ARTICLES

Brand appearances in contemporary cinema films and

contribution to global marketing of cigarettes

James D Sargent, Jennifer J Tickle. Michael L Beach, Madeline A Dalton, M Bridget Ahrens, Todd F Heatherton

Summary Introduction
The visual presentation of brands in cinema films is
Background The appearance of a cigarette brand in a cinema generally thought of as a form of advertising,1,2 which is
film gives the brand a certain distinction through its pursued by companies because it influences people to
association with the characters and general tone of the film. purchase or use a product. Brand placement in films has
Through the worldwide distribution of films, brands are become a preferred method for companies to raise brand
promoted globally. We assessed the tobacco-brand awareness and develop favourable associations with their
appearances in a 10-year sample of contemporary films. products for an international audience. Case reports
suggest that this practice can be effective in promoting
Methods We viewed the contents of the top 25 US box-office sales.3,4 Increasingly, brand placement in films is part of an
films for each year of release, from 1988 to 1997 (250 films integrated international marketing plan for corporate
in total). We compared the prevalence of brand appearances products, such as the deal between beer, spirits, car, and
for films produced before a voluntary ban on paid product mobile-phone manufacturers, plus a credit-card company
placement by the tobacco industry (1988–90) with films in the film Tomorrow Never Dies. In total, these companies
produced after the ban (1991–97). Tobacco-brand spent almost US$98 million worldwide in advertisements
appearance was defined as the screen appearance of a associated with the release of this movie, which also
brand name, logo, or identifiable trademark on products or featured their products.
product packaging, billboards, store-front advertising, or Although there have been several studies of tobacco use
tobacco promotional items. We defined actor endorsement of in films,5–11 we identified only one mention of tobacco-
a brand as the display of a brand while being handled or used brand appearances in films. Stockwell and Glantz10
by an actor. assessed a random sample of five of the top 20 box-office
hits for each year from 1985 to 1995, and noted that
Findings More than 85% of the films contained tobacco use. brand appearances declined after 1990, although these
Tobacco brands appeared in 70 (28%) films. Brand findings were not supported by any data. Moreover, if
appearances were as common in films suitable for brand appearances are fairly uncommon, trend analysis by
adolescent audiences as they were in films for adult sampling only five movies per year would be difficult.
audiences (32 vs 35%), and were also present in 20% of We investigated the frequency of tobacco-brand
those rated for children. Prevalence of brand appearance did appearances in the top 25 US box-office hits per year for 10
not change overall in relation to the ban. However, there was years (1988–97). We aimed to assess trends in relation to a
a striking increase in the type of brand appearance depicted, tobacco-industry ban on payments for brand placement in
with actor endorsement increasing from 1% of films before films, and to estimate the size of the international audience
the ban to 11% after. Four US cigarette brands accounted for for films with cigarette-brand appearances.
80% of brand appearances. Revenues outside the USA
accounted for 49% of total revenues for these films, Methods
indicating a large international audience. Film sample
We selected the top 25 box-office hits in the USA for
Interpretation Tobacco-brand appearances are common in every year from 1988 to 1997 (250 in total) obtained from
films and are becoming increasingly endorsed by actors. The the website www.worldwideboxoffice.com on March 1,
most highly advertised US cigarette brands account for most 1998 (accessed on Dec 14, 2000). We analysed the
brand appearances, which suggests an advertising motive to content to assess the association between exposure to
this practice. tobacco use in films and smoking behaviour in a sample of
US adolescents.
Lancet 2001; 357: 29–32 In addition to describing brand appearances, we
assessed whether the frequency and type of brand
appearance had changed since the tobacco industry
incorporated a ban into its voluntary advertising code on
payments for brand placement in films in 1989. Since it
Departments of Pediatrics (J D Sargent MD, M A Dalton PhD, takes about 1 year for movies to be released after the
M B Ahrens MPH), Community and Family Medicine (J D Sargent, production stages, we thought that many of the films
M L Beach MD), and the Norris Cotton Cancer Center (J D Sargent, released in 1990 would have been produced before the
M L Beach, M A Dalton, M B Ahrens), Dartmouth Medical School, ban. Therefore we classified films released in 1988–90 as
Hanover NH, USA; and Department of Psychological and Brain released before the ban and those produced in 1991–97 as
Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover (J J Tickle, released after the ban.
T F Heatherton PhD)
Correspondence to: Dr James D Sargent, Department of Pediatrics, Content analysis
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH 03756, USA We defined tobacco-brand appearances as the appearance
(e-mail: [email protected]) of a brand name, logo, or identifiable trademark on

