Those of you who know me, know that I’m all over the more subtle aspects of marketing and how things are changing in this regard. So, it should come as no surprise that I’m really intrigued by the conversations taking place in venues like Rick Liebling’s eyecube and Rob Walker’s Journal of Murketing.
One of the more interesting topics they’ve latched onto of late is that of Product Displacement, a term coined by Gladys Santiago on her blog. What is it, you ask? Well, we all know how prevalent (and annoying) product placement has become in film and television – anyone else remember the famous parody on product placement by Mike Myers in Wayne’s World?
But have you also noticed the fake brands that have made their way into shows like Scrubs(Cofee Bucks) and 30 Rock(the Slanket) ? Gladys calls these “fictionalized brands”, because unlike the fictional Acme brand we all got used to thanks to Wile E. Coyote, the fictionalized brands are all trading on familiar signals that established brands tweak in our brains.
Take the Coffee Bucks brand from scrubs:
Can anyone watching this actually say with a straight face that this doesn’t enhance brand recall for you-know-who? Which begs the question:
Instead of annoying viewers with clumsy attempts at clutter-busting in the way of product placement, wouldn’t it be smarter for brands to fictionalize themselves? If it went unnoticed, they would still get the subliminal recall impact they’re looking for, and if not, then it would still make a positive impact with consumers who may appreciate brands willing to spoof themselves?
To me, this is just like Dad’s old business cards, which listed his credentials: Charles D. Ferreira (F.S.S. A.M. T.F.R. N.S.O. (S.O.)) Impressive, no? Well, those to whom certifications were important would never ask what it stood for, for surely they should know. But for those who didn’t really care, he would explain: Failed Standard Six, Also Matric, Tried Furniture Rep, Now Shop Fitter, Sort Of. They’d laugh their ass off and think he was hilarious… worked both ways and endeared clients to him regardless of their interpretation. Genius.
Well to me, Product Displacement is no different. Smart academic that she is, Gladys Santiago explains it very eloquently on her blog:
It requires no stretch of the imagination to recognize “Tit Tat” and “Coffee Bucks” as stand-ins for real brands, but that recognition allows audiences to engage with product placements in a manner that is significantly more encompassing than simply spotting a branded product onscreen. Referencing these product displacements to their real world counterparts requires audiences to actively draw upon their cultural capital and awareness, therefore they have more resonance than a strategically placed can of Coca-Cola or character mindlessly raving about his/her T-Mobile phone. Ultimately, product displacements have the opportunity to flatter the intelligence of viewers, especially if they are parodic and satirical in nature.
Moves like this contribute heavily to what Liebling calles a Deeply Immersive Narrative Universe for consumers. Since we all like stories, and if you believe like I do after reading Rob Walker’s book, that we are all in a constant state of authoring a narrative for ourselves that has as it’s central character ourselves, then Product Displacement provides a means for us to develop even richer narratives with more complex connections to brands. Fascinating idea…
Thoughts? Any examples you’ve come across recently?
Tags: Murketing, product placement
Great post! I’m glad you explained the difference between fictional and fictionalized brands. “Product Displacement provides a means for us to develop even richer narratives with more complex connections to brands.” EXACTLY! Thanks for posting!
Good stuff Devon, thanks for including me. The crazy thing is, the Slanket ISN’T a fictional product/parody of the Snuggie, it actually came before it!
You’re very welcome Rick – all good stuff! Wondering what the thought process was like when the Snuggie execs decided to try and better the Slanket?
Really interesting post, Devon, and that Scrubs video really makes the point. If they actually used Starbucks, I think I would have tuned out, thinking “what an annoying product placement.” I’d never heard of product displacement before, but you’re right, that made the video fun and involving.
The psychology of why this works is what really appeals to me. Something akin to the affection that’s engendered by self-deprecating humor perhaps?
[...] to do when your brand becomes a liability written by Devon – July 23rd, 2009 In one of my recent posts I highlighted the innovative use of Product Displacement as a humorous and clever means for [...]