You are on page 1of 126

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.


Copyrighted by

Brooke Wood Beam

2014

  2  
 
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

  ii  
 
agriculturally based brands were placed in the films from varying genres, ratings and

production companies to represent the agricultural industry as a whole.

  iii  
 
Dedication

For my parents, David and Susan Beam, for always believing and encouraging me to

reach any goal I attempt to achieve.

  iv  
 
Acknowledgements

Thank you to all those who have made this study possible, your assistance has

been greatly appreciated.

  v  
 
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

Summer 2011 ……………………………………………….. Marvel Eastern Productions

2012 to present ……………….. Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University

Fields of Study

Major Field: Agricultural and Extension Education

  vi  
 
Table of Contents

Abstract  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ii  

Dedication  ………………………………………………………………………………………………………....  iv  

Acknowledgements  …………………………………………………………………………………………….  v  

Vita  …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..  vi  

List  of  Tables  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..  ix  

List  of  Figures  …………………………………………………………………………………………………….  x  

Chapter  1:  Introduction  ………………………………………………………………………………………  1  

  Purpose  of  Study  ……………………………………………………………………………………...  3  

  Definitions  ……………………………………………………………………………………………….  4  

Chapter  2:  Review  of  Literature  ………………………………………………………………………......  7  

  Cultivation  Theory  ………………………………....………………………………………………...  7  

  Product  Placement  …………………………………………………………………………………  10  

  The  Film  Industry  …………………………………………………………………………………..  13  

  Agriculture  in  America  …………………………………………………………………………...  15  

  Advertising  Agriculture  ………………………………………………………………………….  16  

  Agricultural  Perceptions  ………………………………………………………………………...  17  

Chapter  3:  Methods  …………………………………………………………………………………………..  25  

  Study  Questions  ……………………………………………………………………………………..  25  

  vii  
 
  Research  Design  …………………………………………………………………………………….  26  

  Film  Selection  ………………………………………………………………………………………..  27  

  Data  Analysis  …………………………………………………………………………………………  32  

  Limitations  …………………………………………………………………………………………….  33  

Chapter  4:  Results  …………………………………………………………………………………………….  35  

  Findings  for  Objectives  One  and  Two  ............................................................................  36  

  Findings  for  Objective  Three  .………………………………………………………………….  42  

  Findings  for  Objective  Four  …………………………………………………………………….  51  

  Findings  for  Objective  Five  .…………………………………………………………………….  56  

Chapter  5:  Conclusions  ……………………………………………………………………………………..  59  

  Recommendations  for  Practitioners  ………………………………………………………..  67  

  Recommendations for Future Research ………………………………………... 68

References  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….  70  

Appendix  A:  Agricultural  Brands  ………………………………………………………………………  85  

Appendix  B:  Film  Evaluation  Form  ………………………………………………………………….  111  

  viii  
 
List of Tables

Table 4.1. Brands are listed with the films the brands appeared in along with the length of

appearance in seconds. …………………………………………………………. 37

Table 4.2. Table 4.2 lists the films in chronological order providing the rating and genre

of each film studied in the study. ………………………………………………. 51

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.  ……….  53  

Table 4.4. Films are listed with earnings generated, box office opening date, and running

time. ……………………………………………………………………………. 55

Table 4.5. Actors who were in multiple films studied are listed with the films they

appeared in. …………………………………………………………………….. 57

  ix  
 
List of Figures

Figure 4.1. Bobby Boucher, portrayed by Adam Sandler, shown in the right foreground,

approaches the John Deere mower featured in The Waterboy (Coraci, 1998)

(Internet Movie Cars Database, 2006). ………………………………………… 43

Figure 4.2. Ray Kinsella and his daughter, Karin, ride on the John Deere 8640 during the

film Field of Dreams (Robinson, 1989) (Internet Movie Cars Database, 2012). ..

…………………………………………………………………………………... 45

Figure 4.3. Crawl operates the Massey Ferguson 8460 with ease while learning to

become a farmer in Son In Law (Rash, 1993) (Internet Movie Cars Database,

2014). …………………………………………………………………………... 46

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, 1996). …

…………………………………………………………………………………... 48

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, 2006). ….. 50

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) ...…………………………………………………………………... 62


  x  
 
Figure 5.2. and 5.3. 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, Son In Law, 1993) ………………………... 65

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).  ……………………………………………………………………………………………………  66

Figure 6.1. Ace Hi Feed logo (Manchester Feeds, Inc., 2010). ..………………………. 86

Figure 6.2. The modern logo for the Carhartt company (Carhartt, 2014). ..…………… 87

Figure 6.3. Although the Castrol logo has changed since 1909, this is the 2012 version of

the company's logo (Castrol, 2012). …………………………………………… 87

Figure 6.4. Caterpillar Inc. logo (Caterpillar, 2014). …………………………………... 88

Figure 6.5. The Cub Cadet logo is correlated with the company colors: yellow, white and

black (Cub Cadet, 2014). ………………………………………………………. 89

Figure 6.6. The DEKALB logo (Monsanto, 2014). ………………………………….… 90

Figure 6.7. The USDA logo (National Agricultural Library, 2014). ……………….….. 91

Figure 6.8. Farmall logo featured on many tractors (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2014).

…………………………………………………………………………………... 92

Figure 6.9. International Harvester logo, prior to the merger with Case in 1985 (Koenig

Equipment, Inc., 2012). ………………………………………………………… 92

Figure 6.10. The FFA emblem (National FFA Organization, 2014). ………………..… 93
  xi  
 
Figure 6.11. Ford Tractor logo, featured on tractor models from the 1950s (Ganzel,

2007). …………………………………………………………………………... 94

Figure 6.12. The John Deere logo, which was last updated in 2000, features a leaping

deer. Previous logos used a landing deer (John Deere, 2014). ………………… 95

Figure 6.13. Justin Boots logo, as shown on their website (Justin Boots, 2014). ……… 96

Figure 6.14. Kent Feeds remains a family owned company after 87 years of operation

(Kent Nutrition Group, 2014). …………………………………………………. 97

Figure 6.15. Kenworth trucks are designed for optimum driver comfort and efficiency

(Kenworth Trucks, 2014). ……………………………………………………… 98

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). …………99

Figure 6.17. In 1932, the first bulldog adorned the hood of a Mack truck (Mack Trucks,

Inc. , 2014). …………………………………………………………………… 100

Figure 6.18. The current Massey Ferguson logo (Massey Ferguson, 2012). …………. 101

Figure 6.19. The New Holland logo, as shown on the corporate website (New Holland,

N.D.). …………………………………………………………………………. 102

Figure 6.20. Pioneer Seed is part of the DuPont Corporation (DuPont Pioneer, 2014). …

…………………………………………………………………………………. 103

Figure 6.21. Quality Seeds Ltd. provides a wide variety of seeds and plant services

(Quality Seeds Inc., 2014). …………………………………………………… 103

  xii  
 
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). …………………………………………………………… 104

Figure 6.23. The Red Wing Shoe company produces work shoes for both men and

women (Red Wing Shoes, 2014). …………………………………………… 105

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). …………. 106

Figure 6.25. This version of the Versatile logo was released in 2008 (Buhler Versatile

Inc., 2014). ……………………………………………………………………. 107

Figure 6.26. The Wheel Horse logo, as shown on the Wheel Horse Collectors Club

website (Wheel Horse Collectors Club, Inc. , 2014). ………………………… 108

Figure 6.27. The White Farm Equipment Company's logo before being purchased by

AGCO in 1991 (Tractor Data, 2013). ……………..………………………….. 109

Figure 6.28. The 4-H emblem is a representation of the youth organization's brand

(National 4-H History Preservation Program, 2014). ………………………… 110

  xiii  
 
Chapter 1: Introduction

In 1927, a silent film called Wings won an Oscar for Best Picture, and with its

success came the acknowledgement of the first featured product placement, a Hershey’s

bar (Bukszpan, 2011). Product placement continued in the film industry, but it was not

until the early 1980s, when it began to exponentially expand with the use of Reese’s

Pieces in Steven Spielberg’s 1982 hit, E.T. (Walton, 2012).

