Media Updates

The Marketing of Harry Potter

By Leslie Regan Shade
October 21 2005

When countless fans—both schoolchildren and adults—passionately devoured the multi-volume adventures of Harry Potter, the bespectacled young wizard, author J.K. Rowling was praised for reintroducing many to the pleasures and delights of reading. Of course there were the naysayers—those who claimed that Harry Potter was an icon of evil, that the books promoted an unhealthy interest in the occult, and that they therefore must be banned from school libraries (Blume, 1999).

But perhaps the most insidious element of Harry Potter is that he was finally turned into a movie, and packaged and sold like other commodities. The tale of how Harry was marketed provides an excellent case study in the political economy of the child consumer (see the Saunders chapter in Mediascapes). The various elements of political economy examined here include the notion of synergy or cross-promotions, and the rampant commercialization of children’s culture through product tie-ins and product licensing.

Synergy refers to mutually advantageous relationships of distinct businesses or elements that are bound together. Media synergy is at work when one large media conglomerate owns wholly or in part various facets of another business or businesses that have links to the parent conglomerate. In the case of Harry Potter, AOL Time Warner (the parent media conglomerate) produced the movie Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone and then promoted it through the various magazines it owns (Time, People, Sports Illustrated), through its cable network CNN, and on its AOL Internet service.

Approximately US$30–40 million was spent on the marketing campaign for the Harry Potter movie. Marketing included product tie-ins and product licensing, wherein companies pay to manufacture products that feature a particular logo or film character. The $30–40 million includes the cost of various licences on Harry Potter merchandise. Rowling authorized only 85 licensees, which is small compared with the usual 200 accorded for big-budget movies. Five hundred Harry Potter products were licensed, including Mattel action figures, the Lego castle and train, Game Boy and PlayStation games, a Nokia phone cover, books, and dress-up clothes. Other items included bed linens, bookends, plaques, clocks, mugs, cookie jars, furniture, boxes and trunks, wallpaper, shoes, T-shirts, and birthday supplies. Food items include Harry Potter frogs, manufactured by Mars Confectionery, and Bertie Bott’s Every Flavor Jelly Beans, manufactured by Jelly Belly.

Surprisingly, there were no product placements in the movie, and the only official sponsor for the film was Coca-Cola, which reportedly paid approximately $150 million for the global marketing rights. In addition to placing Harry Potter images (owl and castle) on the packaging for Coca- Cola, Minute Maid, and Hi-C products, Coke used the opportunity to promote their $18-million literacy campaign, targeting the kindergarten-through-third-grade group. However, many have been outraged by this alliance. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit group known for its efforts to get nutrition labels on all food products, launched a campaign that lambasted Coke for promoting the sugary substance and “liquid candy” to youth (URL: www.saveharry.com). Other organizations have joined in, including the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the Center for Commercial-Free Public Education, the Consumer Federation of
America, and many academics.

Another controversy has arisen over Warner Brothers’ attempts to stifle the creation of Harry Potter fan sites on the Internet. This issue was brought to light when several young children and teenagers reported receiving threatening letters from Warner Brothers lawyers asking them to cease publication and give up their Web sites, whose domain names, according to lawyers, could “cause consumer confusion or dilution of intellectual property rights” In Britain, PotterWar was thus created, led by Alastair Alexander, who felt strongly about this case “because major corporations are getting away with too much. They have huge amounts of money and power, and (certainly in this case) they were using it to bluff and bully their way through some legal grey areas.” Warner Brothers has since relented and the Web sites were allowed to stay online. But until this issue was resolved, many Harry Potter fans were calling for a boycott of the movie and all associated products.

Resources
Blume, Judy. (October 22, 1999). Is Harry Potter Evil? The New York Times. URL:
http://www.judyblume.com/articles/harry_potter_oped.html

Chihara, Michelle. (November 8, 2001). When Harry Met Selling. Alternet. URL:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11889

Official Harry Potter homepage:
http://harrypotter.warnerbros.com/?fromtout=homepage_b2