British TV shows. Willirennen (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but if they need props they still have to use them don't they? I've noticed that Apple products are always used in any show that Kudos make for the BBC, like Spooks and Hustle, i suppose if you are correct then it would be against the law for Apple to be paying for this.86.16.139.140 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Kudos also use Archos in spooks ... whether that is PP though i'm not sure... (87.114.154.31 (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

I believe there's some talk that the PP regulations may be relaxed for British commercial channels in the near future, though of course it will still be forbidden on the BBC. If you read the BBC's Editorial Guidelines (available online) you'll see that there are quite detailed rules for props. 86.132.137.5 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it appears they will be tightened into actual law. The current situation is that it is regulated by OFCOM, but the EU issued a directive that it was legal. In order to get around that, the UK will need to issue an actual law to ban it, which appears likely with culture secretary Andy Burnham saying he will not allow product placement in the UK. I put a short section in the article, these are my sources.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jun/11/advertising http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117987431.html?categoryid=2523&cs=1

The article is lacking in international perspective, I have added what I know about as regards the UK, but don't know about the rest of the world, it would be nice to see that. Productplacer (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

On the question of props raised above, often on UK TV, you will see generic looking items, or even black tape over the label, I'm surprised Spooks has got away with such PP, although I haven't actually seen the show to know if it's true PP, and don't know if they took money to do it. However we do get a fair bit of PP on UK TV, in imported USA shows and others, I suspect that if it stays fully outlawed after this debate, people might just move their production companies to another country to circumvent it, and maybe save some taxes while they are there. Productplacer (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal regulation?
There should be a section on legal regulation in different countries. I can't believe the UK is the only country to make restrictions on product placement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.27.253 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco product placement
As the BMJ article points out, tobacco product placement is a special case.

It deserves its own mention and explanation, separately. Unlike other product placement, it is

1. Borderline illegal (and falsely denied to occur), precisely because it 2. Advertises a deadly product; 3. Is devastatingly effective, partly because it is 4. Directed at youth little able to recognize it.

In this context, how does it help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia to keep its readers in the dark (i.e., to keep the intended audience of youth unable to recognize tobacco product placement)?

Not only health but money is on the table in this particular suggestion to black out Wikipedia's discussion of tobacco product placement. The effectiveness of tobacco product placement is less when youth can recognize it. Hence a decision for Wikipedia to go dark on this issue not only perpetuates ignorance, but an ignorance deadly costly to those kept out of the know, and an ignorance profitable for tobacco sellers.

In this context, any proposal to black out this area ought to be considered carefully.

TO THE ANON POSTER: using phrases like, "in this context," doesn't really do a good job of masking what is a rather emotional response in the guise of impartiality. You can't approach the writing of an encyclopedia article with an agenda, right or wrong.

And while I am on it, you can't quote two large paragraphs from a journal. I realize copy and paste is a popular way of writing on wikipedia, and I've come across more than a few articles that were partially or completely plagiarized from other sources, which this doesn't really rise to that level, but regardless just putting quotations around it doesn't make it ok. You can't write articles like that, it's just bad form.

And I'm not saying the Bond reference should be removed, but it NEEDS a reference. You can't include it otherwise, unless you can substantiate it-- FROM A LEGIT SOURCE! A personal blog is not a reference, just to cut someone off before it comes to that. 98.86.17.56 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Miah

Merger proposal
Articles for deletion/Embedded marketing was initiated and the concensus seems to be moving towards redirecting Embedded marketing to this article. Are they the same thing? And if they are, is Product placement the more commonly used term?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 00:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Transformers movie
this movie had a ton of unashamed examples of product placement; figured it would be mentioned Spettro9 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

E.T. + Reese's Pieces
I've often heard the movie E.T. cited as a prominent early example of product placement. The script supposedly originally called for M&M's, but they didn't want to be associated with the movie, thus Reese's Pieces were used instead, thus causing a huge increase in their popularity, which was an insightful lesson to advertisers of the value of product placement. Both the E.T. and Reese's Pieces articles discuss it, seems like it deserves at least a mention in this article. Lurlock (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The USA is not the whole world!
I'm getting sick of Wikipedia and the endless articles about a global subject which only mention the USA. What about the rest of the world? Or, at the very least, the rest of the English-speaking world? In most countries product placement is strictly against the law (as it should be) and only appears in imported shows or less obvious methods. Unless a worldwide prospective is included then Wikipedia should delete all American-biased articles.--217.203.157.183 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold, and add some worldwide perspective. The solution to a lack of information is to add more, not to take away information.--RLent (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * oh u mad, doggie 173.61.81.243 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusing wording: Cars/bond films
The most common products to be promoted in this way are automobiles. Frequently, all the important vehicles in a movie or television serial will be supplied by one manufacturer. For example, The X-Files used Fords, as do leading characters on 24. The James Bond films pioneered such placement.[10] The 1974 film The Man with the Golden Gun featured extensive use of AMC cars, even in scenes in Thailand, where AMC cars weren't sold, and had the steering wheel on the wrong side of the vehicle for the country's roads. In XXY (2007) all vehicles depicted are Toyotas, even though the film takes place in South America; the film's credits acknowledge the automaker as having funded portions of the film's production. The last two Bond films had used vehicles from Ford or its subsidiaries. In Bad Boys 2, Transformers and The Matrix Reloaded, almost every car was made by General Motors, the only exception being the Ferrari in Bad Boys 2.

