And now a word from our sponsor.

Bryant Pharmaceutical's flagship product, a popular arthritis medicine called Seflex, is selling well--but not well enough. With generic versions due on the shelves in a couple of years, the drug company is looking for a dramatic sales increase. No wonder marketing VP Laura Goldenberg feels the pressure. She knows she has to reach more consumers, but in an environment where people bombarded with advertising are using devices such as TiVo to skip ads, her job has suddenly taken on a new intensity. In search of a new, gangbuster campaign, Laura and her ad agency come up with the idea of product placement--not your typical integration of a product into a television or movie script, but a less traditional approach. Their idea is to hire a much-loved, elderly actress to extol the virtues of Seflex on a morning news program. The news segment would be about arthritis, and Seflex would be casually mentioned during the interview. The company would have to pay the actress $1 million, and there are risks: What if it gets out that Bryant is paying her? What if the actress errs and says something about Seflex's side effects? If something goes wrong, Bryant Pharmaceutical's reputation could suffer. Should the company green-light Laura's plan? This fictional case study looks at the pros and cons of traditional product placement and newer, more subtle alternatives to advertising. Commenting on the case are Bob Gamgort, president of Masterfoods USA; Michelle R. Nelson, an assistant professor of journalism and mass communications at the University of Wisconsin, Madison; FTC commissioner Mozelle W. Thompson; and Mike Sheehan, president and CEO of Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos.