Agricultural Brand Placement in Film Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brooke Wood Beam, B.S. Graduate Program in Agricultural and Extension Education The Ohio State University 2014 Master’s Examination Committee: Emily Buck, Ph.D., Advisor Gary Straquadine, Ph.D.
126
Embed
Agricultural Brand Placement in Film - OhioLINK ETD Center
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Agricultural Brand Placement in Film
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Brooke Wood Beam, B.S.
Graduate Program in Agricultural and Extension Education
The Ohio State University
2014
Master’s Examination Committee:
Emily Buck, Ph.D., Advisor
Gary Straquadine, Ph.D.
2
Copyrighted by
Brooke Wood Beam
2014
ii
Abstract
Product placement in films began to gain momentum as an advertising strategy in
1982, and has since become a multi billion-dollar business (Spurlock, 2011). Although
agricultural companies are not likely to pay for screen time in films because they have
such a small share of the general advertising market in the United States and typically
advertise using print advertisements, agricultural products are still present on the silver
screen when the plot of the film is agriculturally based. With the agricultural industry
only directly connected to less than two percent of the population of the United States
who live on farms (EPA's Ag Center, 2012), these products are only relevant to a few
number of moviegoers. According to the Motion Picture Association of America, Inc.,
cinemas annually attract more people than attendance to theme parks and major United
States sports combined (MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL), in 2011 more than two-thirds of
the population of the United States and Canada attended a movie at least once, and in
2012 alone the United States film industry grossed more than nine billion dollars (Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc. , 2011) (The Numbers, 2012). Because of the high
viewing rate and marketing power of films, it is logical to analyze the agricultural brands
present in films to determine which films are marketing the American pastoral image and
which companies are reaping the benefits of free marketing services to millions of
consumers. This study analyzed over 40 films from the past 25 years to determine how 26
iii
agriculturally based brands were placed in the films from varying genres, ratings and
production companies to represent the agricultural industry as a whole.
iv
Dedication
For my parents, David and Susan Beam, for always believing and encouraging me to
reach any goal I attempt to achieve.
v
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all those who have made this study possible, your assistance has
been greatly appreciated.
vi
Vita
May 2008 ……………………………………………………… East Clinton High School
June 2012 …………………………………... B.S. Agriculture, The Ohio State University
August 2012 to present …………………… Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of
Agricultural Communication, Education, and Leadership
Internships
Spring 2011 ……………………………… Office of Research, The Ohio State University
Summer 2011 ……………………………………………………………. News 5 WLWT
Summer 2013 ……………………………………………… Clinton Community Fellows
Work Experiences
1999 to present ………………………………………………………………. Beam Farms
2005 to present ………………………………………………. Full of Sap Maple Products
farms and 67,254 sheep farms in the United States according to the Census of Agriculture
(United States Department of Agriculture, Production Fact Sheets, 2007). In the United
States an average farm is 434 acres, according to the latest Agricultural Census conducted
in 2012 (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014). The average American farm
sold $187,093.00 of agricultural products, with more than 1.1 million farmers holding
another occupation other than farming (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014).
In 2012, there were 81,634 farms that sold over $1,000,000, 173,284 farms sold $250,000
to $999,999 of agricultural products. To put the numbers of farms in perspective, if a
representative from each of the farms who sold over $1,000,000 of sales were to sit in the
Ohio Stadium, there would be room for 20,695 more people (The Ohio State University,
2014).
Advertising Agriculture
For agricultural communicators and marketers, print media has been the most
popular form of advertising to agricultural consumers. There was an increase of 2.3
percent in the number of print pages used to advertise agricultural products from 2011 to
2012 (Panousis, 2013). During the same time period, all other categories of advertising
saw a decrease in advertisements by nine percent, these other categories include eMedia,
broadcast, content/data and educational events (Panousis, 2013). For 2013, the trends are
showing a decrease in the number of agricultural print advertisements, but an increase in
the amount spent on agricultural print advertisements. The top five agricultural print
17
advertisers from 2009 to 2013 were: “Monsanto, Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, Zoetis
Animal Health and Dow AgroSciences” (Panousis, 2013, p. 30).
The American Business Media organization conducted a cross-market study “on
how consumers of business information use the various communication channels that are
available,” this study included the agricultural sector (Semler, 2013, p. 28). The results
from this study concluded that, over all market sectors, print magazines and websites are
the primary source of information for consumers, but are closely followed by the use of
newsletters, conferences, and mobile technologies (Semler, 2013). This study concluded
that integrated marketing through multiple channels is the direction for the future of
advertising (Semler, 2013). Film was not analyzed during this study.
Agricultural Perceptions
Will Keith Kellogg, who was a pioneer in the breakfast cereal industry, founded
the W.K. Kellogg Foundation in 1930 (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2014). The W.K.
Kellogg Foundation is one of the largest philanthropic foundations in the United States,
and strives to create equal opportunities for youth (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2014). The
W.K. Kellogg Foundation has conducted studies on the perceptions of rural America.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s first study, Perceptions of Rural America, conducted
242 in-depth interviews of individuals from rural, urban, and suburban areas throughout
multiple regions in the country to find out what the perceptions are of individuals who
live in rural areas of the United States (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002). The participants
in the study believed agriculture was the dominant industry in the United States, although
18
this perception is not factual (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002). Participants were rooted
in their beliefs that rural America is “dominated by images of the family farm, crops and
pastures” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. 4). In fact, participants believed the three
most common image representations of rural America were: “farms and crops, pastures,
and animals” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. 4). Country life was perceived as
serene, peaceful and slow-paced, and overall a safe, family oriented community
environment.
Some participants stated they believed a family farm is the definition of what it
means to be American. By this they are meaning farmers personify the idyllic American
values, to be “hard working and self sufficient” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. 5).
Fifty-three percent of the participants believed that rural residents are the most
hardworking individuals in the country (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002).
However, the study did reveal several dichotomies:
• “Rural life represents traditional American values, but is behind the times;
• Rural life is more relaxed and slower than city life, but is harder and more
grueling;
• Rural life is richer in community life, but epitomized by individuals
struggling independently to make ends meet.
• Rural America offers a particular quality of life including serenity and
aesthetic surroundings, and yet it is plagued by lack of opportunities,
including access to cultural activities” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p.
1).
19
Perceptions of Rural America: Media Coverage was the second W.K. Kellogg
Foundation study. This study analyzed news articles and reports from The New York
Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, The Chicago Tribune, Newsweek, Time, and
U.S. News and World Report, as well as ABC, NCB, and CBS morning and evening news
programming from January to June of 2002 to determine how “urban national media
portrays rural America today” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. ii). Each relevant
article and news story was coded for three frames: an agricultural context, negative
representation of rural lifestyles, and a positive representation (W.K. Kellogg Foundation,
2002).
This study determined that popular topics associated with “rural” in news
included: land use, crime, politics, unemployment, lifestyle, the environment, health, and
education (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002). Overall, only one out of every six news
stories linked “rural” with “agriculture” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. 23).
Articles which appeared in The New York Times related “rural” to agriculture” in 32
percent of the stories, while other news sources featured a lower percentage (W.K.
Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. 23). In all of the news sources “agriculture-related groups
and their representatives were quoted only six times, far less than others, such as
environmental groups” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2002, p. 32).
Fictional, symbolic terms were used in multiple stories to create imagery
connecting something in real life (a town, setting, building) to a fictional or idyllic
setting. Terms used to find these instanced included: “pastoral, peaceful, picturesque,
quiet, sleepy, quaint, Currier & Ives and Norman Rockwell” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation,
20
2002, p. 21). Fictional correlations appeared four times as often in print news stories in
comparison to news stories that appeared on television programming, and The New York
Times had the heaviest application of theatric terms of all the news outlets (W.K. Kellogg
Foundation, 2002, p. 22).
Mass media has been influencing agriculture in America even before the country
was founded in 1776 through newspapers and propaganda; however, the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation highlights some of the more modern influences:
“There can be little doubt that American mass media have played a
significant role in building and decorating these frames. From the late
nineteenth century dime novels that depicted the winning of the Wild
West, to the ‘horse operas’ that dominated the early days of television
entertainment, to the big screen epics of John Wayne and John Huston,
entertainment has idolized the rugged individual battling nature and
human venality in the untamed west. More recent pop culture products
like the television series The Waltons and Little House on the Prairie,
along with cinematic hits like Places in the Heart and The River, have
presented warmer, more personal tales of rural Americans overcoming
adversity and upholding traditional values. Even fluff like Petticoat
Junction, Green Acres, and the Dukes of Hazzard have played a role in our
collective associations with rural America” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation,
2002, p. 1).
