Factors that can influence the cost of a placement

1) The brand’s fame. The bigger this is, the higher the entrance fee will be. The strong awareness of an international brand, for example, can naturally legitimize a higher cost than a placement for a small local brand, for which sometimes only permission to use trade marks, if necessary, is requested. The University of Nevada, mentioned in Dodgeball, directed by Rawson Marshall Thurber in 2004, does not necessarily have the same renown as MIT, mentioned in National Treasure directed by Jon Turteltaub in 2004.

2) Identification of the brand. Certain products are placed or used without, however, the brand being readily identifiable. This is the typical case with stealth placements. The more the brand is identifiable by name, the higher the cost can rise. In the film Paycheck directed by John Woo in 2003, cars, motorcycles, the name, the logo and a dealer for the BMW brand are seen and mentioned.

3) The film’s budget. Here again we find the small production/big production contrast, with at first glance a higher cost for the latter. Large-scale productions, already richly endowed, would not be inter-ested in a budget supplement from a placement. This is partly true, but they are always interested in placement contracts that will bring reciprocal promotion operations to support the film’s release. For several years now, the promotional budget offered by brands partnering a James Bond adventure has been equivalent to, if not greater than, its production costs.

4) The type and genre of the film. Placements can also sometimes be found in small, independent productions. The Windex27 cleaner by SC Johnson is almost a central element in the comedy My Big Fat Greek Wedding directed by Joel Zwick in 2002 [7, p.115]. Naturally, however, even if some of these films achieve major international success, the initial financial ambitions of the producers can hardly carry the same weight as those of an extremely large international production. After the success of the first film, Spider-Man 2 directed by Sam Raimi in 2004 was almost guaranteed a warm reception from the public. Result: Bloomingdale’s, Burger King, Nike, Rolaids, Columbia University, D’Agostino, Dr Pepper, eBay, BMW, Fritos, Joe’s Pizza, Canon, Mercedes, NASA, Steinway & Sons and Bloomberg, among others, placed their brands there [7, p.117].

5) The film’s credits. The producer’s name, as well as that of the director and the actors, has value. It is linked to his or her past films, salary, or simply his or her fame and image. Moreover, it is often capitalized on to promote the film. Consequently, it is understandable that this value comes at a price, and can in some cases contribute to raising the cost for a placement. The chance to appear alongside Denzel Washington, already an Oscar-winner, and in a Tony Scott film to boot, in Man on Fire in 2004, attracted notably Puma, Coca-Cola, Mercedes, Motorola, Casio, Chevrolet, Tabasco and Brother [7, p.134].

6) The location of the placement. As with a shop, not all scenes of a film, or all areas of a cinema screen, necessarily have the same potential for impact. If the placement takes place in a scene of great intensity, and likewise if the brand name is close to the centre of the screen, there may be a placement premium added to the cost. In Sideways directed by Alexander Payne in 2004, wine is a central element of the screenplay, and tasting sessions often provide the opportunity for a central close-up on the beverage [7, p.152].

7) Contact with the principal actors. Integration can reach the point of use by one of the principal actors. Main actor John Cena chooses Coca-Cola from a fridge at a gas station, in The Marine directed by John Bonito in 2006. This contact often provides the opportunity for a testimonial that usually unspoken by the actor, and the placement is therefore more expensive in most cases, since it is completed by the actor’s implicit fee. In the film Rain Man directed by Barry Levinson in 1998, the character of Raymond Babbitt, played by Dustin Hoffman, refuses to travel by plane unless it is with the Australian airline Qantas, whose planes never crash [7, p.164]. In certain cases, the testimonial is matched with a specific payment to the actor, particularly if his or her image is to be used later by the brand. For example, in film Someone Like You directed by Tony Goldwyn in 2001, Ashley Judd confines herself to eating Ben & Jerry’s ice cream onscreen. In another case, like Daniel Craig now, Pierce Brosnan wore an Omega watch in James Bond, and the Swiss brand used the actor simultaneously for its advertising communication. Such a case justifies the drawing-up of a specific parallel contract.

If we suppose that a film achieves a box office of 3 million spectators in France, which would make it a success, its success in cinemas would generally attract a large number of viewers on pay-per-view channels, then on video on demand, then on its transition to general channels, then on reshowings. Eventually, there will be tens of millions of viewers who have seen the film at least once. It is easy to see, therefore, what the same exponential multiplication might mean for a successful US film with a starting base of several tens of millions of viewers, associated with an international exploitation on a large scale, and this over a period of years. It is clear that if we had the means to precisely relate the total cost of the placement to the number of persons exposed to it, the net profitability of this vector would not be in doubt.

Of course, not all films are successful, and the profitability ratio is not always so high. Many conducted studies show that the perception of brands placed grows on the second exposure, for example, watching the DVD after having seen the film at the cinema. This may be explained by the fact that viewers already know the film, and consequently the intrigue of the storyline absorbs less of their attention, allowing them to give more of their time to other elements, such as the props, including notably product placements.