Latest news with #productplacement
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Getting On The Shelf Is Only Half The Sale
Joel Goldstein is the President of Mr. Checkout Distributors. You finally did it. Your product made it to the shelf. It's sitting upright, facing front, ready to meet its future. But here's the truth: Most brands learn too late that getting on the shelf is only half the sale. Retail isn't a destination—it's a dynamic living, breathing environment where products compete not just on price or packaging, but on presence. Once you're stocked, the clock starts ticking. The product must move. And if it doesn't, you're not on the shelf—you're on borrowed time. Too many brands believe that placement is success. They celebrate the purchase order (PO) and forget the sell-through. But retail is ruthless. If your product sits too long, it becomes background noise. It fades. And eventually, it's replaced. Your job doesn't end when the delivery arrives—it begins. This is where the smart brands separate themselves. The ones who show up after the sale—who check inventory, ask questions and support the retailer, not just invoice them. We saw this firsthand with a small, family-owned gourmet popcorn company we worked with—handmade, five bold flavors in eye-popping bags. They landed a dozen independent retailers in their first month. But instead of moving on to chase more, they circled back. They walked the aisles. They trained the clerks. They set up tasting stations on Saturday afternoons. Customers got to try it. Staff got to love it. Retailers saw it fly off the shelves. That same product, placed and left alone, would've stalled. Not because it wasn't good, but because nothing sells itself anymore. Not even popcorn. Movement matters. Retailers may like your story, but they love results. You must be more than charming—you must be proven. When your product moves, you buy yourself more time, more space and more trust. Don't confuse marketing with motion. Ads are great. Instagram posts help. But a strategic hand-sell from a trusted store owner will always outperform a paid placement. If you want a real edge, give retailers the tools to sell for you. Arm them with talking points. Give them signage. Let them feel like part of your story. Because when they believe in your product, they don't just stock it—they sell it. Actively. With pride. With personal conviction. And that kind of support can't be bought. It's built. There's also the hard truth: If your product isn't moving, you need to know. Not months later, when the PO's dry. Now. A retailer who gives honest feedback is worth more than any distributor who gives you scale without insight. Take their input seriously. Change what isn't working. Iterate quickly. Retail rewards the responsive. Getting on the shelf is your product's first day of school. The world won't adjust to it—it must learn to stand out, perform and be picked. And your job as the brand is to stay close, pay attention and guide that growth. Because no matter how beautiful your packaging or how unique your ingredients, if your product doesn't move, it doesn't stay. And in retail, shelf space isn't owned—it's earned again and again. So get on the shelf, yes. But don't stop there. Turn your product into a presence. Turn your placement into pull. Be seen. Be tried. Be talked about. Because half a sale isn't enough. Not when the next product is always waiting. Forbes Business Development Council is an invitation-only community for sales and biz dev executives. Do I qualify?
The Sun
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- The Sun
Hollyoaks rapped by Ofcom over ‘shameless' scenes that left fans fuming
HOLLYOAKS has been rapped by Ofcom after airing 'shameless' product placement that viewers slammed as blatant advertising. The Channel 4 soap breached two broadcasting rules when it featured the ClearScore app during a February 18 episode. 4 The financial tech brand was name-checked in dialogue and prominently shown on screen. Now, media regulator Ofcom has upheld those concerns, ruling the segment broke guidelines around undue prominence and promotional content. Rule 9.10 of the broadcasting code states that "references to placed products, services and trade marks must not be unduly prominent", while Rule 9.9 adds they "must not be promotional". In the episode, Ste Hay — played by Kieron Richardson — is seen discussing the app with his son Lucas, portrayed by Oscar Curtis, as they consider buying a new laptop. Ste pulls out his phone, opens the ClearScore app, and explains: 'See this? They've shown me some options – based on my financial situation and it looks like I can get you that laptop for your studies.' He then tells Lucas: 'I really want you to make a go of this, Lucas – (gesturing to the ClearScore app on his phone) and these guys are going to help me make it happen.' The regulator concluded the segment felt more like a demonstration than a natural part of the storyline — and effectively acted as a promotion for the brand. Channel 4 admitted the app was featured as part of a product placement deal, separate to ClearScore's existing sponsorship of the show. However, it insisted the inclusion was 'editorially justified'. In a submission to Ofcom, the broadcaster said: 'Part of the sponsorship and product placement agreements [was that] potential integrations into existing storylines were proposed to ClearScore by the programme editorial team, in consultation with the programme compliance team.' It also stressed: 