Slashdot Mirror
Group Asks Gov't to Crack Down on Product Placement
Buck Mulligan writes "The rise of commercial-skipping Tivo has resulted in greater reliance on "product placement," and Commercial Alert has filed a petition (pdf) with the Federal Trade Commission urging the agency to crack down on the practice. Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert writes: "The interweaving of advertising and programming has become so routine that television networks now are selling to advertisers a measure of control over aspects of their programming. Some programs are so packed with product placements that they are approaching the appearance of infomercials. The head of a company that obtained repeated product placements actually called one such program 'a great infomercial.' Yet these programs typically lack the disclosure required of infomercials to uphold honesty and fair dealing.""
Kill their ratings and it will stop. Simple. Besides, it has Paul Anka's guarantee.
When all else fails, run.
Why should companies be prevented by the government from doing product placement? Now, if a program sucks because of product placement, people will stop watching the program, and the company that makes the product will stop doing the product placement. Let the market control how shitty TV programs are and stop bringing government into every damn thing.
Wow, that was some fast moderation! Good work, somebody! I just posted that like 5 seconds ago
I heard howard interview a b-movie actress who said that she gets paid by advertisers to drop a product name on interview shows (eg: The tonight show).
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Any suggestions for other ways to pay for television besides ads or product placement? Don't say "pledge".
This is one thing I strongly disagree with. The government should not step in and tell us wether or not we can place certain products or use certain 'props' in tv shows, movies, or anything else.. If people hate the advertising that goes with tv programming, then they should boycott it all together or complain to the people who create the shows. Having the government regulate it is definitely restricting our civil rights.
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
Yes, as I sit here reading with my ice cold, refreshing Coca-Cola, I think that you are correct. The only way to get this to stop is by signing the Adobe Acrobat PDF petition.
I know it sounds wierd... but people need to realize that watching TV is not a right. And the producers of programs need to be compensated for their production.
Do you want the governemnt to get larger and create more regulation? Do you want free TV? If so then expect commericals. Expect product placement. If you don't then purchase your TV channels. Or just turn the silly thing off.
Read a book. Perferably a classic... but that's another topic.
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
I just heard: the Mattel and Mars Bar Chocobot Hour just got cancelled.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
When it comes to honesty, fair dealings and an end to promoting agendas, the government is certainly going to get to the bottom of it. I've going to call CNN right now to find out who puts those "growth" and "jobs" signs behind Dubya....
-- SYS 64738 --
I use my TIVO(c) DVR and I can fast forward through any of those annoying commercials. Did I mention that I love my IKEA(c) bed? It's so comfortable.
Now, let me finish typing this on my APPLE(c) Powerbook G4.
If I am to believe the "Slippery Slope" theory of crackdowns, then this could follow through to a crackdown on signatures on /.
/. sig for almost my whole /.'ing life; innocently advertising humour while I make a valuable contribution to the comments here. :-)
I've been using product placement in my
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
talk about wishful thinking - are the mega-corps really going to pass on this opportunity? Every time Jennifer Anistion gets her hair cut millions of American women run out and get the latest new hairdo. So why not include candy bars, soda pop, and autos? I say lets bring back smoking on TV and really get the money rolling in!
I, for one, welcome our new overlords. Hope you notice that I am drinking new Crystal Pepsi *wink wink*
If very few people spent much time watching content filled with commercials, what would happen? What would advertisers do?
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
outlawing product placement would also drive all travel shows off the air, as well as monster house, monster garage, all game shows, all shows set in an obvious city (like Las Vegas), etc. Seriously, where do you draw the line?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
I feel special knowing that a counter-terrorist agent saving America drives a Ford, just like me!
Note to Commercial Alert: I was not payed for my above reference to Ford Motors, Inc.
This is really a side issue, but the distributors are getting power over the content based on product ads as well.
For example, assume Miramax signs a deal with Coors such that all characters in a film are shown drinking Coors in the US version of the film, but signs a different deal for the Asian distribution so that the characters are shown drinking Kirin. They simply digitally edit the masters for each region.
While that example was fictional, there have been independant films that have been modified by the distributor because the filmmaker use the "wrong" product when making the movie.
I don't know about television, but there is little question that the only possible response to movie piracy is product placement. With product placement, you might even encourage people to pirate movies.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Queer Eye For The Straight Guy
If it's a choice between the media companies stifling technological innovation because they want you to watch ads instead of fast-forwarding, and media companies putting ads in the shows, I'll take the ads in the shows!
It's not like most TV programming is anything pure and noble anyway, do you really sit down to watch major network TV expecting anything but a slick commercial experience? Do you let your kids learn about life by watching sitcoms?
Besides, what's annoying about ads is their intrusiveness. If they are un-intrusive, I don't have as much of a problem.
So please, let's have "interstitial" commercials die, they no longer make sense in the age of DVR's and so forth. Product placement is a first step.
(Of course the BEST thing would be a higher cable fee in exchange for no ads whatsoever but I'm not holding my breath!)
I was watching ER, and they had three of their products in promenetly displayed near some binders at the check-in nursing station thing. Why would a nurses station need to have software such as ArcServIT, BrightStor, UniCenter, etc.. all nicely lined up next to the monitor of their PC? It's just so odd, and does not fit in with the audience at all. These are Enterprise software suites that cost thousands of dollars.
Additionally, I saw the very same CA lineup in "Just Shoot Me", behind the CEO's desk, next to pictures of his family, and stuff. It would make so much more sense if the product placements were appropriate to the audience.
what? what I thought we were in the trust tree in the nest, were we not?
I like ads. The ads are more entertaining than the actual program, (unless it's sports or news). I would like to watch 20 minutes of commercials and 10 minutes of program.
Never mind product placement, how about plain old commercials?. I opted out of having a cableTV feed a decade ago because I found the amount of commercials annoying, and use the local video store instead. Watching TV at friends houses on occasion, I am in awe at their conditioned tolerace for these commerecial's length, obnoxiousness, and frequency, which seem to have grown to the point where they overshadow the program iteself.
infomercials sell crap. product placement in a show, making the show into an infomercial, just means they are selling crap.
if you have half a brain you don't buy the crap pitched in infomercials, so who cares if they try to pitch it in a tv show?
tv show = infomercial = crap. nuff said.
As I sit down in front of my Dell monitor drinking Mountain Dew Code Red ("A taste as real as the streets"), I can't help but wonder the depths to which product placement has affected us. After all, wasn't it in "The Matrix" - Catch The Matrix Revolutions only in theaters this November where we are encouraged to "free our minds"? I can't believe that TiVo - TV Your Way is being blamed for a decline in traditional advertising on networks like Fox -- check out their new Monday night line-up!.
I think people need to mellow out with a Guinness Draught - drink straight from the bottle and just learn to enjoy the ride. After all, if you really wanted to enjoy some independent thought, you wouldn't watch Philips High-Definition Plasma Screen - higher-resolution than reality.
For more information, click here.
I was just sitting here drinking my Syrup-syra from a new, bigger 24 oz. bottle when I spilled some on my new PoP(TM) pre-torn bleached shirt because I was laughing at the SUK network, the best channel in the world when I realized, damn, we're surrounded by advertising.
I quickly got into my Maku Jumhp basketball shoes and ran outside, trying to get away from the labels and icons.
Banaaaana!