Today, the leading brand featured in movie product placement is Ford, having

been placed in films 158 times (Brand Cameo, 2012). Ford is followed in frequency of

appearance by Apple, Coca-Cola, Chevrolet, Mercedes, and Budweiser (Brand Cameo,

2012).

However, agricultural companies have a much smaller audience compared to

internationally exporting vehicle or computer companies, therefore it is not an essential

marketing tool for agricultural companies to put their products in films. Agricultural

products, however, still make their way to the big screen when the plot of a movie is, or

partially is, agriculturally based. Product placement, whether it is paid for by the

respective company or not, is profitable for the brands featured, if it is portrayed in a

positive manner.

  1  
 
As less than two percent of the population of the United States is directly involved

in agriculture, the majority of the population of moviegoers does not know if the

representation of agriculture through the lenses of Hollywood portrays an accurate image

(EPA's Ag Center, 2012). The United States film industry grossed more than nine billion

dollars in 2012 alone and progressively is turning to advertisement, or product placement,

to increase profitability of films (The Numbers, 2012) (Spurlock, 2011). Therefore, this

research study will examine a selection of films that focus around the agricultural

industry and determine what agriculturally-based brands appear in films, so agricultural

communicators may know more about the content being shown in film to audiences who

are, for the majority, uneducated on agricultural livelihoods.

Agricultural brands represent the agricultural industry through a corporate

identity, which is usually how the non-agricultural viewer sees the agricultural industry -

as a representation of a company’s brand image. Product placement in films, television,

radio programming and advertisements are popular marketing tools for selling products.

Product placement can help or hurt a brand’s successfulness when shown to a large

enough audience. As more American’s are adopting digital video recording technology

(DVR), advertisers are turning to product placement in film to promote their products,

because consumers cannot skip the commercials in a film or television program if they

are built into the story line (Spurlock, 2011). Therefore, what agricultural brands and

products are placed in films? How are the brands represented? Do agricultural brands

placed in films project an overall positive or negative representation of the agricultural

industry?

  2  
 
Purpose of Study

In 2012, there were 677 films released with over 39,000 movie theatres in the

United States for consumers to patronize (Motion Picture Association of America, 2012).

This study is needed because of the enormous power films have to influence viewers

perceptions about a subject, whether fact or fiction. Product placement can either help or

hurt an industry, as with the success of Ray-Ban Sunglasses and market stunting for

Merlot, but for agricultural communication to be effective, agricultural communicators

should be aware of the content movie-viewing individuals are seeing and retaining from

films, which will ultimately influence their opinion on the brands associated with the

agriculture industry in the United States (Cuellar, 2009) (Leinster, 1987).

With this understanding, communicators can appropriately market products,

develop public relations strategies, and form public policies. Agricultural communicators

understand that all communication about the agricultural industry may not come from

those who are adequately informed or portray the correct image, and therefore they must

assess multiple media outlets to understand what is influencing consumer’s opinions.

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?

3. How are the agricultural brands positioned in the film (Is the brand name clearly

shown, is it the focus of the frame?)

  3  
 
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?

Definitions

To narrow the selection of films for this study, a definition of agriculture must be

established. Agriculture, as defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (2003),

is “the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising

livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting

products”(pg. 26.). To accurately answer the research questions, the definition provided

is too vague. Most modern movies feature only a small portion of the film to show

agriculture, because of this the definition of agriculture must be broadened to include a

wider range of categories.

Therefore, agriculture shall be defined, for this research question, as any and all

aspects of agricultural or rural lifestyle. Including, but not limited to: crop production,

livestock production, county and state fairs, food safety practices, food production and

preparation, agricultural byproduct production, product marketing and branded

agricultural products or retail locations.

Crop production shall be representative of the process of cultivating, planting,

spraying, and harvesting a crop of any nature, and marketing such commodities to a

market. Livestock production shall include all animals kept for either profit or pleasure

and the practice of animal husbandry skills. County and State Fairs should be

  4  
 
representative of either crop or livestock production, 4-H or FFA practices or annual rural

entertainment attractions (ex: tractor pulls).

Food safety practices start on the farm and continue to consumption by a

consumer. Food safety, food production and preparation may be considered agriculture

when demonstrating animal health treatments, processing, packaging, preparation of raw

food and consumption. Food will not be considered agriculture when it is representative

of a branded company, such as McDonald’s, Burger King or other national chains.

Agricultural byproduct production begins with a raw agricultural product

transformed into another product for an intended use. For an agricultural byproduct to be

considered agriculture in film, it must be clear to the viewer where the agricultural

product originated. An example of an agricultural byproduct, which would be acceptable

for consideration as agriculture in this study, would be ethanol and ethanol production

from corn.

Agricultural products being displayed, either in a farmer’s market or grocery

store, are representative of the agricultural industry, however these brands are

commonplace items that any grocery shopper would recognize. Agriculturally based

companies, such as John Deere, Case IH, Tractor Supply Company and Purina Feeds will

be considered agriculture because of their brand recognition is specifically associated

with the agriculture industry.

The term rural can refer to a broad meaning in the United States. Depending upon

how rural is defined; portions of U.S. populations can be considered rural areas anywhere

between 17 to 49 percent of the total population (Cromartie & Bucholtz, 2008).

  5  
 
Definitions range from the use, whether it is for administrative purposes or economic

development; however, rural areas are closely associated with populations under 10,000

people (Cromartie & Bucholtz, 2008). For the purpose of this study, rural will be defined

as any area which features an abundance of farming imagery, as well as small towns or

villages.

Product placement is defined as “the inclusion of a product in a television

program or film as a form of paid advertisement” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, n.d.).

However, for this research project, product placement will be synonymous with product

appearance, as it is unlikely all of the agricultural brands that appear in the films would

pay for an appearance. Therefore, any placement of an agricultural brand or product will

be considered product placement in this content analysis of the films.

  6  
 
Chapter 2: Review of Literature

For this study, films from the past 25 years were analyzed to determine the

presence of agricultural brands within the film content. Agricultural communicators need

to be aware of the presence of agricultural brands within popular media outlets because of

the large audience in the United States who are not educated or directly related to

production agriculture (EPA's Ag Center, 2012). The film industry generates billions of

dollars in revenue each year, and with over 39,000 movie theatres in the United States,

there is ample opportunity for film viewers throughout the United States and the world to

be exposed to the images represented through films (Box Office Mojo, 2013: Motion

Picture Association of America, 2012: Spurlock, 2011).

A review of literature was conducted to provide background information on

related topics to this study. The related topics included in this literature review are:

cultivation theory, product placement, the film industry, agriculture in America,

advertising agriculture, and agricultural perceptions.

