Product placement has been around since James Dean combed his hair with an ACE Flex pocket comb and sales quadrupled. Sony, Coke and other big boys immediately jumped on the product placement bandwagon.

“Risky Business” and “Men in Black II” gave a boost in sales to Ray-Ban sunglasses. “Back to the Future” promoted several Pepsi products. “You’ve Got Mail” promoted AOL and Starbucks. And, “Cast Away” successfully teamed with Fed Ex and Wilson.

Satires and Parodies also jumped into the product placement game with “Wayne’s World” and “Josie and the Pussycats.” The latter, having 27 products placed within the film, a parody of massive proportions.

Michael Bay (Transformers, Armageddon, Pearl Harbor) and partner Scott Gardenhour (Pearl Harbor, Jumper, Coyote Ugly) teamed together to create The Institute, a multi-platform media company that integrates creativity with brand marketing. They believe in innovation and finding the right balance between products and story, to drive consumer demand.

Filmmakers have always been in need of funds and Brand Managers have always needed story to promote their products. Frankly, it makes sense for the two to come together in a way that enhances the story and doesn’t detract from it. Bay’s Institute is already exploring numerous stories that promote products by drawing the audience into the story that encourages them to accept the product without any real consideration.

Corporations love this new approach as it demonstrates their product in a good light and helps the future buyer remember the product in conjunction with the great feelings the film attributed to it. The key is making sure the right storytellers connect with the right products, to ensure a seamless partnership that everyone accepts without feeling pulled out of the story and into an ad.

This same innovation works in reverse, as Bay made a couple commercials with memorable stories that brought a smile to the viewers face and introduced him or her to a specific product. The Levi product story promotes future dreams and the Audi story promotes a more nostalgic look at love and making the wrong choice.

The more integrated the product is within the story, the greater the ability of the audience to receive the related feelings through future associations – A strong selling point for any product. However, to avoid the story turning into a bad job of product placement, it must be done in an artistic and creative way that moves the story forward.

When successful, everyone accepts the reality of E.T. eating a Reese’s Pieces. Hershey saw its sales go through the roof with a 65-85% increase in sales. To this day, I’m sure Mars is still wondering why that executive turned down Steven Spielberg’s request for M&Ms to be in the film.

When story and product match up well, all parties win big. The key is finding the right product that fits the right audience with the right story. Anything less than that makes the sad attempt appear to be a parody without effort, which is a lose/lose scenario for all involved.

What type of story would you tell and to what audience? Is there a product that naturally fits the story and the audience? Most independent filmmakers can’t place products in their stories because they don’t take the time to use the science that determines what audience the story is geared toward, let alone what product fits it.

Independents love to throw ideas together fast enough to shoot something, rather than planning a story that properly integrates a product with its symbolism and theme. But for the filmmaker who can figure out this new process, they will be in filmmaking for years to come, while others scrape for enough funds to shoot their next picture.

Copyright © 2011 By CJ Powers

Is the key a short film that goes viral? Or, and angel who can fund a money making project?

Over the past five years I’ve chatted with 2,000 plus beginning filmmakers who are confident that if they create the right short film, it will open up doors of incredible opportunity. I’ve recently talked with scholars who also think the right short film would launch a career. A few friends have also suggested that a stirring short film might re-launch me back into the industry.

The truth of the matter is that out of the 4,000 plus filmmakers that followed my writings in various ezines, and the 16,000 writers who read my screenwriting column, none of them had a short film launch their career. In fact, out of the 100,000 plus filmmakers attempting to make their mark over the past five years, only two got a shot in Hollywood based on their short film. The one’s first project crashed and burned and brought demise to his career. The other’s career was launched with budgets he had no idea how to manage.

In the meantime, several dozen filmmakers launched new programs into the peripheral market and have found enough success to live off of it. They have started to build an audience and make enough money to make additional projects, while living off of its revenue. In my mind, these are the people who have found success.

Unfortunately, few people are able to enter the market at this lower level without some angel providing a break for them. Each one that I’ve talked with found someone to believe in them enough to front anywhere from $25-$125,000. These filmmakers also relied heavily on the team approach and pulled together the people needed to make the film.

This is the exact opposite of the going trend. Numerous people are suggesting that filmmaking is becoming an individual based process where one extremely talented person runs the whole show, especially in the area of short films. But the proof still resides with those who team together and create a mini or macro studio to make productions outside of the Hollywood system.

The last time I was at a film convention, I bumped into hundreds of arrogant filmmakers who all had extreme talent in one area and mediocre talent in other areas. I suggested that some of them get together to merge their talents and blow everyone away in the following year with an exceptional film that utilizes everyone’s expertise. They all looked at me like I was nuts, as they were each other’s competitors and would never stoop to such a ghastly thought.

I heard from a few friends that the last convention saw weaker films than the previous year. The quality of production and story had dropped. Few of the “competitors” were able to out do their previous attempts. This resulted in several of the filmmakers changing their life direction – All because they wouldn’t lower themselves to partner with other experts.

Those sharing the mentality that an individual filmmaker must make it on their own, see the drop off as a weeding out process that sifts out the real filmmakers. The odd thing is that most of those who gave up had more talent than those who stuck it out. Its sad to realize that the mediocre are now driving parts of the industry that used to be a collaborative art form for master craftsmen.

So, what are your thoughts? Should filmmakers keep on making shorts in hopes of being discovered or should they create a project that can make them enough money to live off of their art form?

Copyright © 2011 By CJ Powers