# Is product placement done all the time and I miss it?



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

I saw Windows 8 (Surface) placed in _Arrow_ and _Burn Notice_ this week and got me wondering if there is always some sort of product placement on shows all the time and I miss it?

On _Burn Notice_ and shows with car chases, I would guess those could be considered product placements. But are there others that others notice?


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Suburgatory had a recent episode where the Surface Tablet product placement was pretty blatant.

Amazing Race and other reality shows seem to be the worst when it comes to cars.


----------



## phox_mulder (Feb 23, 2006)

teknikel said:


> On _Burn Notice_ and shows with car chases, I would guess those could be considered product placements. But are there others that others notice?


Especially when they make a point to tell us what the car is.

Burn Notice, Bones, Hawaii 5-0 are the worst offenders I can recall.

phox


----------



## BrandonRe (Jul 15, 2006)

My 9 year old brought this up to me the other night. We were watching The Amazing Race and they did extended sequences showcasing the new Ford Escape's foot activated lift gate. She commented how many shows have commercials in the shows, and not just the actual ads. Not sure if that says anything about their effectiveness but I thought it was pretty cool that she recognized the product placement as advertising.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

BrandonRe said:


> My 9 year old brought this up to me the other night. We were watching The Amazing Race and they did extended sequences showcasing the new Ford Escape's foot activated lift gate. She commented how many shows have commercials in the shows, and not just the actual ads. Not sure if that says anything about their effectiveness but I thought it was pretty cool that she recognized the product placement as advertising.


Smart girl. I think when it is so blatant it comes as such a surprise that it takes many of us out of the story. Normally it doesn't for me but these Surface ads everywhere have made me more aware.

It might ease the surprise if they would go back to when an announcer would say something, as the show started, like, "_Burn Notice_ is sponsored by Surface and Chevrolet." Maybe that would take the away some of the sting.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

There are lots.

Take a look at what people drink - do they do it out of plain cups, or logo'd ones? Canned soda? Bottled water?

Take a look at cars - are they shown extended sequences or unique features (e.g., Ford Sync - you'll see them purposely activate it).

DItto books and movies. And computers.

Basically, if you see any brand name on screen, it's usually product placement (sometimes companies don't pay anything for product placement - e.g., Apple refuses to pay for product placement. The only reason you see their computers is because of the writers. Also why you stopped seeing iPhones on TV and more money-generating Sprint/Verizon/AT&T Android phones - always note they close-up on the carrier logo when focusing on the phone).

Basically, product placement ends up looking just like real life - no custom cans of pop and such. In the past, it was done because the director wanted authenticity and not some fake-y imitation that really implies the real thing. The only times it becomes really blatant is when some new product comes out and they're flaunting it, e.g., the Surface. Same thing happened with the iPad when it first came out - people were showing it off everywhere on TV.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

Last ep of Elementary had a Surface product placement. They really played-up the whole "click" made when Sherlock connected the keyboard, and actually had a bit of a zoom-in closeup as he deployed/clicked the kickstand.

Was totally obnoxious/distracting and over done. :down:


----------



## purwater (Aug 25, 2005)

markp99 said:


> Last ep of Elementary had a Surface product placement. They really played-up the whole "click" made when Sherlock connected the keyboard, and actually had a bit of a zoom-in closeup as he deployed/clicked the kickstand.
> 
> Was totally obnoxious/distracting and over done. :down:


I was about to list this very thing. I even mentioned to my wife how blatant the placement was for the Surface tablet.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Been a lot of Surface placements recently. WB was doing it heavily in some of their shows (90210, Gossip Girl)


Top Chef does the car thing a lot. They make it a point to always show the cars the contestants drive around in. And last week, they once again gave one as a prize. Made sure to show some interview segments where the contestants gushed over how cool the car is and how they really wanted one.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Top Chef does the car thing a lot. They make it a point to always show the cars the contestants drive around in. And last week, they once again gave one as a prize. Made sure to show some interview segments where the contestants gushed over how cool the car is and how they really wanted one.





cherry ghost said:


> Amazing Race and other reality shows seem to be the worst when it comes to cars.


Product placement on reality shows don't bug me. Its like seeing a car on _The Price Is Right_.


----------



## Dirk Legume (Nov 29, 2004)

We all have DVR's. We aren't watching commercials, so product placement is one of the ways the shows get paid for now. It's one of the reasons that some commercials, particularly movie ads, leave the title and opening date along the top of the screen for the whole spot. That way you can see it even when you FF through. Yeah, I'ts blatant in some shows and subtle in others, but the alternative is that we pay for the show's ourselves.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Worf said:


> Basically, if you see any brand name on screen, it's usually product placement (sometimes companies don't pay anything for product placement - e.g., Apple refuses to pay for product placement. The only reason you see their computers is because of the writers.


So, when you see "Promotional Considerations provided by Apple" during the closing credits, they aren't paying for that? Even if they are supplying computers and whatnot, isn't that a form of payment?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Hawaii 5-0 features the Hawaii Hilton almost every episode.

To answer the OP, yes it's done all the time. It's becoming more obvious.