'ClearScore had no editorial input into the storyline of the programme.' Hollyoaks reveals Ethan's murderer after he was pushed over a balcony on his wedding day The plot at the time revolved around Ste rebuilding his family life after losing a partner and spending a year in a coma. Channel 4 said his return to work and efforts to reconnect with his son were central themes — with financial struggles part of the arc. But Ofcom wasn't convinced. It concluded that the references to ClearScore exceeded what was justified by the storyline and became promotional in nature. A Channel 4 spokesperson responded to the ruling: 'We acknowledge Ofcom's decision and will review its findings carefully. Our compliance responsibilities are of paramount importance to us and we will continue to engage with Ofcom and our partners to ensure our content remains compliant.' The moment also sparked fury online, with some fans complaining over the blatant advertising. 4 4 4 One viewer wrote at the time: "Not the ClearScore ad in #Hollyoaks, couldn't have been more obvious if they tried." Another reacted to the scene, saying: 'Ste and this ClearScore product placement is so weird.' Meanwhile, a third viewer shared their frustration: "Is the ClearScore advert really starting to aggravate anyone else or is it just me?" A spokesperson for Channel 4 said that all of the product placement on Channel 4 programming adheres to the relevant regulation, and is not connected to show budgets. They added: 'Product placement is a long established part of many TV shows, as well as content on other platforms. ClearScore is a natural fit with Hollyoaks which attracts viewers who, like the show's beloved characters, face financial challenges in the current economic climate.' Channel 4 announced the ClearScore sponsorship last year, with the partnership going live in October. The deal includes ClearScore idents across Hollyoaks episodes on E4, Channel 4, and streaming platforms, as well as ads on Channel 4's YouTube channel. The agreement, brokered by Medialab and creative agency And Rising, also includes in-show product placement as part of the licensing arrangement. Hollyoaks has previously been known for addressing serious social issues, and the addition of product integration comes amid wider industry budget pressures. Budget cuts at the corporation has seen the episode order slashed to just three 20 minute episodes per week and a mass cull of cast and crew. In September, it aired a dramatic year-long time jump to explain the huge changes to the cast and relaunch the show as a three-nights a week soap. An insider said: "There's a worry high profile cast members may see this as an opportunity to leave the show. "While they're all very supportive of the soap, the reduced budget and seeing friends and colleagues leave after so many years takes its toll." From Hollyoaks to Hollywood James Corden played a caretaker in the early days of the soap. The former American TV host doesn't have much positive to say about his time on the soap, claiming it was "hell on earth." Since his short-lived time on the show he has gone on to bigger things including smash hit comedy Gavin and Stacey. Rachel Shenton joined the soap as aspiring glamour model Mitzeee Minniver in 2010. Over two years her character was sent to prison, got pregnant and had a number of romantic affairs. Since leaving Hollyoaks she has won an Oscar for best live action short film, The Silent Child. Rachel has also starred in White Gold and All Creatures Great and Small Emmett J. Scanlan played gangster turned anti-hero Brendan Brady. Emmett played the love interest of Steve Hayes, with their romance delighting fans until it turned violent. Since his departure Emmett has appeared in Peaky Blinders, The Fall, Gangs of London and even appeared in Guardians of the Galaxy Emma Rigby joined Hollyoaks when she was 15 as Hannah Ahsworth. Hannah's eating disorder storyline was the first of it's kind on TV while other plots included being caught in a fire, gangland drug dealing and running away. Since leaving the soap in 2010 Emma has gone on to star in ABCs Once Upon a Time in Wonderland as the Red Queen. Other roles include guest appearances in Death In Paradise, Ripper Street and Fresh Meat Nico Mirallegro got his big break with Hollyoaks starring as emo Barry 'Newt' Newton. Nico's main storyline in the soap was developing schizophrenia which culminated in a suicide pact. He left the soap in 2010 and went on to star in My Mad Fat Diary, Our Girl, Rillington Place, The Ark and Common, Penance, as well as the Mike Leigh movie Peterloo and was nominated for a Bafta for his role in period drama The Village. Ricky Whittle used Hollyoaks as a stepping stone to break America. He played one of the soap's resident hunks, Calvin Valentine, from 2006 to 2011 - when he was killed off at his wedding. After leaving the soap Ricky cracked America starring in teen drama The 100 and America Gods. He also appeared in Strictly Come Dancing in 2009. Warren Brown joined Hollyoaks in 2005 for a year as evil Andy Holt. His stint on the show consisted of date rape storylines and a crime spree, before eventually being killed off. After leaving Hollyoaks, Warren became a big hitter in TV playing DS Justin Ripley in Luther, as well as major roles in a number of dramas including Liar, The Responder, Homefront and Good Cop. Wallis Day played Holly Cunningham in the soap for years before leaving. In 2021 Wallis won the role of Batwoman in DC's series, taking over from Ruby Rose.
