Research Shows That Product Placement in Television and Movies Favorably Affects the Viewer's Attitutude Toward a Product; Leads to an Increase in Sales

Product placement, or the deliberate placement of products in movies and television shows, has become a very popular method of advertisement. Having viewers see characters using certain products is an effective way of increasing favorable attitudes towards that product. The increasing support of these products due to product placement leads to an overall increase in sales.

An Increase in Viewer's Favorable Attitudes Toward a Product Leads to an Increase in Sales

According to a recent study on the correlation between a viewer's exposure to product placement and their resulting purchase behavior, the use of product placement in movie and TV shows is statistically proven to lead to an increase in sales of that product. One major example of this correlation is the increase in sales of Reese's Pieces after the release of ET in 1982. ET featured an Alien that had a love for Reese's Pieces. Just three months after the release of this movie featuring this product, sales had increased by 65 percent.

In an interview with Dr. Henry Boyd, a marketing professor at the University of Maryland, Boyd talks about the effectiveness of product placement and relates his opinion to the "classic example" of ET. Boyd also talks about how the movie originally wanted to use M&M's in the movie, but the company, Mars, declined the offer. Obviously Mars missed out on a huge advertising opportunity most likely because they were not aware of the effectiveness of product placement. Reese's pieces saw this opportunity and because of the use of their products in the ET storyline, the popularity of this product greatly increased.

Viewer's Attachments to Characters Using the Products is Directly Correlated to the Increase in Favorable Attitudes Towards a Product

 A study on the relationship between consumers and characters shows that a viewer's attitude toward a product and their likelihood to buy the product greatly increases if they see a character they are attached to using the product. For this reason, studies show that product placement is much more effective in TV shows, mostly because they air for long periods of time, allowing the viewer to become attached to a certain character. Movies do not have this advantage, as they usually only run for about two hours. TV shows usually run for many seasons, which allows long-time viewers to become captivated in the lives of the characters for years.

The image to the right is from a scene in the hit TV series "Desperate Housewives," which ran for a total of eight seasons and eight years. This was a long time for viewers to become attached to the characters and their fictional lives. The image features one of the main characters, Gabrielle, standing in front of a car that is clearly advertised as a Buick. This advertisement was very effective as it was featured in a very popular show that has viewers that have become attached to this character. The obvious support that Gabrielle for this car is likely to
favorably affect the attitude some viewers have toward this car.

 In a survey on product placement, 73 percent of people believe that product placement in TV shows was more effective than product placement in movies. The higher effectiveness of product placement in TV than in movies is due to the viewer's attachment to the characters, and in the same survey, 75 percent of people agree that viewing their favorite character using a product favorably changes their attitude towards that product.
                          
                                 
It is very common for TV shows and movies to use characters that are portrayed to the audience as important or powerful for the placement of products, as that has the most influence on the viewers. Viewers are likely to want to try a product after seeing an influential character using that same product. The attachment the viewer has to this character can lead to a slight attachment to the product, as they will now associate it with that character. Boyd speaks on the placement of products in the popular TV show "House of Cards" and the effect it has on viewers.

Companies Use Product Placement as Advertisement with Hopes of Increasing Sales

When companies pay to have their product embedded in the storyline of a TV show or movie, they have one goal in mind: to increase the sales of their products. Paying for this kind of advertisement is somewhat of an economic risk for the companies, but the effectiveness of product placement is very high and usually pays off in the long run. The effectiveness of product placement lies within the fact that most viewers do not even realize that they are being exposed to it. Viewers are being advertised to and are not usually aware of what is happening. Companies know this which is why product placement has become such a popular form of advertisement. Boyd addresses the goals that companies have when using product placement and says that all companies want to enhance their brand, and they can do this through product placement.

Product placement on TV and Movies is a much more discreet form of advertisement than commercials or previews. When a viewer is watching a movie or TV program, they are very tuned in and are focused on what they are watching. This is very different from how a viewer watches commercials or previews. Most people do not pay very close attention to these and the advertisements do not affect their attitude towards a product. In movies and TV, the placement of products does not distract the viewer from what they are watching because sometimes they are not even aware of what they are seeing. If a viewer does notice the deliberate placement of a product into the storyline of what they are watching, their attitude is likely to become more favorable of that product due to their attachment to the storyline or character. This is what companies are hoping would happen and what will help them to reach their goal of increasing sales. The TV and movie industries are rapidly growing due to the easy availability of both, and this is fueling the overall growth of product placement advertisement.

Ten Phsyicians Claim Dr. Oz Promotes "Quack Treatments" and Want Him Fired From Columbia University's Medical Faculty

• Physicians wrote a letter to Columbia University claiming that Dr. Oz does not support science-based medicine and think he should be removed from his position
• "Quack Treatments" include Dr. Oz's support of "miracle" weight loss supplement
• Oz defends himself against these claims and has not been removed from Columbia University

Dr. Oz is a Cardiothoracic surgeon who holds a faculty position at Columbia University, but also has his own T.V. show. His show covers topics relating to health and medicine, but Dr. Oz has recently come under fire for his support of questionable treatments and weight loss supplements.

A letter to Columbia University from well renowned physicians request Dr. Oz to be fired, says Fox news article.

An article from Fox news about the controversy over Dr. Oz's position at Columbia University explains that the ten physicians, led by Dr. Henry Miller from Standford University, wrote a letter stating that they think Oz should be removed from the faculty. They wrote this letter because they believe Oz strongly despises the use of science-backed medicine and instead supports the use of nontraditional treatments that are not only ineffective, but unsafe for all of his viewers and patients. They also claim that he promotes the use of these "quack treatments" in hopes of increasing his own financial gain and that he shows a tremendous lack of integrity.