21
In “The Stuff You Need Out Here”: A Semiotic Case Study Analysis of an
Agricultural Company’s Advertisements, the 2004-2005 Tractor Supply Company’s
(TSC) print advertisement marketing campaign was analyzed, and was partially based off
of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Perceptions of Rural America: Media Coverage study.
Like in the Perceptions of Rural America: Media Coverage, “The Stuff You Need Out
Here” analyzed how the advertisements for TSC were relating to the consumer through
stereotypical representations of rural lifestyles. The study analyzed three advertisements
from a campaign of 12 advertisements released from the Tractor Supply Company in
print media.
The first advertisement analyzed in this study featured a politician giving a speech
on an iconic American farm, complete with a red barn, green foliage and three-board
fencing in the background. This advertisement tried to sell a “6-tine manure fork”,
suggesting the political propaganda the politician is spreading is a form of manure
(Rhoades & Irani, 2008, p. 7). The second advertisement showed a man with a sunburnt
farmer’s tan, which is assumed he received from mowing the rolling, lush green
landscape in the background. This advertisement is marketing a “deluxe sunshade” for a
mower, so consumers can prevent having sunburn from mowing their own rural paradise
(Rhoades & Irani, 2008, p. 9). The final advertisement featured a man sitting in wet swim
trunks on a lawn chair in the snow, which TSC was attempting to market the need for a
“deluxe insulated coverall” (Rhoades & Irani, 2008, p. 10). This advertisement played
into the perception that people from rural areas have fewer opportunities than those who
live in more urban areas, because the man is having a good time watching the snow fall
22
into his cup for a source of entertainment (Rhoades & Irani, 2008). While all of the
advertisements from TSC used using humor to market the variety of products they sell in
their stores, the advertisements reinforced the findings from the Kellogg studies that rural
lifestyles can be linked to agricultural farmsteads, individuals who are generally isolated
and a bit backwards, and rural lifestyles provide peaceful and serene landscapes to enjoy
(Rhoades & Irani, 2008).
Specht analyzed 23 films and television programs released between 1950 and
2012. This study compared the content of films and television shows in relation to the
findings of the Kellogg Foundation study, Perceptions of Rural America (Specht, 2013).
The 23 entertainment programs studied by Specht included: Lassie, Oklahoma!, East of
Eden, Giant, The Real McCoys, Green Acres, Charlotte’s Web (1973), Places in the
Heart, Country, The River, Witness, Field of Dreams, City Slickers, Babe, A Thousand
Acres, The Horse Whisperer, The Cider House Rules, Signs, The Simple Life, Brokeback
Mountain, Charlotte’s Web (2006), Fantastic Mr. Fox, and Temple Grandlin (Specht,
2013). Specht states that the “American agrarian myth has been shaped in part by
entertainment media,” and that until her study no one had “attempted to aggregate and
analyze media texts that describe, discuss, or portray American agriculture” (Specht,
2013, p. 4).
The findings from this study demonstrated “a strong correlation between the
manner in which entertainment media texts depict agricultural production and the themes
identified by respondents of the Kellogg Institute study. One of the most powerful
arguments for this phenomenon is the presentation of the rural agrarian context in films
23
and television programs prior to 1990” (Specht, 2013, p. 257). Other than rare exceptions
in Giant, The Horse Whisperer, and Brokeback Mountain, all of the entertainment pieces
studied played into the Normal Rockwell-like imagery of a rural landscape established as
the American perception in the Kellogg Foundation study, with “a nostalgic combination
of small farming operations bounded by scenic, hilly terrain, lush forests, and dirt roads”
(Specht, 2013, p. 257).
Inconsistencies exist in the media studied in Specht’s dissertation on the
representation of agricultural technology. She points out that agricultural technology
sometimes surpasses its presentation on film. This usually occurs when showing scenes
from historical films, as the real farm technology of the time period had already
progressed and changed from what it typically shown on film (Specht, 2013). Depending
upon the film, several of the films studied in Specht’s study portrayed Agriculture fairly
accurately, including scenes of conventional livestock operations in Babe, Fantastic Mr.
Fox, and Temple Grandlin, as well as the financial difficulties the agricultural industry
faced during the 1980s in Country, The River, and Field of Dreams (Specht, 2013).
Specht concluded, “entertainment media will continue to impact the manner in
which society views production agriculture while reflecting real occurrences that impact
the industry” (Specht, 2013, p. 264).
Agriculture was one of the initial industries in the United States, and as the
industry has had such an intertwined history with how the nation has evolved, it is only
logical to expect agriculture to be present in films, which “perhaps more than any other
24
medium, movies mirror the society that creates them” (Biagi, 2010, p. 134). By looking
at cultivation theory, product placement, the film industry, agriculture in America,
advertising agriculture, and agricultural perceptions generates a well-rounded knowledge
of the topics discussed in this study.
25
Chapter 3: Methods
Agricultural brands appear in films when the film is agriculturally based in a
portion of its plot or setting. Agricultural companies generally advertise their products to
agricultural consumers through print advertisements; therefore paying for product
placement in films generally isn’t the direction these companies take to advertise.
Although the appearance of agricultural products is likely by chance, and not paid for, the
repeated use of agricultural products in films leave an impression on the viewers of the
films, whether the viewers are directly tied to agriculture or not. Cultivation theory states
that given repeated use of an idea or image through a media will, over time, influence the
perceptions of the viewer to match the representations presented in the media content.
Therefore, this study analyzed a selection of agriculturally based films to determine what
agricultural brands are present in the film content.
Study Questions
The purpose of this study is to determine how agricultural brands are featured in
films, including their prominence in the film and the frequency of the brand appearance.
The following research questions will be used to guide the study:
1. Which agricultural brands are present in popular films?
2. How often are the agricultural brands shown in popular films?
26
3. How are the agricultural brands positioned in the film (Is the brand name clearly
shown, is it the focus of the frame?)
4. Are there trends between the films the in which the agricultural brands appeared?
5. Are there trends with the actors or actresses who appear in the popular films that
feature an agricultural or rural setting?
Research Design
This applied, quantitative study used content analysis methodology to identify
films featuring agricultural product placement. With a lack of studies looking at brand
placement of agricultural products in film, a basic study is needed to identify the current
state before further effects can be explored.
Content analysis is “making generalizations about the relative frequencies of
visual representations of particular classes of people, actions, roles, situations or events
involves implicit or explicit classification and quantification of media-circulated content”
and “is an empirical (observational) and objective procedure for quantifying recorded
‘audio-visual’ (including verbal) representation using reliable, explicitly defined
categories (‘values’ on independent ‘variables’)” (Van Leeuwen & Jewitt, 2001, p. 10 &
13). Therefore, content analysis is a method used to study “media-circulated content,”
meaning content analysis can be used for studying content in: radio, television, film,
advertisements (video or print commercials), newspapers or magazines (Van Leeuwen &
Jewitt, 2001, p. 13). Because of content analysis’ versatility, the method is very popular
and has been used in studies for decades.
27
Film Selection
To find an adequate list of films to study, films from the past 25 years were
considered and analyzed first for their agricultural relevance. Each year’s data of the top
100 grossing films were narrowed to films that had an agricultural theme or sequence of
scenes (Box Office Mojo, 2013). Perspective films were viewed by the researcher to
determine the agricultural representation in the film; some films were removed from the
list because while they had a rural setting, the film contained no relevancy to the
agricultural industry. Films were narrowed from the researcher’s knowledge of
agriculturally based films, as well as assistance from a panel of experts in the agricultural
industry and by researching numerous movie synopses. Films fitting the initial
requirements for this study included:
• Funny Farm (Hill, Funny Farm, 1988)
• Field of Dreams (Robinson, 1989)
• Arachnophobia (Marshall F. , 1990)
• City Slickers (Underwood, 1991)
• Doc Hollywood (Caton-Jones, 1991)
• The Beverly Hillbillies (Spheeris, 1993)
• Son in Law (Rash, 1993)
• Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994)
• Bridges of Madison County (Eastwood, 1995)
• Twister (de Bont, 1996)
28
• For Richer or Poorer (Spicer, 1997)
• The Waterboy (Coraci, 1998)
• The Horse Whisperer (Redford, 1998)
• The Odd Couple II (Deutch, 1998)
• Babe: Pig in the City (Miller, 1998)
• Runaway Bride (Marshall G. , 1999)
• Varsity Blues (Robbins, 1999)
• October Sky (Johnston, 1999)
• Erin Brockovich (Soderbergh, 2000)
• O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? (Coen & Coen, 2000)
• Chicken Run (Lord & Park, 2000)
• The Rookie (Hancock, 2002)
• Signs (Shyamalan, 2002)
• Sweet Home Alabama (Tennant, 2002)
• Seabiscuit (Ross, 2003)
• Secondhand Lions (McCanlies, 2003)
• Open Range (Costner, 2003)
• Holes (Davis, 2003)
• Cold Mountain (Minghella, 2003)
• The Prince and Me (Coolidge, 2004)
• Home on the Range (Finn & Sanford, 2004)
• The Dukes of Hazzard (Chandarasekher, 2005)
29
• Racing Stripes (Du Chau, 2005)
• Brokeback Mountain (Lee, 2005)
• Superman Returns (Singer, 2006)
• Open Season (Allers, Culton, & Stacchi, 2006)
• Charlotte’s Web (Winick, 2006)
• Cars (Lasseter, 2006)
• Barnyard (Oedekerk, 2006)
• Secretariat (Wallace, 2010)
• The Help (Taylor, 2011).
