Artefact 2 results

After interviewing ten people I found that there was a correlation between the two ages with results.  When asked the question what was the sales assistant wearing, ninety percent participants initially did not mention the word Nike. A general answer was given for example, a zip up top/t-shirt/top. Even though the top was made from Nike and it had the Nike swoosh shown on the top.  Everyone below the age of twenty-five noticed the Nike swoosh. Ninety percent of these participants noticed both Nike ticks on the t-shirt and the trainer. Ninety percent were also observant in the fact that the Nike swoosh was removed in the second clip but stayed on the t-shirt in both clips. The one participant who didn’t notice the tick had been removed from the trainer in the second clip said she just assumed it was there in the second clip since she stated she saw the tick on the trainers in both clips. Therefore she was not very observant in the second clip. Everyone above the age of forty-five did not notice the Nike swoosh on either trainer or top.  

From gathering this information, it may be fair to say because people are not aware or do not have a passion for Nike they did not notice the product placement. All of the younger generation did notice the tick because they are very familiar with the Nike swoosh because they may have more of a passion and may have more of an interest with Nike.  Therefore familiarity plays a huge part in answering reasons for awareness of product placement that was stated in my research paper. The younger generation are more familiar with the Nike swoosh than the older generation. The older generation did not take notice of the swoosh on the t-shirt or trainers because they were not bought up with the logo being fashionable and popular since the swoosh was not invented until 1971.

What was surprising was that most of the participants found the clips seemed like an advert even though they hadn’t noticed the actual Nike swoosh on the trainer or t-shirt in either clips.  In artifact one nearly all people stated that advertisements are annoying and they often skip if possible. And so this suggests that the brand does not actually get negative responses being displayed, just the thought of an advert is annoying. Therefore putting it in film/TV is very effective because people do not automatically assume it’s an annoying advert they are about to watch. They take in subconsciously the brand displayed in the film/TV programme. Participants who said it wasn’t like an advert said they knew this because they knew the actor and so therefore it was obvious it was a film.

It may be interesting to do make another artifact using the the clip with both the product placement on the trainer and t-shirt, but with a questionnaire so that I have more results instead of just ten.

 A few participants stated that controversial products should be accepted because it adds realism to the film. This supports Russell’s 1998 theory who said brands/products make programmes more realistic and believable. This therefore reinforces a positive attitude to product placement.

All participants stated that product placement is acceptable. They either found it “normal” or positive, in the fact that films can have a larger budget or adds realism.  A few participants said they also thought that product placement is effective but also half of the participants made comments that people are unaware of product placement and so they should be told before watching a programme that product placement will occur. This also reflects that people are unaware of the PP logo that is used in British television.