REEBOK SUIT CITES NEGATIVE PORTRAYAL IN `MAGUIRE'.

Byline: Stuart Elliott The New York Times

In the hit movie ``Jerry Maguire,'' Cuba Gooding Jr. portrays Rod Tidwell, a high-spirited and ambitious football player who nurses a filmlong grudge against Reebok for ignoring the gridiron talents he so passionately believes he possesses.

Tidwell's tirades continue until the closing credits - when, with the help of Maguire, his agent, he achieves his dream: a Reebok endorsement deal, promoted in a glitzy commercial in which Reebok declares, ``Rod Tidwell. We ignored him for years. We were wrong. We're sorry.''

At least that's how Reebok executives say they thought ``Jerry Maguire'' would end. But as millions of moviegoers know, the film concludes without any make-believe, kiss-and-make-up Reebok spot.

And that has Reebok International Ltd. squaring off against Tristar Pictures in a multimillion-dollar legal battle that offers a revealing glimpse at product placement, the increasingly prevalent advertising device that seeks to turn name brands into Hollywood stars.

Reebok, the No. 2 marketer of athletic footwear, is suing Tristar in U.S. District Court in California, claiming that the studio that produced and released ``Jerry Maguire'' reneged on a promise to present Reebok in a positive light. Reebok had obtained its role not by auditioning or schmoozing producers, but by providing Tristar more than $1.5 million in merchandise, advertising, promotional support and other benefits.

A hearing on a Tristar motion to dismiss the case is set for Monday. The suit against the studio, owned by Sony Corp., levels 12 complaints, including breach of contract, firing the film's catch phrase ``Show me the money!'' back at its creators by seeking damages of more than $10 million each for most of the complaints.

Disputes over product placements rarely wind up in court. But the Reebok suit underscores the growing importance - and increasing complexity - of the placement practice, through which marketers try to gain valuable on-screen exposure and the implied celebrity endorsements of everyone from Tom Cruise, who plays Maguire, to Fred Flintstone and E.T.

The squabble also shows how difficult it can be to meld the often conflicting demands of culture and commerce, and how risky it is to place a big bet on something as unpredictable as movie-making.

In the dispute over ``Jerry Maguire,'' Reebok says it was promised that highly complimentary ad, while Tristar says it was understood that such an ending could wind up, as it did, on the cutting-room floor.

Product placement was once shunned by movie moguls, whose single-minded goal was to fill the theaters they owned with the films they made. That's why Dana Andrews talked about an imaginary brand of Scotch named Black Pony in ``Laura'' (1944) and why the cigarettes smoked by Bette Davis or Humphrey Bogart always came from packs half-hidden from the camera.

``It was fantasy; they didn't want anything identifiable except the people,'' said Gary Smith, a longtime product-placer who is president of G. Smith & Co. in Burbank. He recalls providing a kitchen set for a production, only to be told to tape over the brand name.

Products began to be placed in the late 1960s through a casually run cottage industry based on barter that exchanged merchandise for mentions. The practice defrayed production costs and lent verisimilitude to the independent, more realistic films that became prevalent with the collapse of the studio system.

But in the past two decades, as commercialism has exploded across all realms of art, product placement has become a big business.

Recent notable examples include the appearances of a new BMW Z3 roadster in ``Goldeneye'' (1995), a prehistoric McDonald's restaurant in ``The Flintstones'' (1994) and a futuristic Oldsmobile showroom in ``Demolition Man'' (1993). A Domino's pizza was delivered to the heroes in ``Teen-age Mutant Ninja Turtles'' (1990), Michael J. Fox drank Pepsi-Cola in ``Back to the Future II'' (1989) and Rocky Balboa ate his Wheaties in ``Rocky III'' (1982). Before Coca-Cola sold the Columbia and Tristar studios to Sony, films like ``The Big Chill'' (1983) were awash in a sea of soft drinks.

Consumer marketers spend an estimated $50 million annually to land parts for their brands; typically, a big company pays a product-placement specialist an annual retainer of $50,000 for five to 10 placements.

The latest wrinkle in the product-placement realm plays down fees in favor of marketers and movie-makers joining forces for elaborate cross-promotional campaigns. Such efforts, including sweepstakes, ads and retail displays, do double duty: pitch the movies as well as the products placed in them.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: GOODING