This list was narrowed by the requirement of the film to have a box office rank
higher than 70 in the year the film was released (Brand Cameo, 2012) and the film could
not be an animated film because the purpose of the study is to identify actual brands
rather than fictional brands. Twenty-eight films met the criteria for this portion of the
study.
Once the film selection had been narrowed, the films were watched to determine
if agricultural product placement was occurring or not. If agricultural product placement
was not found, the film was removed from the list. If there was agricultural product
placement occurring in the film, the film was coded for the various brands represented in
the film, length of duration brand is present on screen, and interaction with characters.
Appendix B provides the coding sheet which all of the films were analyzed with.
Agricultural brands were featured in all of the movies identified as having
agricultural representation, both clearly and subtly presented. For example, in Son in
30
Law, Pauley Shore’s character, Crawl, climbs into a Massey Ferguson 8460 Combine,
while the farm’s hired hand operates a Ford tractor in the background (Rash, 1993). In
Twister, Pioneer Seed, a well-known seed company, is subtly featured on the farmer’s hat
at the end of the movie as he and his family emerge from their tornado shelter to find
their farmstead destroyed by a powerful tornado (de Bont, 1996). The following 19 films
were identified as having agricultural product placement and agricultural industry
representation, and are the final film selection for this study:
• Funny Farm (Hill, Funny Farm, 1988)
• Field of Dreams (Robinson, 1989)
• Arachnophobia (Marshall F. , 1990)
• City Slickers (Underwood, 1991)
• Son in Law (Rash, 1993)
• Forrest Gump (Zemeckis, 1994)
• Bridges of Madison County (Eastwood, 1995)
• Twister (de Bont, 1996)
• The Waterboy (Coraci, 1998)
• Runaway Bride (Marshall G. , 1999)
• Varsity Blues (Robbins, 1999)
• O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? (Coen & Coen, 2000)
• Signs (Shyamalan, 2002)
• Seabiscuit (Ross, 2003)
• The Dukes of Hazzard (Chandarasekher, 2005)
31
• Brokeback Mountain (Lee, 2005)
• Superman Returns (Singer, 2006)
• Charlotte’s Web (Winick, 2006)
• Secretariat (Wallace, 2010)
Films were coded for brand appearance, length of duration of brand appearance
and visibility of the brand. Once a brand was identified in the film, the coder would time
the length of appearance of the brand over the course of the film, which generally was a
series of multiple appearances, and in some cases multiple products from the same brand
were used. The coder would also keep track of how the brand was used, for instance:
Was the brand used in a normal way, as it would appear in real life?
Was the brand logo clearly identifiable?
If the brand logo was not visible, was the coder able to determine what the
product was and what company produced it?
Films were carefully watched for branded content, and times of brand appearance
were checked multiple times by rewinding and reviewing segments of the films with
branded material to obtain an accurate count of film time presence. All of the lengths of
screen time were counted in seconds, as most of the brands appeared for a very short
period of time in each segment.
Trucks and cars were not coded for this study because vehicles are common
consumer products, which anyone could purchase and are not necessarily representative
of the agricultural industry. Records are kept about vehicle brand appearance in film on
sites such as Brand Cameo and the Internet Movie Cars Database, but not specifically
32
agricultural brands, which is why this study was needed to look for agricultural products
(Brand Cameo, 2012) (Internet Movie Cars Database, 2006). Industrial trucks and
equipment were coded throughout the films because of the versatility the products to
potentially do agricultural work, like hauling agricultural commodities in semi trucks to
elevators.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed by using qualitative measurements through coding and
identifying brand recognition.
Once the films were analyzed using content analysis, averages were calculated for
average brand screen time and quarter of successfulness for agriculturally based films, as
well as percentage of screen time for agricultural brands.
Validity of this study is based on the need for more information on agricultural
brand representation in film. The research questions were established by information
obtained through the literature review for this study, which includes specific information
on agricultural brand marketing, agricultural business in the United States, American
perceptions of Agriculture in the United States, the film industry, and product placement.
Annie Specht, Ph.D., conducted her dissertation, called A Social Semiotic Discourse
Analysis Of Film And Television Portrayals Of Agriculture: Implications For American
Cultural Memory, at Texas A&M University on the pastoral fantasy presented in films
and television episodes which were agriculturally or rurally based (Specht, 2013).
However, Specht’s dissertation does not cover the appearance of branded material in
33
film, but provides an example for coding agricultural imagery in film. Studying film and
branded agricultural products in film is an area agricultural communication needs to
elaborate on and explore as film becomes readily available through advancements in
technology.
Reliability of this study is replicable by viewing the selected films and conducting
thorough content analysis. Three individuals participated in content analysis of the films
to establish a reliable reviewing method and to verify the validity of findings. The coders
participated in meetings to understand how to correctly analyze the film in a replicable
maner, by determining what kinds of brands to look for in the film and how to code the
length of duration. The main researcher, and author, of the study watched all of the films
to verify all the appearances of the brands. The researcher and individuals who assisted
with content analysis of the films had an 84 percent inter-coder reliability rate in finding
brands throughout the films analyzed (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 1998).
Limitations
There are a few limitations to this study. The way films are made sometimes
impact being able to recognize or find brands within the film, as products do not always
feature a clear logo, brand name, or distinguishable feature to identify the product with or
are not in focus for the viewer to obtain a clear image of the brand or product. The
researcher, and the other individuals who helped with content analysis, were all raised on
mid-western farms in Ohio. Some of the films were set in other regions of the nation, and
it is possible the researcher did not recognize a territorial brand, which is native to the
34
area depicted in the films. Because of the background of the researcher and the
individuals who assisted with the film content analysis, there is a bias toward brands and
film plots which are reminiscent of their personal experiences; however, without the
experiences of the researcher and assistants, not all of the brands would have been
identified because of the detailed nature of some of the brands and hidden corporate logos
throughout the films.
The researcher worked a summer on the set of a popular superhero film in 2011.
Through the experience of working in a film production setting, the researcher was
exposed to film set construction, production office responsibilities, regional and state film
commission operations, and film set coordination. Through the experiences the researcher
experienced on this particular set, which was in an industrial building located in a rural
area of Ohio, helped form the idea for this research project because of the general feeling
several people involved in the film commission expressed on being negative toward
agriculture and rural settings. This particular film contained no representation of
agriculture or agriculture brands, but was merely filmed in a rural area.
This study analyzed 19 films for agricultural branded content. After narrowing the
films from the initial list of over 40 films, it was determined that all of the films should
rank higher than 70th in each year’s box office data, not be an animated film and have
agricultural branded products present in the films. Each of the 19 films was analyzed
carefully by the researcher, and two other individuals, all who have an agricultural
background.
35
Chapter 4: Results
Since Steven Spielberg’s E.T. appeared in theatres in 1982, product placement in
film has become a commonplace marketing tactic (Walton, 2012). Large corporations,
such as Ford, Apple, Coca-Cola, Chevrolet, Mercedes and Budweiser, frequently use
captive audiences in movie theatres to market their products with the assistance of
creative film writers and attractive actors and actresses (Brand Cameo, 2012). Even the
agriculture industry finds itself represented on the big screen, but with less than two
percent of the population directly involved with agricultural production, the vast majority
of viewers do not know what is the correct representation of the agricultural industry
(EPA's Ag Center, 2012). Because agricultural brands have such a small market to
advertise to, paying to have their products featured in films is not usually an
economically feasible marketing strategy. Rather, the majority of agricultural companies
choose to advertise via paid print or web advertisements (Semler, 2013).
Even though agricultural companies are not likely to pay for screen time in films
for their main marketing strategies, their products still make their way to the silver screen
when the plot of the film is agriculturally based. According to the Motion Picture
Association of America, Inc., cinemas annually attract more people than attendance to
theme parks and major United States sports combined (MLB, NBA, NHL and NFL)
36
(Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. , 2011). In 2011, more than two-thirds of
the population of the United States and Canada attended a movie at least once, and in
2012 alone the United States film industry grossed more than nine billion dollars (Motion
Picture Association of America, Inc. , 2011) (The Numbers, 2012). Because of the high
viewing rate and marketing power of films, it is logical to analyze the agricultural brands
present in films to determine what films are marketing as the American pastoral image
and which companies are reaping the benefits of free marketing services to millions of
consumers.