Cultivation Theory

Cultivation Theory, defined as medium (film) that shapes the public’s perspective

of a social reality, guides this study. “Cultivation refers to the long-term formation of

  7  
 
perceptions and beliefs about the world as a result of exposure to the media” (Potter,

1993, p. 564).

Primarily used for television studies, cultivation theory has been used to evaluate

the effects of television viewing on people’s perceptions and values (Werner & Tankard,

Jr. , 2001). Cultivation is the establishment of a common worldview, common roles, and

common values through repetitive messages (Werner & Tankard, Jr. , 2001). The theory

looks for trends in mass media and programming to be reflected onto the views of the

receiver of the message. For instance, individuals who watch a large amount of law

enforcement television shows believe the crime rate is much higher in the United States

than it actually is, therefore the viewers believe the fictional representations given to

them from television and movies (Werner & Tankard, Jr. , 2001).

According to Hetsroni and Tukachinsky, higher television viewing rates increase

the cultivation effect. This is because with higher consumption of television media, the

viewers have an increased amount of information to form opinions and beliefs. Hetsroni

and Tukachinsky also state the effect of cultivation theory does not disappear when

demographic and consumption variables of other media are controlled (Hetsroni &

Tukachinsky, 2006).

Television became a revolutionary way to spread a message because its ability to

circumvent literacy issues with viewers and the abundant quantity of televisions to watch

programming from (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, Growing Up With

Television: Cultivation Process, 2002). Television provides “a shared national culture,”

as well as socialization and information to viewers of entertainment media (Gerbner,

  8  
 
Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, Growing Up With Television: Cultivation

Process, 2002, p. 44). Television programming provides “continual repetition of stories

that serve to define the world and legitimize a particular social order” (Gerbner, Gross,

Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, Growing Up With Television: Cultivation Process,

2002, p. 44). Establishing what the norms of television are as a reflection of modern

society reinforces the “cultivation of shared conceptions of reality among otherwise

diverse publics” (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, Growing Up With

Television: Cultivation Process, 2002, p. 44).

Cultivation through media is difficult to avoid in modern society, because in an

average home in the United States a television is on for “about seven hours a day”

(Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, Signorielli, & Shanahan, Growing Up With Television:

Cultivation Process, 2002, p. 45). According to a study conducted by the Organization for

Economic Cooperation and Development, the life expectancy for the average American

citizen was 78.7 years in 2011 (Huffington Post, 2013). Given this information, the

average American has the potential to be exposed to 201,078.5 hours of television

programming during their lifespan, which is roughly 22.95 years of the average lifespan.

Because most entertainment pieces are marketed to a broad spectrum of viewers

throughout the United States, patterns emerge in the “settings, casting, social typing,

actions, and related outcomes that cuts across most program types and defines the world

of television” (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, Living with Television: The

Dynamics of the Cultivation Process, 1986, p. 19). Due to the variety of programming

scenarios available to a viewer, cultivation can be applied to studies interested in learning


  9  
 
more about perceptions of “gender, minority and age-role stereotypes, health, science, the

family, educational achievement aspirations, politics, religion, the environment, and

numerous other topics (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, Living with Television:

The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process, 1986, p. 46).

Product Placement

Looking though the lens of cultivation theory it is easy to see how repetitive

product placement can have similar effects. An example of such a success story is

Reese’s Pieces in Stephen Spielberg’s E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Spielberg’s E.T. used

the candy in a pivotal scene and as a result the profits from the candy increased 65

percent (Bukszpan, 2011). Since the success of Reese’s Pieces in 1982, product

placement has become common place in modern film production as both a promotional

marketing strategy and as a representation of modern lifestyles (Walton, 2012). Today,

films feature multiple brands throughout the progression of the story being told, the first

Sex in the City film featured over 65 brands, and in the latest James Bond installment,

Skyfall, the majority of the film’s $200 million dollar production costs were covered by

the multiple product placements from BMW, Coke, Heineken, Omega watches, Sony and

more (Vanity Fair, 2008: Radford, 2012).

Ray-Ban is an example of a brand that has thrived from the use of product

placement as a primary advertisement strategy. Army Air Corps pilots and General

Douglas MacArthur first popularized Ray-Ban sunglasses during World War II.

However, Ray-Ban was a struggling brand by 1982, selling only 18,000 pairs of

sunglasses during that year. In an effort to save the company during its period of

  10  
 
declining popularity, Ray-Ban signed a contract with Unique Product Placement for

$50,000 per year to have Ray-Ban products placed in entertainment media beginning in

1982 (Leinster, 1987). The following year (1983), Tom Cruise sported Ray-Ban’s

Wayfarer sunglasses in Risky Business, soaring sales of Ray-Ban sunglasses to 360,000

pairs (Leinster, 1987). In 1984, Ray-Ban products were featured in the Miami Vice

television series increasing sales to 720,000 pairs, in 1985 Bruce Willis wore Ray-Bans

in the television series Moonlighting increasing sales to 826,000 pairs, and finally in 1987

Tom Cruise wore Ray-Ban aviator sunglasses in the film Top Gun which skyrocketed

Ray-Ban sunglasses sales to 1.5 million pairs (Leinster, 1987).

However, one industry that was negatively impacted because of product

placement would be the wine industry, specifically producers of Merlot. In the movie

Sideways, Paul Giamatti’s character refuses to consume Merlot. This action caused “The

Sideways Effect”, in which the sales of Merlot dropped for a period of time after the

movie debuted in 2004 (Cuellar, 2009). Another example of a negative product

placement was Warner Bros use of a knock-off Louis Vuitton bag in the Hangover II,

which resulted in Louis Vuitton suing Warner Bros for causing “consumer confusion”

and falsely representing the brand (Milligan, 2012, p. 3). The case was dismissed in 2012,

because the judge stated the claims from Louis Vuitton “were ‘not plausible’ or

‘particularly compelling’” (Milligan, 2012, p. 3).

Not all products placed in film are cleverly disguised to seem as though the

product is a natural occurrence, but rather it is an ostentatious advertisement sold with the

purchase of a movie ticket. In the 2013 adaptation of The Great Gatsby, Moët &

  11  
 
Chandon champagne is gaudily featured by having showgirls hold larger-than-life bottles,

which not only contain the advertised beverage, but also shower the partygoers with

confetti (Grey, 2013). In Happy Gilmore, Adam Sandler’s character advertises for

Subway by going to one of their restaurants, eating a sandwich, and giving the food chain

an outstanding review in his monologue (Kroll, 2013).

Some companies receive advertisement from films for free through product

placement. AOL did not pay for product placement in the 1998 film You’ve Got Mail, nor

did White Castle in the 2004 comedy Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle (Kroll, 2013,

p. 5 and 7). Google was recently featured in The Internship (2013), where Google’s

campus, driverless car, Google+ and a plethora of other Google related products were

featured. Google was involved in the production of the film, but had no investment in the

production of the film (Kroll, 2013). Apple is by far the most frequent product placed in

film, and Apple is able to achieve this by using free product placement in exchange for

goods (Brand Cameo, 2012: Stampler, 2012). PQ Media conducted a study in 2005,

“which found that 64 percent of products placed in films or TV shows are not paid for,

but rather arranged through some kind of barter in which the show provides exposure in

exchange for products or services” (Goo, 2006, p. 3).