It's been reported that although Apple doesn't directly pay for product placement they give away tons of product to encourage it.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> So, when you see "Promotional Considerations provided by Apple" during the closing credits, they aren't paying for that? Even if they are supplying computers and whatnot, isn't that a form of payment?


If they just supply the computers for the production team to use, then it isn't necessarily product placement. It just may happen that the production team puts said supplied computers on camera. Sometimes I can imagine that companies don't want their products associated with certain productions and so they have to cover logos and such.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Steveknj said:


> So, when you see "Promotional Considerations provided by Apple" during the closing credits, they aren't paying for that? Even if they are supplying computers and whatnot, isn't that a form of payment?


To me, that only means Apple is supplying the equipment and (I would think) they require it's return when filming is done.
Maybe Apple only gets credit because they "allowed" the filmmaker to use the equipment free of charge.

Not a payment, but quid pro quo. 
The filmaker gets to use the equipment he preferres for free, and in return Apple gets free advertising.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

How is that NOT product placement? That's the "consideration"


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yeah, maybe at one time Apple didn't pay for product placement, but I'm pretty sure they do now.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

Walking Dead is pretty much a car commercial with zombies


----------



## mrdazzo7 (Jan 8, 2006)

I'm fine with product placement when it's normal--the whole point of TV is to sell ad space. I read something years ago that always stuck with me -- television is just stuff that happens in between commericials. The ad revenue from commercials is what drives that entire industry. 

So the fact that technology is finding ways to skip them means companies have to come up with other ways to keep the medium alive. Product placement is probably the single best tool because you can't skip it. The shows/networks make money, and the sponsors get their ads in. It's annoying but it's part of the business.

What sucks is when it's so absurdly blatant and unnatural that it LOOKS like a product placement. I remember a car chase in Alias that started with "get in my ford focus!" (or something) and then the entire chase played out like a car commercial. Close-ups of the name plate, highlights of the interior. It was horrible. Fringe also got carried away with their Sprint phones, showing the logo, the screens, and video calling all the time ("Hold old, let me put you on video conference!"). 24 also did a scene I believe with the Hyundai Genesis where someone was making a call from inside the car--the whole scene was build around different angles of the center console and highlighted several features of the car. The actors motions were deliberate and unnatural looking.

Sons of Anarchy does a better job - I always see bottles of Miller Lite anytime there's a beer in a scene, but they don't look at the camera and smile while they drink it. The label is always facing the camera so I'm sure it's there on purpose but it's not discussed by the characters.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

steve614 said:


> To me, that only means Apple is supplying the equipment and (I would think) they require it's return when filming is done.
> Maybe Apple only gets credit because they "allowed" the filmmaker to use the equipment free of charge.
> 
> Not a payment, but quid pro quo.
> The filmaker gets to use the equipment he preferres for free, and in return Apple gets free advertising.


No not a payment, but it's essentially barter. It's no different than any other form of payment when you think about it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

mrdazzo7 said:


> I'm fine with product placement when it's normal--the whole point of TV is to sell ad space. I read something years ago that always stuck with me -- television is just stuff that happens in between commericials. The ad revenue from commercials is what drives that entire industry.
> 
> So the fact that technology is finding ways to skip them means companies have to come up with other ways to keep the medium alive. Product placement is probably the single best tool because you can't skip it. The shows/networks make money, and the sponsors get their ads in. It's annoying but it's part of the business.
> 
> ...


I agree with all this. Back in the early days of TV it wasn't uncommon for actors to break character and do a commercial right there on the spot. In some respects we are getting back to that. I'd honestly rather have this than them add another 30 second spot in between shows. And if they are well done, then sometimes you don't even notice, although....if you don't notice then the advertising failed didn't it?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

One of the things I hate is when a logo is put on a product that the company doesn't even make. I think it was 24, but I remember Windows logos on the back of laptops and monitors as if they were Windows branded computers. That just seemed wrong.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

The Surface PPs I've seen aren't very good. When someone wants to look at something on their computer/tablet, the "tiles" are there first and then they get to whatever it is that drives the rest of the plot. Its like filming a boot sequence before Michael Weston hacks into some baddies system. You'd never show that unless you were sponsored by AMD Bios. Uh-oh, maybe that's next.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Big Bang Theory actually goes to great lengths to obfuscate the brand names when they're having lunch in the lunchroom, it's usually pretty obvious what it was, but they either shoot around the logo or manipulate it. I know I see a Fiji water bottle a lot and it never shows the logo or text.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> Big Bang Theory actually goes to great lengths to obfuscate the brand names when they're having lunch in the lunchroom, it's usually pretty obvious what it was, but they either shoot around the logo or manipulate it. I know I see a Fiji water bottle a lot and it never shows the logo or text.


I've seen the Alienware and XPS Dell logos pretty darn clearly on many episodes of TBBT.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Truman Show, watch that and you'll see how that fits into your question.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

eureka and bones are just 2 i can think of off the top of my head that are horrible..

lets call him on our new phone in car fancy dancy computer thingie...then get directions to his house by using the in car navigational pod thingie

it's actually embarrassing to watch

i'm just mid way thru the sopranos and one thing i do notice is no sometimes y ou do see what brand they eat/drink and i assume it was paid but dont really know


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

newsposter said:


> eureka and bones are just 2 i can think of off the top of my head that are horrible..
> 
> lets call him on our new phone in car fancy dancy computer thingie...then get directions to his house by using the in car navigational pod thingie
> 
> ...


