From: afoxland@starband.net
Date: Wed, 08/13/03
Anne LandmanPosting Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Product Movie Placement
Company/Source: Brown & Williamson
Date: 19000000 (estimated around year 1983-4)
Length: 5 pages
Bates No. 680118048/8052
URL: http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/268413.html
PDF Format: http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/268413.pdf
This report from Brown & Williamson (B&W) describes the
under-the-radar advertising mechanism through which movie stars were recruited
to use specific cigarette brands in their films in exchange for money and gifts.
The report explains the benefits of placing tobacco products in
movies, and how cigarette companies use stars and their images to subtly market
cigarettes through film:
"Placement of signage/product in movies allows BWT to receive extensive
exposure at minimal costs..."
and,
"Product usage/association with a specific star provides exposure and
linkage with a star's personality/character. S tars tend to set trends, e.g.,
disco dancing with 'Saturday Night Fever'...Association with a specific star's
image can enhance/build a brand's personality -- more so than traditional
media."
The document says that movie placement also allows tobacco companies
to "reach smokers who are light readers."
One "con" listed about placement of cigarette brands in the movies is
that it "could be construed as aiding and abetting tax evasion--primarily
because AFP [the promotion company in charge of placing the product] has been
making payments in cash and gifts, rather than by check." This indicates an
evasive way of compensating actors that may be difficult to trace. Another
"con" is that the cigarette companies could eventually be required to place a
health warning in the film...an indication that the cigarette companies took
advantage of this situation in which they could freely promote their products to
the public without a health warning.
The five-page report recommends that B&W continue its program of
placing cigarette brands in movies, even though the company risked adverse
publicity by doing so. A section of the document entitled "Rationale" minimizes
the risk to B&W of engaging in this practice (which is must have known was
objectionable), and describes how B&W could avoid having to take sole
responsibility for adverse publicity:
"Adverse publicity, if any, will be leveled against entire industry, or
all packaged goods advertisers who use this medium...not just BWT. Thus, the
potential for embarrassment to BWT specifically, is limited."
This document shows how cigarettes could be, and were, placed in
movies without leaving a paper trail, e.g. by "making payments in cash and
gifts, rather than by check," and shows how fully utilizing a novel and
unregulated route of promotion (and beating the compeition in doing it) became
the prime focus of cigarette companies, to the detriment of public health.
Quotes:
BACKGROUND
A. Industry practice
1. BWT [Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co.] has been utilizing a firm
(Associate Film Promotions) to place product in movies and negotiate product
usage arrangements with specific starts. For this, we pay AFP $120M/year.
2. PM has extensive involvement in this area, and as best as we can
determine, they utilize an employee located in California.
3. RJR uses a firm similar to AFP for their product placement
activities.
B. Value of Placements
1. Placement of signage/product in moves allows BWT to receive
extensive exposure at minimal costs. For example, the S. Stallone arrangement
was analyzed on a cost per thousand basis--the resulting estimate CPM [cost per
thousand], not counting sydications, is $30.00, which compares favorably with
that of cinema advertising ($28.00).
Product usage/association with a specific star provides exposure and
linkage with a star's personality/character. Stars tend to set trends, e.g.
disco dancing in "Saturday Nigh Fever."
III. Key Issues
A. Should BWT continue with this program?
Pros
--Can be an effective alternative medium
--Can be cost effective if movie is successful
--Allows BWT to reach smokers who are light readers
--Association with a specific star's image can enhance/build a
brand's personality -- more so than traditional media.
Cons
--Potential for adverse publicity
--Could be construed as aiding and abetting tax evasion -
- primarily because AFP has been making payments in cash and gifts,
rather than by check. --Could be required to include a warning notice.
...IV. RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that BWT continue with a modified version of this
program ...
V. RATIONALE
Adverse publicity, if any, will be leveled against entire industry,
or all packaged goods advertisers who use this medium, not just BWT. Thus, the
potential for embarrassment to BWT specifically, is limited.
B. Our competitors are moving into this potentially effective
marketing area more heavily. If we are not involved, our competitors (especially
PM) would have a significant edge.
VI. PROPOSED PROGRAM
A. Concentrate our resources on special movie placements where a
star actually smokes our brands in a manner clearly visible to viewers and where
our presence in the movie is more apparent, e.g., Budweiser in "North Dallas
Forty," Marlboro in "Apocalypse Now," or KOOL with Sylvester Stallone. For
these efforts, we will be prepared to pay $100M-$250M/movie, depending on star
involvement and quality of movie...
B. For each placement, we will have a written contract directly
with the studios. The contract will specify how our brands will be treated in
each movie. Pay 20% down and the balance 80% payable upon proof-of-placement,
i.e., actual screening of film. Payment will be made directly to studio by
check.
C. Continue to pay AFP $120M/year retainer fee in return for
representing B&W exclusively in tobacco category and arranging special
placements with major movie studios/stars. In addition, we will pay AFP a
commission of $10M for each special placement with a major star...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
Company: Brown & Williamson
Author: Presumed corporate author, Brown & Williamson
Recipient: Presumed corporate recipient, Brown & Williamson
Region: United States
Litigation: 10004026
10004026 02170
10004026 13816
Operation/Project: Product Placement in movies
Type: REPT, REPORT, OTHER
REPORT
Named Organization: MGM, Metro Goldwyn Mayer
BWT, Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Philip Morris
AFP, Associated Film Promotions
R.J. Reynolds
Named Person: Stallone, Sylvester (Movie actor) Accepted
$500,000 for cigarette placement in various movies (BW 690132319)
Subject: Smoking in the movies
promotional campaign
promotions
mass media
advertising activity
advertising expenditure
advertising medium
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along these lines, following is the URL of an agreement between Associated Film
Promotions and Sylvester Stallone for Stallone to use Brown & Williamson tobacco
products in no fewer than five feature films (including "Rocky IV," "Rambo" and
"Godfather III") for a total of $500,000:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=gbh40f00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
Here is Stallone's signed letter of agreement to the above:
http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/cgi/getdoc?tid=gqr03f00&fmt=pdf&ref=results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tobacco document information service is provided by
The American Lung Association of Colorado and Tobacco Documents Online.
To subscribe to Doc-Alert, go to http://smokefree.net/doc-alert
To unsubscribe send any email to [***] (You must unsubscribe using the same
email address under which you originally subscribed.)
To search the Doc-Alert archives, go to:
http://smokefree.net/doc-alert/messages
The archives are contain over 700 past postings of Doc-Alert and are searchable
by keyword, a very useful feature.
Anne Landman
American Lung Association of Colorado
Tobacco Document Research Annex
P.O. Box 23105
Glade Park, CO 81523
(970) 263-9199
Fax (970) 263-9799
afoxland@starband.net
|
