ARTEFACT 5

Artefact5

I wanted to investigate in more detail how effective product placement is without people being consciously aware. I had to further my research about the subconscious mind. I read books and researched on the web. Books including the power of the sub conscious mind by J Murphy and The buying brain: Secrets for selling to the subconscious mind by A K Pradeep have been very resourceful in the fact they have given evidence to back and give me a justified reason to carry out artefact 5.

For Artefact five I wanted to focus on something very specific. From artefact four I learnt that a persons background life is a major contribution to observing product placement whether it is subtle or not in a film/programme. Also product placement that is very in your face can be seen as obtrusive. People dislike this and refer it to traditional advertising.  I concluded that people think that with very subtle product placement, they thought it would not be as effective as more obvious active product placement.

I wanted to investigate in more detail how effective product placement is without people being consciously aware. The human mind is capable of many things and the mind is very powerful. Using previous research, I have found that when I have asked the participants what brands they have seen in a clip, they have been missing a few out especially subtle product placements. But the further the conversion lasts, they mention brands that they did not mention when asked what brands they saw. This is because at the time they cannot recall them when asked but a trigger in the brain, it may be a word said in the conversation that they can suddenly recall the brand.

Artefact 5 is a scientific experiment. I put together a film clip with very obvious product placement and very subtle product placement from different films, subtler than in Artefact four. I then made a collage of 17 images. Four of the images were used as product placement in the film which were the very subtle ones. However the four images used in the collage were the same brand but not exactly the same products used in the clip.

I then used forty individuals for the experiment. I got them to watch the clip without being told anything. I then asked them what brands they managed to spot. I expected them to notice the very obvious ones such as coca cola and Smirnoff and I was right.

I then showed them the collage of images and explained four of them were used in the clip and to circle them. There is evidence to explain that the brain remembers seen objects without people being aware of this.  And so I was hoping that the products circled were the ones shown in the clip to reflect that when they are shown again the brain remembers them.

Results

The results reflected that my thoughts were correct. Over eighty percent of the participants circled the correct products that were in the clip. Most who circled incorrect products circled an image that was a Chanel lipstick was used in the clip. In my opinion people remembered the lipstick so presumed that was used in the film clip.

Therefore to conclude people thought that very subtle product placement was not effective, however this proves them wrong. Just because they cannot recall the brand seen at the time does not mean that they have not observed it. This has an impact on my research question to state that peoples perspective can change without them being consciously aware however further research would have to be conducted on a larger scale to conclude whether this would be positive or negative. 

Forth Artefact

Artefact4

For Artefact four I have decided to create two montages of clips. The first clip will have a series of obvious placement and the second clip will use much more subtle product placement. I will then have three focus groups. The first group I will tell them nothing and see how the discussion develops, only later will I mention product placement. With the second group I will tell them that I am interested in the production of advertising and ask them to watch the clips. Depending on what reactions I get from the first two groups I am undecided what I will say to the third focus group. 

Results.

First Focus Group:

Age Nik (male)23,

        Steph (female)22

They both prefer product placement to adverts. They spoke about the ‘need’ to have product placement because of people being able to skip adverts.

Brands noticed were Apple in clips (Steph), coca cola, converse, Smirnoff, car symbols and branded golf bag. They said they didn’t notice any product placement in the shampoo scene that was very subtle. They explained they were both aware of these brands, Steph and Nik both own products with these brands and so were already familiar.

They stated the first clip stood out as it seemed to look like an advertising clip. They both agreed the second clip was not as obvious as the first clip. Nik already knew what product placement was, the other did not. They both noticed they were clips taken from programmes and so were aware they were not actual adverts. They both did not really notice the subtle product placement for example ‘bed hed’. It was agreed if you could relate to a character you are more drawn to buy the product. Referring to the research question if you like a character and they are using the product, your perception of the brand is positively increased. This supports what  Norman and Heckler (2004) stated that people’s perception of characters affect influences on positive/negative attitudes towards the brand.  They also stated that viewers develop para-social relationships with characters developing an attachment to them.   Steph, who was previously unaware of product placement now feels she will look out for more brands now she is aware.  They both agree product placement is a good thing and prefer product placement to adverts. Overall this has had a positive effect on the perception of brands shown.