I wonder if they have paid product placement on the pay channels (HBO / Showtime / Starz)?


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

CSI had a pretty clumsily done Ancenstry.com placement this week. One line was clearly their 10 second elevator pitch for the site, before they proceded to use it for another 30 seconds.

Moral of the story: If you search for your long lost half sister on Ancestry.com, you end up dead.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

Product placement is getting out of hand.

All I know, is when I'm watching my 60" Panasonic Viera plasma TV, and I see a product placement going on, then I go to my Logitech Harmony Universal Remote Control, which is great because I don't have to search through a bunch of remotes to change the channel; I mean, btwn my AV, DVD, satellite box, and TV... I just have it all programmed into one remote... anyways, I change the channel quickly.. which just leaves me more time to get a scrumptious snack... like a bag of Doritos Cool Ranch and a Coke Zero. Boy, does that hit the spot....

They really need to stop that... the nerve....


----------



## trainman (Jan 29, 2001)

I would probably be more accepting of product placement if there were, as in the '50s and '60s, only about 8 minutes of commercials during the average hour of TV programming.

Instead, in these modern times, it's more like 16 to 18 minutes of commercials per hour, _plus_ the product placement (_plus_ various show promos and whatnot popping up at the bottom of the screen).


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

teknikel said:


> I saw Windows 8 (Surface) placed in _Arrow_ and _Burn Notice_ this week and got me wondering if there is always some sort of product placement on shows all the time and I miss it?


*Always* is a bit much, but yes, it's been going on for a LONG time, it's just WAY more blatant lately.

(My repeated disclaimer: I HATE regular commercials [though I seem to end up seeing most of them at least once anyway], but product placement GENERALLY doesn't bother me, though they're now starting to get SO blatant that it bothers me.. Except in things like Survivor, where the really blatant ones HAVEN'T bothered me for some reason.)

While some may argue it's not the same as current product placement, I think others have pointed out in the past that even shows like the ORIGINAL Hawaii 5-0 mentioned Ford in the credits meaning it was product placement.

(BTW, as for 'real brand names', I would RATHER have real brand names than fake ones. One of the minor things I like about Stephen King books for example is that he uses real brand names, and no, I don't think he's paid for it. My example of fake products is on "Roseanne" where they would drink "Shasa" Cola, almost-but-not-quite-the-same looking as the real second tier Shasta soda Also, when they BLUR OUT products on MTV, it makes me pay MORE attention to them, so they're doing their advertisers a DISSERVICE.. the credits are NOT the same as the ones I'm noticing being blurred out, so they're not doing a double-cross on me either Also, the live reads on podcasts I *do* listen to, since especially Adam Carolla totally goofs on them.. Even Carolla's podcast has canned ads at the beginning and end sometimes, so I do skip those ones.)


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> No not a payment, but it's essentially barter. It's no different than any other form of payment when you think about it.


I can always tell what shows Apple advertises in because all the main characters use iPhones while the bad guys use other phones. When I look at the credits, sure enough the promotional Apple wording is there.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

trainman said:


> I would probably be more accepting of product placement if there were, as in the '50s and '60s, only about 8 minutes of commercials during the average hour of TV programming.
> 
> Instead, in these modern times, it's more like 16 to 18 minutes of commercials per hour, _plus_ the product placement (_plus_ various show promos and whatnot popping up at the bottom of the screen).


That's assuming the viewer is going to actually be watching 8 minutes of commercials. "Free" TV is paid for by advertisements. Advertisers don't have any interest in viewers who FF through commercials.



Steveknj said:


> So, when you see "Promotional Considerations provided by Apple" during the closing credits, they aren't paying for that? Even if they are supplying computers and whatnot, isn't that a form of payment?


Yes. One difference. Cash payments go to the production company or maybe the network. I suspect the free iPads, iPhones etc wind up going to employees.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

rifleman69 said:


> Truman Show, watch that and you'll see how that fits into your question.


Or "Josie and the Pussycats" (the movie).
Way over the top product placement done for comedy throughout the whole film.
Though on the commentary track, they say they actually weren't paid for it.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

alpacaboy said:


> Or "Josie and the Pussycats" (the movie).
> Way over the top product placement done for comedy throughout the whole film.
> Though on the commentary track, they say they actually weren't paid for it.


That one always bugged me too, they later said "but we're making a comment on the commercialism and the media" unfortunately to me it just appears that the movie was one giant product placement, so I think they may have missed their goal.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Seinfeld did it with Snapple and I think some other brands too that I can't recall.


----------



## celluloidlout (Jul 26, 2004)

I feel like AMC is the biggest offender when it comes to product placement. Breaking Bad is the least subtle. Here's a clip from S5E4: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhvScTdWfPc[/media]


----------



## Kablemodem (May 26, 2001)

On The Middle, the mom usually brings home some nondescript fast food for dinner. On the last episode they were clearly eating Subway.


----------



## aadam101 (Jul 15, 2002)

Kablemodem said:


> On The Middle, the mom usually brings home some nondescript fast food for dinner. On the last episode they were clearly eating Subway.


Community did some really great product placement with Subway. They even had a character named "Subway".


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

aadam101 said:


> Community did some really great product placement with Subway. They even had a character named "Subway".


chuck had this many weeks and it was so annoying!

my mind is an impenetrable fortress so i still cannot comprehend how even the AI judges drinking coke all season in their large cups is gonna make me want to go buy coke...or the cast of chuck eating a subway sandwich make me go there

i only buy coke if it's below a certain price point, period. ill go months without if theres no sale. as far as subway, i guess if youre a kid and havent been around much you may never have heard of them but otherwise, commercials like this in shows seem pointless

even my mostest favoritest star in the world isnt gonna influence me at buying xyz.i just dont work that way.

i do like the product placement in the simpsons though, always funny names


----------



## Vendikarr (Feb 24, 2004)

The two worst product placement in my book are 

1 - Eureka and Degree deodorant. They had an episode where a mini sun was heating everything up, but Degree was the key to finding a way to stay cool and save the town;

2 - The Smallville Stride gum episode. The gum was so prominent through the episode that it should have been listed in the credits as a special guest star.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

My sieve of a mind is thinking about going to Subway for lunch later. I'll probably wash it down with a Coke.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I usually don't mind it if it is just showing a character drinking a brand name beverage. I liked the fact that Hawaii Five-0 drinks Kona beer. That adds realism to the show. I loved the use of Pan Am in 2001 because back then you realized that space would be colonized by existing companies. The Apple logo and the Alien logo show up a lot lending realism. When I notice it then it has gone to far when it is the focus of the story. I remember an episode of a sitcom revolving around going to a particular movie which was in theaters at the time.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> I usually don't mind it if it is just showing a character drinking a brand name beverage. I liked the fact that Hawaii Five-0 drinks Kona beer. That adds realism to the show. I loved the use of Pan Am in 2001 because back then you realized that space would be colonized by existing companies. The Apple logo and the Alien logo show up a lot lending realism. When I notice it then it has gone to far when it is the focus of the story. I remember an episode of a sitcom revolving around going to a particular movie which was in theaters at the time.


For me, I don't really notice it until it become blatant. Like the example I gave above where all the good guys use iPhones and the bad guys have generic cell phones.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

morac said:


> For me, I don't really notice it until it become blatant. Like the example I gave above where all the good guys use iPhones and the bad guys have generic cell phones.


and in shows with car chases the good guys have chevys and the evil ones have fords


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

newsposter said:


> and in shows with car chases the good guys have chevys and the evil ones have fords


Is there a such thing as *REVERSE product placement*?

I don't think this give anything away....

On a recent Burn Notice, two main characters are driving in a Ford cargo van. They are getting chased by the baddies sleek SUVs. So the Michael Weston Voice Over says something like "In order to avoid the baddies in a hard to maneuver, underpowered vehicle like a cargo van" and the character driving the van says something like "What do you expect me to do in this crappy van?"

A few seconds later, camera shows the front of the van, complete with very conspicuous Ford logo. The baddies are driving GM SUVs (also conspicuous) if I recall.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

yup same show i saw


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

It was this episode that got me to post this but of course I mentioned Surface and not this scene. It was funny because it was on in the room I was in with my parents. I was going to watch it later.

My my mother, who wasn't really watching, happened to catch this scene and remark about the Chevy SUVs. It started this weird conversation about being able to identify car brands. She then remarked about the van, "That's a Ford!" Just thought it was interesting that you guys brought that up and that it caught her eye.

And they were very conspicuous. Even more so than the _Breaking Bad_ video example above.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

sieglinde said:


> I remember an episode of a sitcom revolving around going to a particular movie which was in theaters at the time.


I think you are thinking of Bones. In one particular episode, the characters were all excited to go the premiere of Avatar, and a case came up that threatened that.
Of course, they solved the case in time to catch the movie premiere.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

BrettStah said:


> Yeah, maybe at one time Apple didn't pay for product placement, but I'm pretty sure they do now.


Like the iPhone on "Revolution", when it receive power it boot showing the Apple logo.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

I prefer to see real products, not like Rachel Ray who uses cans of 'peas', 'tomato sauce', etc. Bugs me no end.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

teknikel said:


> I saw Windows 8 (Surface) placed in _Arrow_ and _Burn Notice_ this week and got me wondering if there is always some sort of product placement on shows all the time and I miss it?
> 
> On _Burn Notice_ and shows with car chases, I would guess those could be considered product placements. But are there others that others notice?


Thing is that when all the shows with a Surface PP go into reruns it going to look stupid AFTER the Surface fails and is discontinue. Same for the Window phone.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

newsposter said:


> chuck had this many weeks and it was so annoying!


I found Chuck's product placement funny because it was so tongue in cheek, especially when you have Big Mike saying my delicious cold cut trio on such and such bread. The presentation was so much yeah this is a product placement but we gotta keep this show alive some how.

I also found it interesting Chuck didn't have more product placement, or maybe they did but it just wasn't paid as well unless you blatantly placed it out. A conversation in front of say a WoW end cap would have seemed normal.

Now the worst product placement is T-Mobile on Sharktank. The sharks go out of their way to comment about the phone and get a good shot of it.

EMC has product placement in Last Resort. Not sure if it is paid or not, but the comm center on the island has a VMAX, VNX, Greenplum and an Avamar array at least.


----------



## Johncv (Jun 11, 2002)

Dirk Legume said:


> We all have DVR's. We aren't watching commercials, so product placement is one of the ways the shows get paid for now. It's one of the reasons that some commercials, particularly movie ads, leave the title and opening date along the top of the screen for the whole spot. That way you can see it even when you FF through. Yeah, I'ts blatant in some shows and subtle in others, but the alternative is that we pay for the show's ourselves.


What strange is that I have Cox VOD with MyPrimeTime. If I miss a show and view it there, it has less commercials then when the show air.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

steve614 said:


> I think you are thinking of Bones. In one particular episode, the characters were all excited to go the premiere of Avatar, and a case came up that threatened that.
> Of course, they solved the case in time to catch the movie premiere.


The other funny thing about that episode of Bones (and part of the reason of why they did it) is that Bones recurring actor Joel David Moore also played a secondary character in Avatar.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

NCIS and NCIS LA are some of the more blatant shows for product placement. Every latest tech gadget was on there. There were iPhones in earlier seasons, now everyone's moved to tablets (iPads) and Surfaces, and various carrier-branded Android phones. The Surface ones are particularly annoying because they keep doing that flip stand thing (you know Microsoft is paying a LOT of $$$ for that). Heck, NCIS LA had a long extended sequence of it being brought out, the keyboard cover put down, the flip extended, and the whole thing snapped together on the table.

Fringe too - Ford Sync and Sprint (Peter's phone) are practically recurring guests.

Of course, for the anti-product placement, Mythbusters. Sometimes it's just plain old hilarious as they go about trying to be all generic, both on screen and during the narration. Of course, covering the Apple logo on the back with duct tape and the "Macbook Pro" on the front with black electrical tape... (hint: Apple's designs are fairly unique and identifiable (the whole point) and while we appreciate the effort, you're better off using a generic-looking Dell that no one can identify or tell from a Best Buy Special, HP, etc.).

OTOH, given the lead times in filming, sometimes it's a wonder how far ahead said product was obtained of actual release.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Worf said:


> Of course, for the anti-product placement, Mythbusters. Sometimes it's just plain old hilarious as they go about trying to be all generic, both on screen and during the narration. Of course, covering the Apple logo on the back with duct tape and the "Macbook Pro" on the front with black electrical tape... (hint: Apple's designs are fairly unique and identifiable (the whole point) and while we appreciate the effort, you're better off using a generic-looking Dell that no one can identify or tell from a Best Buy Special, HP, etc.).


The truth of the matter is that Adam and Jaime prefer Mac and probably use their own on the show.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

bruinfan said:


> Product placement is getting out of hand.
> 
> All I know, is when I'm watching my 60" Panasonic Viera plasma TV, and I see a product placement going on, then I go to my Logitech Harmony Universal Remote Control, which is great because I don't have to search through a bunch of remotes to change the channel; I mean, btwn my AV, DVD, satellite box, and TV... I just have it all programmed into one remote... anyways, I change the channel quickly.. which just leaves me more time to get a scrumptious snack... like a bag of Doritos Cool Ranch and a Coke Zero. Boy, does that hit the spot....
> 
> They really need to stop that... the nerve....


Well played sir.


----------



## Ment (Mar 27, 2008)

Worf said:


> Of course, for the anti-product placement, Mythbusters. Sometimes it's just plain old hilarious as they go about trying to be all generic, both on screen and during the narration. Of course, c*overing the Apple logo on the back with duct tape and the "Macbook Pro" on the front with black electrical tape.*.. (hint: Apple's designs are fairly unique and identifiable (the whole point) and while we appreciate the effort, you're better off using a generic-looking Dell that no one can identify or tell from a Best Buy Special, HP, etc.).
> 
> OTOH, given the lead times in filming, sometimes it's a wonder how far ahead said product was obtained of actual release.


Two and Half Men also does this with stickers but why. I haven't noticed this in other Chuck Lorre shows so I'm at a loss.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Worf said:


> NCIS and NCIS LA are some of the more blatant shows for product placement. .


i guess it doesnt work on me, i've never noticed any placement on ncis

shark tank is so forced as to be embarrassing

regarding chuck i can understand the tongue in cheek thing but i guess for some reason i just process such stuff differently then everyone else. placement means they need money and i feel bad for the show that it may fail plus it really is distracting on shows like bones

also in any show when the cars come to a stop and the camera is right on the logo on the grill, you know it's PP


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I love it when I am watching a so-called reality show and everyone is drinking the same beer at a party at a bar. (Black Gold was brought to you by Miller)

Isn't the huge screen that Hawaii Five-0 uses as a table top a very high end Microsoft product? The cell phone on Revolution was a good touch but it was so obviously an Apple product that they did not need to show the start up screen. Most of the time I don't notice product placement and since I am not in the market for a car, I don't notice cars.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

Ahh, product placement. 






Greg


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

speaking of black gold, i think it starts this week on trutv


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

If I'm bothered by an intrusive product placement the one thing I don't do is mention the product and the show in an online forum. Doing so only increases it's apparent visibility, and indicates it was successful.
The skeptical can just Google "product name" and "show name" I got 10,400 hits for the superhero show with the gum placement.

That said, a 2-hour special episode of a show on Sunday had most of the characters who live on the east coast show up "spontaneously" to a destination city on the western side of the country. All made lots of excited comments about the city when the idea came up. And of course the next commercial was one for the same destination city. The locations they visit were all actual places with prominent signage, no generic locations.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

steve614 said:


> I think you are thinking of Bones. In one particular episode, the characters were all excited to go the premiere of Avatar, and a case came up that threatened that.
> Of course, they solved the case in time to catch the movie premiere.


Same show, different episode: in the middle of the episode, there was a scene that featured one of the characters driving a particular minivan. (I know exactly which minivan, but like heck I'll repeat their brand name... that's exactly what they want.) The scene had absolutely no bearing on the rest of the episode - the only reason it existed was so this particular character could brag about the features of the minivan.


----------



## Idearat (Nov 26, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> Same show, different episode: in the middle of the episode, there was a scene that featured one of the characters driving a particular minivan. (I know exactly which minivan, but like heck I'll repeat their brand name... that's exactly what they want.) The scene had absolutely no bearing on the rest of the episode - the only reason it existed was so this particular character could brag about the features of the minivan.


I remember that one. Very annoying watching a TV character basically read a dealer brochure to you during the show

I'm ok with _good_ product placement: put brand name stuff on the shelves and tables, have the good guys all drive a particular make of car or even have them eat a brand name fast food instead of Big Kahuna Burger.

But _bad_ product placement is when there are entire scenes or storylines stuck in to plug the product. Or characters going through the motions of assembling a tablet with it's keyboard and the same artificial sound used in the commercials.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

Wasn't there a ret-conned product placement?

I seem to recall a syndicated rerun of some old show had recent movies digitally inserted into the bookshelf or something?


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Worf said:


> Wasn't there a ret-conned product placement?
> 
> I seem to recall a syndicated rerun of some old show had recent movies digitally inserted into the bookshelf or something?


HIMYM in syndication has had digital product placement added, I believe that's the one you're thinking of.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dianebrat said:


> HIMYM in syndication has had digital product placement added, I believe that's the one you're thinking of.


I think they've also digitally added advertisement to Seinfeld as well.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Idearat said:


> I remember that one. Very annoying watching a TV character basically read a dealer brochure to you during the show
> 
> I'm ok with _good_ product placement: put brand name stuff on the shelves and tables, have the good guys all drive a particular make of car or even have them eat a brand name fast food instead of Big Kahuna Burger.


And the thing is if they'd dial it way down you could do good product placement on some vehicle features. But you'd have to use / refer to them the way normal people would (and in a situation where it makes sense) not like reading a brochure.

For example: Ford's(?) new liftgate thing, with the foot release (and I assume a wireless key proximity entry). There are plenty of shows where a charater could be walking up to their car with hands full talking with someone about whatever brings them there; kicks the release and loads the trunk while still talking about the case/activity/whatever; then just says in passing "love that feature".

Barely takes you out of the show, but also makes me thing "hmm, that could be useful"

But do a whole 15-20 seconds description of the feature and it's just so jarringly out of place it's annoying.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Idearat said:


> I remember that one. Very annoying watching a TV character basically read a dealer brochure to you during the show
> 
> I'm ok with _good_ product placement: put brand name stuff on the shelves and tables, have the good guys all drive a particular make of car or even have them eat a brand name fast food instead of Big Kahuna Burger.
> 
> But _bad_ product placement is when there are entire scenes or storylines stuck in to plug the product. Or characters going through the motions of assembling a tablet with it's keyboard and the same artificial sound used in the commercials.


The problem is that the advertisers don't care about whether the product placement is well-integrated into the show. In fact, it's better for them if it's not. All they're worried about is that their product gets the exposure they're paying for and that whatever feature they're trying to market gets mentioned. If it stands out of the show rather than blends in, so be it. The last thing an advertiser would want is to have the viewers so engaged in the show that the product placement doesn't even register.


----------



## MarkofT (Jul 27, 2001)

newsposter said:


> chuck had this many weeks and it was so annoying!
> 
> my mind is an impenetrable fortress so i still cannot comprehend how even the AI judges drinking coke all season in their large cups is gonna make me want to go buy coke...or the cast of chuck eating a subway sandwich make me go there
> 
> ...


There are two types of product placement. Reality shows like Survivor and Amazing Race have what amounts to in show commercials. They are actively trying to sell you a product just like the 30 second commercials.

American Idol and Coke is the other type. Coke is not actively trying to sell Coke. The judges don't take a drink, smack their lips, and say "Refreshing!" Instead, they have the logo on the glasses and just sitting there incidentally. Coke is relying on a concept called "Mental Shelf Space". They are hoping that when you walk up to the cooler at the back of 7-11, Coke is at the front of your mental shelf and seeing it in the racks prompts you to select it over the other options.

As an example of this, make yourself a list of brand names for 4 categories. Soft Drinks, Candy, Convenience Stores, Automobile Manufacturers. On your lists should be Coke under Soft Drinks, and 7-11 for Convenience Stores. The former because it's been mentioned several times in the thread, the latter because I just mentioned it above.



Worf said:


> Of course, for the anti-product placement, Mythbusters. Sometimes it's just plain old hilarious as they go about trying to be all generic, both on screen and during the narration. Of course, covering the Apple logo on the back with duct tape and the "Macbook Pro" on the front with black electrical tape... (hint: Apple's designs are fairly unique and identifiable (the whole point) and while we appreciate the effort, you're better off using a generic-looking Dell that no one can identify or tell from a Best Buy Special, HP, etc.).
> 
> OTOH, given the lead times in filming, sometimes it's a wonder how far ahead said product was obtained of actual release.


It's not so much a matter of anti-product placement as it a lack of product placement. Their lawyers have advised them to to block all brand names and logos so as to avoid showing an endorsement of the items and avoid any claims of copyright infringement in case the seller of the product dislikes the apparent affiliation.

In the first one or two episodes of 2.5Men with Ashton, there were stickers on Walton's laptop. When the production company found out that each sticker was a company that Ashton had invested in, they removed the stickers and told him not to do that anymore since it was an unpaid form of product placement.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Worf said:


> NCIS and NCIS LA are some of the more blatant shows for product placement. Every latest tech gadget was on there. There were iPhones in earlier seasons, now everyone's moved to tablets (iPads) and Surfaces, and various carrier-branded Android phones.


NCIS years ago had Nextel phones for product placement.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

MarkofT said:


> Their lawyers have advised them to to block all brand names and logos so as to avoid showing an endorsement of the items and avoid any claims of copyright infringement in case the seller of the product dislikes the apparent affiliation.
> 
> .


when did the laws change and why did people start caring about showing things like logos on tv? when i did watch cash cab i was freaking out because outside the cab were hundreds of clearly marked store names and i thought OMG they are getting free advertising..where's the blur guy???

i find it super funny when really recognizable buildings have their names blocked out.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Does product placement work when the viewer misidentifies the product? I recently watched an episode of Hawaii Five-0 which used a tablet as part of the plot. A little boy was entering numbers on it which were the license plate numbers of the bad guys. (The boy seemed to appear to be autistic because he rarely spoke and if he did it was a word or so repeated.) I thought iPad, nice thing to keep a kid like that occupied and happy. Then they put the tablet on a stand and I saw the Microsoft logo. I wondered why the iPad had a stand with the Microsoft logo. You, know, I really am not familiar with the Surface tablet.


----------



## robojerk (Jun 13, 2006)

I remember an episode of Bones where the artsy girl bout a Toyota minivan, and she and the tin foil hat guy talked about how great the car was for 2 minutes. I stopped watching long ago and forgot the characters names.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

robojerk said:


> I remember an episode of Bones where the artsy girl bout a Toyota minivan, and she and the tin foil hat guy talked about how great the car was for 2 minutes. I stopped watching long ago and forgot the characters names.


*Modern Family* did the same kind of thing with their new Toyota minivan last season.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> I really am not familiar with the Surface tablet.


until your post i had no idea what surface even was  so i did you one better


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

sieglinde said:


> Does product placement work when the viewer misidentifies the product? I recently watched an episode of Hawaii Five-0 which used a tablet as part of the plot. ... I thought iPad, nice thing to keep a kid like that occupied and happy. Then they put the tablet on a stand and I saw the Microsoft logo. I wondered why the iPad had a stand with the Microsoft logo. You, know, I really am not familiar with the Surface tablet.


At first I thought the Microsoft Marketing dept and ad agencies would be tearing the hair out reading that... and then... I realized that YOU correctly noticed that what you thought was an iPad had the Microsoft logo.

So now you at least have exposure to something that made you wonder... You might notice it again. Or see an article. Or read comments on TCF.

And now you are more brand aware. And that's all the product placement is doing. It isn't _selling _the thing as much as making people aware of it. Because it has a lot of iPad awareness to overcome.

I guess the marketing gurus did their job.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Back in the 50's and early 60's, most shows had a specific sponsor and it was not unusual for the star of the show to do commercials plus having the product logo displayed during the closing credits.

Possibly the most (in)famous product placement is the one that didn't happen - when Mars passed on having M&M's used in "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial".


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

But they used Reeses pieces and what is the difference. I knew the brand of the candy used in that movie.
As for the Surface Tablet, I doubt if I would ever buy one.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> But they used Reeses pieces and what is the difference. I knew the brand of the candy used in that movie.


I'm not saying there is a difference in terms orf the viewer, I'm saying that is why it is the most well known example. The difference is that Hershey got the benefit of the free advertising and being associated with a popular film, rather than Mars, who could have had it.


----------



## teknikel (Jan 27, 2002)

sieglinde said:


> But they used Reeses pieces and what is the difference. I knew the brand of the candy used in that movie.
> As for the Surface Tablet, I doubt if I would ever buy one.


It may not have affected you, but it affected enough people that Hershey was happy, if only temporarily.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,922960,00.html


----------



## Arcady (Oct 14, 2004)

The absolute worst product placement I have seen is the Microsoft Windows logo all over everything. (I am not referring to all the recent Surface stuff.)

They put the Windows logo on the back of monitors and laptops all the time. This makes ZERO SENSE. You CANNOT BUY a monitor or a laptop with the Windows logo on the back.

So what are they paying to advertise? A NON-EXISTENT product! I really don't understand these advertising guys sometimes. Do they think that because I saw a Windows logo (if I'm even supposed to know what that logo is) that I'm going down to the store to buy a computer with Windows on it? And when I get there, do I just ignore the fact that nothing in the computer section looks like the thing I saw on TV?

Is this their response to equipment that has an Apple logo on the back? Because those are actual products. So their response makes no sense.

...rant over.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

Wow, you are correct. I remember the Intel inside thing on all kinds of computers. I want one for my Mac.  But I have never seen a Microsoft logo on a computer. (would be funny if I was running Windows on my Mac to have one on my computer) 

The interesting thing about Apple is at least to me the products are iconic and except for my confusing the Surface tablet for an iPad I usually can recognize the product without the logo. There are not many desktop computers which are just a large monitor on a pedistal. Also the iPhone interface is very recognizable so if a person is using a phone and they show the screen, I can usually tell if it is an iPhone. So product placement without logos just based on iconic products? Coke could do it with the glass bottles.


----------



## alansh (Jan 3, 2003)

The deal with Mythbusters is that they're often using products in ways that their manufacturers would rather not be associated with, so it's easier just to have a "no brand names" rule to avoid grief with potential advertisers. Gillette doesn't want an episode showing how to blow up a car with Bic(R) lighters.

There was a cut segment testing tooth whiteners. (A clip shows up in a few of the opening sequences, with Jamie having his lips pulled apart.) It was vetoed by Discovery to avoid offending sponsors.

Obviously you can tell what a lot of the products are just by how they look -- Adam's two wheeled personal mobility device is very likely a Segway(R), but you won't hear them call it that.

I've seen shows where the writers have obviously rebelled against a heavy-handed product placement. In "Heroes", there was a big deal made over Claire getting a Nissan Rouge. It was promptly stolen and taken to Mexico, which was probably not what Nissan had in mind.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

This was one of my favorites from 30 Rock:









Argh... can't figure out the youtube tag


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

alansh said:


> Obviously you can tell what a lot of the products are just by how they look -- Adam's two wheeled personal mobility device is very likely a Segway(R), but you won't hear them call it that.


I think they actually slipped up on that a couple of times and just called it a Segway.

It's really one of those things - working around it is just so awkward you wonder.

In the end, it's also why companies design their products to look so iconic - so even if try to hide the fact that its an iPhone or a Segway or a Mac or something, everyone still knows. (Apple is easy to pick on - because of all the aluminum makes it rather distinctive)


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

lpwcomp said:


> Back in the 50's and early 60's, most shows had a specific sponsor and it was not unusual for the star of the show to do commercials plus having the product logo displayed during the closing credits.
> 
> Possibly the most (in)famous product placement is the one that didn't happen - when Mars passed on having M&M's used in "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial".


Yep, mentioned that practice in post #21 of this thread. Live spots by the shows hosts for variety shows were VERY common. I have a DVD of The Beatles first appearance on Ed Sullivan, and this was done a couple of times during that show....and that was 1964. At some point the practice stopped. Probably something to do with the 60s culture I'll bet. Or maybe just better technology.

So now it's returning, but in a more subtle (or not so subtle way.....bugs all over our screens are NOT very subtle) way.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

sieglinde said:


> But they used Reeses pieces and what is the difference. I knew the brand of the candy used in that movie.
> As for the Surface Tablet, I doubt if I would ever buy one.


I'm sure that's what most people think about the Surface. But the idea for that product placement is to make you aware that Microsoft makes a tablet too. Then they followed it up with a 30 second spot explaining what it was. Maybe it interests you, maybe it doesn't, but you are aware of it. For a new product, that's part of the battle, especially when it goes up against an iconic product.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I have all of the eps of "Men Into Space". Some of them have the commercials intact and at least one of those has William Lundigan doing spots for Lucky Strike cigarettes.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

ever see a hood/grill marker taped up so you dont know what kind of car it is


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Interestingly...I was watching an episode of Mad Men over the break and they talked about a new show they were sponsoring where they would have the actor wear a watch and have the camera close up on it to show the brand. Assuming that MM is being very authentic about how advertising was handled in the early 1960s, modern product placement theory has been going back 50 years.


----------



## brianric (Aug 29, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> modern product placement theory has been going back 50 years.


Longer than that. Milton Berle Texaco Star Theater 
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5iypuYl4E0[/media]


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

brianric said:


> Longer than that. Milton Berle Texaco Star Theater
> [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5iypuYl4E0[/media]


I wouldn't really consider that product placement. That's more an extension of the "live read" practice that originated in radio.


----------



## sieglinde (Aug 11, 2002)

I once saw some kind of recreation of an incident of some sort on a show on Discovery or History and a Prius was involved in an accident. Take a look at a Prius the next time you see one. The Toyota logo is prominently on the nose of the car. They took the logo off and used something like bondo to smooth out the nose. It looked like a shark or a dolphin nose. Very odd, since the fact that the car was a Prius was mentioned.


----------