I don't like the wording of this paragraph at all. The worst bit is how the mention of The Man with the Golden Gun is followed by a mention of XXY and then the text 'The last two Bond films' - this leads the reader to wrongly assume that XXY is a Bond film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.93.109 (talk) 17:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the same Paragraph - Most of the Bad Guys Cars in Bad Boys II (Particularly in Cuba) are varieties of Land-rover. Which in 2003 was owned by Ford; GM's leading competitor. So "Almost every Car" is another misnomer. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Cast Away (2000)
Is there some reason why Cast Away, with its hours-long FedEx placement, is not discussed in this article? Tina Kimmel (talk) 08:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The main character is a FedEx employee, so as the product is his job, and provides several integral plot-hinges, I hardly think it's quite the same thing.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Product placement statistics?
I see many (selective) examples of product placement throughout this article, but does anyone have a link to a resource that has gathered hard statistical fact about the history of product placement across the whole of the (hollywood) movie industry ? For example, I see Pepsi as a predominant culprit of product placement (they're in at least two out of every four movies I have seen over the last twenty years IMHO) and Coke almost nowhere - but it would be hard to make a statement to that fact if there is no concrete evidence to back it up.

Thanks for any input, cheers,

THE PROMENADER  14:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom
"Within the United Kingdom, product placement is currently banned." Needs updating. – anemone projectors – 13:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This article needs updating
Product placement is enjoying a massive increase in use over recent years, from the subway ads on Chuck to sunglasses in music videos to Ford and coke ads on American Idol. Also needs a mention of the new documentary 'The Greatest Movie Ever Sold', as well as a section on criticism of product placement and a section on the forces pushing product placement into the spotlight, mainly a surge in the use of home DVR's and commercial-limited online content. I will be adding some of this in the near future.DesertPhox (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Plug"
The article uses the term "plug" without explaining what it means. Sahuagin (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Abercrombie & Fitch

 * 

Maybe that can be mentioned in the article.

67.119.15.177 (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In Norway; section about payola
An article about Product placement in Norway does not exist. Here is a relevant link

Another matter is that our article has a section titled "payola and legal considertions". Can the title be improved?--Riambrid (talk) 10:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Other links relevant to product placement in Norway
Vidar Kvalshaug's article, "NRK is using Little Steven in a political game — NRK has a hen to pick with Rubicon, and is stopping Lillyhammer and Little Steven. They are hoping to escape the prohibition against procuct placement". (Lillyhammer is a TV series that has completed its production, and was until about last week, scheduled to air in January 2012.)--Riambrid (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

wrong link in the references
is used as a reference for the use of a Nokia Phone in Star Trek (2009), but the webpage that is shown at this URL doesn't say anything about Nokia or Star Trek, it is about a series of webisodes by Volkswagen. --80.109.39.94 (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

sports section
I'm not sure if anybody cares about all this, but it seems like quite a bit of confusion is going on on this page between advertising and product placement. They are different things. From the beginning of this article: "product placement is a form of advertisement, where branded goods or services are placed in a context usually devoid of ads, such as movies, music videos, the story line of television shows, or news programs. The product placement is often not disclosed at the time that the good or service is featured." I find it hard to believe that, as was included in the article until I deleted it, advertisements on the Green Monster in Fenway Park constitute product placement. There is no reason to think that ballpark walls, which have not been 'devoid of advertising space' for decades, are a place where a consumer would expect disclosure of the possibility of advertising! I fully expect for some over-zealous mod to revert my edit, but if you'd just think through what 'product placement' means, you'd realize I'm right. This article does not need to be a compendium of each instance of alleged product placement. We need this article to explain WHAT it is, and perhaps give a few examples. As far as I can tell, besides perhaps placing advertisements on jerseys (which, by the criteria set forth within the article itself, viz. a context typically devoid of ads, would qualify!!) there is little in sports that constitutes product placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footballman010101 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Ramifications?
There's a paragraph that says: [blockquote]Product placement became common in the 1990s, until the ramifications]of product placement were clearly understood.[/blockquote]

What does it want to say? Why 90nties? Which specific ramifications? Seems like meaningless or false information to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.132.207 (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Product placement in novels?
It is strange that novels are not mentioned in the article, e.g. The Bulgari Connection and Zero History.

