7/28/2019 Plasarea de Produse

1/4

Codul audiovizualului Decizia CNA 220 2011

CAPITOLUL IIIPlasarea de produseArt. 100(1) Prin plasare de produse se nelege orice form de comunicare comercial audiovizual constnd nincluderea unui produs, serviciu sau a mrcii acestora ori n referirea la acestea, prin inserarea n cadrulunui program, n schimbul unei pli sau contraprestaii. (2) Plasarea de produse se semnaleaz, la nceputul i la sfritul programului, precum i la reluareadup fiecare pauz publicitar, prin meniunea Acest program conine/a coninut plasare de produse.,precum i prin simbolul PP de culoare alb pe fond negru, afiate lizibil, cu o dimensiune de minimum 30de puncte n format SD, definiie standard, respectiv 60 n format HD, nalt definiie, i pentru o duratde minimum 5 secunde.(3) Meniunea scris prevzut la alin. (2) va fi eliminat dup o perioad de 6 luni de la intrarea nvigoare a prezentului cod.(4) Plasarea de produse nu excl ude sponsorizarea i/sau difuzarea de publicitate pentru aceleaiproduse sau servicii, n cadrul aceluiai program, cu respectarea dispoziiilor art. 97 alin. (9), precum i acelorlalte condiii impuse de Legea audiovizualului.

I ntroducere

Parte integra nt a mixului de promovare plasamentul de produs este definit de ctre James Karrca fiind introducerea contra cost a produselor de marc sau a elementelor de identificare ale uneimrci prin mijloace vizuale sau auditive n programele mijloacelor de informare n mas.

Dei termenul este recent, practica este la fel de veche precum industria cinematografic, cutoate acestea f orma actual de plasament de produs a aprut n anii 80 ai secolului trecut. Un factorimportant a fost creterea permanent a filmelor i a serialelor produse de studiouri, precum i apariiade noi canale de comunicare: televiziunea prin cablu i satelit, internetul, jocurile video, etc . care auintrodus numeroase oportuniti de promovare .

Ali factori care au dus la dezvoltarea plasamentului sunt tendina telespectatorilor de a evitapauzele publicitare, costurile din ce n ce mai mari generate de instrumentele tradiionale de promovarei concurena acerb existent pe pia.

(Balasubramanian, 1994) principalul avantaj: plasamentul de produs este un mesaj hibrid careare dubla calitate de a transmite un mesaj credibil ce pare a veni dintr-o s urs nu neap*rat

integrat ntr -o campanie de promovare dar asupra cruia specialistul de marketing are un control total.Dar tocmai din acest avantaj pornesc i disputele legate de aspectele etice i legale ale acestui mijloc depromovare, aa cum o demonstreaz i ndelungata lui istorie.

http://legeaz.net/codul-audiovizualului-2011/http://legeaz.net/codul-audiovizualului-2011/

7/28/2019 Plasarea de Produse

2/4

z

Reebok's Suit Over 'Jerry Maguire' Shows Risks of ProductPlacement

In the hit movie ''Jerry Maguire,'' Cuba Gooding Jr. portrays Rod Tidwell, a high-spirited andambitious football player who nurses a film-long grudge against Reebok for ignoring thegridiron talents he so passionately believes he possesses.- poart ur fa de Reebok pentruc i ignor talentul.

Tidwell's tirades continue until the closing credits -- when, with the help of Maguire, hisagent, he achieves his dream: a Reebok endorsement deal, promoted in a glitzy commercial in whichReebok declares, ''Rod Tidwell. We ignored him for years. We were wrong. We're sorry.''

At least that's how Reebok executives say they thought ''Jerry Maguire'' would end. But asmillions of moviegoers know, the film concludes without any make-believe, kiss-and-make-upReebok spot.

And that has Reebok International Ltd. squaring off against Tristar Pictures in a multimillion-dollar legal battle that offers a revealing glimpse at product placement, the increasingly prevalentadvertising device that seeks to turn name brands into Hollywood stars.

Reebok, the No. 2 marketer of athletic footwear, is suing Tristar in Federal District Court inCalifornia, claiming that the studio that produced and released ''Jerry Maguire'' reneged on a promiseto present Reebok in a positive light. Reebok had obtained its role not by auditioning or schmoozing

producers, but by providing Tristar more than $1.5 million in merchandise, advertising, promotionalsupport and other benefits.