Findings for Objectives One and Two:
Which agricultural brands are present in popular films?
How often are the agricultural brands shown in popular films?
Agriculture implement producing companies were the most frequently placed
brands in the films studied, appearing 23 times throughout the 19 films. Twenty-seven
brands in total were placed in the 19 films, with an overall brand count of 46 appearances
throughout the films. While John Deere was the most common brand to appear in the
films, Farmall/International Harvester and CAT had the second highest number of
appearances throughout the films, appearing in three films each (see Table 4.1). John
Deere was on screen for a total 525 seconds throughout 14 of the 19 films, which was the
highest length of appearance of any brand. John Deere appeared in: Funny Farm, Field of
Dreams, City Slickers, Son In Law, The Bridges of Madison County, Twister, The
37
Waterboy, Runaway Bride, O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?, Seabiscuit, The Dukes of
Hazzard, Superman Returns, Charlotte’s Web, and Secretariat.
Massey Ferguson had the second highest length of screen time, being on screen
for a combined 203 seconds in Twister and Son In Law. Snapper mowers were featured in
Forrest Gump, for a total of 159 seconds, followed in greatest length of appearance by
Komakatsu for 104 seconds in The Dukes of Hazzard.
In contract, the brand with the smallest number of screen time was New Holland,
which appeared for one second in Field of Dreams on a hat. Ace Hi Feeds, Carhartt,
Dekalb, and Redwing Shoes each had the second lowest amount of screen time, with each
brand being present for three seconds each throughout the films.
Brands: Films: Length of
Appearance:
Ace Hi Feeds Son In Law 3
Total: 3 Seconds
Carhartt The Dukes of Hazzard 3
Total: 3 Seconds
Castrol Motor Oil Field of Dreams 11
Total: 11 Seconds
Table 4.1. Brands are listed with the films the brands appeared in along with the length of appearance in seconds. Continued
38
Table 4.1: Continued CAT Field of Dreams 27
Forrest Gump 5
Charlotte’s Web 8
Total: 40 Seconds
Cub Cadet Field of Dreams 8
Twister 12
Total: 20 Seconds
Dekalb The Bridges of Madison
County
3
Total: 3 Seconds
Department of Agriculture Arachnophobia 5
Total: 5 Seconds
Farmall/International
Harvester
Forrest Gump 7
Runaway Bride 4
Signs 13
Total: 24 Seconds
FFA Charlotte’s Web 8
Total: 8 Seconds
Continued
39
Table 4.1: Continued Ford Son In Law 19
Varsity Blues 40
Total: 54 Seconds
John Deere Funny Farm 48
Field of Dreams 26
City Slickers 6
Son In Law 6
The Bridges of Madison
County
9
Twister 65
The Waterboy 223
Runaway Bride 1
O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? 6
Seabiscuit 16
The Dukes of Hazzard 5
Superman Returns 19
Charlotte’s Web 78
Secretariat 17
Total: 525
Seconds
Continued
40
Table 4.1: Continued Justin Boots Son In Law 14
Varsity Blues 40
Total: 54 Seconds
Kent Feed Field of Dreams 26
Total: 26 Seconds
Kenworth Brokeback Mountain 44
Total: 44 Seconds
Komakatsu The Dukes of Hazzard 104
Total: 104
Seconds
Mack The Dukes of Hazzard 6
Total: 6 Seconds
Massey Ferguson Son In Law 158
Twister 45
Total: 203
Seconds
New Holland Field of Dreams 1
Total: 1 Second
Pioneer Twister 15
Total: 15 Seconds
Continued
41
Table 4.1: Continued Quality Seed Field of Dreams 10 Total: 10 Seconds
REAL Seal Field of Dreams 7
Total: 7 Seconds
Red Wing Shoes Varsity Blues 3
Total: 3 Seconds
Snapper Forrest Gump 159
Total: 159
Seconds
Versatile Brokeback Mountain 10
Total: 10 Seconds
Wheel Horse Funny Farm 18
Total: 18 Seconds
White Farm Equipment Brokeback Mountain 16
Total: 16 Seconds
4-H Charlotte’s Web 45
Total: 45 Seconds
Total: 1384
Seconds
42
Objective Three Findings:
How are the brands positioned in the film (Is the brand name clearly shown, is it
the focus of the frame?)
The following paragraphs describe a selection of the films and brands, clarifying
the use of brands in the films or how the films portrayed the brands. The brand with the
greatest number of on screen time, John Deere, films with high interactive brand
experience, the highest ranking and largest grossing film studied, Forrest Gump, and
Charlotte’s Web, a widely distributed children’s classic book adapted into film.
John Deere
The Waterboy (Coraci, The Waterboy, 1998), starring Adam Sandler, features a
highly disguised John Deere mower, which has been painted red. However, the mower
serves as the main method of transportation for Bobby Boucher (Sandler) to get to
football practice at the University of Louisiana and South Central Louisiana State
University from his home in the bayou, as well as his honeymoon transportation at the
end of the film (Coraci, The Waterboy, 1998). The Waterboy features the highest time of
on-screen branded material for any of the films studied, which is 223 seconds of screen
time of the John Deere mower, see Figure 4.1 (Coraci, The Waterboy, 1998). Although
the mower is painted red, and some individuals would believe the mower could be built
by Case IH, Snapper or Wheel Horse (all companies which produce red lawn mowers),
the body style of this particular model is produced by John Deere and it does retain the
trademark yellow on the mower deck and hub caps.
43
Figure 4.1. Bobby Boucher, portrayed by Adam Sandler, shown in the right foreground, approaches the John Deere mower featured in The Waterboy (Coraci, The Waterboy, 1998: Internet Movie Cars Database, 2006).
Even if the representation of John Deere is ignored from The Waterboy, John
Deere is still has the longest duration of screen appearance of 302 seconds from the films
studied, with The Waterboy’s appearance of John Deere included the brand is present on
screen for 525 seconds. Although John Deere branding was disguised in The Waterboy,
the brand was not camouflaged in any of the other films, which feature the iconic green
and yellow machinery and running buck logo (Coraci, The Waterboy, 1998). Whether the
John Deere logo was featured on a hat, as it was in Funny Farm and Charlotte’s Web, or
44
on a piece of machinery like in Field of Dreams, City Slickers, Son In Law, Twister,
Runaway Bride, O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?, Seabiscuit, The Dukes of Hazzard,
Superman Returns, and Secretariat, the brand received attention from millions of viewers
and was easily recognizable as a part of the John Deere product line up (Hill, Funny
Farm, 1988) (Winick, Charlotte’s Web, 2006) (Robinson, Field of Deams, 1989)
(Underwood, City Slickers, 1991) (Rash, Son In Law, 1993) (de Bont, Twister, 1996)
(Marshall G., Runaway Bride, 1999) (Coen & Coen, O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?, 2000)
(Ross, Seabiscuit, 2003) (Chandarasekher, The Dukes of Hazzard, 2005) (Singer,
Superman Returns, 2006). Ray Kinsella, portrayed by Kevin Costner, uses his John Deere
2640 tractor to plow under a portion of his corn crop to build his baseball field in Field of
Dreams (Robinson, Field of Dreams, 1989). This John Deere product clearly displays the
brand, as well as the model number for the audiences to digest for 26 seconds of screen
time, see Figure 4.2.
45
Figure 4.2. Ray Kinsella and his daughter, Karin, ride on the John Deere 2640 during the film Field of Dreams (Robinson, Field of Dreams,1989: Internet Movie Cars Database, 2012).
High Interactive Brand Experience
Son In Law has the second longest running time of branded material during the
film. However, unlike in The Waterboy, the screen time of 200 seconds is divided
between five brands in Son In Law (Coraci, The Waterboy, 1998) (Rash, Son In Law,
1993). Ace Hi Feeds, Ford, John Deere, Justin Boots, and Massey Ferguson share the
spotlight in Son In Law throughout the Morgan Family’s attempts to educate Crawl
(portrayed by Pauley Shore), their daughter’s city slicker fiancée, on how to farm (Rash,
Son In Law, 1993). After an afternoon shoveling manure into a John Deere manure
spreader, Crawl climbs into the family’s Massey Ferguson 8460 combine to the tune of
John Denver’s Thank God I’m a Country Boy and proceeds to write his moniker in
46
cursive throughout the (ragweed infested) corn field, all while the hired hand, Theo,
operates a Ford tractor in the background while wearing his favorite Massey Ferguson
ball cap (See Figure 4.3)(Rash, Son In Law, 1993). The John Deere manure spreader
appeared for six seconds, Ford tractor for 19 seconds, Massey Ferguson for 158 seconds,
Ace Hi Feeds for three seconds and Justin Boots appeared for 14 seconds throughout Son
In Law’s memorable scenes (Rash, Son In Law, 1993).