Telegraph
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- Telegraph
10 scenes ruined by ridiculous product placement
When you go to the cinema or turn on your television, chances are that you are going to have something sold to you, ideally very subtly, while you watch it. There is a reason why technology and luxury goods companies pay millions to have their products displayed on screen, and that is because this kind of subliminal advertising is supposed to work. However, sometimes they overstep the mark, which is deemed to be what happened when Channel 4 soap Hollyoaks was deemed to have breached Ofcom's rules after an episode made both verbal and visual reference to the financial services app ClearScore. Of course, the advertisement of goods on-screen in film and television has existed since the medium came into being, and, at its best, can transform the fortunes of a product. Sales of Ray-Ban Aviator sunglasses soared after Tom Cruise wore them in Top Gun (and its sequel), and after M&Ms refused to allow their sweets to be used on-screen in ET, Reese's Pieces were only too happy to oblige instead. They duly reaped the benefits of their confectionery becoming every child's go-to treat that summer. Put the right product in the right film or series in the right context, and the results can be stellar. Get it wrong, however, and it can either be humiliating, bizarre or both. It was not for nothing that both Wayne's World and Arrested Development had some of their best jokes revolving around the egregious promotion of on-screen products, and audiences now are savvier than ever about being given the hard sell through cynically thought-out marketing schemes. Here are 10 occasions when the product placement went that bit too far, and the picture or show suffered as a result. Wings (1927) The first film to win Best Picture at the Oscars was a silent aeronautical epic that introduced many cinematic precedents, including a pioneering use of product placement that now seems comically on-the-nose. Although it was not the first picture to contain an advertisement of a commercially available product (that would be 1920s short film The Garage, with Red Crown petrol), there is a scene in which a young Gary Cooper, playing the Tom Cruise-Maverick character of his day, firstly impresses two would-be pilots by telling them about his daredevil antics, and then produces a bar of Hershey's chocolate. The full-screen close-up, with the camera lingering on the chocolate just that bit too long, established a more unwelcome trend that continues to this day. Mac and Me (1988) McDonald's and its wares has been found in countless films, not least those aimed at children, and the fast food giant is all too aware of the power of the commercial tie-ins that it specialises in. However, the worst picture that it has ever been associated with is almost certainly the dismal E.T rip-off Mac and Me, which focuses on the friendship between a young boy and a 'Mysterious Alien Creature' (or MAC) but in fact seems to exist as an extended advertisement for the Golden Arches, to say nothing of Coca-Cola. How else to explain a bizarre, almost horrific extended scene at a McDonald's establishment, complete with a terrifying Ronald McDonald himself dancing madly? Still, its producer RJ Louis – a former advertising executive who worked on McDonald's campaigns – could at least proudly boast that he was 'still the only person in the universe that ever had the exclusive motion picture rights to the McDonald's trademark, their actors, their characters and the whole company'. Yes, and Mac and Me – a film in which a child in a wheelchair flies off a cliff – is the miserable result. You've Got Mail (1998) Back in 1998, Starbucks was still a relatively hip coffee chain that had pioneered initiatives like jazz being played in their stores, exotic iced drinks with names like 'Frappuccino' and comfy sofas to lounge on. All well and good, but none of this excuses the sheer ubiquity of its name-checking and on-screen presence in the Meg Ryan-Tom Hanks romantic comedy You've Got Mail. For a film about the struggle of the quirky independent (Ryan's bookstore owner) against The Man (Hanks's bookshop chain owner), there is an awful lot of emphasis on them all visiting Starbucks (yes, including Ryan, who is otherwise vociferously anti-corporations). In a line that has become duly (in)famous, Hanks's character has a mini-monologue about how the coffee chain specialises in being all things to all men, ending with a remarkable line reading of the words 'Tall. Decaf. Cappuccino!' Cast Away (2000) Hanks must have enjoyed his experience of acting