In some cases, product placement in film can give a brand more consumer

recognition than any other form of advertisement could provide. Suntory Whisky was the

predominant brand featured in Lost in Translation (2003). Previous advertisements used

by Suntory Whisky had featured Sean Connery and Keanu Reeve; “however, Masaki

Morimoto, general manager for Suntory’s premium-spirits marketing department, said

  12  
 
that the placement gave the product a much higher profile than it ever got from television

or print ads” (Bukszpan, 2011, p. 8). Since appearing in Lost in Translation, Suntroy

Whisky has purchased Beam for $13.9 billion (The Associated Press, 2014). Beam is the

producer of Jim Beam and Maker’s Mark whiskey (The Associated Press, 2014).

The Film Industry

Thomas Edison is probably best known for the his inventions of the Edison

lightbulb and automatic telegraph; however, he was also one of the pioneering forefathers

of the modernday film industry (Aquino & Sterbenz, 2014) (Biagi, 2010) (Acheson &

Maule, 1991). Edison, along with Ètienne Jules Marey, Eadweard Muybridge, William

K.L. Dickson, and Auguste and Louise Lumière are know as the inventors of the earliest

forms of viedo cameras and projectors (Biagi, 2010). Film began as a series of

photographs shown in a slideshow format, which were shown on a device called a

kinetoscop. “On April 11, 1894, America’s first kinetoscope parlor opened in New York

City. For 25 cents, people could see 10 different 90-second black-and-white films,

including Trapese, Horse Shoeing, Wrestlers, and Roosters” (Biagi, 2010, p. 137).

Agriculture is historically one of the earliest film features in the United States, with the

showing of Horse Shoeing and Roosters.

French filmmaker, magician and caricaturist Georges Mèliés changed the course

of film history in 1902 when he released A Trip to the Moon, which was the first

outerspace cinematic adventure (Biagi, 2010). A Trip to the Moon entertained audinces

  13  
 
with imaginary space monsters. A trend which quickly migrated to the United States,

where “American moviemakers stole” Mèliés’ ideas (Biagi, 2010, p. 140).

Sound technology in conjuntion with film became possible in 1927. The Warner

Brothers, Sam, Harry, Jack and Albert, produced the first film to have sound, called The

Jazz Singer (Biagi, 2010). By 1933, less than one percent of films shown nationwide

were silent films, as they had adopted the technology to incorporate sound in almost all

films. In 1937, Walt Disney premeired Snow White, which cost $2.25 million, and was

the first feature-length animated film.

Film popularity decreased after 1948 due to the home television becoming widely

popular in the United States (Biagi, 2010). “In the 1950s, the number of television sets

people owned grew by 400 percent, while the number of people who went to the movies

fell by 45 percent” (Biagi, 2010, p. 142). Because of the increased competition in the

entertainment field, filmmmakers began to attract viewers by advertising new movie

technology in the 1950s, such as widescreen and the beginnings of 3-D movies (Biagi,

2010).

The best year in American film history was 1946, because theatres sold more than

four billion tickets (Biagi, 2010). “Today, as more people watch more movies on video

and DVD, the number of theatre admissions has dropped to about one billion” (Biagi,

2010, p. 134). In an effort to have a stable income in today’s society, “half of the movies

produced every year are made for television and are underwritten by the TV networks”

(Biagi, 2010, p. 136). In fact, movie industry revenue comes from three sources: TV and

  14  
 
in-flight programming provides 48 percent, home video provides 38 percent and the box

office sales contribute 14 percent of movie industry revenue (Biagi, 2010).

Agriculture in America

The agricultural sector in the United States is big business, in 2007 the market

value of products sold from American farms was $297 billion (United States Department

of Agriculture: Economic Research Service, 2013). While farm families make up less

than two percent of the population in the United States, there are more than 21 million

American workers (15 percent of the total U.S. workforce) who produce, process and

market the agricultural products made in the United States (American Farm Bureau

Federation, 2013). In 2010, $115 billion worth of agricultural products were exported

around the world form the United States; in fact, the United States has a positive

agricultural trade balance because the nation exports more agricultural products than are

inported (American Farm Bureau Federation, 2013).

Of the 2.2 million farms in the United States, 97 percent of those farms are

operated by individuals, family partnerships or family corporations (American Farm

Bureau Federation, 2013). Of these farms, report show that a white male principal

operator operates 1.83 million, while there are 306,209 female principal operators and

roughly eight percent of farms are operated by non-white operators (United States

Department of Agriculture, Demographics, 2007). The average age of an American

farmer is 58.3 years old (United States Department of Agriculture, 2014).

  15  
 
In 2007, there were 687,540 cattle farms, 18,605 cotton farms, 57,318 dairy

farms, 25,017 berry farms, 479,467 grain farms, 30,546 swine farms, 145,615 poultry

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

  16  
 
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

  17  
 
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).

  18  
 
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,
  19  
 
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).

  20  
 
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

  21  
 
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

  22  
 
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

  23  
 
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.

  24  
 
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?

  25  
 
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.

  26  
 
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)

  27  
 
• 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)


  28  
 
• 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

  29  
 
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)

  30  
 
• 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

  31  
 
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

  32  
 
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

  33  
 
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.

  34  
 
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)

  35  
 
(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

  36  
 
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

  37  
 
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 3

County

Total: 3 Seconds

Department of Agriculture Arachnophobia 5

Total: 5 Seconds

Farmall/International Forrest Gump 7

Harvester

Runaway Bride 4

Signs 13

Total: 24 Seconds

FFA Charlotte’s Web 8

Total: 8 Seconds

                               Continued  
 
 
 
 
  38  
 
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 9

County

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  
 
 
  39  
 
 
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

  40  
 
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

  41  
 
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.

  42  
 
 

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

  43  
 
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.

  44  
 
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

  45  
 
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).
 
 
 
 
 
  46  
 
  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.

  47  
 
 

 
 
 

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
  48  
 
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.

  49  
 
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).

  50  
 
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  
  51  
 
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
  52  
 
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 Producing Studio: Theatres

Rank: shown

in:

1988 Funny Farm 40 Warner Bros. 1557

1989 Field of Dreams 19 Universal Pictures 1100

1990 Arachnophobia 22 Buena Vista 2005

Pictures

1991 City Slickers 5 Columbia Pictures 2171

1993 Son In Law 44 Buena Vista 1406

Pictures

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  
 
  53  
 
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.

  54  
 
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.
  55  
 
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.

  56  
 
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
  57  
 
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.

  58  
 
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?

  59  
 
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.

  60  
 
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

  61  
 
advertising would not have been achieved without the use of agricultural product

placement in film.

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).

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).
  62  
 
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

  63  
 
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.

  64  
 
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).

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.

  65  
 
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).

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.

  66  
 
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.

  67  
 
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

  68  
 
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.

  69  
 
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:

www.businessinsider.com/thomas-edisons-inventions-2014-2?op=1

Basinger, J. (2005, July 10). 'American Gothic': A Man, a Woman and a Pitchfork.

Retrieved March 13, 2014, from The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/10/books/review/10BASSING.html?pagewante

d=all&_r=0

Biagi, S. (2010). Media/Impact: an introduction to mass media. Sacramento, CA:

Wadsworth Cenage Learning.