Figure 4.3. Crawl operates the Massey Ferguson 8460 with ease while learning to become a farmer in Son In Law (Rash, Son In Law, 1993: Internet Movie Cars Database, 2014).
47
Bill and Jo Harding, portrayed by Helen Hunt and Bill Paxton, send film viewers
flying across the Great Plains, near Wakita, Kansas, in search of the most dangerous
tornadoes in Twister (de Bont, Twister, 1996). The team of experienced storm chasers
speed through sleepy rural towns and take shortcuts through corn fields as they chase the
tornadoes in hopes to deploy “Dorothy”, a computer system designed to monitor how
tornadoes form and what occurs while the storm is destroying everything in its path (de
Bont, Twister, 1996).
This film is unlike all of the other films studied, because it used agricultural
brands to frighten the audience, as well as understand the sheer force Mother Nature can
inflict on material goods. Toward the end of the film, the Hardings pass by an implement
dealership, which is selling primarily Massey Ferguson and Cub Cadet Equipment, along
with a few John Deere tractors. Seconds later, several Massey Ferguson combines slam
into the road, having been picked up from the dealership and thrown from a tornado,
from which the hero and heroine narrowly miss being crushed to death. In the last scene,
the most powerful tornado in the film has just wrecked havoc on a farm, by annihilating a
large barn, fencing, corn crop, and well house. As soon as the storm cleared, the farming
family emerged from their storm cellar. The family is physically unscathed from the
disaster, but as the father looks around in disbelief at the destruction of his farm, he is
wearing his Pioneer Seed ball cap for the viewers of film, see Figure 4.4.
48
Figure 4.4. The farmer and his family emerge from the storm cellar at the end of Twister. Notice the farmer's hat, which features the Pioneer Seed logo (de Bont, Twister, 1996).
Forrest Gump
The highest ranking and grossing film studied was Forrest Gump, which brought
in $329,694,499.00 and was the number one movie of 1994. Forrest Gump starts out in
Forrest’s hometown of “Greenbow, Alabama, in Greenbow County,” according to Forrest
Gump’s narration (Zemeckis, Forrest Gump, 1994). Forrest, portrayed by Michael
Conner Humphries and Tom Hanks, has a rough start in life by requiring braces on his
49
legs and having a lower than average IQ. Mrs. Gump, portrayed by Sally Field, walks
with Forrest from the town, passing by a Farmall tractor on the road in front of their
home within the first seven minutes of the film. Forrest overcomes the need for the braces
on his legs, and is able to live a full life by going to college, joining the army and serving
in Vietnam, starting the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, and many other great
achievements (Zemeckis, Forrest Gump, 1994). However, his one true passion in life is
his friendship with Jenny, the girl he befriended on the first day of school. After making
money with his shrimp business, Forrest returns to Greenbow, Alabama, where he mows
the local football field and his yard with his Snapper lawn mower for free.
Charlotte’s Web
Charlotte’s Web is the most widely recognized agrarian story studied through the
series of films in this study. The film released in 2006 was based off E.B. White’s
Charlotte’s Web, originally published in 1952, which became “one of the most beloved
children’s books,” according to A.O. Scott, of the New York Times (Scott, 2006). The
film follows the life of Wilbur, the pig, and Charlotte A. Cavatica, the spider who spins
elaborate webs with words in order to save Wilbur from the butcher’s block (Winick,
Charlotte’s Web, 2006) (Scott, 2006). The animals reside on the Zuckerman farm and
become local celebrities because of Wilbur’s fame.
50
Figure 4.5. Fern, portrayed by Dakota Fanning and wearing a 4-H shirt, holds Wilbur while admiring Charlotte's newest web in Charlotte's Web (Winick, Charlotte’s Web, 2006).
Charlotte’s Web extensively promotes youth organizations, such as the 4-H and
FFA, by showing an informative lecture during class to encourage students to join their
local 4-H club and exhibit a project at the local county fair (Winick, Charlotte’s Web,
2006). Fern, portrayed by Dakota Fanning, even wears a shirt with the 4-H emblem while
working with Wilbur on the farm (Winick, Charlotte’s Web, 2006) (See Figure 4.5).
51
Objective Four Results:
Are there trends between the films in which the agricultural brands appeared in?
Of the films analyzed in this study, agricultural brands appeared in more films
categorized as dramas in comparison to other film genres (Box Office Mojo, 2013) (See
Table 4.2). Of the 19 films, 11 were categorized as dramas, followed by comedy in ten
films, and romance in six films. The majority of the films were rated PG-13 (12 films
were rated PG-13 out of 19), four films were rated PG, two R, and one G rated film was
studied (Box Office Mojo, 2013).
Film: Rating: Genre:
Funny Farm PG Comedy, Drama
Field of Dreams PG Drama. Family, Fantasy
Arachnophobia PG-13 Comedy, Sci-Fi, Thriller
City Slickers PG-13 Comedy, Western
Son In Law PG-13 Comedy, Drama, Romance
Forrest Gump PG-13 Drama, Romance
The Bridges of Madison County PG-13 Drama, Romance
Twister PG-13 Action, Adventure, Drama
The Waterboy PG-13 Comedy, Sport
Table 4.2. Table 4.2 lists the films in chronological order providing the rating and genre of each film studied in the study. Continued
52
Table 4.2: Continued Runaway Bride PG Comedy, Romance
Varsity Blues R Comedy, Drama, Romance
O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? PG-13 Comedy, Crime
Signs PG-13 Drama, Sci-Fi, Thriller
Seabiscuit PG-13 Drama, History, Sport
Brokeback Mountain R Drama, Romance
The Dukes of Hazzard PG-13 Action, Adventure, Comedy
Superman Returns PG-13 Action, Adventure, Fantasy
Charlotte’s Web G Comedy, Family, Fantasy
Secretariat PG Drama, Family, History
The films studied were produced from a combination of six different studios:
Buena Vista Pictures produced six films, followed by Warner Bros. producing five films,
Paramount Studios produced four films, Universal Pictures produced two films, and
Columbia Pictures and Focus Entertainment each produced one film containing
agricultural brands (Box Office Mojo, 2013) (See Table 4.3). Superman Returns was
shown in the greatest number of theatres, in comparison to other films studied. Clark
Kent’s latest reprisal as Superman appeared in 2006 in 4,065 theatres throughout the
United States (Box Office Mojo, 2013). O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? was shown in the
53
fewest number of theatres, for a total of 847 theatres. While all of the films ranked higher
than 70th in each of the respective box office year rankings, none of the films ranked
higher than Forrest Gump, which was the highest-ranking film at number one for 1994.
Twister was the second highest film of 1996. Secretariat ranked 58th in 2010 and O’
Brother, Where Art Thou? ranked 56th in 2000, and were the lowest ranking films
studied.
Year: Film: National
Rank:
Producing Studio: Theatres
shown
in:
1988 Funny Farm 40 Warner Bros. 1557
1989 Field of Dreams 19 Universal Pictures 1100
1990 Arachnophobia 22 Buena Vista
Pictures
2005
1991 City Slickers 5 Columbia Pictures 2171
1993 Son In Law 44 Buena Vista
Pictures
1406
1994 Forrest Gump 1 Paramount Studios 2365
Table 4.3. Films studied are listed chronologically and each film's box office rank, production company and number of theatres shown in are included. Continued
54
Table 4.3: Continued 1995 The Bridges of Madison County 21 Warner Bros. 1986
1996 Twister 2 Warner Bros. 2808
1998 The Waterboy 5 Buena Vista Pictures 2782
1999 Runaway Bride 9 Paramount Studios 3240
1999 Varsity Blues 44 Paramount Studios 2364
2000 O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? 56 Buena Vista Pictures 847
2002 Signs 6 Buena Vista Pictures 3453
2003 Seabiscuit 17 Universal Pictures 2573
2005 Brokeback Mountain 22 Focus 2089
The total combined gross income from the films studied was $2,213,087,100.00
(Box Office Mojo, 2013) (See Table 4.4.). The films were shown in a total of 46,170
theatres across the country and had a combined running time of 2,185 hours (Box Office
Mojo, 2013) (See Table 4.3 and Table 4.4.). Six films premiered in the second quarter of
the year (April, May and June), five films premiered in the first quarter (January,
February and March), both the third (July, August and September) and fourth (October,
November and December) quarters had four films premier (Box Office Mojo, 2013) (See
Table 4.4.). Films that premiered in the second quarter rank higher in the box office, on
average, in comparison to films in the other three quarters.