...and if you don't know that, then, well, you shouldn't be watching TV. I mean really... selling on TV! Oooh! TV shows on broadcast TV are not some pristine, ad-free venues for directors and writers. They're corporate schlock designed to sell or to influence. Hell, the US gov't has been paying TV series for years if they include a "drungs are bad, m'kay?" theme in the story. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go purchase a fantastic /. t-shirt from Think Geek
I remember the big controversy over the Cheerio's box in the first Superman movie.
People should realize that such product placement ads some realism. It looks artificial when you see those "Home Improvement" reruns and the kids are all drinking a vaguely-Coke-looking generic cola.
Remember, in the real world, people actually do drink Snapple, and eat Junior Mints (a couple of examples of name-brand products appearing in "Seinfeld")
As long as they do not go overboard like Dr Tongue in the 3-d House of Pancakes and waggle bottles of Mrs Butterworth in your face.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Product placement is used to uphold the realism in television and movies. Chances are, even without advertising, that movies would contain scenes where characters drink Coke or go to Wal-Mart. With product placement, shows get to generate some extra cash to make their show for something they were likely to do in the first place.
Back in the old old old Edison days, there wasn't product placement. In films characters held bottles labeled 'Beer' and ate from boxes labeled 'Cereal.' Things like that just wouldn't cut it today.
One of the number one things in movies that kills realism to me is when someone gives their phone number as 555-1234. Most all movies are guilty of this, and it destroys the suspension of disbelief when no matter where in America the film is set, they have the same phone number.
Product placement would be a major problem... if it was actually effective advertising. It has absolutely no effect on people like me, and I watch a lot of TV.
All this talk about product placement has made me hungry and thirsty, so if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hop on my Segway(tm) and cruise over to my local AmPm(tm) to purchase a can of refreshing Pepsi(tm) and a peanut-rich Snickers(tm) brand candy bar. Yum.
I don't know if it's really that bad. What's more annoying: a full-force block of annoying commercials, or random insertion of objects into programs as examples of typical use? Do you want a 30 second song-and-dance involving anthropomorphic anything, or being able to see that Monica is obviously using the newest Swiffer to clean the kitchen floor, and maybe makes a remark to the effect of how well it works?
Actually, I think people would rather have the commercials. Companies realize that commercial blocks are incredibly easy to get up and walk away from, and people use those bits of time to get other stuff done. If they can remove the obvious demarcation between programming and advertising, the audience is captive.
...
TiVo doesn't "skip commercials" any more than a VCR does. Either one requires the viewer to fast-play while watching the screen and then press a button when it reaches the part of the recording you want to watch. TiVo performs the job less clunkily than a VCR (the advantage of disk storage over tape), but that's it. (I believe ReplayTV is the one that actually has a commercial-skipping feature.)
I actually really enjoy the Pleasantville commerical where the new vacuum cleaner brings colorization and sexual revolution to a 50s household.
people need to figure that out!
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
First off, I would agree with others... keep the government out of it. Why do we cry to the government for things like this? Why shouldn't shows be allowed to show me products?
This leads to the money issue. If they can't sell commercial because no one is watching them and they can't do product placement, how are they supposed to make money? People paying to receive their channels? Nope, that money goes to your Cable company or Dish network provider or, you don't pay anything because you get it by your own antenna.
Furthermore, the more government intervention, the more the government does, the more people they need, the more they need to pay, the more we have to pay in taxes.
I have no
First off, I have to say that when it's done decently, I see no problem with product placement. Untill it's like the hot chocolate mix add in the movie "The Truman Show", I don't have a problem. I don't mind if when a guy is drinking a soda on TV it's a REAL Coke can as opposed to something that looks almost exactly like a Coke can but say "Cola" on it or something. As long as the camera doesn't zoom in on it or otherwise notice it, it's fine with me.
That said, if there is one thing to fix on TV, I would make the language get fixed. Prime time TV has become a sewer. "I Love Lucy" was (and still is) a funny show without having to have the characters talk like sailors. There are some situations where I understand it (ER does a good job for the most part) but overall I think there is too much cursing on TV. That famous "7 words you can't say on TV" bit (I think it's George Carlin's?), I think I heard that almost all of those words are allowed now.
I haven't noticed an increase in product placement, which means that if it's happening, they are doing a good job and I don't mind. I'd rather we focus on the cussing.
Sorry guys, that's the facts, IMHO.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
This is absolute rubbish. No modern media source would do this these days.
This post was brought to you by philscorner.org
If increasing the amount of product placements can reduce the interruptions (read: commercials) during television programmes, I'm all for it. Of course, that's probably not how it's going to work, but it would be nice.
[insert witty comment here]
It looks like I'm not the only one who felt like Castaway was a 2 hour Fedex commercial.
These idiots would have us believe that we're on a collision course to the sort of product placement that was featured in the Truman Show (stop talking, hawk product to Truman-errr the audience). I don't even notice it 90% of the time unless it's something like a Macintosh being used for something cool (I like Macs, that's why I notice). Who gives a flying fuck about characters drinking coca cola? Your neighbor probably has a six pack of it in his/her house. Why the hell can't a character on tv drink it just because they're on TV? What the hell is this, affirmative action for mass market commodities?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
I seriously doubt Tivos with their puny penetration have anything to do with it. They should blame it on something called the remote control. That and increasing competition for advertising giving greater power to those that hold the money.
I honestly have not seen really obnoxious examples of product placement but then I don't watch much network tv.
Today, I was watching something called the "Home Shopping Network", and the amount of product placement was truely appalling! Really! The government needs to do something about this!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
The government should have no control over what networks do, advertising or otherwise. I don't like network 'placements' any more then the next guy, but when you allow the government any control, you are walking a slippery slope. If you don't like it don't watch the show.
~UltraSkuzzi
This comment is liscensed by SCO.
I haven't noticed product placement in a long time. I've noticed the WWE endorsing the Rock's new movie, if that counts.
I say let them pollute TV with product placement, if ppl get tired of it, they'll go on the net.
"Derp de derp."
What was that noise? Oh. That was the noise of the entire slashdot readership rolling their eyes.
Normally I wouldn't presume to speak for all of us.
Perhaps they should start complaining when they have an example of an actual bad thing that happened, and then show how regulation could and should prevent it.
If HBO wants to show all it's characters living it up with Perrier-Jouet champagne, that's up to them. Hell. They even show a character drunk on Perrier-Jouet stick her head out of a limosine and die. Is that a good enough warning for you? Where's an example of a product placed and used in a fashion that would cause someone to buy it with false expectations?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Googlie Good HTML
...why are we blaming TiVo for increasing product placement? Seems to me you could just as easily blame the Internet (before I got a TiVo, I would web-surf during the ads) or the remote control (before that, I channel-surfed).
Or, more pointedly, you could blame the networks. Same people who bring you corner logos (now opaque, full-color, moving pictures, on all the time) and promos during the end credits (no longer content to talk over them, now they squish them off to an unreadable size and speed and insert a 75%-screen-coverage full-video promo spot) and even during the show (superimposed crawls, anyone?).
They can all lick my center of gravity.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
What kind of title is this really? To use something not even written properly is digraceful I mean what teh fsck? [source listed on pdf]
Hollywood needs to stop promoting smoking worldwide
What ever happened to freedom of choice? Philip Morris co isn't forcing anyone to smoke, nor is Hollywood. People make their own decisions and not some advertiser.
