Product placement is often criticised for being a secretive and subliminal form of advertising that brainwashes hapless moviegoers. But is it really so bad? There are benefits of this practice that are all too often overlooked.
Cost reduction.
The average cost of a Hollywood movie is between 30 and 40 million dollars. (Terminator 3 cost $175 million.) By acquiring props and locations from a corporation the production can save vast sums of money that can be spent elsewhere (for instance better visual effects or actor’s salaries). It is a common misconception that companies pay to have their products shown. In 95% of cases the company will simply provide the product. These items can range in size from Cars or boats to clothes or drinks cans. In the movie “Gone in sixty second” dozens of vehicles were provided free of charge. Imagine the costs if each car had to be purchased at the full price! (I'd guess about $5 million) Similarly, shooting in a pre-built location such as a restaurant or shop removes the expense of building or renting a specialized location.
Realism.
In the early days of film making prop masters would provide the production with generically labelled products, such as “chocolate” or “soap.” This lack of realism surely draws attention to itself so much so that the integrity and quality of the film suffers. In real life we use real products so why not in the movies? “Cast Away” is a good example of a film being criticised for giving a product too much exposure. Some even went as far as to describe it as a 2 hour Fed Ex commercial. I admit, the service received a great deal of exposure but what was the alternative? Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring planes and trucks and creating a new logo to emblazon on them? Whilst sacrificing authenticity as a result? In fact, Fed Ex were initially reluctant to be involved with the film as they were unsure if their service would be portrayed in a positive light. This is understandable if you think about it. In the movie a Fed Ex plane crashes into the ocean killing the crew and destroying all but a few of its packages! Ultimately the company agreed to be involved thus saving the production a hell of a lot of cash and making the movie more realistic and therefore better.
Nobody benefits from gratuitous product placement, even the corporation. If the integrity of the film is compromised by an obvious placement then the film won’t be as good, less people will watch it and less people will see the products the film contains. If anything it is the corporation that is taking the risk. If their product is portrayed in a bad light then sales could suffer. My point is that studios and filmmakers exploit companies just as much, if not more so, than companies exploit studios. Everyone is a winner and that includes the audience.