alongside commercial products, because one of his next big roles came a couple of years later when he played FedEx systems analyst Chuck Noland, who is shipwrecked when a FedEx cargo plane crashes and must fend for himself on an uninhabited tropical island. While the film attracted much attention for the Wilson volleyball who becomes a mute companion of sorts to Noland, its central message – that Noland will ensure that the last surviving FedEx package will eventually make it to its destined recipient – means that the film (which has not endured especially well) ultimately plays out as the longest, most expensive FedEx advert ever made. It is almost a surprise, when the end credits begin, not to hear a voiceover deliver the parting line: 'FedEx: getting you your deliveries, whatever the circumstances.' Casino Royale (2006) Daniel Craig and Martin Campbell rebooted the Bond franchise for an edgier, post-Bourne audience, and the results are still terrific. Less tremendous, however, is the sheer amount of product placement on show, as if producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson had taken fright at the potential cost of making an 007 film and had chosen to offset their expense against as many on-screen commercial partners as possible. You'll find everything from Heineken to Virgin Atlantic here, but there are a couple of truly excruciating moments, whether it's Bond driving, of all things, a Ford Mondeo, or the scene in which, asked by Eva Green's Vesper Lynd if he's wearing a Rolex, he replies 'Omega', only for Vesper to purr 'Beautiful.' Apparently the various advertisers paid $100 million to have their wares displayed on screen. For a franchise often (and rightly) criticised for its over-reliance on commercial tie-ins, this was a scheme worthy of a Bond villain. Jack and Jill (2011) In his memoir Sonny Boy, Al Pacino candidly explained the peculiar circumstances by which he came to play himself in the disastrous Adam Sandler 'comedy'. 'Jack and Jill was the first film I made after I lost my money. To be honest, I did it because I didn't have anything else. Adam Sandler wanted me, and they paid me a lot for it. So I went out and did it, and it helped.' Sandler (who Pacino calls 'a great actor and a hell of a guy') may have saved the great actor's bacon, but it was a different kind of foodstuff that features in the film's most peculiar scene. Pacino, in full 'Hoo-ha!' mode, over-enthusiastically promotes Dunkin' Donuts new drink, the Dunkaccino, at Sandler's behest. Announcing that his name is now 'Dunk', Pacino raps away, misquoting famous lines from his earlier films ('You want creamy goodness, I'm your friend/Say hello to my chocolate blend') and humiliating himself beyond measure. When Pacino, watching the commercial's playback, remarks to Sandler, in character, 'Burn this…this must never be seen by anyone', you can only wish that his request was followed. Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) You would struggle to mount a defence of any of Michael Bay's Transformers films on artistic grounds – they are, after all, loud and imbecilic pictures aimed at pubescent boys that are intended to sell toy robots- but the sheer level of on-screen shilling that goes on during the miserable fourth instalment took excess to new depths. During its interminable 165 minute length, no fewer than 55 brands are featured on screen, most obviously Bud Light and Victoria's Secret, and Bay's background in advertisements is clear from the lingering close-ups that he gives every one of these products. Nearly every one, that is. Hilariously, it came out in 2016 that the Chinese company Wulong Karst Tourism were suing the producers for $27million on the grounds that their logo was not displayed prominently enough in the finished film, a reminder that this monstrosity was made during that brief, bizarre period when Hollywood desperately sucked up to China. In this instance, clearly not effectively enough. Sherlock (series 4, 2017) This is less offensive or annoying than many of the other examples, and more simply jarring. By the fourth series of the much-admired Cumberbatch-Freeman Sherlock Holmes revamp, it was clear that the show was not operating in the same way that most BBC series did, and so the usual Beeb rules of not using recognisable technological products (ie Apple's iPhones) did not apply. Therefore, we are shown Cumberbatch's Sherlock using a then-modish iPhone 6S, which, viewers are invited to infer, is the technological equivalent of the great detective's legendarily wide-ranging brain. It's not so much horrible, as just a bit forced. One half-expects the great