The tobacco industry recruits and retains smokers by associating its products with excitement, sex, wealth, rebellion, and independence. Films are a powerful way to make this connection---and, as a paper in this week's issue of Tobacco Control shows,1 they succeed.
Retains smokers with sex, wealth, rebellion? Shit where is my money, and sex? I smoke because I choose to, and I know the consequences of my actions. I am not being misled by anyone but myself for smoking. These lobby groups distort facts, and this request is ridiculous. Personally I think this group should have specified a "specific" company, as their current demand can affect anyone advertising. Say someone on Friends drinking Pepsi, get realistic what would they expect a cloudy dot around anything with a label? Oh Please, Patriot Act for advertising now. Shoddy article, unrealistic demand.
MoFscker
Obligatory obligatory comment that has nothing to do with the article but seemed funny at the time.
reading is fundamental...
Culture Jam
Adcult USA
Affluenza
No Logo
Amusing Ourselves to Death
Endangered Minds
Selling Out America's Children
"Democracy dies behind closed doors."
No, it is the only place democracy has a chance. If you can't close the door on that voting booth, you end up with "public voting" and in third world countries, the government reprisals that follow.
Keep the doors CLOSED thanks.
What will movies be like? just big white screens? everything would have to take place in the woods between naked people. Hmmmm... maybe this is a good idea after all.
Everyone seems to forget three simple rules about television:
Joe Viewer is NOT the actors's customer, the producer is.
Joe Viewer is NOT the producer's customer, the network is.
Joe Viewer is NOT the network's customer, Pepsi is.
I love my Tivo! I can't imagine going back to the stone age of TV and having to watch on someone elses schedule.
That said, I also realize that they have to pay for the programming somehow. With Tivo like DVRs really taking off (I heard DirectTV is selling a on of Tivo based DVRs) it is putting the stations cash cows in jeopardy. Personally I'd much rather have some product placment in the show then have to pay more than I already do for programming.
I do agree that there will need to be some regulation on these placements to bring them in line with more conventional commercials.
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
When I flip thru channels after a long nite out there are many infomercials. They only state that it is a commercial at the beginning and end. I wouldn't consider that disclosure. Disclosure would be a permenant banner on the bottom of the screen.
Blar.
For a token fee, the govt gives broadcasters a protection and the means to make money. In return, it and us (since this is the govt of the people), we can ask the channels to provide public service (actually is required of the channels). So this is not a question of whether we have a right to ask broadcasters to do something. We do, since we give them the ability to broadcast.
If NBC/ABC/CBS doesn't like it, they should pay the whole fee for bandwidth (like the 3G services) plus a monthly rate.
OK, I understand you don't like government regulation. But since we HAVE regulation over commercials the petition is saying there shouldn't be an end run via product placement. If you're not going to eliminate the regulation of commercials then apply the rules across the board. The petition isn't saying to get rid of product placement, it's only saying the standards should apply to both.
i.e. everyone gets treated the same. No counting a commercial from Broward county without counting a product placement from Franklin
When I was ([post sponsored by Politrix) writing this I was thinking ([Sponsor) thinking about how much money ([Symantec) product placements generate. Maybe ([Pepsi) Slashdot should look into this for ([RSA) revenue generation?
MoFscker
School, a government place, should be regulated. People pay taxes for their schools, and thus, should have some form of representation into allowing or denying "product placement". You can't compare that to TV, which is owned by private companies and is free to people.
Just when you make it idiotproof, some idiot builds a better idiot.
be quiet or they'll figure out that they aren't entitled to secure jobs or expensive medications either!! Then politics itself will be doomed!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Full disclosure:
Everything on TV has been a long running commercial for the last 30 years, with very few exceptions.
Where do you live, Mars? Assume it's an infomercial and move on.
Pretty soon, you'll have people believing they can buy what they see in TV shows. Me, I'm going to walk into my local Best Buy and ask where the neuralyzers are, or go to Circuit City and try to find a phaser.
In reality clueless CEOs very frequently put random complex looking software boxes on the shelves in their offices. They think it gives them "street cred". It's much like the high end computer on their desk that never gets turned on.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Those are very bad, socially irresponsible books. Most of them come down to one point: we have too much freedom, and we need the government to take it away from us. They either argue for massive censorship, greedy government grabs of economic power, or a combination there of.
These books will educate you on how the intolerant fascist wing of the far left thinks. They will not tell you a single thing about how society works.
Aren't there only a couple hundred thousand (or so) PVRs in use? Neither ReplayTV nor Tivo has been wildly successful.
Of course you can take mine when you pry it from my cold, dead etc....
Ahhhh now was that so hard? Since when do we need to compel the government to acknowledge that parents would rather put little Tommy in front of the TV and go about their own things then to start acting like parents and put an interest in the influences their children are exposed to.
If you have kids, then you are a parent, if you are a parent ACT LIKE IT. This is quite simple, stop relying on "the villiage" to "raise the child" and start acting like a parent.
Stop acting so damned surprised to see that your kids are exploring things without you, and making up their own reasonings for those things? If you ignore your kids, they will cope, but don't start complaining about it. And if you don't want the responsibility of looking after a child, then don't have one.
Kids aren't stupid, stop thinking they are, maybe we need to put the stupid identifier on mommy and daddy. Just tired of everyone wanting to "defend the innocence of a child" because of their own indifferences of their childrens lives. Look up neglect before you start claiming neglegance.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Have you compared the BBC shows with the US shows? Last I checked, the major networks were pumping out the latest incarnation of sit-com tripe, while the BBC actually bothers to produce good shows occasionally (Nature, Doctor Who, etc.)
Look at the non-advertising network in the US -- PBS. What have they produced with public money (and corporate 'made possible by' funds)? Somewhat better, but still beholden to the advertisers.
At least in sci-fi (Enterprise), it's real hard to get credible product-placement.
And remember, the product television sells is eyeballs; the shows just keep you sedated between corporate messages.
Do you ever watch Entertainment Tonight? Who do you think pays for that show... could it be... movie studios?
Seriously, it's one big infomercial, only you don't notice because "entertainment news" is a genre that predates our notions of product placement.
Banning this sort of commercial speech would mean the end of television as we know it in the U.S., because most shows (especially game shows and "reality" programs) rely to some degree on the income generated by loan-outs, trade-outs, and outright sponsorship. In other words, not gonna happen.
Basically, a law prohibiting product ad placement would be regulation of the content of speech, and would therefore be a violation of first amendment free speech guarantees.
Besides, this isn't new. Since the early days of television, advertisers have had a tremendous amount of influence over the producers of content. Product ad placement is just another form of this. If you don't like it, don't watch programs that have product ad placement. If enough people agree with you and do the same, the marketplace will take these programs off the air.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
What would the Doctor be without his jelly babies? Oh no, we can't have the Sonic Screwdriver return because it might be a veiled product placement for Mac or Snap-On Tools! No K-9 because he's really a Sony Aibo! And the TARDIS is really product placement for AT&T!
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
I hate Fraudulant product placement. I watched 2001 and I want to go into space aboard a Pan-Am space ship!
lying bastards.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Remember "Mac and Me?"
The moment we see Gandalf drinking an ice cold vanilla coke in a movie is the moment we know commericalism has defeated creativity.
People bitch about ads and people bitch about paying money.