55
Film: Gross Income: Debut Date: Running Time:
Funny Farm $25,537,221 June 3 101 Minutes
Field of Dreams $64,431,625 April 21 107 Minutes
Arachnophobia $53,208,180 July 20 103 Minutes
City Slickers $124,033,791 June 7 113 Minutes
Son In Law $36,448,400 July 2 95 Minutes
Forrest Gump $329,694,499 July 6 142 Minutes
The Bridges of Madison County $71,516,617 June 2 135 Minutes
Twister $241,721,524 May 10 113 Minutes
The Waterboy $161,491,646 November 6 90 Minutes
Runaway Bride $152,257,509 July 30 116 Minutes
Varsity Blues $52,894,169 January 15 106 Minutes
O’ Brother, Where Art Thou? $45,512,588 December 22 106 Minutes
Signs $227,966,634 February 6 106 Minutes
Seabiscuit $120,277,854 February 5 140 Minutes
Brokeback Mountain $83,043,761 April 20 134 Minutes
The Dukes of Hazzard $80,270,227 October 30 104 Minutes
Superman Returns $200,081,192 November 2 154 Minutes
Charlotte’s Web $82,985,708 March 22 97 Minutes
Secretariat $59,713,955 February 10 123 Minutes
Table 4.4. Films are listed with earnings generated, box office opening date, and running time.
56
Objective Five Results:
Are there trends with the actors or actresses who appear in the films?
Actors and actresses capture the audience’s attention during the film, and usually
leave lasting impressions after the film has ended. Trends of actors and actresses who
frequently portray characters in rural films appeared in the films analyzed for this study
(Brand Cameo, 2012).
Of these films, four actors were in multiple films on the list. They varied from
main roles to supportive roles, but were essential in the creation of making the audience
feel like they were part of a functional rural community, experiencing an agrarian
lifestyle. See Table 4.5. Royce D. Applegate, Kathy Bates, John Goodman and Julia
Roberts were each featured in two of the films analyzed which contained agricultural
branded material. Royce D. Applegate and Julia Roberts appeared in other films which
were analyzed for brand content, but were eliminated from the study because of a lack of
branded material present in the films. Therefore, when considering films with rural
settings, Applegate and Roberts have a greater number of appearances in films in
comparison to other actors in Table 4.5. In the particular films in this study, the six
repetitive actors did not interact directly with an agricultural brand.
57
Actor: Films:
Applegate, Royce D. O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?
Seabiscuit
Bates, Kathy The Waterboy
Charlotte’s Web
Goodman, John Arachnophobia
O’ Brother, Where Art Thou?
Roberts, Julia Runaway Bride
Charlotte’s Web
Table 4.5. Actors who were in multiple films studied are listed with the films they appeared in.
Although the agriculturally based brands do not take up the majority of screen
time in films, they still are an important part of making the scenes in the films believable
and representative of an agrarian lifestyle. The use of the branded agricultural products in
the films studied for this research project, portrayed agriculture in a realistic setting.
Overall, the brands were used for their intended purposes and accurately represented the
agriculture industry in the United States. There use would correctly inform the viewers of
the films of what life is like on an American farm or a rural countryside.
In total, agricultural brands were on screen for a combined 1,384 seconds, or
23.07 minutes. This means agricultural brands were present for 1.06 percent of the
58
combined films running time. However, despite such a low percentage, the brands
presented in the films were visible to viewers. There is an even greater presence of
agricultural representation in the films because of the appearance of unbranded items,
such as animals, crops and pastoral settings.
59
Chapter 5: Conclusions
Less than two percent of the United States population is directly involved with
production agriculture, and therefore the majority of the general public is not directly
related to the production of agricultural products or typically understands how an
American farm functions (EPA's Ag Center, 2012). While the majority of the population
does not know firsthand what the agricultural industry requires to operate on a daily
basis, they are exposed through numerous forms of mass media on the happenings in
rural America. Although most media formats, such as television and film, use pastoral
scenes to sell a fictional story line, rather than providing factual information for the
public to learn from. Therefore, this study used content analysis to determine what brands
are present in films featuring agricultural scenes from the past 25 years. Films from this
broad period of time would allow the films to be readily available for the general public
to view. Each of the films ranked higher than 70th in its opening year box office records
and was a live action film, rather than an animated film (Box Office Mojo, 2013).
Nineteen films met the requirements for the study and contained agricultural brands.
The objectives of this study were as follows:
1. Which agricultural brands are present in popular films?
2. How often are the agricultural brands shown in popular films?
60
3. How are the agricultural brands positioned in the film (Is the brand name clearly
shown, is it the focus of the frame?)
4. Are there trends between the films in which the agricultural brands appeared?
5. Are there trends with the actors or actresses who appear in the popular films that
feature an agricultural or rural setting?
Agricultural brands were not the focus of the story plots of the films studied; the
brands had a large impact on creating the imagery of an operational agricultural industry,
and thus influenced the viewer of the films to believe the scenes they were watching.
Some brands were utilized, or worn, by characters, while others were adding to the
ambiance in the background, but each was important to form the take home message for
the viewer. Despite having a supportive role in each of the films, 27 brands were featured
throughout the films. The brands present were: Ace Hi Feeds, Carhartt, Castrol Motor
Oil, CAT, Cub Cadet, Dekalb, Department of Agriculture, Farmall/International
Harvester, FFA, Ford, John Deere, Justin Boots, Kent Feed, Kenworth, Komakatsu,
Mack, Massey Ferguson, New Holland, Pioneer, Quality Seed, REAL Seal, Red Wing
Shoes, Snapper, Versatile, Wheel Horse, White Farm Equipment, and 4-H.
Each of the present brands helped create the imagery associated with an American
farm or functional rural community. Whether it was the main characters driving a John
Deere tractor or a supporting character wearing a 4-H shirt, each of the brands left an
impression of the agricultural industry upon the viewers of the films.
61
Although agriculturalists frequently debate the battle of red vs. green
(Farmall/International Harvester vs. John Deere), when it comes to product placement in
films John Deere reigns supreme over all other brands in length of screen time and
number of appearances in the films analyzed during this study. From all the films that
contained branded material in a rural setting, John Deere products were featured in 13
films for a combined duration of 516 seconds (8.6 minutes).
In total, agricultural branded material was present for 23.07 minutes throughout
the 19 films. This is approximately 1.06 percent of the combined running time of each of
the films, which is a small portion of the screen time. However, when the films are being
shown in the theaters, the film has the undivided attention of the audience because of
movie theatre etiquette, meaning it is not appropriate to talk or use electronic
communication devices during the film. The movie theatre is one of the rare locations in
today’s society where most individuals adhere to this uncommon courtesy of
disconnecting from the digital world and unplugging for a few hours to enjoy nothing but
entertainment, without the distractions of life and instantaneous communication.
While 1.06 percent of the combined running time is a low portion of the film, the
presence of the brands on screen is important because of the millions of impressions
being obtained through watching the films. In comparison to agricultural brands that are
not placed in films or other mass media outlets, like television, agricultural brands that
are placed in films have a lager public awareness, even if it is subconscious, because of
the visibility obtained through film. Funny Farm’s movie poster and DVD and VHS
packaging cover features Chevy Chase riding his Wheel Horse lawn mower, this kind of
62
advertising would not have been achieved without the use of agricultural product
placement in film.
Films have historically had a large audience. Films attract over a billion people
annually to the theatres and even more people watch films at home (Biagi, 2010).
Figure 5.1. Funny Farm poster shows Chevy Chase and Yellow Dog riding on a Wheel Horse lawn mower, which is featured for 18 seconds in the film (Hill, Funny Farm, 1988).
63
Advertisers are increasingly turning to market products through product placement in
films or television because of DVR technology, which allows consumers to remove
commercials from recorded programs, therefore entirely skipping millions of dollars of
advertisements (Spurlock, 2011). By placing products in the content of films or television
programs, consumers cannot skip the advertisement because it is integrated into the story
line of the entertainment piece. For this reason, agricultural communicators must study
films to understand the representation of agricultural brands, agricultural practices and
the agricultural industry through the lenses of Hollywood.
Positioning of the brands in the film is an important part of product placement.
New Holland appeared for 1 second in Field of Dreams on a hat worn by a supporting,
unnamed character – which was very easy to miss in a feature length film. In comparison,
Ray Kinsella, portrayed by Kevin Costner, in Field of Dreams used a John Deere tractor
to plow his field of corn down to make the baseball field. This product placement of the
John Deere tractor focuses the entire screen on to the tractor for several seconds.
