There was a scene in the Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps that could be used as an example of bad product placement. It happened at the dinner. Present were Gordon Gekko, his alienated daughter Winnie and her fiancé Jake.
Gordon Gekko: »Drinks?«
Gekko: »What about you? Heineken?«
Jake: »Yeah, sure.«
What is the problem with that piece of screenplay? Well, the most important part: context. In terms of execution Oliver Stone used spoken and visual product placement, which was done nicely. My main objection is that the context of this placement is forced rather than natural. And in such cases the viewers don’t see the product and feel “I want to have it”, but as “OMG! WTF was that.”
At the dinner you would normally ask your future son-in-law if he wants wine, beer or maybe water. You wouldn’t ask him if he wants a specific brand of beer, except if you would be really sure about his drinking preferences. And that’s not normal. Well, it could be if you were a salesman for Heineken with non-existent social skills.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is full of product placement and could be qualified as product placement prostitution. However a viewer should expect a lot of brands: it’s a movie about money, Wall Street, fast cars and motorcycles … brands. BrandChannel counted the number of brands – they stopped at 38. But if your brand is involved in the movie with such high number of brands, it’s really difficult to stand out from the crowd. Apparently Heineken insisted on standing out :(
According to some statements from Oliver Stone, they had big problems with financing the movie. “We needed help, and we took it where we could without, I think, prostituting the movie.” He also insisted: “There was no scene that we did out of the way specifically to accommodate a particular brand sponsor.”
Yeah, right! Heinken’s product placement in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is absolutely horrible and one of the worst placements in recent memory.