If you want "free" movies supported solely by advertisers then you're in for a lot of horrible movie going experiences.
If you want quality, you have to pay for it. Is it really such a burden? Can't afford to buy your own copy or $8 for a ticket? Wait till it goes to rental or hits the dollar theatre.
There are many things in life you will never be able to experience because you can't afford them. That's life. No BMW, no first class ticket. You are not owed a life of luxery simply because you exist. And no one is obligated to give up their wealth they earned so you can have it for free.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
"Have you compared the BBC shows with the US shows? Last I checked, the major networks were pumping out the latest incarnation of sit-com tripe, while the BBC actually bothers to produce good shows occasionally (Nature, Doctor Who, etc.)"
When did you last check? Hasn't Dr Who been out of commission for many years?
"Look at the non-advertising network in the US -- PBS. What have they produced with public money "
A load of inferior material that the privately-funded (i.e. accountable) networks do better.
"Of course, the funds go towards Finnish television production"
So Finland is another one of those countries like the United Kingdom and North Korea where the rulers control the media?
Chief Wiggum: Eddie, did you trace the phone number?
Eddie: Sure did, Chief.
Chief Wiggum: 555...Aw geez. That's gotta be phony.
It's already in the rules that TV programs must make it clear when they're going to a commercial, and also when a directly paid placement is occuring. (Notice how game shows include credits for every company that provided a prize that the producers didn't have to pay full price for...)
The only thing Nader and Co. are bringing forward is that some drama producers are accepting compensation for using an item in their show, even if that compensation is free rental of the item for use in the production and not adding the requisite fine print in the credits, or that time-crunching credit the rolls is dropping these credits off the air in the version that actually goes over the air in major cities.
Seems like this is nothing more than a classic "Gotcha.. now, why weren't the feds paying attention?"
The new third season of 24 is going to be uninterrupted by commercials, thanks to Ford. Just like season 2.
The product placements didn't work on me. I'm no more keen on buying Ford than I was before the show. But I am concerned that one of these days a product placement will come along that will really take its toll on me.
IIRC, tho I was not around at the time, but in the 1950's wasn't this how advertising was done, either during a break, in scene, or during setup for a different scene.
To get a feel, watch the "Truman Show", in particular the "why don't you mow the lawn...with the new something-something lawnmower etc, etc."
Heh.
Don't believe me....I'll explain in a moment.
But first, a word from our sponsors....
{could not resist, hehee}
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
The next thing you know Slashdot will be posting stories about Coca-Cola and the Howard Dean campaign, and trying to pass them off as newsworthy......
If product placement on movie and TV set's looked anything like my reality the desks would be filled with empty Mtn Dew cans overflowing with cigarrette butts and empty marlboro packages. Luckily my dog likes to lick my TV dinners clean otherwise I'd have moldy discarded TV dinner plates strewn about as well (She makes a really neat pile of cleaned ones though)
Once on Sabrina (which rocked at the time) she conjures up some snacks, including Schnockers brand candy bars... I'm now conditioned to buy them.
I just realized this post sucks, sorry about that.
What chapped me most, though, was here was this super-secret, blacker-than-black ops center for control of ET's, featuring a food court with Sprint and Burger King outlets. Right....
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
I have half a mind to text message them on my new Sidekick and tell them to mind their own business.
I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
We got rid of our DirecTV several months ago and never bothered to hook up an antenna to our television. After the initial shock of regular Simpsons programming, things have actually been pretty nice. Our tv is now dedicated to gaming and dvd watching, and our house is generally much more quiet.
I wonder if anyone remembers that soap operas are called soap operas because back in the day, soap operas were paid for (at least in part) by advertising agencies. Perhaps the Little Orphan Annie / Olaltine gag in A Christmas Story now makes a lot more sense if you didn't already know that. Isn't advertising usually skewed by a favorable bias towards the product being sold, anyway? Everyone knows that. Just watch whatever show you're watching and get over it. (I can tell you that the documentaries I watch on Discovery don't suffer from this problem, so any concerned individuals might give them a try.)
Product Placement is nothing new. If you look at old old TV, you can see they stop in the middle of the show and wax idiotic about "sparky toothpaste" or whatever. This is just history repeating itself and where better to have repeats than on TV. What drives me nutz is the banners that pop up on the bottom of the screen and totally destract you from the show as well as the station logos in the bottom right which are quickly becomimg as annoying as MS Office's 'Clippy'.
Jesus, I really don't fucking care!
I really don't mind product placement in theory. If a character in a movie sips a Coke and that boosts my image of Coke slightly, so what? On the other hand if they're constantly setting the Coke down in front of the camera and turning it so that the logo is facing the lens, then I get annoyed.
Years ago I remember watching an episode of Ellen Degeneres' show "Ellen" and she kept munching on some sort of snack and placing the can in plain, readable view (ie, turning the label to face the camera). In another episode she was constantly going on about her Blackberry PDA and its various features. It all became unbearably offensive and I stopped watching. In that case, the show wasn't entertaining enough to overcome the offensiveness of the placements (and vice versa)
CBS's Survivor uses product placement extensively, but I still watch since I find the show entertaining. They're treading a thin line between entertaining and offending me. Watching a bunch of malnourished dehydrated "castaways" guzzle Mountain Dew and Snickers while gushing about how great they are is pretty sickening. It's like watching one of those starving cats gobble down their Friskies for the camera. But watching those characters piss off others with their arrogance or hubris and get booted out is pretty satisfying, so I put up with the Subarus, Mountain Dews and Snicker bars.
I don't think laws are really needed unless the shows start making actual product pitches or claims (nutritional supplements come to mind). At that point regulation is needed, but showing a billboard for Chevy or somebody drinking a Coke or sending a FedEx package just doesn't seem like something that needs regulating.
Anyone who thinks they can have their opium straight, no advertising, must be doing stronger drugs already.
(Just visit it. Young-Hae Chang is a frickin' genius.)
This is what I have done and I don't miss my TV one bit.
Have a nice day.
--
The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
In the UK, the ITC regulate advertising on TV, amongst other things. Does the US not have an equivalent?
Product placements don't interrupt the program or reduce my enjoyment of it, so I'd much rather see them than regular commercials.
But the product placements the article is talking about go beyond something like James Bond driving a BMW or Will Smith wearing Ray-Bans. When it is not merely a product being visible, but also involves a celebrity making positive statements about a product while appearing to be giving an honest opinion, especially in a non-fiction program like a talk show or "reality TV", that is deception. It won't deceive me in particular, but many will be misled.
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Josie and the Pussycats (the movie) comes to mind.
I don't know if anyone here is old enough to remember (I certainly am not) but the television industry engaged in this practice pretty much since its inception up until the 60's. The radio industry engaged in it for many years before that.
Your parents can tell you about phrases such as "the Ed Sullivan show, brought to you by..." and "the comedy hour", or the omnipresent product-based game shows. I don't know if Let's Make a Deal was the first, but it certainly popularized it.
What about The Price is Right? That show is perhaps the last relic of product placement based television. There's so little content in that show that it's laughable but there's dozens upon dozens of product placements. That show's been around longer than I've been alive. This practice is certainly nothing new.
To be honest, I'd much rather have advertisement embedded in the programs I'm watching as opposed to sitting through 15 minutes of commercials during a 30 minute TV program or 20 minutes of ads before a movie. It's much less intrusive.
