You'd have to be blind on both sides to miss the product placements in this film

Using product placement to strengthen a brand is perhaps one of the oldest tricks in the marketer's book.  People who are producing entertainment (or, in the broader sense,"content") are always in need of funding for their projects.  The reason for this is simple: no one buys tickets to see a movie that isn't yet filmed, or pays to enter an art exhibit that hasn't been painted.  So, someone more visionary than the average consumer has to put up the money in advance.  In the 1930's, P&G sponsored the radio plays that came to be called "soap operas", because of the prominent product placements for laundry soaps within the content of the entertainment itself.  The product push was deliberate, unabashed, and totally acceptable in its time.  Remnants of this style still exist in talk radio (as well as on Prarie Home Companion).

Last weekend I watched The Blind Side (2009), starring Sandra Bullock, and was intrigued by the (over)use of product placement for Under Armour (not to mention prominent featuring of BMW, Borders, and Taco Bell's brands).  One contributor to brandspotters.com claims there were 125 appearances of the UA brand during the 126 minute movie. 

(Three logo placements, just in this one screen shot)

Since I recently graduated with an MBA from the University of Maryland, I have deep respect for Kevin Plank (a fellow UMD alum), who started the Under Armour business from a cottage business into a thriving corporation.  He's also a great supporter of other small businesses at the University.

Here's my take on the use of such a high-quantity product placement campaign:

BENEFIT TO THE UNDER ARMOUR BRAND
- Brand reinforcement.  Football is already UA's home base in terms of product advantage.  Most aspiring football players wear Under Armour gear and attire, on and off the field.  This product placement reinforces the already-strong association between their brand and football.
- Demonstrate the full array of their product line.  Most of the product placements in the film are on polo shirts, hats, and other non-game day apparel.  This is surely conscious.  Although UA became famous initially for their moisture-wicking skin-tight fabric, their product assortment includes many lines for casual daily wear.  In order to grow the company at recent growth rates, UA needs to acquire millions of new customers each year.  And since all the football players already own the brand, they need to hook in a broader swath of football fans.
- The fact that the film's subject, Michael Oher, played for the Ravens (in Under Armour's home town) is another logical reason for the brand wanting to have a place in the film.

DRAWBACKS OF THE PRODUCT PLACEMENT
- For the marketer, there is very little drawback for using product placements in a film.  If the viewers get angry about "commercialization", they would take it out on the producers or the film studios, not the marketers.
- Expensive!  I have no way of estimating the cost to Under Armour of all that product placement, but I'd guess $5-10 Million.
- One frustration might be in measuring the direct impact of the product placement on sales.  This could be done by surveying viewers of the film vs. non-viewers, to measure their purchase rates at 0, 3, and 6 months.
- From an artistic standpoint, the Under Armour product placement creates an unrealistic (and anachronistic) portrayal of sports fashion.  I've definitely met kids who own lots of UA gear, but the diverse UA wardrobe that S.J. has is a bit ridiculous (and certainly wouldn't have been available in 2003-2004, when the movie takes place).  It would appear, in the world of this movie, that no one in Tennessee wears Nike, Adidas, or Puma (unless you look at SJ's shoes VERY carefully).

(Sean junior, sporting an Under Armour hoodie and an Under Armour performance shirt)

The big question in my mind is: when will viewers say it's too much, and turn to films without endorsements?  For me, the answer is: when the movies suffer because of the product placement.  Despite the fact that I laughed whenever I saw yet another appearance of the UA logo, I still found the movie touching, well-written, and well-acted.  And I'm now writing a blog entry about Under Armour, which is probably exactly what they wanted to accomplish in the first place.