Francesca Johnson, portrayed by Meryl Streep, drives a John Deere tractor and tends to
her family’s corn in The Bridges of Madison County, while Robert Kincaid, portrayed by
Clint Eastwood, drives by a Dekalb sign on his way to examine the famous Madison
County Bridges. The placement of the brands does impact the effectiveness of the brands
marketing power. New Holland and Dekalb did not have the same effectiveness that John
Deere did in Field of Dreams and The Bridges of Madison County.
Like the findings in Specht’s study of film and television portrayals of agriculture
and Rhoades and Irani’s study of TSC advertisements, the films analyzed in this study
64
reflect the findings from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation’s Perception of Rural America
results. The 19 films analyzed in this research study show a variation of the agrarian
perceptions defined by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation studies. These films depict rolling
hills, lush foliage, Norman Rockwell imagery (especially in Funny Farm where the
Farmers pay the local community to imitate covers of The Saturday Evening Post which
feature Rockwell’s depictions of idyllic rural life), red barns, conservative values,
demonstrate hard work ethics, and reinforce perceptions that some rural folk are
backwards and lack sophistication (Like Forrest Gump from Forrest Gump, Bobby
Boucher from The Waterboy, and the Duke cousins from The Dukes of Hazzard).
Generally the farmers depicted in the films would wear boots, bib overalls with a flannel
shirt and some kind of hat, generally a baseball cap or cowboy hat, which would match
the stereotypical farmer perception. In keeping with the stereotypical representation of
the characters in the films, representations of viewer expectations appeared on film
covers as well, specifically on Son In Law’s cover imitating Grant Wood’s painting called
“American Gothic” (Rash, 1993) (Basinger, 2005). The use of agricultural brands and the
settings shown in the films is an extension of the agricultural perceptions of common film
consumers without agricultural knowledge.
65
Using popular actors and public figures to show off agricultural products in films
through product placement is a method to connect the brand to the consumer. While the
majority of the population of the United States has no need for the largest horsepower
tractor made by John Deere or a Caterpillar D-4 bulldozer, most are able to relate to
material items produced by the companies, such as t-shirts, hats, children’s toys and even
some small garden equipment.
Figure 5.2 and 5.1. Grant Wood's "American Gothic" painting and Son In Law's promotional poster share a striking resemblance in order to match viewer perceptions of rural American lifestyles, and include humor in the film's advertising (Basinger, 2005: Rash, 1993).
66
By witnessing a prominent actor utilizing a product in a film may result in a
consumer to purchase a branded item if the brand is portrayed positively. Individuals who
are looking to purchase a lawn mower and have recently seen Forrest Gump, Funny
Farm or Twister, may evaluate the differences between Wheel Horse, Snapper, and Cub
Cadet lawn mowers because of the brands presence on the screen. Visual images can be
recalled quickly by consumers when making purchasing decisions of branded items.
Figure 5.4. John Deere produced a 1/16 model toy tractor of the 2640 tractor driven by Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams (Robinson, Field of Dreams, 1989) (Ebay, 2014).
67
Recommendations for Practitioners
Agricultural communicators should familiarize themselves with the content of
agricultural and rural based films. By understanding and knowing what representations
consumers are seeing in the theater, agricultural communicators can establish better
advertising and public relation campaigns to work with or against the imagery. Film and
television are interwoven to influence the audience’s opinions through cultivation, and
over time, information presented through entertainment pieces becomes synonymous
with factual information in the minds of the viewers (Potter, 1993). Not all information
presented in films is entirely factual or represents modern day agricultural practices;
therefore agricultural communicators should stay up to date on film content,
representation of agriculture and agricultural brand appearance in films. This study is an
important example for public relations and marketing courses in agricultural
communication to see how product placement is effective for promoting agricultural
brands.
Brands which appear in films should try to capitalize on their appearances
because of the large quantity of viewers who see films. While it is not known what
brands paid for product placement or not in the films studied, the brands should all have
tried to increase sales through the advertisements made through the films. As product
placement becomes increasingly popular in the future, agricultural companies will need
to evaluate the potential return on investment available by marketing to viewers of film
and television.
68
Recommendations for Future Research
Further studies on films featuring agricultural settings, plots, and brands are
needed for agricultural communications to be effective in marketing brands to common
and agricultural consumers. Films should be studied from a greater number of years to
determine the variety of agricultural brands utilized in film production and any trends
over a greater period of time. Films ranking lower than 70th in box office years should
also be studied, because those films also had large audiences. When analyzing a greater
quantity of films, actors and actresses trends should be studied and considered for their
marketing power with consumers who would want to see them in an agricultural or rural
based film, and how well they market agricultural products within the story line of the
film.
Segments of the films analyzed in this study should be shown to audiences to
determine the brand recall and consumer perception of agricultural brands from both
agriculturalists and common consumers. Obtaining information from consumers after
viewing films and following their purchasing habits of agricultural products is a logical
extension of product placement research.
Although agricultural brands have a small role in the market of product placement
in all films; in the agricultural sector, the appearance of agricultural products and brands
on the silver screen makes a statement of international advertisement and endorsement
for the brands and their products (if the products are portrayed in a positive light). By
appearing in films, agricultural brands and the agricultural industry achieve visibility
from millions of viewers and impact the image of American agriculture for 98 percent of
69
the nation’s population who are not involved with agricultural production on a farm in the
United States. By understanding what and how consumers of rural based films interpret
the brands and images of the agrarian lifestyles in the United States through film will
only help agricultural communicators communicate with the public in the future.
70
References Acheson, K., & Maule, C. (1991). Shadows Behind the Scenes: Political Exchange and
the Film Industry. Mellennium - Journal of International Studies , 20 (2), 287-
307.
AGCO Corporation. (2014). AGCO Corporation Homepage. Retrieved February 26,
2014, from AGCO Corporation: http://www.agcocorp.com/default.aspx
Allers, R., Culton, J., & Stacchi, A. (Directors). (2006). Open Season [Motion Picture].
Los Angeles.
American Farm Bureau Federation. (n.d.). Fast Facts About Agriculture. Retrieved
November 23, 2013, from American Farm Bureau, The Voice of Agriculture, Fast
Facts About Agriculture: www.fb.org/index.php?fuseaction=newsroom.fastfacts
Aquino, J., & Sterbenz, C. (2014, February 11). 15 Inventions From Thomas Edison That
Changed The World. Retrieved February 22, 2014, from Business Insider:
Kenworth was established in 1923, and named after the “two principal
stockholders, Harry Kent and Edgar Worthington” (Kenworth Trucks, 2014). The truck
producing company has distinguished itself because of the opportunities for consumers to
customize their vehicle (Kenworth Trucks, 2014). Kenworth has produced: fire trucks,
Figure 6.14. Kent Feeds remains a family owned company after 87 years of operation (Kent Nutrition Group, 2014).
98
military wreckers, and components for the B-17 and B-29 aircrafts (Kenworth Trucks,
2014). The company operates factories in Washington, Ohio, Canada and Mexico
(Kenworth Trucks, 2014).
Komakatsu
Komakatsu was formed in 1921 after separating from a mining company, called
Takeuchi Mining Co. (Komatsu America Corporation, 2014). Komatsu is a company that
originates from Japan, and the name translates in English to “little pine tree” (Komatsu
America Corporation, 2014). The company began marketing its products in the United
States in the 1960s, but the official North American operations were established in 1970
Figure 6.15. Kenworth trucks are designed for optimum driver comfort and efficiency (Kenworth Trucks, 2014).
99
(Komatsu America Corporation, 2014). Komatsu employs nearly 2,000 in the United
States, and are the “second-largest, fully-integrated manufacturer and supplier of
construction equipment in North America” (Komatsu America Corporation, 2014).
Mack Trucks
Mack Trucks was established by John “Jack” Mack and his brother Augustus
Mack, in 1893 when they purchased the Fallesen & Berry carriage and wagon company
in Brooklyn, New York (Mack Trucks, Inc. , 2014). In 1894, William Mack joined his
brothers and began making wagons; as well as experimenting with steam and electric
cars, in their business they called the Mack Brothers Company (Mack Trucks, Inc. ,
2014). In 1900, the brothers produced their first vehicle: “a 40-horsepower, 20-passenger
bus” (Mack Trucks, Inc. , 2014). The bus was used as a sightseeing bus in Brooklyn’s
Prospect Park and was later converted into a truck; in total the vehicle drove over a
Figure 6.16. The Komatsu logo was previously a "little pine tree," but was changed in the late 1990s to the current logo (Komatsu America Corporation, 2014).
100
million miles, setting precedence for future Mack Trucks (Mack Trucks, Inc. , 2014). The
Mack Brothers Company was sold in 1911 to the International Motor Truck Corporation.
