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.