THE LANCET • Vol 357 • January 6, 2001 29

For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.
ARTICLES

Disney Studios charged advertisers $20 000 for showing a

product, $40 000 to show a product and have an actor
mention the product name, and $60 000 for an actor to be
shown using a product.14 Moreover, reports by lawyers
who broker agreements between companies and the film
industry show that background brand placement does not
generally gain large fees, but if the product constitutes an
important element in the story line or is featured
prominently during one or more scenes, a substantial fee
(possibly several hundred thousand US dollars) may be
paid by the manufacturer for the placement.15 Figure 1
shows examples of actor endorsement and background
tobacco-brand appearances for Marlboro cigarettes taken
from our sample of films.
Two coders analysed the film. Each film was initially
viewed in entirety twice by a coder to identify every
appearance of tobacco use or imagery. The appearances
were viewed multiple times to code details about the
Figure 1: Examples of actor endorsement and tobacco-brand context of the use or imagery. For each film, the coder
appearances for Marlboro cigarrettes (A: My Best Friend’s recorded the number of times a tobacco brand appeared,
Wedding, B: The Last Boy Scout, C: Men in Black, and D: Volcano what brands were shown, and whether each appearance
was an actor endorsement or a background appearance.
products or product packaging, billboards, store-front To assess reliability between the two coders in the
advertising, or tobacco promotional items. We defined content analysis, we randomly selected 10% of the films to
them as brand appearances because we have no evidence be coded for analysis. However, because brand
that payments made by the tobacco industry prompted appearances were seen in only 28% of the films, this
placement in the film (brand placements). Tobacco-brand sample was not large enough to assess reliability.
appearances were coded as actor endorsements when a Therefore, all films identified as having a brand
major or minor actor was using tobacco, or as background appearance by a coder were independently reviewed by
appearances when the product’s presence on screen was the coding supervisor to confirm the appearance of the
unrelated to characters’ behaviour. We distinguished brand. Of the 202 appearances of brands originally
types of appearance because use of tobacco by an identified by the coders, 44 (22%) were excluded because
adolescent’s favourite actor has been associated with the the identification of a brand could not be confirmed. The
smoking behaviour of the adolescent.12,13 Actor remaining 158 appearances were coded based on the
endorsement links the brand with a film star and could degree of certainty with which the brand could be
have a greater effect on smoking behaviour than a identified. We used a three-point index for coding
background-brand appearance. Additionally, the film (2=logo or trademark clearly visible; 1=package or
industry makes this distinction in negotiations for brand advertising design unmistakably represents brand, but the
placement. For example, in the film Mr Destiny, Walt logo or name not visible; 0=package or advertising design
suggests brand, but there is some uncertainty). 71
appearances (45%) were coded as 2, 66 (42%) as 1, and
Characteristic 22 (14%) as 0. These 22 appearances were excluded to
MPAA rating use the most conservative measure of tobacco brand
G 11 (4%) appearance. This omission reduced the number of films
PG 64 (26%)
PG-13 75 (30%) originally identified by the coders as containing a brand
R 100 (40%) appearance from 88 to 70.
Genre We obtained values for worldwide box-office revenues
Action adventure 48 (19%) from the website www.worldwideboxoffice.com in June,
Animation or children’s fantasy 21 (8%) 2000. This website compiles data from several other
Comedy 79 (32%) sources, including entertainment industry trade
Drama 56 (22%)
Horror 9 (4%) magazines and film studios to estimate revenues earned
Mystery 20 (8%) through worldwide distribution of films in cinemas, but
Science fiction 17 (7%) does not include revenues from video sales or rental. The
Time-period setting site provided data on total revenues (in and outside the
Before 1930 25 (10%) USA) for 181 of the 250 films.
1930–64 12 (5%)
1965–89 47 (19%)
1990–present 151 (60%) Results
Future 9 (4%) Only a few films in this sample were rated for general
Unable to determine 6 (2%) audiences, the rest had parental guidance warnings (US
Contained tobacco use PG, PG⫺13 film code) or were restricted to audiences
No 33 (13%) aged 17 years or older (US R film code). The films
Yes 217 (87%) represented several genres, mainly comedies, dramas, and
Tobacco-brand appearance action adventure. Most of the films were set in the
No 180 (72%) contemporary period (from 1990 to present, table).
Yes 70 (28%)
217 (87%) films contained at least one occurrence of
MPAA=Motion Picture Association of America; G=General audiences, all ages;
PG=Parental guidance suggested for children; PG–13=Parents strongly cautioned that
tobacco use; 70 (28%) contained at least one brand
some material might be inappropriate for children; R=Restricted, people younger than appearance and 33 of these contained more than one
17 years require accompanying adult. appearance (range 1–14). Tobacco brands were
Characteristics of 250 films identifiable while actors with major or minor roles were

30 THE LANCET • Vol 357 • January 6, 2001

For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.
 ARTICLES

Other Of the 70 films with at least one tobacco brand

20% appearance, we obtained data on US and international
box-office revenues for 48 (69%). For these films,
revenues outside the USA accounted for 49% of the total
Marlboro revenues earned. The appearance of tobacco brand
40% imagery was not associated with US box-office revenue or
Lucky Strike
the proportion of total revenues earned through
12% international distribution.