In 1922, International Motor Truck Corporation adopted the Bulldog as the corporate
symbol and also changed its name to Mack Trucks, Incorporated (Mack Trucks, Inc. ,
2014).
Massey Ferguson
The Massey Ferguson company has been in existence for 167 years. Daniel
Massey started his farm implement business in 1847 and Alanson Harris established his
foundry in 1857, the two companies merged in 1891 to form Massey Harris (Massey
Ferguson, 2012). The Massey Harris company produced the first “commercially
successful self-propelled combine in 1938” (Massey Ferguson, 2012). In 1953, Massey
Figure 6.17. In 1932, the first bulldog adorned the hood of a Mack truck (Mack Trucks, Inc. , 2014).
101
Harris merged with Harry Ferguson’s Harry Ferguson Limited of England, after Ferguson
had parted from Ford (Massey Ferguson, 2012). The company name was originally
hyphenated, but the hyphen was later dropped. Today, the company is owned by the
AGCO Corporation (Massey Ferguson, 2012).
New Holland
The New Holland Machinery Company was established in New Holland,
Pennsylvania, in 1895 (New Holland, N.D.). Today, New Holland manufactures “a full
line of tractors; hay and forage equipment; and harvesting, crop production and materials
handling equipment” (New Holland, N.D.). The company has more than 3,000 dealers in
Figure 6.18. The current Massey Ferguson logo (Massey Ferguson, 2012).
102
160 countries, and six of its production facilities are located in North America (New
Holland, N.D.).
Pioneer
Pioneer began as the Hi-Bred Corn Company, started by Henry A. Wallace in
1926 (DuPont Pioneer, 2014). The company changed its name to the Pioneer Hi-Bred
Corn Company in 1936, and by 1949 Pioneer’s seed sales reached the “million-unit
mark” (DuPont Pioneer, 2014). The company began to be publicly traded in 1973, the
same year it established soybean seed operations. By 1981, Pioneer led the market for
seed corn in North America and followed with soybeans in 1991 (DuPont Pioneer, 2014).
Pioneer was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1995, and was purchased by
DuPont in 1999 (DuPont Pioneer, 2014).
Figure 6.19. The New Holland logo, as shown on the corporate website (New Holland, N.D.).
103
Quality Seed
Quality Seeds, Ltd. is a Canadian based seed company. This company produces a
wide variety of seeds as well as erosion control solutions and corn testing (Quality Seeds
Inc., 2014). They produce the following varieties:
• Forage: Atlantic Forage mixes, Grasses, Legumes, Hay Mixtures, Pasture
Mixtures, and Organic Seeds.
• Turf: Bluegrass, Ryegrass, Fine Fescues, Tall Fescue and Bentgrass (Quality
Seeds Inc., 2014).
Figure 6.20. Pioneer Seed is part of the DuPont Corporation (DuPont Pioneer, 2014).
Figure 6.21. Quality Seeds Ltd. provides a wide variety of seeds and plant services (Quality Seeds Inc., 2014).
104
REAL Seal
The REAL Seal was created “four decades ago,” in 1976; by the Californian dairy
industry to ensure consumers they were purchasing an authentic dairy product (National
Milk Producers Federation, 2014). This labeling ensures consumers they are receiving a
product which was “made with milk from cows on U.S. dairy farms”, and meets “strict
manufacturing requirements” (National Milk Producers Federation, 2014). The REAL
Seal also means “the product contains no casein, casinate, vegetable oil, non-domestic
dairy protein or ingredient, or any cheese substitute or cheese analog” (National Milk
Producers Federation, 2014).
Figure 6.22. In the 1980s there were large marketing campaigns for the REAL Seal, boosting awareness of additives in dairy products (National Milk Producers Federation, 2014).
105
Red Wing Shoes
Red Wing Shoes began in Red Wing, Minnesota, when Charles Beckman and
fourteen other investors opened business in 1905 (Red Wing Shoes, 2014). They wanted
to produce shoes that were durable for individuals who were involved in the “mining,
logging and farming” industries (Red Wing Shoes, 2014). Red Wing Shoes also operates
Irish Setter, a hunting and fishing footwear line, and Vasque, a hiking and trail running
footwear line (Red Wing Shoes, 2014). The first winged logo for Red Wing Shoes was
created in 1928; however, the current logo was created in 2007 (See Figure 2.24.) (Red
Wing Shoes, 2014).
Figure 6.23. The Red Wing Shoe company produces work shoes for both men and women (Red Wing Shoes, 2014).
106
Snapper
Snapper began in 1894 as a lumber company, called Southern Saw Works, in
Georgia (Tractor Data, 2012). The company purchased Snappin’ Turtle lawn mowers and
began producing Snapper mowers in 1951. In 2002, Simplicity purchased Snapper, and
with this purchase Simplicity redirected the high-end lawn equipment’s future by
stopping sales of the brand in all Wal-Mart stores (Fishman, 2006). Today, Snapper is
owned by Briggs & Stratton, builds all of its 145 products in McDonough, Georgia, and
Figure 6.24. Snapper products are all painted "Snapper red" and the company makes push, riding and zero turn mowers, as well as snow blowers and other outdoor equipment (Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC, 2014).
107
Versatile
Versatile was founded in 1966, and sold to Cornat Industries Inc. in 1977 (Buhler
Versatile Inc., 2014). In 1987 the company was sold to Ford New Holland, and was
renamed New Holland in 1993 (Buhler Versatile Inc., 2014). Buhler Industries Inc.
purchased the company in 2000 and sold it in 2007 to Combine Factory Rostselmash Ltd.
(Buhler Versatile Inc., 2014). The Versatile name returned in October of 2008, and the
brand is the “only Canadian manufacturer of agricultural tractors” (Buhler Versatile Inc.,
2014). The company operates a factory in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and produces tractors,
application equipment, combines, precision seeding, and tillage equipment (Buhler
Versatile Inc., 2014).
Figure 6.25. This version of the Versatile logo was released in 2008 (Buhler Versatile Inc., 2014).
108
Wheel Horse
Wheel Horse was founded by Elmer Pond, in 1946 (Tractor Data, 2013). The
company grew to produce “a full line of lawn and garden tractors, in addition to riding
lawn mowers” (Tractor Data, 2013). In 1986, Wheel Horse was purchased by Toro,
another lawn and garden equipment manufacturer (Tractor Data, 2013). Toro continued
to build lawn tractors under the Wheel Horse brand name until 2007 (Tractor Data,
2013).
White Farm Equipment
The White Farm Equipment Company was established in 1969 (Tractor Data,
2013). Before becoming the White Farm Equipment Company, it was previously called
the White Motor Company and had purchased Oliver and Cockshutt in 1960, as well as
Figure 6.26. The Wheel Horse logo, as shown on the Wheel Horse Collectors Club website (Wheel Horse Collectors Club, Inc. , 2014).
109
Minneapolis-Moline in 1963 (Tractor Data, 2013). White Farm Equipment was
purchased in 1991 by AGCO, and continued to produce AGCO-White tractors until 2001
(Tractor Data, 2013). AGCO still produces a White planter, but also owns Challenger,
FENDT, Massey Ferguson and VALTRA Brands (AGCO Corporation, 2014).
4-H
Albert Graham held the first Boy’s and Girl’s Agricultural Club meeting on
January 15, 1902 in Clark County, Ohio (The Ohio State University Extension, 2012).
The Boy’s and Girl’s Agricultural Club became officially became known as 4-H in 1916
(The Ohio State University Extension, 2012). The 4-H program is now present in all 50
states in the United States and is active in more than eight countries in the world (The
Ohio State University Extension, 2012). Membership is open to all youth aged five
through 19, and membership does not require participants to have an agricultural
Figure 6.27. The White Farm Equipment Company's logo before being purchased by AGCO in 1991 (Tractor Data, 2013).
110
background (The Ohio State University Extension, 2012). The 4-H logo features a white
“H” on each leaf of the clover to represent Head, Heart, Hands and Health, and was
approved in 1939 (National 4-H History Preservation Program, 2014).
Figure 6.28. The 4-H emblem is a representation of the youth organization's brand (National 4-H History Preservation Program, 2014).
Agricultural brands are brands that are representative of the agricultural industry, such as Pioneer, Purina, Carhartt, John Deere, etc. Look closely in the films as sometimes the brands are not the main focus of the scene. Write down the length of time the brand is present on screen, the number of times it appears, and the time in the movie the brand appears so it is easy to find again. If it is possible to tell, state the era of the brand (Is it an antique tractor or a new one?). Also state where on the screen the brand appears (Is it front and center? Is it in the background? Is it being used by the main character?). Agricultural scenery is anything which is not a branded product, but is representative of the agriculture industry. An example of this would be aerial crop spraying, crops, silos, grain bins and animals.