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.
yes