The real CSI folks don't show up to crime scenes in a Hummer H2, talking on their Nextel i90c?
It is quite simple
Haiku should not be funny
Try a Senryu
[outfitted in Pepsi Gear] "It's like some people do things just because they get paid, and I think that's just sad"
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
So now if someone writes a guy drinking a can of Coke into a script, he needs to get a lawyer to determine that the drinking of the Coke isn't misrepresented in the show in terms of the product's value, and the lawyer will need to put in a disclaimer saying the station nether condones nor condemns the drinking of Coke. The industry is self regulating already. If people don't like something, they switch the channel. If I want to write a script where a guy saves the world by drinking a Coke, don't I have some free speech rights, here, or did I lose them all in some contract with the FCC.
Vote for Pedro
no wonder some people do not watch television anymore, i for one watch 1 hour of news and Jay Lenno's Tonite Show then i am off to sleep...
if my television broke i probably not bother to buy a new one, and if i did buy a new one it would be one of those 19 inch cheapies from WalMart...
OK, I admit it. I know what a TV is, but unless there's a 9/11 or something I watch far less than an hour a week of it.
What I want to know is this: When are we going to start getting product placements on slashdot?
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
Swiffers don't work as advertised. In the ads, or in the tv shows, the people cleaning their floors with the swiffer are ecstatic with how the swiffer adds meaning and cleanliness to their lives. I bought a Swiffer (TM) because I so wanted to believe that a piece of kitchen merchandise can nearly effortlessly eliminate the drudgery in keeping my floors clean. It doesn't. I have to use about three swiffer rags just to get most of the lint and hair and cruft off the floor. And they are expensive. It's easier just to use one of those 1920s style brooms and them wet mop with a floor cleansing liquid.
The problem in advertising today is that the market is saturated. Every vertical and horizontal surface, every book, every magazine, TV show, radio show, tape, dvd, CD insert, restaurant menu, bathroom, cereal box, and milk jug in America is covered with one form of advertisement or another. It's become so much static to most people that the best the most advertisers can hope for is that they flood enough of their trademark or buzzword out there that we'll be imprinted with it and familiar with it enough to maybe buy it if we're in the position to do so.
Most companies now spend more in marketing and advertising than they do on research and development. Sometimes like within the pharmaceutical companies it's dispraportionate to say the least (think millions vs. billions). All the while they are ignoring the signs that the consumers they are trying to reach are just overwhelmed, tired, and burnt out. The consumers don't want to get another SMS message about Viagra, they've seen everyone and their brother push 10-10-blah blah blah, they could care less about penis enlargement, they got the oxy-clean and it sucked... and on and on and on. They're tired of getting burned by products that are nothing like they are represented to be and they're tired of seeing advertisements that say absolutely NOTHING about the product (livitra!!!!) They're tired of 1/6 of their screen being taken up by ads during the broadcast and then 22 minutes of an hour long show being commercials. They're frustrated with not being able to watch ANY show without seeing some dumbass branding icon covering a corner of the screen.
And what do the advertisers and networks do in response to this burn out - attempt to stoke the fires by finding NEW ways to reach the customer. HELLO!!! IS ANYONE OUT THERE? IS ANYONE LISTENING?!? YOU'RE SCARING AWAY CUSTOMERS NOT DRAWING THEM IN. They're checking out, they're ditching their TV's, they're watching only DVD's, reading books, hiking. They don't want more ads, they want entertainment, and they sure as hell don't want ads weakly disguised as entertainment, newstainment, infotainment, or any other "snazzy" new term.
So when the industry won't listen and won't learn and won't even attempt to come to the level of the consumer then what choice does the consumer have? Government regulation! Yes it's sad but true. See companies continue to profit not because of growth or new business but by making lower quality products, selling at higher prices, and outsourcing everything imaginable. Then when sales can no longer produce any profit and all of the costs have been cut there are three choices buy out, sell out, sue (rinse and repeat).
Once they take one of these strategies it becomes an endless cycle. They get a few years maybe of more of the same cost cutting out sourcing, growth through acquisition, money from investors who think they see a profit. Then a few years down the line they spin off the businesses again, promise new and better products and start the cycle over.
We see it right now. The RIAA companies have merged so many times that theres hardly anyone left, costs are high despite cost cutting measures, sales are low despite massive marketing efforts. The only out increase advertising and SUE the consumer. 'Of course it's the consumers fault that profits are down and if they just couldn't skip over our advertisements or block them out then they'd have to pay'.
Look at the entertainment market today. You have perfectly good shows being cancelled because advertisers don't know how to market to that group of a million people. They can't figure out what product this demographic or that demographic will respond to so when their spots fail to bring in any new sales they drop it and great shows go away. And who loses - the consumer.
So tell me what are the options? Dropping out doesn't seem to have made TV any better. Most people I know watch maybe a hour or two a week and TV continues to get worse. Movies are crap with few exceptions, music is garbage, I can't pick up a magazine or a newspaper without being frustrated by the amount of ads. How EXACTLY do we get through to the companies that they need to knock it off with all of the damn advertising (aside from direct government regulation).
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
...you'd never be able to take a pee break. That's all they are good for. The one thing I don't like about watching shows like the "Sopranos" is that it's a solid hour of TV without any commercials. I have to remember to use the bathroom before the show starts or I might miss something.
Smoke
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
You know, I dug deep down in my heart, and realized that I just don't care. Product placement doesn't bother me one bit. Besides, it's been going on in movies and television for years. Heck, back in the old days of live TV broadcasts, the host would stop in the middle of the show and pitch an ad himself.
Hey, if it would cut commercial time down from 1/3 of the hour to even half that, I'd be all for it! They should sell ad spots on professional athletes' clothes. There's an idea! Imagine the possibilities with product placement on the soft-core porn channels!
Where I object to advertising is with media that I pay for, such as video rentals, or on my Internet connection. I don't mind ads like those on Slashdot, but software which takes control of your computer, or spawns pop-up windows that take focus, or includes seizure-inducing color cycling should be made illegal.
Someone should tell the harassvertizers that the reason I'm not buying their product is because it sucks, not because I didn't notice the ad. I don't gamble, I don't order CDs on the web [because they're the same price everywhere, overpriced], I don't need a mortgage, I'm really not into home decorating, I don't want to buy a pager, I have no interest in being my own stock broker, and my penis is large enough, thanks.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Your big mistake is arguing that because the government is good for something, it is good for everything (even places where it has no business being, like censoring expression)
"Turn your TV off. Keep it off. Throw it away"
After that, can we burn the books? Can't let those outside ideas in! Must close our minds!
"Your life will improve,"
You mean after you join your local brownshirt group and have book BBQ's?
"This is what I have done and I don't miss my TV one bit"
Just like nazis don't miss the books they burn. You are really being an idiot for intentionally shutting out information.
We do regulate commercial advertisements... and infomercials have to disclose that they are advertisements.
Where do you draw the line between an infomercial, and a TV show with product placement?
Characters in TV shows and movies have to use various items as props. Sometimes these are chosen with business motivations in mind. As a viewer, I'm okay with this, as long as it does not detract from the show.
For instance, Halle Berry has a Ford Thunderbird in the latest 007 film. That's fine. But if Bond had borrowed it for a gratuitous car chase, all the while commenting on its superb handling and acceleration, that would certainly have ruined the movie. Stick a product in in a context where one might realistically encounter it. Don't comment on it, extol its virtues, or zoom in for a close up of it.