Discussion
Cigarette-brand appearances are common in popular
Winston films. The brands that appear most frequently are also the
17% Camel most highly advertised in the USA, which suggests a
11% concordance between the advertising goals of the tobacco
Figure 2: Tobacco brands depicted in films industry and the actions of the film industry. Whether or
not a financial exchange takes place between the
using tobacco in 20 (8%) films. All actor endorsements industries, the result is the same: US cigarettes are being
involved display of the product. Background tobacco-brand marketed to a global audience through cinema films.
appearances were more common than actor endorsements, Tobacco companies publicly ended direct financial
and were seen in 59 (24%) films. Of these background payments for tobacco brand placement in films in 1989,
appearances, 56% involved a display of products, 40% and the top 13 tobacco firms incorporated limits on such
involved a display of logos on clothing or advertising, and payments into their tobacco marketing procedure. Article
4% involved a verbal mention of tobacco brands. 7 of this procedure reads: “No payment, direct or indirect,
137 tobacco-brand appearances were seen in 70 films that shall be made for the placement of our cigarettes or
contained at least one brand appearance. Although 27 cigarette advertisements in any film produced for viewing
tobacco brands were depicted, four cigarette brands by the general public”.16,17 Tobacco firms stopped brand
accounted for 80% of appearances (figure 2). Brands did not placement to avoid Federal regulation. In the USA, at
generally appear for smokeless tobacco, loose tobacco, or Congress, a bill was introduced that would have made it
cigars. unlawful in the USA for the manufacturer, packager, or
The frequency of brand appearance in films rated for distributor of tobacco products to pay or cause to be paid
adult audiences compared with adolescent audiences did to have any tobacco product or any tobacco product
not differ (35 vs 32%). Popular adolescent-audience films trademark to appear in any film, music video, television
with tobacco-brand appearances included: Ghostbusters II, show, play, video arcade game, or other form of
Home Alone 2 (Lost in New York), Honey I Shrunk the Kids, entertainment.18
Kindergarten Cop, Men in Black (figure 1), My Best Friend’s Despite the regulations on brand placement, we were
Wedding (figure 1), The Nutty Professor, and Volcano unable to identify a downward trend in the frequency of
(figure 1). tobacco-brand appearances in films. This finding
Figure 3 shows the percentage of films containing actor contrasts with the findings of Stockwell and Glantz,10 who
endorsement, background appearances, or both, before believe that there was a downward trend in brand
and after the voluntary ban on payments for brand appearances after 1990. Moreover, our frequency suggests
placement in films. The overall frequency of brand that background-brand placement scenes are being
appearances was similar before and after the ban, but the replaced by actor endorsements. Because actor
type of brand appearance depicted changed. The endorsement normally gains payments from companies,19
proportion of films with only actor endorsement increased this increasing trend suggests an advertising motive
from 1% before the ban to 6% after. By contrast, the behind the appearance of tobacco brands in films.
proportion of films containing only background-brand Several possibilities could explain continued tobacco-
appearances declined after the ban. No film contained brand appearances in films. First, the tobacco industry
actor-endorsed and background-brand appearance before might continue to pay directly or through in-kind payments
the ban, but 5% contained both after the ban. for placement of its brands in films. This possibility would
be consistent with evidence of regular violation of the
Cigarette Advertising Code by the tobacco industry since its
35 Background inception in 1964.20 Richards and colleagues20 also suggest
Actor endorsement
Both that amendments to this code have been used to avoid
30 further regulatory oversight on some occasions; a motive is
inferred by the timing of the voluntary ban on payments for
Proportion of movies (%)

25 tobacco-brand placement with attempts in US Congress to

regulate the practice of product placement. Second, it might
20 be in the film industry’s interest to provide free advertising
for tobacco companies. However, how they could do this
15 for one industry without undermining their ability to obtain
paid product placements from others is difficult to imagine.
10 Third, brands that are available on the film set could be
used without much forethought. For example, because
5 actors use the product on the set the likelihood that it will
appear in the film might increase. However, modern films
0 are edited down to the millisecond, and unwanted brand
Before ban After ban appearances would probably be edited out. Finally,
FIgure 3: Films containing actor endorsement, background directors might use brand imagery to increase a sense of
appearances, or both before and after voluntary ban realism or to convey character traits.