A hearing on a Tristar motion to dismiss the case is set for Monday. The suit against the studio,owned by the Sony Corporation, levels 12 complaints including breach of contract, firing the film'scatch phrase ''Show me the money!'' back at its creators by seeking damages of more than $10million each for most of the complaints.

In the dispute over ''Jerry Maguire,'' Reebok says it was promised that highly complimentary ad,while Tristar says it was understood that such an ending could wind up, as it did, on the cutting-roomfloor.

Indeed, according to the suit, the Reebok-Tristar agreement, reached in April, called on Reebok toflood America with tie-ins that consumers would see before ''Jerry Maguire'' opened on Dec. 13.There were tags on Reebok products promoting the film, and a sweepstakes that consumers entered

by visiting the Champs Sports stores owned by the Woolworth Corporation. There were also ads inSports Illustrated and USA Today for the sweepstakes.

7/28/2019 Plasarea de Produse

3/4

Reebok filed its suit just days after ''Jerry Maguire'' opened to critical acclaim and box-office success.The film has already sold more than $116.6 million worth of tickets.

Clearly, Reebok is rankled by what executives see as a lost opportunity to evoke warm and fuzzyfeelings about the brand in all those moviegoers. Worse yet, the suit claims, the only perceptions

about Reebok that the film may now instill are ''highly derogatory and negative.''

The suit charges that Reebok's participation was contingent upon the movie having a happy ending --happy, that is, for Reebok as well as for Maguire and Tidwell. The ending was crucial, Reebok argues, because Tidwell is so bitter about what he considers Reebok's unfair treatment of him that heuses a four-letter epithet to dismiss the company, complaining, ''All they do is ignore me. Alwayshave. Always have.''

But on Nov. 27, according to the suit, 16 days before ''Jerry Maguire'' opened, Reebok executiveswere notified that the Tidwell spot -- shot by Reebok at the company's expense -- had been edited out

because it ''no longer fit creatively in the film.'' The notice came after many of Reebok's tie-ins hadhit the marketplace.

''The swearing about Reebok sits in the minds of consumers,'' said Mr. Muller, who is no longer associated with Reebok. ''It's almost as if it were scripted by Nike.''

Ed Russell, a spokesman for Tristar in Culver City, Calif., would not comment because, he said,''there's still litigation going on.'' But in its motion to dismiss, Tristar said that Reebok always knewthat the ad might be dropped.

Product placements must ''balance the needs of advertisers with those of film makers,'' added Mr.

Workman, who joined the studio after the dispute began. ''A sophisticated soft-drink or shoe maker realizes film makers at the end of the day have to be true to their visions.''

On that, Ms. Goodell of Reebok agrees with Tristar.

''One of the reasons we were attracted to 'Jerry Maguire' was that endorsements are a fact of sportslife and the film was about that process,'' she said. ''And part of that process is about what your

passion is, having the heart, the dedication, playing a much bigger game than 'Show me the money!' ''

But unless Tristar borrows a page from the George Lucas playbook, re-releasing ''Jerry Maguire''with the Tidwell ad as bonus footage, a court may have to decide just who must show whom the

money.

A promise for a prominent product placement isn't always such a good thing. Just ask ReebokInternational Ltd. about its involvement with the hit movie Jerry Maguire and the lawsuit it filedagainst the film's makers, Sony Corp.'s TriStar Pictures of Culver City, Calif.

7/28/2019 Plasarea de Produse

4/4

Stoughton, Mass.,-based Reebok said it provided more than $1.5 million in product and marketing forthe film so audiences would remember a Reebok commercial that was supposed to be in the film, butwas cut.

Reebok International and TriStar Pictures settled out-of-court a lawsuit Reebok filed against the

Sony-owned movie studio over a promotional program linked to the 1996 hit "Jerry Maguire."Terms weren't disclosed. Reebok's key complaint was the omission of a faux-Reebok TV spot that

was to have played over the closing credits featuring one of the movie's characters. The director of

the film reportedly opted to cut the scene in the final stages of editing. The only other reference tothe marketer was a very colorful denouncement of the brand issued by that same character.

Reebok and TriStar said they plan to work on future projects.