To Product Place... Or Not To Product Place

If you watched the Oscars last night you would've had to endure an additional two or so minutes of your time wasted on product placement--for the Apple iphone and the Nintendo Wii. It was over the top and ill-conceived, if you ask me. We're already subjected to what must amount to an entire hour of commercials throughout the too-long, too-boring show chock full of montages. Why can't I watch the pretty people draped in sparkly jewels who often make strange speeches (thank you, Tilda Swinton) in peace? Frankly, I'm tired of being bombarded with commercials and products and I work in marketing! This is my job! But it's inescapable now. By the time I've had three bites of my dinner I've been told I need to take Nexium and drive a Chrysler. I mean, remember when you there was only two commercial breaks during "Jeopardy"? One between the regular and double Jeopardy questions and another before the final question?

I can pinpoint the exact moment when I first became aware of over-the-top advertising. It was halfway through Men in Black 2, while Wil Smith and Tommy Lee Jones actually spend time in a Sprint store that just happens to be in the middle of the super secret, isolated bad alien bashing headquarters. I was appalled, though at the same time privately amused because if you're a former Sprint subscriber, you know that getting service in the middle of Manhattan was practically as difficult as overthrowing an entire nation of invading aliens, so the chances of Wil Smith picking up his phone to make a call from their HQ are pretty slim.

Since then I've become hyper aware of a marketer's efforts, from the consumer as well as the business side, which is why as both a person with a passion for children's literature and a consumer I was appalled to learn about HarperCollins Children's Book's latest endeavor in a New York Times article by Motoko Rich titled, "In Books For Young, Two Views on Product Placement."

Next year, HarerCollins will publish "Mackenzie Blue," written by Tina Wells, founder of Buzz Marketing - a company that advises other companies on how to market to the teen and pre-teen audience. Now, product placement - especially in books aimed at the status-symbol cravers we know as teens - is not new. But, Ms. Wells intention is for outside companies, like Converse, to be able to sponsor the book is. Yes, you read correctly, SPONSOR. As in how the Oscars are held in the Kodak theater in Los Angeles. Or the L.A. Lakers playing in the Staples center. Soon we could have Junie B. Jones' Adventures with her new Nikon 400 Camera!

HarperCollins isn't the only culprit. The article also mentions the experience of two authors who wrote, "Cathy's Book," published by Penguin in hardcover a few years ago. They worked out a deal with Cover Girl that led to a backlash of the highest order -- even from the new presidential candidate, Ralph Nader! Though it is always said that even bad publicity is good for sales.

"Cathy's Story" and "Mackenzie Blue" aren't the real problem. It's the fact that children as young as ten - or younger - are having brands forced down their throat. Is nothing, not even the blissful selfishness of childhood - sacred? It's no wonder kids are growing up so fast; that they ask for so much. Soon, they won't even be able to read a book without a corporate message, logo, or slogan. What's to happen to all those glorious kids who want to buck the norm? Who don't want to wear Citizen jeans, Uggs, and the Cover Girl's sheer lipsticks.

I'm sorry, literature should stay as just that. Literature. Not a marketing means forced upon kids via large media mania corporations.

I mean, can you imagine Laura Ingalls Wilder in Little House on the Prairie running around in Uggs, while Pa drives off in his Jeep, and Ma hangs up her Downy fresh scented laundry to dry?

No. And that's one final answer I know is correct.

Link