  70  
 
Box Office Mojo. (2013). Yearly Domestic Grosses. Retrieved November 20, 2013, from

Box Office Mojo: www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2013&p=.htm

Brand Cameo. (2012). Product Placement of all time. Retrieved October 20, 2012, from

Brand Channel:

http://www.brandchannel.com/brandcameo_brands.asp?all_year=all_year#brand_

list

Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC. (2014). Snapper Homepage. Retrieved

February 26, 2014, from Snapper: http://www.snapper.com/us/en

Buhler Versatile Inc. (2014). Versatile About Us. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from

Versatile Agricultural Products: http://www.versatile-ag.ca/NA/EN/info/info-

about/about.php

Bukszpan, B. (2011). 10 Sucesses in Producct placement, Special for CNBC.com.

Retrieved October 2012, from http://www.cnbc.com/id/43266198/10_Big

Successes_in_Product_Placement?slide=1

Carhartt. (2014). Carhartt - History. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Carhartt:

www.carhartt.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/HistoryView?langld=-

1&storeid=10051&catalogid=10101

Castrol. (2012). 2012 - Castrol logo - Castrol - Driving Tomorrow. Retrieved February

23, 2014, from Castrol: http://drivingtomorrow.castrol.com/2012-castrol-logo/

Castrol. (2014). Driving Tomorrow. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Castrol:

http://drivingtomorrow.castrol.com/1899-castrols-story-begins-with-a-humble-

axlebox-lubricant/

  71  
 
Caterpillar. (2014). Caterpillar History. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Caterpillar:

http://www.cateripllar.com/en/company/history.html#2000s

Caterpillar Inc. (2004, April). Story of Caterpillar. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from

CAT: http://pdf.cat.com/cda/files/89616/9/StoryofCaterpillar042004.pdf

Caton-Jones, M. (Director). (1991). Doc Hollywood [Motion Picture]. USA.

Chandarasekher, J. (Director). (2005). The Dukes of Hazzard [Motion Picture]. Burbank,

California.

Coen, J., & Coen, E. (Directors). (2000). O Brother, Where Art Thou? [Motion Picture].

Burbank, CA.

Conradt, S. (2012, December 11). The stories behind 10 famous product placements.

Retrieved March 1, 2014, from The Week:

http://ww.theweek.com/article/index/237595/thr-stories-behind-10-famous-

product-placements

Coolidge, M. (Director). (2004). The Prince and Me [Motion Picture]. Santa Monica,

CA.

Coraci, F. (Director). (1998). The Waterboy [Motion Picture]. USA.

Costner, K. (Director). (2003). Open Range [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA.

Cromartie, J., & Bucholtz, S. (2008). Defining the "rural" in rural America. Amber

Waves: The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural America

, 6 (3), 28-35.

Cub Cadet. (2014). Cub Cadet Homepage. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Cub

Cadet: http://www.cubcadet.com/equipment/cubcadet

  72  
 
Cuellar, S. (2009, January). The 'Sideways' Effect: A Test for changes in the demand for

Merlot and Pinot Nior wines. Wines & Vines .

Davis, A. (Director). (2003). Holes [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA.

de Bont, J. (Director). (1996). Twister [Motion Picture]. USA.

DEKALB. (2012). DEKALB 100 Year Anniversary. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from

DEKALB : http://www.dekalb100yearsook.com

Deutch, H. (Director). (1998). The Odd Couple II [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles, CA.

Du Chau, F. (Director). (2005). Racing Stripes [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles, CA.

DuPont Pioneer. (2014). DuPont Pioneer Our Heritage. Retrieved February 25, 2014,

from Pioneer: http://www.pioneer.com/home/site/about/business/who-we-are/our-

heritage/

Eastwood, C. (Director). (1995). Bridges of Madison County [Motion Picture]. USA.

Ebay. (2014). JOhn Deere 2640 Field of Dreams Collector Edition Tractor. Retrieved

March 13, 2014, from Ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/JOHN-DEERE-2640-

FIELD-OF-DREAMS-COLLECTOR-EDITION-TRACTOR-NIB-

/181348599143

Ebert, R. (1994, July 6). Forrest Gump. Retrieved February 16, 2014, from

rogerebert.com: www.rogerebert.com/reviews/forrest-gump-1994

EPA's Ag Center. (2012). Ag 101: Demographics. Retrieved October 24, 2012, from

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/demographics.html

Finn, W., & Sanford, J. (Directors). (2004). Home on the Range [Motion Picture].

Burbank, CA.

  73  
 
Fishman, C. (2006, January/February). The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart. Fast

Company .

Frappier, R. (2012). 'Bobd 23' To Break Record for Product Placement Sponsorship.

Retrieved February 27, 2014, from Screen Rant: http://screenrant.com/james-

bond-product-placement-robf-113418

Ganzel, B. (2007). Ford Tractors. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from Wessels Living

History Farm:

http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/machines_06.html

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1986). Living with Television:

The Dynamics of the Cultivation Process. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.),

Persepectives on Media Effects (pp. 17-40). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing Up

With Television: Cultivation Process. In J. Bryant, & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media

Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 43-68). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Goo, S. K. (2006, April 15). Apple Gets a Big Slice Of Product-Placement Pie. Retrieved

November 22, 2013, from The Washington Post: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401670_pf.html

Grey, J. (2013, May 19). The 15 Most Shameless Movie Product Placements Of All Time.

Retrieved November 22, 2013, from Business Insider:

www.businessinsider.com/15-worst-movie-product-placements-2013-5?op=1

  74  
 
Hancock, J. L. (Director). (2002). The Rookie [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA.

Hetsroni, A., & Tukachinsky, R. (2006). Television-World Estimates, Real World

Estimates, and Television Viewing: A Scheme for Cultivation. Journal of

Communication , 56 (1), 133-156.

Hill, G. R. (Director). (1988). Funny Farm [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA.

Huffington Post. (2013, November 21). U.S. Life Expectancy Ranks 26th In The World,

OECD Report Shows. Retrieved March 12, 2014, from HUFFPOST HEALTH:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/us-life-expectancy-

oecd_n_4317367.html

Internet Movie Cars Database. (2006, October). John Deere 200-Series in The Waterboy.

Retrieved February 16, 2014, from Internet Movie Cars Database:

www.imcdb.org/vehicle_58025-John-Deere-200-Series.html

Internet Movie Cars Database. (2012, October). John Deere 2640 in Field of Dreams.

Retrieved February 16, 2014, from Internet Movie Cars Database:

www.imcdb.org/vehicle_270185-John-Deere-2640.html

Internet Movie Cars Database. (2014). Massey Ferguson 8460 in Son in Law. Retrieved

February 16, 2014, from Internet Movie Cars Database:

www.imcdb.org/vehicle_662514-Massey-Ferguson-8460.html

JD Equipment Inc. (2012, May). Supporting Agriculture and OSU for 30 years.

AgriNaturalist , 118 (Spring), p. 15.

John Deere. (2014). History of the John Deere Trademark. Retrieved February 25, 2014,

from John Deere:

  75  
 
http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/corporate/our_company/about_us/histor

y/trademarks/trademarks.page?

John Deere. (2014). John Deere Leader Biography. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from

John Deere:

http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/corporate/our_company/about_us/histor

y/past_leaders/john_deere_founder_biography.page?

John Deere. (2014). John Deere Timeline. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from John

Deere:

http://www.deere.com/wps/dcom/en_US/corporate/our_company/about_us/histor

y/timeline/timeline.page?

Johnson, R. (2009, September 28). Screen Shots: Product Placement aren't just for big

companies anymore. The Wall Street Journal .