detective to ask 'Siri, how do I solve this particular case?' Ted Lasso (2020- ) It is obviously unfair to criticise Apple for asking that their products be included in series that they have funded at enormous cost to themselves, and many people are enormously fond of the big-hearted comedy-drama Ted Lasso, with Jason Sudeikis as the sunniest football coach you could ever hope to meet. It's just a shame, then, that the product placement here is ladled on with a trowel. Virtually every single scene features a character wielding an iPhone or a MacBook, checking out something on an iPad or watching an Apple-branded monitor. And the software gets a big plug, too. When Ted's chatting to his son back home in the United States, what's his method of choice? FaceTime, naturally; Zoom doesn't get much of a look in here. Incidentally, Apple will only allow their products to be used for non-villainous characters, so Anthony Head's dastardly rival football club owner doesn't get a look in. Barbie (2023) Greta Gerwig's feminist toy fantasia was a huge box office hit and critically acclaimed, not least because it was thought to subvert its potentially tacky consumerist message with a deep strain of self-aware humour. (See, for instance, Rob Brydon being introduced in his micro-cameo not as the notorious 'Sugar Daddy Ken' but as 'Sugar's Daddy, Ken'.) However, it also functions as a two-hour advertisement for Mattel and the Barbie character. Despite its satirical nods at Mattel's patriarchal set-up, it's also a picture that is very keen to sell expensive merchandise to its audience, ranging from Tag Heuer watches to women's Birkenstocks. And when Ryan Gosling's scene-stealing Ken turns up at the end in a hoodie emblazoned with the term 'I am Kenough', it is no great stretch to imagine the sweater's £58 price tag becoming part of an incredibly expensive post-film shopping trip.
The Independent
14-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Independent
Hollyoaks ruled to have breached Ofcom rules by promoting fintech app in episode
Hollyoaks has breached two Ofcom rules after promoting a financial technology app on the soap, the regulator has found. An episode in the Channel 4 series was investigated after ClearScore, which sponsored the programme, was referenced both verbally and visually. The broadcast regulator found that the product placement was in breach of two rules, one for undue prominence, Rule 9.10 which states 'references to placed products, services and trade marks must not be unduly prominent'. The second rule – Rule 9.9 for promotional references – states 'references to placed products, services and trade marks must not be promotional'. The product placement occurred in an episode aired on February 18 and involved Kieron Richardson's character, Ste Hay, mention the app to his son, Lucas Hay, played by Oscar Curtis, to see if he could buy him a laptop. Ste was also seen to pull out his phone and hold it with the ClearScore app visible on the screen, showing the various functions and options on offer before saying to Lucas: 'See this? They've shown me some options – based on my financial situation and it looks like I can get you that laptop for your studies. 'I really want you to make a go of this, Lucas – (gesturing to the ClearScore app on his phone) and these guys are going to help me make it happen.' According to the report, the broadcaster confirmed that the references were made due to a product placement agreement, but that agreement was separate to an arrangement made with the company to sponsor the soap. Channel 4 told the regulator that the references were editorially justified and explained that 'part of the sponsorship and product placement agreements, potential integrations into existing storylines were proposed toClearScore by the programme editorial team, in consultation with the programme compliance team. 'ClearScore had no editorial input into the storyline of the programme'. Channel 4 also explained that Ste's character had been one of the main storylines at the time, as he was trying to rebuild his family following the death of a partner and spending a year in a coma. The broadcaster added: 'part of this storyline (was) his return to work to support his family, which (included) rebuilding his relationship with son Lucas and providing for him'. The investigation concluded that the references went beyond its editorial justifications for the storyline and became more of a 'demonstration' of how to use the app rather than a passing remark. Ofcom also concluded that the references were promotional as it described and showed how to use the app, promoting the brand as a result.
