Anne Landman's Collection
Raleigh in Feature Films
Abstract
This letter sent to the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation's marketing department exposes in detail the behind-the-scenes activities cigarette companies go through to get cigarettes placed into major movies.
It is quite revealing. Little do today's moviegoers realize the extent to which they are being be advertised to when viewing major movies. Little do they realize either that (much to the corporations' glee) they are actually paying for the "privilege" of absorbing this unique subliminal advertising.
The writer of this document explains to B & W:
"Cigarettes as Props
1. Recently there have been a number of high-visibility feature films in which one or more of the central characters smoke a particular brand of cigarettes. This has been happening because cigarette manufacturers have been paying for the exposure. Following are some notable examples:
Movie Actor/Character Brand
"Continental Divide" John Belushi Marlboro "Superman II" Margot Kidder Marlboro "Pennies from Heaven" Steve Martin Camel "Prince of the City" Treat Williams & Merit or key supporting players Marlboro "Absence of Malice" Sally Fields Carleton
Participation in movies is not limited merely to actors smoking a particular brand. For example, 'Superman II' also included a classic fight scene in which Superman and the bad guys throw a Marlboro truck back and forth at each other on Lexington Avenue. This truck was produced solely for the movie and exists nowhere else. There are other instances of cigarette advertising serving as part of the scenery (c.f. 'Neighbors', 'Pennies from Heaven')."
Under the section entitled "RATIONALE," the writer explains that:
"By appearing in movies, RALEIGH will be receiving an implied third party endorsement. In the movie context this endorsement is considered very impactful since unlike the passive exposure of advertising and PR, the movie exposure requires a pro-active role for the viewer (i.e, the viewer must _go_ to the theatre and _pay_ to watch the films)."
He also explains how the placement of cigarettes in the movies favorably impacts the audience towards the brand"
"...Although the placement _may_ not be consistent with RALEIGH's image, the placements will almost certainly be consistent ith some psycho framework into which the viewer wants to project. The Brand can become identified with something or someone that is desireable to a specific viewer set."
According to this document, the practice of paying to place products in movies is practically ubiquitous. The writer lists some other products whose manufacturers and/or service providers have placed them in movies: "Coppertone, Budweiser, Coors, Apple Computers, Kawasaki, United Airlines and American Airlines are a few other sponsors who have recently bought into films."
User-Contributed Notes
- p. 1 #1
Fields
- Notes
Thanks to Stan Glantz for bringing this document do Doc-Alert's attention.
- Quotes
January 8, 1982
Mr. Mark Schofield BROWN & WILLIAMSON TOBACCO CORPORATION
Re: RALEIGH in Feature Films
We have an outstanding opportunity to have RALEIGH cigarettes or RALEIGH advertising featured in general release movies. Specifically, we recommend spending a maximum of $20M over a year to be featured in at least 9 films.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Cigarettes as Props
1. Recently there have been a number of high-visibility feature films in which one or more of the central characters smoke a particular brand of cigarettes. This has been happening because cigarette manufacturers have been paying for the exposure. Following are some notable examples:
Movie Actor/Character Brand
"Continental Divide" John Belushi Marlboro "Superman II" Margot Kidder Marlboro "Pennies from Heaven" Steve Martin Camel "Prince of the City" Treat Williams & Merit or key supporting players Marlboro "Absence of Malice" Sally Fields Carleton
Participation in movies is not limited merely to actors smoking a particular brrand. For example, "Superman II" also included a classic fight scene in which Superman and the bad guys throw a Marlboro truck back and forth at each other on Lexington Avenue. This truck was produced solely for the movie and exists nowhere else. There are other instances of cigarette advertising serving as part of the scenery (c.f. "Neighbors", "Pennies from Heaven").
2. Not only cigarettes use movies for the message. Coppertone, Budweiser, Coors, Apple Computers, Kawasaki, United Airlines and American Airlines are a few other sponsors who have recently bought into films.
B. Some Movie Facts
1. The lead time between seeking product placement in a film and finally appearing on screen is quite long--12-18 months. From a go decision it takes 3-6 months to secure an appropriate placement situation. From there, it takes an additional 9-12 monhts to shoot, edit, print and release the film.
2. A typical movie has a life cycle of 2-2 1/2 years domestically. It is released first into theatres, next to cable TV and finally to commercial TV. During its life cycle and through this distribution sequence, the typical film will generate 100 million (!) impressions. Blockbusters are of course higher, for instance, "Smokey and the Bandit" has over 250 million viewer impressions and is still being re-run on commerical TV.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Agency recommends spending $20M over a year to employ Unique Product Placement (UPP) to have RALEIGH cigarettes/advertising appear in at least 9 films.