Johnston, J. (Director). (1999). October Sky [Motion Picture].

Jones, B. (2011, July 28). Britain bans airbrushed Julia Roberts make-up ad. Retrieved

March 1, 2014, from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/07/28/airbrushed.advertisements.ban/

Justin Boots. (2014). Justin Boots Heritage. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from Justin

Boots: http://www.justinboots.com/en/heritage.html

Kent Nutrition Group. (2014). Kent Feeds History. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from

Kent Feeds: http://kentfeeds.com/about-us/kent-history/

Kenworth Trucks. (2014). Kenworth About Us. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from

Kenworth Trucks: http://www.kenworth.com/about-us.aspx#

  76  
 
Koenig Equipment, Inc. (2012, June 4). The Story Of The Case Corporation And

International Harvester Tractor Sales. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Koenig

Equipment, Inc.: http://ww.koeingequipment.com/blog/the-story-of-the-case-

corporation-and-international-harvester-tractor-sales

Komatsu America Corporation. (2014). Komatsu America Corp. - History. Retrieved

February 25, 2014, from Komatsu America:

http://www.komatsuamerica.com/history

Kroll, K. (2013). The Most Egregious Product Placements in Movie & TV History.

Retrieved November 22, 2013, from Rolling Stone:

www.rollingstong.com/movies/pictures/the-mostegregious-product-placements-

in-movie-tv-history-20130604

Lasseter, J. (Director). (2006). Cars [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA.

Lee, A. (Director). (2005). Brokeback Mountain [Motion Picture]. New York, NY.

Leinster, C. (1987, September 28). A Tale of Mice and Lens. Retrieved November 22,

2013, from CNNMoney.com:

money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1987/09/28/69577/index.htm

Lord, P., & Park, N. (Directors). (2000). Chicken Run [Motion Picture]. Glendale, CA.

Mack Trucks, Inc. . (2014). Mack History. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from Mack

Trucks, Inc.: http://www.macktrucks.com/default.aspx?pageid=253

Manchester Feeds, Inc. (2010). Manchester Feeds, Inc. . Retrieved February 23, 2014,

from Manchester Feeds, Inc. Homepage: www.manchesterfeeds.com

Marshall, F. (Director). (1990). Arachnophobia [Motion Picture]. USA.

  77  
 
Marshall, G. (Director). (1999). Runaway Bride [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles, CA.

Massey Ferguson. (2012). Massey Ferguson History. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from

Massey Ferguson: http://www.masseyferguson.us/about_us/mf-history/

McCanlies, T. (Director). (2003). Secondhand Lions [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles, CA.

Miller, G. (Director). (1998). Babe: Pig in the City [Motion Picture]. Sydney, Australia.

Milligan, L. (2012, July 18). Fashion Hangover. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from

VOGUE: www.vogue.co.uk/news/2012/01/03/louis-vuitton-sues-warner-bros-

over-the-hangover-2

Minghella, A. (Director). (2003). Cold Mountain [Motion Picture]. Santa Monica, CA.

Monsanto. (2014). Monsanto DEKALB. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from Monsanto:

http://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/dekalb.aspx

Monsanto. (2014). Monsanto Logo & Brand Download. Retrieved February 23, 2014,

from Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/logo-

download.aspx

Morrison, M. (2013, June 3). Superman Reboot 'Man of Steel' Snares $160M in

Promotions: Summer Blockbuster Boasts More Than 100 Global Marketing

Partners. Retrieved February 27, 2014, from Advertising Age:

http://www.adage.com/article/news/superman-reboot-man-of-steel-snares-160m-

promotions/241822/

Motion Picture Association of America. (2012). Theatrical Market Statistics. Retrieved

November 20, 2013, from www.mpaa.org/resources/3037b7a4-58a2-4109-8012-

58fca3abdf1b.pdf

  78  
 
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. . (2011). Theatrical Market Statistics.

Retrieved February 27, 2013, from Motion Picture Associations of America, Inc. :

www.mpaa.org/resources/5bec4ac9-a95e-443b-987b-bff6fb5455a9.pdf

National 4-H History Preservation Program. (2014). 4-H Emblem. Retrieved February 26,

2014, from National 4-H History Preservation Program: http://www.4-

hhistorypreservation.com/History/Clover/

National Agricultural Library. (2014, Feburary 12). USDA History. Retrieved Feburary

23, 2014, from National Agricultural Library: http://www.nal.usda.gov/history-

art-and-biography/usda-history

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. (2014). State Directory.

Retrieved Feburary 23, 2014, from National Association of State Departments of

Agriculture: http://www.nasda.org/9383/States.aspx

National FFA Organization. (2014). FFA History. Retrieved February 23, 2014, from

National FFA Organization:

http://www.ffa.org/about/whoweare/Pages/History.aspx

National Milk Producers Federation. (2014). REAL Seal Homepage. Retrieved February

25, 2014, from REAL Seal: http://www.realseal.com

New Holland. (N.D.). About New Holland. Retrieved February 25, 2014, from New

Holland: http://www.agriculture.newholland.com/us/en/About-New-

Holland/About-New-Holland/Pages/WorldMap2.aspx

Oedekerk, S. (Director). (2006). Barnyard [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles, CA.

  79  
 
Panousis, J. (2013, July/August). Trends in Agricultural Advertising. Agri Marketing , p.

30.

Potter, W. (1993). Cultivation Theory and Research: A Conceptual Critique. Human

Communication Research , 19 (4), 564-601.

Singer, B. (Director). (2006). Superman Returns [Motion Picture]. Burbank, CA.

Soderbergh, S. (Director). (2000). Erin Brockovich [Motion Picture]. USA.

Specht, A. (2013). A Social Semiotic Discourse Analysis of Film and Television

Portrayals of Agriculture: Implications for American Cultural Memory. Texas

A&M University, Aricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications.

College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University.

Spheeris, P. (Director). (1993). The Beverly Hillbillies [Motion Picture]. USA.

Spicer, B. (Director). (1997). For Richer or Poorer [Motion Picture]. Universal City, CA.

Spurlock, M. (Director). (2011). POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever

Sold [Motion Picture]. USA.

Stampler, L. (2012, August 7). 12 Excellent Examples Of How Apple Product Placements

Rule Hollywood. Retrieved November 22, 2013, from Business Insider:

www.businessinsider.com/apple-product-placements-in-tv-and-movies-2012-

8?op=1

Star Milling Company. (2014). Star Milling Company. Retrieved February 23, 2014,

from Star Milling Company: www.starmilling.com/index.php

Taylor, T. (Director). (2011). The Help [Motion Picture]. USA.

  80  
 
Tennant, A. (Director). (2002). Sweet Home Alabama [Motion Picture]. USA.

The Associated Press. (2014, February 22). Dow Stumbles, but the S.&P. 500 and

Nasdaq Continue Their Climb. The New York Times .

The Numbers. (2012). Domestic Theatrical Market Summary for 2012. Retrieved

November 25, 2012, from http://the-numbers.com/market/2012/summary

The Ohio State University Extension. (2012). Ohio 4-H Youth Development History of 4-

H. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from The Ohio State University:

http://www.ohio4h.org/about-us/history-4-h

The Ohio State University. (2014). Facilities: Ohio Stadium. Retrieved March 13, 2014,

from Ohio State Buckeyes Official Athletic Site :

http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/facilities/ohio-stadium.html

Tractor Data. (2014). Cub Cadet lawn and garden tractors sorted my model. Retrieved

February 23, 2014, from Tractor Data: http://www.tractordata.com/lawn-

tractors/tractor-brands/cubcadet/cubcadet-lawn-tractors.html

Tractor Data. (2014). Ford tractors sorted by model and . Retrieved February 25, 2014,

from Tractor Data: http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractor/tractor-

brands/ford/ford-tractors.html

Tractor Data. (2014). International Harvester tractors sorted by model. Retrieved

February 23, 2014, from Tractor Data: http://www.tractordata.com/farm-

tractors/tractor-brands/ih/ih-tractors.html

  81  
 
Tractor Data. (2012). Snapper lawn tractors by model. Retrieved February 26, 2014,

from Tractor Data: http://www.tractordata.com/lawn-tractors/tractor-

brands/snapper/snapper-lawn-tractors.html

Tractor Data. (2013). Wheel Horse lawn tractors by model. Retrieved February 26, 2014,

from Tractor Data: htp://tractordata.com/lawn-tractors/tractor-

brands/wheelhorse/wheelhorse-lawn-tractors.html

Tractor Data. (2013). White tractors by model. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from

Tractor Data: http://www.tractordata.com/farm-tractors/tractor-

brands/white/white-tractors.html

Underwood, R. (Director). (1991). City Slickers [Motion Picture]. USA.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2014). 2012 Census of Agriculture:

Preliminary Report U.S. and State Data.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture: Demographics.

United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Census of Agriculture: Production Fact

Sheets.

United States Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service. (2013, August

27). Farm Income and Wealth Statistics. Retrieved November 23, 2013, from

USDA ERS - Farm Income and Wealth Statistics: Net Cash Income:

www.ers.usda.goc/data-products/farm-income-and-wealth-statistics/net-cash-

income.aspx#.UpDDlhbA5UQ

Van Leeuwen, T., & Jewitt, C. (2001). The Handbook of Visual Analysis. London:

SAGE.

  82  
 
Vanity Fair. (2008, May 30). Sex and the City: A Product Placement Roundup. Retrieved

November 22, 2013, from Vanity Fair:

www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/05/sex-and-the-cit

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2002). Perceptions of Rural America. Battle Creek, MI:

W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2002). Perceptions of Rural America: Media Coverage.

Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2014). Who We Are. Retrieved March 11, 2014, from W.K.

Kellogg Foundation: www.wkkf.org/who-we-are/overview

Wallace, R. (Director). (2010). Secretariat [Motion Picture]. USA.

Walton, A. (2012). The Evolution of Product Placement in Film. THe Elon Journal of

Undergraduate Research in Communications , 1 (1), 70-85.

Werner, S. J., & Tankard, Jr. , J. W. (2001). Communication Theories: Origins, Methods,

and Uses in the Mass Media (5th ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley

Longman, Inc.

Wheel Horse Collectors Club, Inc. . (2014). Wheel Horse Collectors Club, Inc.

Hompeage. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from Wheel Horse Collectors Club,

Inc.: http://www.wheelhorsecc.com

Winick, G. (Director). (2006). Charlotte's Web [Motion Picture]. Los Angeles, CA.

Wisconsin Historical Society. (2014). Farmall Tractors. Retrieved February 23, 2014,

from Wisconsin Historical Society:

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/whi/feature/mccormick/farmall

  83  
 
Zemeckis, R. (Director). (1994). Forrest Gump [Motion Picture]. USA.

  84  
 
Appendix A: Agricultural Brands

Twenty-eight brands were found throughout the films in this study. This portion

of the literature review provides background information about each of the brands that

were identified throughout the films.

Ace Hi Feeds

Ace Hi Feeds is a subsidary brand from the Star Milling Company, from Perris,

California (Star Milling Company, 2014). The “Star Milling Company manufactures

nutritious, high-quality animal feed that is sold through feed stores in the western United

States. Products are sold under the brands names Ace Hi, Integrity, Kelley’s, Star Brand,

Ultimate Show Feed, and Ultra Balance” (Star Milling Company, 2014). Star Milling

Company is a three generation owned and operated milling company. According to the

Star Milling Company website, Ace Hi Feeds consists of a line of feeds designed for

horses, poultry, dogs, birds, small animals and livestock (Star Milling Company, 2014).

  85  
 
Figure 6.1. Ace Hi Feed logo (Manchester Feeds, Inc., 2010).

Carhartt

Carhartt was founded in 1889, by Hamilton Carhartt, as a clothing retailer that

specialized in apparel for railroad workers (Carhartt, 2014). The company began with

four sewing machines and five employees in 1889, and by the early 1900s the company

had grown to emcopmase 17 plants and three mills throughout the United States, Canada

and Europe (Carhartt, 2014). The company “remains a family owned operation

committed to the mission of providing Best-in-Class apparel for the active worker”

(Carhartt, 2014). The Carhartt line of products has grown from being designed for only

railroad workers to clothing lines for men, women and children, as well as a line of

footwear and flame-resistant products (Carhartt, 2014).

  86  
 
Figure 6.2.The modern logo for the Carhartt company (Carhartt, 2014).

Castrol

In 1899, Charles Wakefield “founded CC Wakefield & Co Ltd” (Castrol, 2014).

The company began by producing a lubricant for the axlebox of steam locomotives.

“Wakefield & Co scientists found that adding a measure of castor oil to their lubricants

helped to keep the oil runny enough to work from cold at start-up and thick enough to

keep working at very high temperatures. They called the new product ‘Castrol’” (Castrol,

2014). By 1909, the company had become Castrol and started producing the first motor

oil (Castrol, 2014).

Figure 6.3. Although the Castrol logo has changed since 1909, this is the 2012
version of the company's logo (Castrol, 2012).
  87  
 
Caterpillar

Caterpillar Inc., began with the merger of the Holt Manufacturing Company and

the C.L. Best Tractor Company in 1925 (Caterpillar Inc., 2004). The first tractor

produced from this merger appeared in 1931, and by 1940 the product line included:

“moto graders, blade graders, elevating graders, terraces and electric generator sets”

(Caterpillar Inc., 2004). In 2004, the company sold “more than 300 products in 200

countries” and employed 69,000 employees worldwide (Caterpillar Inc., 2004).

Caterpllar is a brand that has products being used worldwide for a multitude of

construction and escavating projects. From 2008 to 2011, “over 400 new Caterpllar

machines” helped construct a 2,400-kilometer railway in Saudi Arabia and in 2001

Caterpillar products helped with a new research base on Antartica (Caterpillar, 2014).

The brand CAT is a sub brand of Caterpillar Inc.

Figure 6.4. Caterpillar Inc. logo (Caterpillar, 2014).

  88  
 
Cub Cadet

Cub Cadet began as International Harvester’s entrance into the small tractor

market in the early 1960s (Tractor Data, 2014). During International Harvester’s

ownership of the brand, the tractors were produced in Kentucky; however, in 1981, Cub

Cadet was sold to MTD “as the subsidiary Cub Cadet Corporation (CCC)” (Tractor Data,

2014). Cub Cadets were then built in Tennessee. Today the Cub Cadet brand produces:

lawn and garden tractors, zero-turn riding mowers, walk behind mowers, handheld and

cleanup devices, snow throwers and utility vehicles, according to the company’s website

(Cub Cadet, 2014).