Realism was a factor; they feel it would seem unnatural for them to not use a non-branded object. However with products such as weapons they felt they should definitely not be allowed because it has a negative impact and influences people to buy the products. Alcohol on the other hand, they found to be a normal part of life therefore, acceptable to be used for product placement. Referring back to the research question, her view of the brand shown on a weapon means that her perception of the brand is negative because she thinks it is immoral to use brands on such objects.

They feel there is a correct balance of product placement now but still space for a little more. The first one they felt was too obtrusive, they did seem like real adverts but were aware they were only clips. Reflecting on this, finding the product placement obtrusive puts a negative perception on the brand.

They both said that repeating product placement especially throughout a SERIES instead of just one episode is an effective way of showing the brand so that it increases familiarity.  Referring back to my research question, in my research project I stated that Baker 1999 stated viewers develop more favourable feelings towards the brand simply because of repeated exposure.

Second focus group

Ages: woman Carol: 53

          Woman Jo 50

           Man Charles 18

Charles talked about Texaco (garage) Audi, Smirnoff and Converse. Carol also mentioned these brands. Carol referred to the first clip as boring like an advert, whereas she said the second one was a lot more interesting to look at with the glamorous woman etc. Joe and Carol thought the women thought the second clip appealed to an older generation. It is obvious that GENRE is very significant and familiarity with previous background knowledge with the brand. In artefact three I said that it did not support the familiarity theory however testing with more people and lots of brands proves familiarity and genre are important to the awareness of product placement and brands shown.

They all agreed they noticed the brands the most in the first clip. The second one was focused on what people were doing rather than the product itself. In the first clip they found that they focused on the product and the women found it too obtrusive. However Charles liked the first one better because he has an interest in the brands shown on the other hand, Jo said you don’t ‘want something shoved in your face’ want to be seduced by something.  Therefore a brand ‘shoved in your face’ could change your perception of the brand to a negative view. And so there were mixed opinions on this. Your subtly seduced to be excited Carol stated the first one would appeal to a male generation because of the cars, petrol and boots and the neon hat.

They have said they will now be aware of product placement so feel they will notice it more. They feel they do not notice very subtle product placement and so it is not effective. Therefore referring back to my research question ineffective product placement does not effect peoples perspective of the brand. However there needs to be a balance. They dislike it too in your face.

They feel product placement is positive and feel brands shown in film and tv to be positive because it encourages them to like the brand more therefore has a positive effect on perception. Sometimes they feel it is too subtle and does not work. They feel repeating it would be better.

If your interested then you observe what it is.

It proves age does not really matter in some cases. It is background life style and interests what make the most difference to the perception of the brand. Previous familiarity of the brand. Therefore my opinion was wrong to say age would effect peoples perception of brands.

3^rd focus group:

2 men – in their 60s

one child- 14

The brands mentioned were Coca Cola, Yamaha, and the second was subtler. You noticed the people more than the product. And a shampoo was seen. You have to look harder. The first clip with Audi, Texaco was mentioned.

Frank spoke about how the economic climate has declined more advertising needs to happen.

Another participant in this focus group included a man who has been specialising in the advertising industry for the last twenty years. He talked about how the subtle product placement had a subliminal effect on viewers and that is still a gap in the industry for more of this type of advertising. Therefore to refer back to the research question if it is subliminal then people’s perception of the brand stays is not altered in product placement because it goes unnoticed.

From artefact four I  learnt that a persons background life is a major contribution to observing product placement whether it is subtle or not in a film/programme

Overall I can conclude that all three focus groups stated that most subtle product placement was not effective because they did not notice it. Referring back to my research question subtle product placement is ineffective because it does not affect people’s perspective of the brand. This led me onto my last artefact. I wanted to test if people actually sub consciously remember subtle product placement without even realising it.

3rd Artefact Results

For artefact three I took the same clip from artefact two the one with the Nike swoosh on the trainer and t-shirt. Because of the results I had previously received from artefact 2, I wanted to repeat some of them in artefact three so I could ask a larger number of people instead of just interviewing ten people. And so I got fifty people to watch the clip then answer a questionnaire. Interviewing fifty people separately would have been too time consuming with the time I had allocated to produce five artefacts.

The results from artefact three were not what I expected. I expected the results to correlate with artefact two. In artefact two I discovered that the younger generation all noticed the Nike swoosh product placement and the old generation didn’t notice any product placement. When asking fifty other people to watch the same clip again I was expecting similar results from the questionnaire. However this was not true.

Over 80 percent of the fifty participants who watched the clip did not notice the Nike product placement even though the majority of people who answered the questionnaire were from a younger generation.   Therefore testing through a different research method represented different results. The results from artefact two seemed too good to be true. Taking this into account, this also may have been to do with uncontrollable variables. One variable being the people watching the clip may have been in a rush watching it so were unobservant since most the participants who answered the questionnaire were on Facebook. People may have been distracted or not fully concentrating on the clip whilst watching it. I mentioned that familiarity with the product placement beforehand was important in artefact two, however ninety percent of people were already familiar with the Nike swoosh but failed to notice it in the clip. The clip I used with the Nike product placement did not stand out massively. The Nike swoosh on the trainer was only shown for a couple of seconds and it was not exceptionally clear on the t-shirt. However I expected a lot more people from the younger generation to notice the product placement in the clip, however this was not the case. This has led me on to my next Artefact where the variables will be set the same so the results are more accurate.

The other results from my questions I expected. When asking questions on controversial products being shown in films/TV the majority of people answered that there should be a balance on what is shown and also if it shoots the genre of the film then it should be acceptable. No results were surprising here. A few interesting answers were given. For example a couple of people suggested ‘it is up to the individual to make moral choices in their life, at the end of the day just because Spider Man jumps off a building doesn't mean that I will try to and just because someone is drinking vodka in a film doesn't mean I will necessarily crack open a bottle of Smirnoff.’ This was what I was expecting.

Others also said, providing the certificate of viewing is over 15 or 18, then alcohol, weapons and cigarettes are fine. However glorifying brands that make weapons isn't really necessary and could lead to encouraging viewers to investigate more about them. In summary, alcohol and cigarettes are legal therefore people can make their own minds up on that over a certain age so product placement is fine for 15+. Weapons are not legal so shouldn't be treated in the same manner. Therefore everyone should be sensible enough to choose what is right and wrong.

I also repeated questions from Artefact two asking what peoples thoughts on product placement were and if it is acceptable. The results I received I expected since they were all similar to the answers in artefact 2. Over ninety-five percent of people agreed product placement is acceptable. Reasons for this included because they seem natural to watch and add realism to the film/TV programme.  Participants also said they find it less invasive and less obtrusive than ad breaks. Anthor interesting comment a few people suggested was that product placement should no be used in childrens programs because that are at a vulnerable age and if they notice specific clothing etc they may feel they have to conform to fit in.  

When I asked the question about if product placement should be used more instead of traditional ways of advertising there was a wide variety of answers.  Around half said that traditional advertising should stay put and over use of product placement ruins the product. Some said there should be a balance and a couple said to abolish ad breaks altogether.   

Around seventy percent of people agree that product placement should be advertised in other media to make people more aware. They said this is a positive thing to do since product placement does not annoy them so the brands would hopefully make more money because more people would be looking out for them.

Overall from this artefact and others people generally find product placement positive however I want to delve deeper than this. My next artefact will be studying the subtleness of product placement. What people actually do notice since no one really noticed the Nike swoosh in artefact 3.

