Embedded advertising gets noticed

[DSE 3]

"Embedded," "Pop," "Placement" ads are _finally_ receiving notice (duh) from the government. "Integrated" etc ads have all become part of a new investigation. Small enterprises have been complaining about this practice for a long time, as they cannot possibly hope to compete against the "big" guys in this channel.

The issue of product placement, in which brand name items are used as props in shows, is not new and has not generated much controversy. It is the practice of insinuating products into actual plot lines, known as "product integration," that has raised concern.

For example, episodes of the family-oriented show "7th Heaven" included plot lines revolving around Oreo cookies. Other examples cited by critics of the practice include episodes of "The Office" in which characters work at a Staples office supply store; a "CSI" show in which characters promote features of a General Motors vehicle; and a "Smallville" episode in which the dialogue included the line "Acuvue to the rescue," a reference to the contact lens maker.


Is this a non-issue or is it a big deal to you?

[Brains 2]

Quote

Is this a non-issue or is it a big deal to you?

I think it depends on how the product placement is used. When it is a blatant, in your face product commercial, then i think it sucks. I remember an episode of Heroes where they kept referring to the nissan rogue by name, that shit does't need to be there. Things like someone working on an apple laptop are not blatant and are ok.

Never look down on someone, unless they are going down on you.

[Dumpster 0]

I don't have any problem with occasional, subtle product placement. Television used to go to rediculous ends to conceal brand names, etc. But like Brains said, the blatant in-your-face crap is annoying as all hell. On one T.V. show my ex would watch - the one episode was full of references to TiVo - Must have mentioned it 50 times. I wonder how much the advertiser was paying for it. Movies are getting worse in that respect, too. We're paying to see a movie, not a two-to-three-hour commercial.

Easy Does It

[countzero 7]

it's pretty much a non-issue to me. if a product is annoyingly overly mentioned by the actors or part of the plot line, i'll watch something else. products placed in a show just become part of the background to me. in fact, the last time an ad actually worked and motivated me to go buy something was a billboard for Shiner black.

diamonds are a dawgs best friend

[Dumpster 0]

[homer simpson voice] mmmmm.......... Shiner........... [/homer simpson voice]

Maybe it's time to take a trip to Texas. I know I can get it here in Illinois, but for some reason it tastes better at Skydive San Marcos.

Easy Does It

[AggieDave 6]

Product placement really gets me. When I try to watch a quality game show like The Price is Right and then they have all of these products and keep naming them...it just devalues the show.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

Quote

Is this a non-issue or is it a big deal to you?

It's not a non-issue, but I don't know how you'd go about really fixing it.

Real people use real products. If every item in a movie or TV program had to have its names and logos blocked out, you'd still be able to tell what most of the items are based on.

To me, the most egregious uses in the last year have to be things like "Knight Rider" and "I am Legend". "Knight Rider" didn't only have a HUGE product placement deal, they also had a co-op ad campaign running concurrent with the program; basically they would go to commercial break and in the break they'd run a commercial with KITT and the guy talking about how great the cars were.

In "I am Legend", Will Smith drives a pristine Shelby Mustang around a dystopic New York for at least five minutes.

So, I really think it has a lot to do with HOW the items are used and to what lengths the items are forced into the script.

Is that something the government needs to get involved with? No.

Is that something the WGA and DGA should get involved with. Yeah, I think so.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[leroydb 0]

not a big deal... I say leave it alone

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

it's pretty much a non-issue to me. if a product is annoyingly overly mentioned by the actors or part of the plot line, i'll watch something else. products placed in a show just become part of the background to me. in fact, the last time an ad actually worked and motivated me to go buy something was a billboard for Shiner black.

i agree with you about watching something else or even turning the tv off. the entire point of a tv show is to sell advertising. you've aslo depressed me because you made me remember that i an no longer buy shiner bock in this town. thanks for rpping off that scab.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[Andy9o8 0]

It might be an ethical issue, or a "good/bad taste" issue, but in the US (due to the Constitution) it's not an issue the government should touch. "Investigation" my ass. I'm strongly against govt regulation of media content, even to the extent it already exists (like "equal time" regulations for political content, etc.).

If a film/program producer and an advertiser want to engage into a mutually-beneficial product placement deal, that's their business. The marketplace will determine the success or failure of the practice. If financial resources gives one company a competitive advantage over another, well, that's what free-market capitalism is all about.

[DSE 3]

***
So, I really think it has a lot to do with HOW the items are used and to what lengths the items are forced into the script.

Is that something the government needs to get involved with? No.

Is that something the WGA and DGA should get involved with. Yeah, I think so.

We're on the same page. When films are used solely as marketing vehicles, IMO, the DGA needs to say something, because it's clear the artist's 'vision' has been compromised.
But that's not a gov't issue, doesn't violate the public trust, and costs taxpayers nothing.
If Sony wants to do a heavy placement in a film...they're essentially paying the freight for the film, so if product placement helps...
"Casino Royale..." Sony employees had an online game (internally) to see who could spot the most placements of product.

[edit] "Dystopic"...learned a new word today. Thx Quade

[Bones 0]

As I understand it, the recent version of "The Italian Job" was essentially one big product placement/ad campaign for Mini's. Very effective in that regard.

[Broke 0]

Quote

As I understand it, the recent version of "The Italian Job" was essentially one big product placement/ad campaign for Mini's. Very effective in that regard.

Yeah, but they did some damn cool things with those cars... lol

And No the goverment does not need to stick their nose in this issue. If you don't want to watch commercials crawl under your rock and become media free.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

If you don't want to watch commercials crawl under your rock and become media free.

Or watch AFN and get the military commercials instead...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

As I understand it, the recent version of "The Italian Job" was essentially one big product placement/ad campaign for Mini's. Very effective in that regard.

The original "Italian Job" also made use of Mini-Coopers so that could be forgiven. In fact, I would not have considered it a remake of the movie had Minis not been an integral part of the plot.

Contrast that with, again, Knight Rider. Not only is it a different car, but it's a completely different car company with the deal going to the highest bidder. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but it's a very dramatic change for fans of the old show.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SBS 0]

I don't think it's a legal issue as much as it is a "does this bother you as the audience" issue, as most comments seem to have hit on here.

We can be critical of it, but realistically it is done because the people who make the movies are greedy. They are going to make as much money as they can, and if they can't put a product in a movie for millions of dollars, they are going to find some other way to fill that huge void in their overstuffed pockets.

We already complain about movie tickets being expensive. Without product placement, it would only get worse. And seriously, how many movies is it, and how much of the movie? Or how many episodes of a TV show? It seems to me that if we enjoy a show, we can stomach a bit of a sellout for an episode or two. Again, cable is already ridiculously expensive.

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...