Figure 6.5. The Cub Cadet logo is correlated with the company colors: yellow, white
and black (Cub Cadet, 2014).

DEKALB

On January 20, 1912, the DeKalb County Soil Improvement Association was

formed as a farmer cooperative. The Cooperative was “ dedicated to making farming

better, to find a way to improve yield results for all those whose livelihood depended

  89  
 
upon the land” (DEKALB, 2012). Today, DEKALB is owned by the Monsanto

Corporation. The DEKALB brand sells seeds for “corn, alfalfa, grain sorghum, and

spring and winter canola” (Monsanto, 2014). The DEKALB logo has remained virtually

the same thought the past 100 years, being represented by a winged ear of corn.

Figure 6.6. The DEKALB logo (Monsanto, 2014).

Department of Agriculture

President Abraham Lincoln signed into law the Agricultural Act to establish a

Department of Agriculture in May of 1862 (National Agricultural Library, 2014). Today

each state has its own Department of Agriculture, which provides support and services to

agriculturalists on a state level (National Association of State Departments of

  90  
 
Agriculture, 2014). The United States Department of Agriculture’s logo features rolling

hills with the USDA initials above.

Figure 6.7. The USDA logo (National Agricultural Library, 2014).

Farmall and International Harvester

Farmall is a product line within International Harvester (Wisconsin Historical

Society, 2014). Introduced in 1924, Farmalls were known as “the tricycle style row-crop

tractor,” and had the capabilities to plow and cultivate (Tractor Data, 2014). International

Harvester formed from the merger of the McCormick Harvesting Machine Company and

the Deering Harvester Company in 1902 (Tractor Data, 2014). In 1985, International

  91  
 
Harvester merged with the J. I. Case Company to form the brand of Case IH, which still

operates today (Tractor Data, 2014). All of the tractors under the names of Farmall,

International Harvester and Case IH are painted a signature red color.

Figure 6.8. Farmall logo featured on many tractors (Wisconsin Historical Society, 2014).

Figure 6.9. International Harvester logo, prior to the merger with Case in 1985
(Koenig Equipment, Inc., 2012).

  92  
 
FFA

FFA is a youth organization, which was founded in 1928 as the Future Farmers of

America (National FFA Organization, 2014). According to the National FFA

Organizations’ webpage, the organization is “committed to the individual student,

providing a path to achievement in premier leadership, personal growth and career

success through agricultural education” (National FFA Organization, 2014). In 1929, the

FFA adopted the official colors of “national blue and corn gold” (National FFA

Organization, 2014). A few notable members of the FFA include: former President

Jimmy Carter, Willie Nelson and Taylor Swift (National FFA Organization, 2014).

Figure 6.10. The FFA emblem (National FFA Organization, 2014).

  93  
 
Ford

Ford began producing tractors in 1917, with the first model being a Fordson F

(Tractor Data, 2014). After a series of mergers, Fordson became Ford and worked in

conjunction with Harry Ferguson (who later left Ford and merged with Massey-Harris to

form Massey-Ferguson) (Ganzel, 2007). In 1985, Ford purchased New-Holland;

however, the Ford-New Holland company was sold to FIAT in 1991 (Tractor Data,

2014). The agreement caused FIAT to stop using the Ford name on tractors in 2000

(Tractor Data, 2014).

Figure 6.11. Ford Tractor logo, featured on tractor models from the 1950s (Ganzel,
2007).

  94  
 
John Deere

John Deere was a blacksmith and an inventor, originally from Vermont, who

created the first plow in 1837 (John Deere, 2014). By 1848, Deere had moved his

business to Moline, Illinois, and had built over 1,600 plows by 1850 (John Deere, 2014).

In 1895, the John Deere company published the first issue of The Furrow, which is now

“published in 14 languages for farmers and ranchers in 115 countries, and is the most

widely circulated farm magazine in the world” (John Deere, 2014). John Deere entered

the tractor sector in 1918, by purchasing the maker of “Waterloo Boy tractors” and sold

“5,634 tractors in the first year” of production (John Deere, 2014).

Figure 6.12. The John Deere logo, which was last updated in 2000, features a leaping
deer. Previous logos used a landing deer (John Deere, 2014).

  95  
 
Justin Boots

H.J. Justin founded Justin Boots in 1879, when he began making boots out of his

home in Nocona, Texas (Justin Boots, 2014). When Justin’s three sons joined the family

business in 1908, the company was renamed H.J. Justin and Sons (Justin Boots, 2014).

“In 1910, Justin boots were sold in 26 states, Canada, Mexico, and Cuba for $11 a pair”

(Justin Boots, 2014). Justin Boots has purchased several other boot companies over the

years, including: Nocona Boot Company, Chippewa Shoe Company and Tony Lama

Boots (Justin Boots, 2014). In 2000, Justin Boots was purchased by Warren Buffett’s

Berkshire Hathaway, and now produces a line of boots for men, women and children

(Justin Boots, 2014).

Figure 6.13. Justin Boots logo, as shown on their website (Justin Boots, 2014).

  96  
 
Kent Feeds

Kent Feeds was established in 1927 by Gage Kent in Indianola, Iowa (Kent

Nutrition Group, 2014). The brand made its claim to fame by becoming the “Feed

Without A Filler” (Kent Nutrition Group, 2014). Initially, the company specialized in

beef feed, but has grown to include feed rations for “swine, beef, dairy, poultry, specialty

and pet products” (Kent Nutrition Group, 2014). Kent Feeds operates nine feed plants in

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, and Nebraska (Kent Nutrition Group, 2014).

Figure 6.14. Kent Feeds remains a family owned company after 87 years of operation
(Kent Nutrition Group, 2014).

Kenworth

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,
  97  
 
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).

Figure 6.15. Kenworth trucks are designed for optimum driver comfort and efficiency
(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

  98  
 
(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).

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).

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

  99  
 
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).

Figure 6.17. In 1932, the first bulldog adorned the hood of a Mack truck (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

  100  
 
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).

Figure 6.18. The current Massey Ferguson logo (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

  101  
 
160 countries, and six of its production facilities are located in North America (New

Holland, N.D.).

Figure 6.19. The New Holland logo, as shown on the corporate website (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).

  102  
 
Figure 6.20. Pioneer Seed is part of the DuPont Corporation (DuPont Pioneer, 2014).

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 6.21. Quality Seeds Ltd. provides a wide variety of seeds and plant services
(Quality Seeds Inc., 2014).

  103  
 
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).

  104  
 
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).

  105  
 
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

sells directly to 10,000 independent dealerships (Tractor Data, 2012) (Fishman, 2006).

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).

  106  
 
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).

  107  
 
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).

Figure 6.26. The Wheel Horse logo, as shown on the Wheel Horse Collectors Club
website (Wheel Horse Collectors Club, Inc. , 2014).

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
  108  
 
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).

Figure 6.27. The White Farm Equipment Company's logo before being purchased by AGCO
in 1991 (Tractor Data, 2013).

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

  109  
 
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).

  110  
 
Appendix B: Film Evaluation Form

 
 
Movie  Title:    
 
Reviewer:      
 
Agricultural  Brands:  
 
1.    
 
2.  
 
3.  
 
4.  
 
5.  
 
6.  
 
 
Agricultural  Scenery  (not  branded  material):    
 
1.      
 
2.    
 
3.      
 
4.      
 
5.    
 
6.    
 
 
  111  
 
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.    

  112  
 

You might also like