Trying too hard to avoid product placement can be just as distracting. A can labelled "COLA" and with a not-quite-Coke design looks fake. Pixellating out the names of products and stores as if they were nudity is annoying.
Basically, I don't care whether the hero reaches for a Dasani or an Aquafina as long as it's unobtrusive, realistic for the character, non-distracting, and so on. If the audience consciously notices the item as being plugged, the advertising was too conspicuous.
First we take away their privelage to send us ad's via phone, next we're going to take away their privelage to advertise on TV, and if they decide product placement is the way to go, well, I'll just turn to the likes of rant radio and the whole bunch, or 3rd party entertainment entities; TV that's actually funny or dramatic, most of the time well done. What we get now is bullshit and more bullshit, so much so that I'v completly stopped watching TV in favor of a computer and gaming.
If this keeps up, we're going to take away even more of their privelage until the corperate right to free speech is done in completly and then, we can get some laws passed to keep bribes out of congress and after that the rest of their rights go out the window in favor of new ones. Keep it going, it's like a thumb war; you pin the other guy's thumb down hard enough to see who says uncle first.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Maybe it's because the TV programs are fiction.
I have to agree with the original post. I don't see the big deal here. If you don't want to see ads, turn off the tube. If you don't want to see product placements in your TV series, watch different TV series. Or don't watch the TV at all.
Consider this: I pretty much just watch football on TV, which is nothing but product placements -- not just for the various equipment manufacturers and beer companies, but also for the teams themselves. There are no disclaimers necessary, because if the equipment is bad, I'll get a good chance to see it for myself.
"If this keeps up, we're going to take away even more of their privelage until the corperate right to free speech is done in completly and then"
There is no corporate speech: all speech and communication is done by individuals. This is a basic right, not a privilege.
"and after that the rest of their rights go out the window in favor of new ones"
So you want to get rid of all of the Bill of Rights????
look i hate comercials, god damn condesending peices of ass wipe, but i like tv shows, i like dramas and comedies and other crap on tv, save for stupid so called reality shows...damn yous mtv damn yous to hell, but i digress, so without commercials we get no tv shows, but now we can skipp comercials with tivo and the like, so now commercial producers say "hey, no one is watching our shit, we ain't paying no $200,000 for a halftime game/drive/primetime/what have you time slot, we is only going to pay $2000 so that we can hit all of the poor ass mofos with out tivo or shiznit like dat. So now you have a choice, either make tv shows on a $2000 budget, or charge for product placement. the last $2000 dudget show i saw was some shitty disney documentery where they tosed 100's of lemings off a cliff and made up some lie about them committing suicide, so fuck that i say i want Law and fucking Order 24/7, with NYPD Blue thrown in for good measure and adult swim on the weekends. And if i have to put up with a "Coke(TR)(r)(etc)" in Sipowitz's hand in the first run and a "Frapachino(TM)(R)(ETC)" in the re-runs then so be it, just as long as he does go "AHHHHH GOD DMAN! I love this SHIT!" every 5 mins. so quit yer bitch'n and the sooner you realize that teh dot int he center of the universe is not you the happier you and everyone else will be.
Jesus, tv companies are private industry and they can program whatever they want. You don't see anybody calling and bitching about QVC. All they are is one giant advertisement. It's private industry and shouldn't be regulated.
Unfortunately the government has gotten into regulating the "morality" of programming to some degree. tv stations should have been able to display and say whatever they wanted from the beginning. It'd create a market for all the uptight morality pushing screwballs. It'd foster competition and make better tv.
Really, what kind of moron puts this shit together and ties up government resources with this bunk. TIME/WARNER/AOL and DISNEY practically own your tv. tv viewers have been constantly bombarded with product placement and advertisement within shows since tv began. It's in the nature of the media and how it makes it's money. The beauty of it, is that media has updated their business model, unlike the RIAA. Because of this slashdotters and tv viewers have their panties in a bunch.
Seriously, if the RIAA started to put advertisements on CD's to make revenue, who would care in the slightest. Nobody...as nobody should care if business is buying advertising space on our bland reality show of the week.
The fact that the tv viewers of this country are so lazy that they have to bitch about their tv programming to the government just shows that we have become complacent weenies. The patriot act has just passed, your rights are going out the window. I just read Farenheit 454. I think I'm going to go out and read 1984 from a library soon.
non sig - posting is like playing Press your luck, no trolly, no trolly, no trolly!
"The only people who disagree with this sentiment have been brainwashed by the best selling fiction novel ever, the bible."
Of course it is fiction, and your preferred holy book is the fact. That is what your religion tells you.
State governments are wracking their brains trying to figure out how to efficiently educate our children and we're throwing away the public airwaves on tripe. Think of what could be done if the ratio of educational programming versus entertainment programming were reversed. By educational I don't mean Jack Hanna's Animal Adventures and crap like that, I mean real courses of study, grade school to university level. so that the intellectual wellspring of education can be available to as many as possible in the most efficient way possible. That would be television worth paying for.
Namaste
Jed Bartlett's administration on the "The West Wing"?
Seriously, some people criticize TWW for political advocacy, but it's a show about a fictional liberal administration - how could the characters not advocate liberal positions? People who watch it know this and accept it (or they don't watch it).
Likewise, with product placement, if it makes sense in the plot, it will add realism. If it looks like a blatant plug, people will hate the show.
Finally, the problem with the newsroom will never be product placement. The problem is that corporate owners can get certain stories or types of stories "de-emphasised".
Has anybody notice increase in shows that take place in Los Vegas?
There has been two or three shows of Fearfactore in los Vegas, the new Show Los Vegas, even CSI, viewed by a lot of people is located in Los Vegas. I think somebody wants people to come to the city realy badly.
I'm curious about whether product placement is cost-effective for the advertisers.
The market for advertising-supported web sites crashed because it was possible to get a measure of how effective they were with click-throughs. It's not zero, but it's pretty low, and only a few sites can really support themselves that way.
TV ads, on the other hand, don't have click-through, and it must be hard to measure if they're effective or not. The overall branding effect is even more difficult to measure: what's it worth to a soda company to have people see the products on TV? Does it create that strong an effect?
I'm assured that it does by various marketers, and I've certainly seen places in life where good branding gives you confidence in a product and an unjustifiable but very real preference for it. This is most prominent in big brands: do I really prefer the taste of Coke to Pepsi, or just its advertising? Do I drive a Honda because its ads are less irritating than those for most other cars?
But, as another poster cited, is anybody buying CA products because they see them on TV? Even if there is an effect, is it worth whatever CA is paying for it? Even if it works for Coke, are there enough brands to support the effort that the TV studios make to bother to acquire product placements?
Direct to video! That's all I watch these days anyway, vids, fuck tv because it sucks. And I don't want fucking product placements in my vids, okay? They suck.
The problem with Hollywood is that it's too bloated. Any real creativity or talent never has a chance. At the extortionary prices they sell DVDs at, they could still support their cushy lifestyles and everyone would be happy--of course it means creating a product someone would actually buy, that is to say, not dreck, laced with fucking product placements . . .
...then tell TV producers how to advertise? Like, grant ridiculous trademarks, fight wars in the name of peace and use your money doing it?
Seriously, if you don't like what they're doing THEN STOP WATCHING TELEVISION! It boggles my mind that they're so upset over such an insignificant thing as how products are being advertised on television that they're trying to sic government bloodhounds on the people that make the shows that they're needlessly addicted to. I imagine that the people behind this are TV junkies that get fired up over any changes that threaten their little microcosm-of-the-mind. It kinda reminds me of a line from a movie that came out recently:
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around and what do you see? Businessmen, Teachers, Lawyers, Carpenters...the very minds of the people we're trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so innerred, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will that they will fight to protect it.
1. Gratuitous depictions of sex and violence in the media have absolutely no adverse impact on human behavioral or cognitive processes.
2. Commercial advertising has too much influence on human behavioral and cognitive processes.
3. ?
4. Freedom of choice for the consumer is a _good_ thing.
5. Only the Government can save us.
Please, help me.
One thing I'm surprised nobody mentioned (maybe not, this is /. after all) is that ads are creeping their way into Sports doublespeed. I've noticed within the past two weeks that ads are being put onto American Football Fields in between plays. That's right! _During_ the game! Its really annoying to see a little AOL man running across the screen. Sooner rather than later it'll be a Minority Report type deal.
What the hell is up with all this product placement in my neighbor's house? I think I'm going to have to ask the FTC to ban it!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Disney programming (including their ABC subsidiary) is nothing but a non-stop commerical for their toys, DVDs, and theme parks. Then there's the PBS kid shows (Barney, Big Bird, Tinky-Winky, and the rest of the lot). All kid's programming is infested with product placement, and they don't even try to hide it.
So go hop in your Ford Focus, drive down to the 7-11 and pick up a case of Coca-cola. Then go back home, pop some Orville Reddenbacher popcorn, turn on your Zenith 32" TV and set your Tivo to record your favorite show.
I'm going to go down to Blockbuster to rent Return of the Killer Tomatoes.
-------
And we also have a cancel button...in case you don't want toast.
If we don't stop this now, then the line between a product placment sitcom and an infomercial becomse a blur. It will be a way for all infomercial creators to get around legistlation meant to protect users against fraud.
"We weren't actually saying that it would not cause harm to eat our product, it was a fictional sitcom"
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
Can we pass a law about that?
Sheesh, people! Legislation is NOT the solution to everything!
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I find the TiVo product placements the most amusing (Sex and the City, many celebrities on talk shows)
It's product placement for a product that increases the need for more product placement!
I briefly watched the Sci-fi channel show, 'Tracker' only because Geriant Wyn Davies was in it. Anyway, hearing him deliver a 1-800-COLLECT ad in the middle of it made me erase the episode on the spot. Now, I stick to things that can't even possibly have ads in them, like science fiction.
Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
...the Josie and the Pussycats movie just wouldn't have been the same.
I find that offensive. On what grounds is the UK socialist? It has no government owned companies (with the exception of health care - the BBC is a non-profit chartered corporation), and its politics are hardly left-wing.
IIRC the US government has used product placement to their effect with the deals made with some stations around 2-3 years ago. Basicly the stations have to allow x amount of comercials time to the government. This was usually at prime time, and could be sold for a lot more than the government was paying. In exchange, some of the shows (ones which the station had editorial control over) featured drug related storylines, and "moral" endings.
:)
Didn't bother me much. I use what I want to use, so long as it doesn't bother others, but I do recognise drug use does have problems. Most of those are made worse by the illegality of drugs, but there are some root causes. Addiction for example, many people are dependant on caffiene. Many people use it, a fair number abuse it (binging rather than continual usage) but don't end up selling it
Plus the whole propeganda thing doesn't bother me either (I'm English/Kiwi I'm used to the state owning the means of communication).
But all the same, if you can pay for product placement, whats to stop you funding plotlines? Or entire series?
- Shaman
Somewhat off-topic. I was listening to one of my local ClearChannel stations (there's a local talk show I've been listening to since before the station got bought out). Anyways, when it went to national news, one of the "news items" was the availability of a new cable channel called "Wheels." They felt it necessary to inform me that the new station was devoted to cars, trucks, and so on, but was somehow different from "The Speed Channel."
With only five minutes to cover the most important happenings of the day, why was this selected as important for me to know? It seems too trivial to be news and too mundane to be human interest. The only theory I can come up with is that somebody wanted the new station advertised.
I have to get off the computer, so please insert Media Consolidation Rant #11 here.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Fox owns Fox News, FX, and a bunch of other channels (and DirecTV soon). NBC owns MSNBC, CNBC for news, Bravo, etc. CBS owns UPN. and I forget which cable stations. Time Warner owns WB, and a bunch of cable stations (including HBO/Cinemax), etc., etc. Disney owns ABC, etc.
Yes I'm simplifying, sometimes mentioning the network, sometimes the parent company, I apologize for being inconsistent.
My point is that each of the "6" networks (really 5 because the Viacom division owns/operates both CBS and UPN), owns/operates multiple cable channels with lots of distribution.
As a result, I don't even think that there is a significant free speach issue. Reasonable regulations for their control of the public airwaves seems fine. As they all operate multiple cable stations, nobody's "free speech" is infringed, as 90% of the population has cable/DBS.
I figure, let the FCC regulate the "big 3/4/6" however they want, and if the program isn't adequate for "public" broadcasting, they can run it on their cable channels.
NBC already was using this, running the pilot and promotions for "Queer Eye" on NBC. CBS is, in my opinion, abusing their waiver to own two networks by promoting UPN on CBS and CBS on UPN.
We have 4 networks with national distribution, and two more with pretty good distribution. Do whatever you want to the public airwaves (but must carry/pay for carry was a mistake), and let those same companies excercize their "free commercial speech" on their cable networks.
There is also a side affect. Excessive product placement biases networks towards certain genres that support them. Science Fiction can't really use product placement, nor can historical set shows. With unlimited product placement, you will banish those categories to cable channels, EVEN if more viewers want them.
Given that the government created artificial scarcity by giving the media companies exclusive rights to spectrum, making them be reasonable seems fair.
Alex
Product placement and blatent in-show advertising actually harks way back to the first days of the golden age of television. It wasn't uncommon back then to see Lucy and Desi stop dead in the tracks in the middle of the show to start plugging Chesterfield ciagrettes..or whatever the sponsor of the week was. Game shows almost always had the name of some sponsor PLASTERED all over the set. People just don't know these things because it's all been cut out of the reruns we see today. Is this better than having to stop 5 times an hour for commercials? I couldn't say..but as someone who loves watching reruns of older shows, I can tell you the commerical breaks keep getting longer, in addition to all the product placement. And, does anyone but me remember (longingly) the days when TV shows actually had closing credits??
" I was listening to one of my local ClearChannel stations"
Don't complain. You were probably listening because you like it. After all, Clear Channel only controls less than 9% of radio stations, and in the typical big market, they still only have a few out of dozens. You have to go out of your way to listen to Clear Channel.
when Sesame Street is brought to you by the letters S, C, and O, and the number 699.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
"and its politics are hardly left-wing."
Yes, it does have left-wing politics, including the overly high taxation and government control of health care. They do control the major media: you can't get around that BBC is big government-controlled media.
But it is true that the UK is not socialist, since most of the economy is controlled by the people.
You are mistaken, it pains me to say. Hold on to your jaw. You ain't seen nothin' yet. 20 years from now you will look back on how free our world is from advertising, manipulation, and exploitation of consumers.
