Product placement became a hot topic a few years ago with the influx of placement on TV reality shows, taken to its most blatantly obnoxious peak by Donald Trump on NBC's The Apprentice.


Product placement has been around for decades, perhaps getting most noticed by marketers back in 1982 when Steven Spielberg's little alien ET expressed his preference for Reese's Pieces. It could have been M&Ms, Milk Duds or healthy carrot sticks, but for a price -- Reese's Pieces it was.
Product placement on TV is nothing new. Game shows have been doing it forever, with companies paying hefty fees to have their products given away as prizes. Back in the early 1980s when I was doing PR for Jaguar, we had a press fleet in Hollywood that was used primarily for "placement" of the British cat in TV shows and theatrical films.
Originally, placement people had relationships with property masters and they made under-the-table deals so a bottle of Sprite might be in an actor's hand instead of whatever happened to be in the prop closet. But the studios caught on and now fees from product placement are often factored into a film's budget, alongside income from licensing and other marketing deals.
Now there seems to be something new in product placement -- product placement in ads themselves. Say what?
I'm told there's an ad running for a Dodge SUV that includes footage of guys drinking Pepsi. It doesn't appear to be a cross-marketing tie-in. Since the Pepsi logo is shown clearly in the ad, could this be the start of a new wave of product placement?
I can imagine some possible benefits for the advertisers. For the primary advertiser who's buying the time, placement income eases the burden of the buy and frees up money for other media buys or other marketing efforts. For the marketer buying the placement, they get the GRPs at a lower cost than going it alone. And both companies get a break by sharing the cost of production of the spot.
The company buying into someone else's ad might also get the reflected glory or credibility from the primary sponsor.
I mentioned this online the other day, and Matt Dickman responded, suggesting sharing ads could work well for some categories such as the recent Nike Father's Day spot featuring Tiger Woods. He thought an ad like that, where timely delivery is relevant, could easily showcase UPS or FedEx. Ryan Karpeles recalls seeing an auto ad recently where an iPod was clearly shown, but with no specific mention by name. An example of product placement or just coincidence?
I know the networks have rules regarding multiple sponsors in a single ad, so I don't think we'll get to the point of rampant clutter within a 30-second spot. But it does open some interesting possibilities, as well as some challenges. If done well, though, product placement in TV ads could work for all involved, including the viewing audience.
It could be the next frontier in product placement.