195.240.235.188 (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Surprising omission from article
This article doesn't mention the longest-running and most lucrative product placement agreement in the history of motion pictures. I refer to the contract between Warner Brothers and the Acme conglomerate, whose products were used exclusively by Wile E. Coyote in his efforts to vanquish the Roadrunner and Bugs Bunny. Acme had made a bold choice: since none of the products featured in the movies actually worked, would the Placements do more harm than good? In the end Acme decided that even "bad" name-recognition was worth more than no name-recognition at all, and proceeded. Quite rightly. To this day whenever I need a hole so that I can fall through the roadway of a bridge and splat myself against the surface of the East River, Acme (Hole Mfg. Division) is my first phone-call.69.86.130.90 (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * ACME is mentioned in this article with the reverse product placement of ACME Communications as the owner of a pair of US TV stations, one of which was The WB/The CW's affiliate. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

removal of content - Kluger Agency/The Kluger Agency/Adam Kluger
was edited here by a WP:SPA promoting Kluger. The "Double Happiness Jeans" incident also used to be in this article (Product placement) and was replaced with Kluger's self-promotional WP:COI spam. I've put the mention of the incident back in and removed the self-promotion but it may be worth keeping an eye on this in case there are more socks in the drawer and the content disappears again. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "On 19 September 2008 Wired News reported that a Kluger Agency staff member approached Jeff Crouse of Double Happiness Jeans attempting to initiate a "brand integration campaign" with the company, offering to help place the company's brand into the lyrics of an upcoming Pussycat Dolls song. However, Double Happiness Jeans was a fake brand created by Crouse—a partner at the grassroots Anti Advertising Agency—as an art project for the Sundance Festival, and the email was subsequently posted to the Anti Advertising Agency blog , criticising The Kluger Agency and its practices."

Davidson edits
Student will be adding sections on psychological research on product placement. Greta Munger (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be interested to see more specific information added to each of the sections, for example, you mention that children had the option to choose between Coke and Pepsi after watching Home Alone, but did not say whether they actually chose Pepsi more after the viewing. I think the specific results of studies will make some of the wording seem less vague and stronger. The paragraphs could be broken up to be less blocky, and I think some of your wording could be condensed and more wikipedia-like. For example, in the first section you start sentences "A third way to measure product placement is by measuring one’s explicit memory. Some common methods of measuring explicit memory are...", which I think could be condensed to something like "Product placement can also be measured. by explicit memory by..." I would also give more concrete examples, so when you mention audiovisual placements, maybe give an example of what that would be? Some with field-dependent.I also think Wikipedia style does not use author names in the article, so I would reword some of your sentences to remove those. Overall, I think the section is really well written, and will be a good addition to an article that could use dome psychological evidence. The major changes would just be to improve how easy it would be for a layperson to read. Rebeccaworrell (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose the citation style should be consistent within the same article, at a minimum. The existing footnotes on this page are &lt;ref> tags (which automatically place the authors names in the 'References' section at the end) so it would be best to keep using those in this piece. K7L (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In the first sentence, it should be “economic effects,” not affects. It would be very nice if you separated all of your sections into smaller paragraphs. Could explain how product placement can be accurate? Maybe just add a sentence about qualifications for accurate product placement. “There are many other aspects of the product placement that can impact its’ effectiveness.” I don’t think you need the apostrophe on “its”. Take out the names of the researchers. You mentioned the Pepsi and Coke in Home Alone research twice. Try to figure out where it’s most relevant and take out the repeat. I don’t think it is necessary to include the “next step” sentence at the end of your “effectiveness of product placements” section. I like that it’s there, but I don’t know if it’s good for Wikipedia style. Can you explain what “field independent people” are? “Also, people who were preoccupied of cognitively loaded tended to view products that were well incorporated in the plot as the same as the competitor product.” Can you reword this sentence? I think you could probably condense the “audience factors that impact effectiveness” section. I found it kind of hard to follow. Typo in the second sentence under “movie factors” section I also think that maybe you should change the heading to “video game factors that influence effectiveness” because the section seems to be more about video games than movies. I don’t know if you can argue that only one study has done research on the effects of product placement in Broadway plays. There could have been research out there that you haven’t found yet. I would just take that sentence out. I’m not a grammar expert, but I think you should revise your use of “its’” Take out your page citations. There is a lot of great information in your section! I would mostly work on making it more concise, adding paragraph separation, and take out the couple of typos. Lindy.williams (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)Lindy.williams