THE LANCET • Vol 357 • January 6, 2001 31

For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.
ARTICLES

Tobacco-control advocates are concerned about the University of Chicago Legal Forum. Chicago: University of Chicago,
1993.
depiction of tobacco use on screen because of the potential
2 Basil MD. The danger of cigarette “special placements” in film and
effect it could have on adolescents starting and carrying on television. Health Communication 1997; 9: 190–98.
smoking. The concern is the same for populations in 3 Reed JD. Plugging away in Hollywood. Time 1989: 103.
countries where US tobacco products are heavily marketed, 4 Higgins KT. There’s gold in silver screen product plugs. Advertising
and where people are receptive to the advertising message, Age 1985; 19: 6.
for whom films present a seductive, affluent, imaginary 5 Hazan AR, Lipton HL, Glantz S. Popular films do not reflect current
tobacco use. Am J Public Health 1994; 84: 998–1000.
world. Through tobacco use on screen, receptive
6 Goldstein AO, Sobel RA, Newman GR. Tobacco and alcohol use in
individuals associate stylised, branded smoking behaviour G-rated children’s animated films. JAMA 1999; 28:
with other elements of US culture. Actor endorsement of a 1131–36.
cigarette brand associates a type of person with that brand. 7 Everett SA, Schnuth RL, Tribble JL. Tobacco and alcohol use in top-
As viewers assimilate these images in the context of grossing American films. J Community Health 1998; 23: 317–24.
developing their own smoking identity, their attitudes 8 Chapman S, Davis RM. Smoking in movies: is it a problem. Tobacco
Control 1997; 6: 269–71.
toward tobacco use become more favourable. Cross- 9 McIntosh WD, Bazzini DG, Smith SM, Wayne SM. Who smokes in
sectional studies show an association between on-screen Hollywood? Characteristics of smokers in popular films from 1940 to
smoking in an adolescent’s favourite movie actor and his or 1989. Addict Behav 1998; 23: 395–98.
her own smoking behaviour.12,13 In respect of these 10 Stockwell TF, Glantz SA. Tobacco use is increasing in popular films.
concerns, a ban on tobacco-brand appearances in films Tobacco Control 1997; 6: 282–84.
11 Terre L, Drabman RS, Speer P. Health-relevant behaviors in media.
seems little different from other advertising restrictions J Appl Soc Psychol 1991; 21: 1303–19.
commonly imposed on the tobacco industry, such as bans 12 Distefan JM, Gilpin E, Sargent JD, Pierce JP. Do movie stars
on billboard advertising. encourage adolescents to start smoking? Evidence from California.
Prev Med 1999; 28: 1–11.
Contributors 13 Tickle J, Sargent JD, Dalton MA, Beach ML, Heatherton TF.
James Sargent headed the project and wrote the paper. Jennifer Tickle Favorite movie stars and tobacco use in a sample of adolescents.
supervised the coding of the films and confirmed all brand appearance Tobacco Control (in press).
episodes. Michael Beach contributed to the design of the study, and did 14 Ad Follies. Advertising Age 1990: 27.
the statistical analyses and graphics. Madeline Dalton and Bridget Ahrens 15 Kenoff JS. Structuring product placements. Entertainment Law Finance
contributed to the design of the study, developed the film content-analysis 1993; IX: 1, 4–5.
database, and extracted pertinent information. Todd Heatherton 16 Shields DLL, Carol J, Balbach ED, McGee S. Hollywood on tobacco:
developed and did the content analysis. All investigators had critical input how the entertainment industry understands tobacco portrayal.
into the writing of the paper. Tobacco Control 1999; 8: 378–86.
17 Colford SW. Tobacco group ends paid placements. Advertising Age
Acknowledgments 1990; 17: 31.
We thank H Gilbert Welsh for his suggestions and VA Outcomes 18 Snyder SL. Movies and product placement: is Hollywood turning
Research Group for their comments on the paper. We also thank films into commercial speech? Univ Illinois Law Review 1992; 1:
Susan Martin for editorial assistance, and Ezra Hayes and Dan Nassau for 301–37.
coding the movies.
19 Karrh JA. Brand placement: a review. J Curr Issues Res Advertising
1998; 20: 31–49.
References 20 Richards JW, Tye JB, Fischer PM. The tobacco industries’ code of
1 Lackey WB. Can Lois Lane smoke Marlboros? An examination of the advertising in the United States: myth and reality. Tobacco Control
constitutionality of regulating product placement in the movies—The 1996; 5: 295–311.

32 THE LANCET • Vol 357 • January 6, 2001

For personal use only. Not to be reproduced without permission of The Lancet.