Product Placement vs. Bureaucratic Tidal Wave

Does product placement in movies and television adversely affect the artistic value of program content? Should advertising be limited? Such questions have generated much interest during the last few years. A popular book entitled No Logo by Canadian journalist Naomi Klein confronts these issues and is described by The Economist as “eloquently setting out the suspicion and resentment that many young folk feel for large companies.”The Monthly Review stirred the pot a few years ago with an article called “The Commercial Tidal Wave” that addressed similar concerns.

Naomi Klein, the authors of The Monthly Review article, and most people I discuss this issue with all have plenty of criticisms, but are typically reluctant or unable to provide solutions to the alleged problem of increased product placement. The consensus seems to be an ambiguous call for “struggle against advertising.” I’m not sure what that means, but I’m always left asking, “So what is the solution?”

At risk of oversimplifying things, I will at least proffer two ways to handle capitalism-cum-advertising that some people, especially “young folk,” seem to be concerned with. A society could either: a) restrict freedom of businesses to advertise, and concomitantly consumers to choose, or b) rely on the age-old, yet perennially reliable barometer that drives all commercialism and trade: consumer taste.

Thinking of the last five movies I’ve watched, I do not recall any overt advertising. Is this due to the producers’ desire for artistic integrity and their ability to resist the “commercial tidal wave”? Or is it because I am not attracted to the type of entertainment that can “get away with” product placement?

The last movie I watched was Run Lola Run. There was a prominent sign for a Bolle shopping center. That might be an actual brand in Germany. I wouldn’t know. Before that I watched Hero starring Jet Li. This was a “period piece,” so nothing modern was in the film, aside from the special effects. Last month I watched Saving Private Ryan again. I guess that could be seen as “product placement” for the Army. Spirited Away was a Japanese animation that might have had something in it, but nothing obvious that I remember. Baran was an independent Iranian film so no ads there — naturally they’re down with the “revolution” I suppose.

I’m not saying that product placement doesn’t exist. It is certainly increasing in popularity. But my point is, I have great faith in people, who are ultimately all consumers (and hopefully producers), to separate the wheat from the chaff and make decisions that, in a free market anyway, will drive businesses to latch on to popular responses and divest of bad ideas. If media outlets become saturated with things people don’t want and disgusted consumers begin to take flight and seek other outlets, competition will take its natural course and provide different, more desirable outlets.

Markets are extremely diverse because they are made up of people. Not everyone likes the same things. I read magazines with no ads at all that most people consider boring. Sometimes I look at magazines just for the ads. Electronic Musician or GQ comes to mind. In some situations product placement may provide entertainment value. I expect to see James Bond driving a BMW or an Austin-Healey. What other kind of car would he be driving? An “Acme” roadster?

At least two possibilities seem to flow from what Klein and other advertising critics are presenting. On one hand you could say that people are stupid and naïve to fall for advertising and must “struggle” against it. Or you might conclude that people are freely making choices according to their individual tastes. If the critics are alluding to the former, then how can Klein or The Monthly Review have any faith in the choices of their own readership? Most social critics and intellectuals do not have enough trust in people to accept the latter.

Perhaps Klein and other critics intend to send a warning signal to indolent consumers who might otherwise be “suckered.” Something like: “Hey, watch out! There are ads out there and they can affect the human experience.” Maybe that’s what they mean by struggling against advertising. But in the end, none of the critics I’ve talked to or studied really propose a solution. The authors of The Monthly Review article actually come close. They state:

“Advertising is part of the bone marrow of corporate capitalism. Yet it does not happen on its own. It requires advertising-friendly policies and regulations to allow it to flourish.”

They never explain what they mean by “advertising-friendly policies and regulations.” But preventing advertising from flourishing (read: censorship) would ironically require policies and regulations. Addressing the perceived “tidal wave” of commercialism still leads to one of two things: Either freedom of choice (for both producers and consumers) or restriction and regulations along with the inevitable bureaucracy that follows.