Oz's nontraditional medical practices originally became under fire last year, when he had to appear in front of the senate and was accused of supporting products that were "medically unsound." This video shows that when Oz was confronted, he eventually admitted that some of the products he endorses are not supported scientifically.

The most controversial product that Oz supported was the "miracle" weight loss supplement that Oz described as "magic." Critics proclaimed that Oz was giving people false hope and unrealistic and unhealthy medical advice. Although Oz is under extreme criticism and is being exposed regarding all of his questionable treatments, the letter to Columbia University has not resulted in the removal of Oz from his position. The university stated that they will not be firing Oz because of their commitment to "upholding faculty members' freedom of expression for statements they make in public discussion."

This article does the best job covering this story because it answers most questions that a reader would have regarding this controversy. The article describes the main "quack" medical practices that Oz supports, it explains what sparked the controversy, and gives background information on a few of the physicians that wrote the letter to Columbia University. The article also goes on to explain what is happening as a result of this letter, stating that Dr. Oz has not yet been fired.

E! News article states that Dr. Oz is defending himself and plans to address the claims made in the letter on his show next week. 

Another article covering this story from E! News provides more details regarding Dr. Oz's response to the letter. Oz plans to explain his stance on many medical practices and defend himself in his next episode of his show. In his original statement regarding the letter, he defends himself by stating that he never fully supports these "quack treatments" that he is accused of, but instead provides various points of view about the subject. He also claims that he brings information to the public to help them better themselves, when in reality he is supporting medical practices that could be potentially harmful to his viewers and patients. The article goes on to cover the main points of the controversy, as the previous article did, but emphasizes Oz's role in his TV show and that he publicly tells his viewers non science-backed information on the show, such that GMO's should not be trusted.

The article provides adequate details covering the story, just as the previous article did, but E! News is an entertainment news website, not a traditional news source, so some might say the website is not as reliable as other sources. Dr. Oz is not only a doctor, but also has his own TV show, which also ads to the bias that E! News might have towards the subject, seeing that they are involved in the television industry. Regardless of the bias that this website might have regarding the subject, the article does a good job relaying the facts to the reader and has a strong explanatory headline that is useful to the reader.

The letter says that Dr. Oz is endangering the public, stated in this Time article


In this article by Time magazine, more excerpts from the letter are included revealing to the reader more about why the doctors were so upset with Dr. Oz holding a position in Columbia University's faculty. One main quote states that the physicians believe "members of the public are being misled and endangered" by Dr. Oz due to his unacceptable "pathology" and harmful medical advice. This article also supports the physicians' claims in the article by including a survey that states only 46 percent of the advice Dr. Oz gives on his show is backed by scientific evidence. The rest is all "quack treatments" and recommendations, just as the physicians that wrote the letter are claiming.

Although this article includes a survey and more insight into what the letter is actually saying, this is the worst coverage out of all three articles. The headline "Group of Doctors Tells Columbia University to Fire Dr. Oz" is not explanatory because it does not tell the reader key information. The headline leaves out who Dr. Oz is in regards to the university, and also why the doctors believe he should be fired. A better headline for this story would include the claim that Dr. Oz supports "quack treatments" and that he is a part of the faculty at Columbia University's medical center.

Other elements that could be added to this article to improve the coverage of the story would be to include the following information:

• Specific examples of the "quack treatments" Dr. Oz supports
• Background information of the Dr. Oz controversy, including his appearance in front of the Senate panel
• Explanatory pictures that emphasize the controversy surrounding Dr. Oz
• More details regarding the physicians who sent the letter
• Use a study from a different source other than Time to avoid bias

 All of these pieces of information are included in the other articles covering the story, which is why the Time article is the worst coverage. The other two articles fully explained the situation to the reader and even provided background knowledge about when Dr. Oz first became a controversial topic. Although the Time magazine was not the best article, overall, all three articles give the reader valuable information and do a good job explaining the controversy that has erupted due to the questionable practices of Dr. Oz.

Protests Against Racial Inequality Following the Death of Michael Brown Continue In Ferguson

After Michael Brown was shot and killed in Ferguson, protests began and quickly turned into protests concerning racial divides and inequalities in the ares. This visual data organizer highlights the inequalities of the justice and law enforcement systems in Ferguson. The data shows that in 2013, 10 times as many black people were arrested than white people. The data also shows that most stops and searches in 2013 involved black people, iferring that racial profiling is most likely occurring. The data also highlights the main reason why people are protesting in Ferguson, which is that there is

a huge divide between races in this city and that it is very likely that black people are being profiled and denied their civil rights.


The second image shows two white men holding a banner that states "Black Lives Matter." This scene actually contradicts the fact that there is a racial divide in Ferguson and shows that many people, no matter their race, do actually care about equality in that city. It also shows that the protests might be working and the racial divide could be becoming less prominent. 

Both the picture and the data organizer show that there is an ongoing problem involving the inequality among races in Ferguson. The data chart highlights the inequalities and the picture shows that people in the city are tired of the racial divide and are protesting against it. Although the two images tell different stories, they support each other by showing different aspects of the same, larger story, which is the protests against inequality in Ferguson.

I'm Jillian, an undecided Freshman, and I am currently taking a variety of many courses to try and narrow down my interests and possible majors. My current interests for majors are Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, Architecture, Environmental Science, and Journalism.