Forbes
27-06-2025
- Automotive
- Forbes
How This Hollywood Producer Turned Brad Pitt Into A $40 Million ‘F1' Ad
F or the past three years, Apple has been selling F1 as a can't-miss summer blockbuster set in the high-octane world of Formula 1, with the prestige of producer Jerry Bruckheimer, director Joseph Kosinski and star Brad Pitt. But for David Leener, the producer in charge of the movie's product placement, his sales pitch was far simpler—turning one of the world's highest-paid actors (Pitt is earning an estimated $30 million for this film) into a human billboard. For significant portions of the film, Pitt's character wears fire suits, helmets and other apparel adorned with more than a dozen logos for brands, including Mercedes, IWC, Geico, EA Sports and Expensify, each of which also have branding on the fictional APXGP team's car and paid millions for the privilege. Leener, a pioneer of brand integrations in movies for nearly 30 years, says he brought in more sponsor money for F1 than any film in his career—including Top Gun: Maverick , the two National Treasure pictures and several Transformer movies—by far. Forbes estimates Leener's sponsorships for F1 have brought in at least $40 million, covering a significant part of a production budget that may be as high as $300 million. And that doesn't include the tens of millions spent in cross-promotional ads, where brands (some of whom don't actually appear onscreen) feature the movie in commercials for their own products. 'When [Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 team CEO] Toto Wolff found out how much I had raised for our little team, he offered me a job on the spot,' Leener says with a laugh. 'Jerry [Bruckheimer] was sitting right there, and I was like, 'No, I'm good.' I have a feeling Toto is a little intense to work for.' Leener may be very good at his job, but sponsorship in Formula 1 and product placement in the F1 movie are fundamentally different propositions. To get your company's logo on the front wing of an actual F1 car would cost at least $5 million per year, according to The Race Media founder and CEO Andrew Van de Burgt, while title sponsorships range from $30 million at the low end to $100 million per year for the most popular teams. That sort of sponsorship comes with television exposure and prestige by association, but Van de Burgt acknowledges that there are dozens of brands that pay tens of millions of dollars to be involved in Formula 1 despite most fans having absolutely no idea what the company is or does. 'What those people are really paying for is to be in the paddock and have access to other big companies they want to work with,' he says. 'If you can do 20 multimillion-dollar deals because you're sitting next to the CEO or whoever you need to speak to, that more than justifies the spend.' Logo-a-Gogo: Producer David Leener says that the estimated $40 million in sponsorship money he brought in for 'F1' is the most in his career—perhaps the most of all-time. David Leener Movie product placement, on the other hand, is traditionally sold in segments of three to four cumulative on-screen seconds of 'clear and identifiable exposure,' says Leener. Its value depends on the amount of logos, verbal mentions or usages in those seconds, and can cost a brand anywhere from $250,000 to $1 million. Movie sponsorship is clearly the cheaper of the two options, but in a racing movie, those seconds can add up quickly. And unlike in, say, a Marvel movie, corporate branding is already so deeply ingrained in the culture of F1 that seeing cars and driver apparel covered in logos adds to a movie's authenticity rather than distracting from it. 'You can insert your product concept into any context, but it's certainly much easier when the product placement itself is part of the movie,' says Expensify CEO David Barrett, whose Portland, Oregon-based software company has the title sponsorship of Pitt's fictional APXGP team. 'It felt natural.' The job of producers like Leener requires a kind of bifurcated salesmanship. He must convince brands that investing in a movie is worth it, despite no concrete way to measure the return on investment. On the other side, he has to sell a director on the idea that the sponsorship will add to the movie. Somewhere in the middle sits a minefield of stakeholders. In the case of F1 , Leener could not recruit any brands that competed with core Formula 1 partners or brands that were competitive to Apple, eliminating the lucrative consumer electronics category. He worked with agencies to identify brands like Expensify that would be both interested and acceptable to all parties. According to Stacy Jones, another 30-year product placement veteran and CEO of one of those agencies, Hollywood Branded, landing this collection of brands took three full years of incredibly hard work. 'This was the beast of all beasts, the most difficult movie ever made in Hollywood for brand partnerships,' Jones says. 