3rd Artefact

I will be just showing the first video (the one with product placement in) to gather further results from artefact two. In artefact two I gathered results showing that the older generation didn’t notice any of the product placement in either video. However with the young generation they noticed the product placement on the shoes and t-shirt in both mainly. I said this was to do with familiarity of already having an interest or passion for Nike and so they would recognise the Nike swoosh, or because that individual has an interest with fashion or sport. I also gathered results saying product placement was positive adding realism to the film. These will be on the questionnaire to expand knowledge and results of more people.   I will also state that all info will be kept private since there are questions about people’s age that is essential:

Survey:

1. How old are you?

How old are you?  16-26  27-37  38-48  49-59  60+

*

2. Did you notice a brand in the film clip? Please be precise

 

3. Are you already familiar with the Nike swoosh (tick)?

yes  no

4. Do you own any Nike items?

yes  no

5. Do you have a high interest in fashion or would class yourself as 'sporty person'?

yes  no

*

6. What are your thoughts about Nike or any other brand to be shown on TV or film? Do you think it is an acceptable thing to do?

 

*

7. Would you agree that product placement adds realism to a programme/film or would you agree that it is just an excuse for advertising companies to advertise to make more money? What are your thoughts?

 

8. Do you think the future of advertising should sway away from traditional advertising methods on tv (advertising breaks) and instead use more product placement in films and tv? Please explain.

 

*

9. Referring to controversial products being displayed in film and TV such as alcohol, violent weapons and cigarettes, do you think it is acceptable for them to be used for product placement in film or TV? What are your thoughts on this?

 

*

10. If product placement was explained more in the media on tv/news/newspapers and magazines to make the public more aware, would this annoy you or do you think it would be beneficial? What are your thoughts?

 

Final edit!

Last week was exceptionally busy for me since I have had to reshoot the whole advert and change the voice over to a male. i have been having some very late nights. I am very happy with the final edit and so is my client. The advert has a quirky style however I feel it looks more professional. I have improved the inconsistant lighting by using a studio, remodelling the play doh men and scenes and voice over. I have incorporated lots of techniques displaying my skills for moving image. I feel they work well together  without looking disjointed. I have stuck to my brief being a one minute film. I have also used the same theme and logos used on the website in the film.

It product for the client is due in at the end of this week so I have put it on facebook for any thoughts anyone has to improve it!

Decision on final edit for external client, Pure Planners

After reviewing what my tutor has suggested and the needs of my client, I have decided to go with the edit with the play doh. However to make sure the edit is professional means I have to reshoot most of the film again which is very time consuming since the majority of the film is stop motion, apart from the interval framing. My tutor has said this needs doing. And so I have had a busy few days reshooting the play doh scene and all of the stop motion. To give a professional outcome I have had to reshoot using a studio so that the lighting throughout the stop motion is consistant and stays the same. With the previous edit each shot constantly changed lighting from  light to dark making the outcome of the film look "naf". I have kept with the same drawings and effects because my client really liked them however have had to do it again. Another comment from my tutor was to change the voice over to a male and instead of using myself.

I am halfway there and I want to get this done by tuesday because i need to get on with my artefacts. I will be uploading the final edit in a couple of days fingers crossed!

Progress on External client

I have made five edits in total for the promo film for Pure Planners to see what works best. On Thursday I showed my second edit with the new play doh men however they didn't think it was well executed as the first edit. And so this week i have put the original play doh scenes into the new edit. I have made adjustments with tidying it up adding audio, speeding the interval framing up and producing more stop motion.
Stop motion is a current trend and the moment and so using this i feel has worked very well with the quirky style I wanted to produce.
Another criticism of my work is that I have too many styles going on with my film and the saying less is more may be key in the film. This is another reason why I have done multiple edits to remove the play doh men and also to use just stop  motion. The last edit with just the stop motion i think is too short and not as good as the other two edits.
Here are the extra edits. I have decided the two edits with the voice over are the best so far. I have contacted my client and he likes the one with the play doh. The third one is my least favourite

Favourite edit with play doh and voice over:

 

Edit without play doh with voice over:

Edit with just stop motion lines: