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.