'It has broken any understanding of what product placement can actually do. It's never happened to this degree before.' Luckily, Leener had earned the trust of the movie's producers. He first worked with Bruckheimer and director Michael Bay on 1998's Armageddon , back when the product placement role was better known as 'production resources' because it mostly consisted of sourcing free items from brands to lower the budget of a movie, with no money changing hands. Paid sponsorships were still a relatively new phenomenon, and the money was fairly small. Famously, Steven Spielberg had originally written M&Ms into the script for 1982's E.T., but Mars, the parent company of M&Ms, passed on the opportunity. So the producers approached Reese's Pieces after Hershey's agreed to pay $1 million in a cross-promotional deal. Within a few weeks of the movie's release, sales of Reese's Pieces reportedly tripled. In another famous example, Ray-Ban saw a spike in sales after reportedly paying $50,000 per year to put its glasses on dozens of TV and movie characters, including Tom Cruise in 1983's Risky Business . Racing movies, even then, were the biggest prize, with Exxon reportedly paying $300,000 in 1990 to be featured in the Cruise-led Nascar movie Days of Thunder . Leener says the product placement business really took off in the 2000s, when the commercial potential of blockbuster movies was realized across the globe. He worked on National Treasure, Herbie: Fully Loaded, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest and eventually the Transformers franchise, which he says unlocked the multimillion-dollar earning potential of brand integrations. In one memorable example, Leener recalls pitching a Chinese milk company to Bay for Transformers: Dark of the Moon , using the absurdity of the product's plastic straw to create a funny moment with actor Ken Jeong. After realizing the product placement money he was bringing in was going into the studio's coffer rather than the actual production budget, he helped negotiate for Bruckheimer and Bay to be able to spend against any money he raised in product placements. It's a contract stipulation Leener says has spread to all A-list filmmakers and further aligned the incentives to create these branded moments. On a big-budget movie, for example, a day of production might cost anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000. If Leener sells a single three-second placement, it could mean an additional day of filming to perfect an action scene. The practice has become particularly important in recent years, with movie budgets rising to astronomical levels. Summer blockbusters routinely cost $250 million or more to produce, plus another $100 million or more to promote, making it very difficult for a movie to turn a profit. And the stakes are particularly high for Apple, which is fairly new to movie production. 'For F1 , the profitability bar isn't high; it's practically stratospheric,' says Brandon Katz, director of insights and content strategy at Greenlight Analytics. 'A flop could mean that this is Apple's last major push into theatrical moviemaking, and they may recede from the industry entirely if this doesn't work. Everyone in the industry has a stake in it.' Of course, the value of F1 goes far beyond the box office for Apple, Katz says. If the movie is a hit—box office analysts predict it will earn between $50 million and $75 million for its opening weekend—the film could, in theory, drive subscriptions to AppleTV+ or the Apple One bundle and potentially even tempt Apple into bidding on Formula 1's media rights at the end of the 2025 season. Brand sponsors are taking a similar big-picture approach. One lesson from box office smashes such as Barbie and Wicked was the ability for movies to become cultural events that draw enough attention to reach even non-moviegoers and support far more financial transactions than just selling tickets. Cross-promotional deals and product tie-ins have become commonplace in the past two decades, and gotten mainstream recognition for movies like Barbie and Wicked . For F1 , watch brand IWC Schaffhausen, which also worked with Leener and Bruckheimer on Top Gun: Maverick , released a trio of new timepieces (including one that's $27,900). Tommy Hilfiger put out an entire line of streetwear (including a $490 satin varsity jacket), and Mercedes is selling a limited-edition GT 63 (which has a traditional base price of $191,550), each carrying the APXGP branding. Even KFC, a brand not represented in the movie, has been running commercials showing the APXGP car making a pit stop at its drive-thru window. Barrett says the attention has already begun paying dividends for Expensify, even before the movie has been released. The company-branded APXGP car popped up in music videos for Ed Sheeran, Tate McRae, Don Toliver and Doja Cat, and it's playable in the EA Sports F1 video game, all without his having to spend an extra dollar. The day after the movie's trailer released last July, CNBC's Jim Cramer went on a three-minute monologue about the stock potential of Expensify and other brands advertising in the film, causing the company's stock to record 17.7 million trades, up from 540,000 trades on an average day. And at the Met Gala in early May, F1 star Damson Idris drove up to the museum in the Expensify-branded car and wore the Expensify-branded fire suit on the red carpet. Barrett says the company saw a 400% increase in website traffic and product sign-ups on the night of the event compared with an average Monday evening. Plus, as Barrett notes, if audiences love F1 , they will watch it for years to come. And each time Pitt comes into frame with the Expensify name prominently displayed on his chest, the company could receive a boost. 'This is something that's going to last forever,' Barrett says. 'You have to realize you're participating in something that's so much bigger than what you set out to do—you just have to hang on and go along for the ride.' More from Forbes Forbes The Highest-Paid Actors Of 2024 By Matt Craig Forbes America's Richest Women Celebrities 2025 By Matt Craig Forbes Can Netflix Become The Netflix Of Gaming? By Matt Craig Forbes Inside The Secretive, Pay-For-Play World Of Movie Trailers By Matt Craig