A. Upon our contracting Unique Product Placement, it will begin canvassing film producers towards uncovering properties which are felt to fit our demographic guidelines (e.g., no children's movies, no women-oriented movies). During this canvassing, UPP will determine which films are open to cigarette placement. We will then receive a precis with credits for each film opportunity. It si then our go/no-go decision depending on our feeling towards the film's expected psychographic sppeal and image.
B. it is functionally inoperative to ask UPP to search for truck and/or country and western and/or "good-ole-boy" movies. There are simply not that many of them made and even among these oour opportunities are limited.
C. We will have not control over how the cigarettes and/or advertising materials are used other than to require proper usage and no disparagement. Once we have committed to a specific film we have absolutely no editorial control.
D. We will cut a deal with UPP whereby they will begin to be paid only after it has delivered the first film or at least demonstrated substantial positive activity. We will pay them $5,000 at the end of month 3 unless we are dissatisfied with their efforts, in which case we will cancel at no cost. This procedure will recur every third month. We consider placement in 9 films during the first twelve months to be a reasonable expectation; UPP concurs. As noted earlier, it will take 3-4 months to develop the first placement. After this however, subsequent placements will not take nearly as long since there will be some familiarity between us and the film producers.
III. RATIONALE
A. By appearing in movies, RALEIGH will be receiving an implied third party endorsement. In the movie context this endorsement is considered very impactful since unlike the passive exposure of advertising and PR, the movie exposure requires a pro-active role for the viewer (i.e, the viewer must _go_ to the theatre and _pay_ to watch the films).
B. Although the placement _may_ not be consistent with RALEIGH's image, the placements will almost certainly be consistent ith some psycho framework into which the viewer wants to project. The Brand can become identified with something or someone that is desireable to a specific viewer set.
C. RALEIGH has the opportunity to compete head on with Camel and Marlboro in this unusual media opportunity before being preempted. Currently, as noted earlier, there are a number of cigarette brands involved in film placement. Based on conversations with product placers, it appears the frequency of cigarette placement is rapidly growing and potential properties are becoming increasiling difficult to locate. If the Brand does not act soon, this particular area of unusual media may become unbuyable.
D. The risk to the Brand is quite low--a top of $20M annually. Furthermore, if we are not satisfied after the first three months, we have not spent any money at all. There is always the possibility that the Brand may become a key element in a blockbuster movie (c.f. "Marlboro in "Superman II).
E. The cost efficiency is incredibly low. If we spend $30M to appear in 9 movies each with viewership of 100M, our cost-per-thousand is 2.2 cents ! Assume that our placements are in movies that bomb, that instead of 100MM per film, ours generate only 5MM viewers each, 1.20 of the norm. Even for this disastrous case, RALEIGH CPM would be 44.4 cents. This is still roughtly half of 30-sheet and 1/18 of 1P4/C.
--There is no way to measure the impact of a film placment versus standard units in conventional media; the placment form will be different for each incident. Based on this writer's observations, the placments would cover a realm ranging from from small space ROP to 30-second prime-time TV.
F. While not considered overwhelming powerful in recard to impact and recall, the overall effect of a program of film placement can only be to _add_ to the impact and ad recall generated by the Brand's base marketing plan.
G. Given film's distribution system, the Brand would be virutally guaranteed electronic exposure 2 1/2 - 3 years after commitment.
H. Product placement fims other than UPP have been reviewed, however many have dubious reputations and some of the remainder already handle cigarettes. UPP has a fine reputation, a solid track record and they are avaialble. Attached are a UPP fact sheet, letters of praise from producers and clients and still from various films they have been involved with. It is a complete, impressive package.
IV. _NEXT STEPS_
Please advise us as soon as you can whether we can proceed. Time is tight since UPP has been approached by "another cigarette company" (we believe it to be American), but they have agreed to wait a reasonable time to hear back from us. We hope to have a decision by January 22.
Please call if you have any questions.
Corially, Dennis O'Donnell
encl.
- Company
- Brown & Williamson
- Author
- Odonnell, D.
- Recipient
- Schofield, M.W. (B&W Marketing Dept.; Asst Brand Mgr various brands)Worked for Brown & Williamson in the Marketing Department as ASsistant Brand Manager of KOOL special lights in 1978; Senior brand manager of Raleigh 1980-81; Senior Brand Manager of Barclay 1982-83; Also managed brands Raleigh, Plug, SWR, Snuff DuMaruier, Laredo, Long Cut and Trade from 1979-80. Assistant brand manager of KSL, New Products, Purite Filter in 1979.
Document Images