So when the industry won't listen and won't learn and won't even attempt to come to the level of the consumer then what choice does the consumer have? Government regulation! Yes it's sad but true.
No, no, no! There are quite a few posts on this thread from people who have stopped or drastically diminished their consumption of content that is heavily laden with advertising. That is our best strategy, and it is a powerful weapon.
Dropping out doesn't seem to have made TV any better. Most people I know watch maybe a hour or two a week and TV continues to get worse. Movies are crap with few exceptions, music is garbage, I can't pick up a magazine or a newspaper without being frustrated by the amount of ads.
Dropping out isn't for fixing TV or commercial pop music, it's for fixing us! Once you are able to entertain yourself, choose among all of the stuff that is only lightly laden with advertising or even entirely free of it (and believe me, there are a lot of things you can do with your free time), you will have been born again! You will be Neo, escaped from the Matrix!
Turn off, tune out, wake up.
I say, just let standard deceptive advertising standards apply. As long as they're showing valid uses for the Product, and depicting reasonable performance from it, I think the potential good in this case outweighs the hypothetical bad.
Potential good? The increase in product placement, if not artificially curtailed, COULD lead to better programming. IIRC, the series premiere of Alias ran for over an hour, and contained no commercials. Why? Because Nokia gave them so much in return for product placement that they didn't NEED commercials. Think about that.
Maybe it's a matter of opinion, but I have NO problem watching my favorite characters drink an Icy Cold Coke while using their Nokia Cellphone in conjunction with their Apple Laptop, if it means higher-quality, longer-running shows, without actual commercial interruptions. Honestly, it seems like a natural progression to me, not any kind of abberation.
(the only problem I see with this scheme offhand is that it would discriminate against shows not set in present-day America. But that's a minor hump.)
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
"Dropping out isn't for fixing TV or commercial pop music, it's for fixing us!...you will have been born again! You will be Neo, escaped from the Matrix!"
There you go, quoting commercial entertainment while attacking it (and not in an ironic fashion, which would have been funny, oh well). If I'd never turned on the TV I would have never seen The Matrix rerunning on one of those movie channels....
No, when you drop out (close your mind) you aren't fixing anything.
"TV Sucks! They said so on "Max Headroom" !"
without Ron Popiel! Thats how you can tell.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
"You ain't seen nothin' yet. 20 years from now you will look back on how free our world is from advertising, manipulation, and exploitation of consumers."
Free speech is not "manipulation". Free trade is not "Exploitation".
Lord, save us from those who want to ban and control the free interchange of goods and ideas.
I'm not sure (Pepsi) if you'll be able to (Goodyear) stop this nonsense. It appears (Wendy's) to be some type of (IBM) infectious cancer that spreads (Ford) without control. Advertising (McDonalds) to children is one of my pet (Nike) hates and really pisses me (Microsoft) off. What can you do?
(Sony)
Steve
J Leno: So I hear you're into weird food
D Barrymore: I like cheese
J Leno: I guess you like expensive cheese
D Barrymore: No way! No stinky fromage for me. I like Kraft American Singles. They make the gooiest grilled cheese. You know you go out and party, then you rock the grilled cheese
Yeah that's an interview I care about.
This
The Sony movie SWAT had enough product placement to make me gag. I can't recommend it to people because there's enough scenes of McD's meals, Dr. Peppers, Gatorades and Sony TVs to make me gag. Really, are they that desperate for cash they have to advertise during a movie we already PAID TO SEE?
For the next time some hippy says "information wants to be free." Well clearly only some information according to the slashbots. If information wants to be free, so be it. If someone is showing you that, in their humble opinion, pepsi is a delicious beverage far superior to other national brands, so be it. If someone is demonstrating that, in their humble opinion, a honda is a mighty fine automobile to drive, so be it.
Oh government, save us from Fox Mulder getting a haircut at supercuts. Look at that basketball player! He's clearly wearing nike shoes! But don't you dare say whose copyright we can and cannot infringe.
From FTC.gov
What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims; and
advertisements cannot be unfair.
Additional laws apply to ads for specialized products like consumer leases, credit, 900 telephone numbers, and products sold through mail order or telephone sales. And every state has consumer protection laws that govern ads running in that state.
Wow no mention of to what types of advertisements this applies. So I bet it already covers product placement.
Oh Holy Government, deliver us from everyone who sells products. Most Benevolent Government, I cannot get myself to turn the TV off, so please, in thine mercy, clense the airwaves of any chance for profit. I mean, jobs are soooooooo overrated.
So is information free, or not?
" I can't recommend it to people because there's enough scenes of McD's meals, Dr. Peppers, Gatorades and Sony TVs to make me gag"
Bad Bad Swat!
Yeah, no one ever has a Sony anything, goes to McDonald's (going out of business, 3 restaurants left last time I knew) or ever drinks Gator-Aid. No sarcasm needed for Dr Pepper...
I suppose you would have been a lot happier if in the film they drank "Croc-O-Drink", ate at "O'Burger" and watched "Sunny" TV's.
"Check your law. Commercial speech is not in the same class as either the press or public speech. The constitution and prior case law creates a separation between the two and allows for the limitation of commercial speech"
The constitution makes absolutely no such distinction. Please check the Bill of Rights again. As for "prior case law", it is an unfortunate situation where judges ignore the Constitution and erode it over time by legislating from the bench.
"Advertisement is no more free speech..."
Try again. It is free speech.
"..than is signing a check for your favorite candidate"
The check-signing is free speech, as well, if it is being curtailed in an attempt to silence undesired speech (the recent campaign finance law). This is also a dangerous precedent. Using it, the government can shut down newspapers by banning newspaper companies from paying the people in the printing room money for their work.
"Free interchange of ideas and/or goods does not require that advertisements be without control or common sense."
It does, actually. Check the Bill of Rights again. No mention of common sense or the need for government censorship (control).
"Otherwise we'd still have snake oil salesmen wondering around promising the moon and stars if you drink their remedies"
erm....? We do have that right now.
"It's bad enough that we have these drug companies floating false studies as a means to back up their exagerated claims"
Then ignore their claims.
"Free speech isn't a license to lie, it's not a permit to exagerate or warp the truth"
Except one man's lie is another's difference of opinion. Again, that ol Bill of Rights.
"it's a mechanism of law given to the PEOPLE "
Ahem. the Constitution again. Free speech rights are not given. They are inate to the human condition.
"to the PEOPLE so that they can freely and openly criticise their government "
Earlier text implies support by you for the "campaign finance" laws, which do nothing but prevent people from criticizing government.
"openly criticize... others that abuse their very powerful positions."
Again, the Constitution. It makes no distinction. Even people who work for drug companies have these rights.
"people need to realize that advertising is not a right."
Yes it is. The First Amendment does not exclude "advertising" speech.
I look forward to the day that product placement is the only advertising. Consider this: You sit watching your favorite show and some product catches your eye. You then use a pointer of some sort to "mark" the product and can pause the show TiVo style and see an ad for that product. Or you can wait 'till the end of the show to see the ads. Like that skirt, bra, shoes the star is wearing, or maybe the furnishings in the house, stereo equipment, car, cops gun or holster? No longer will you sit through commercials for stuff you couldn't care less about. The people producing the show can sell ads for virtually everything visible in the show and you can choose what you want to see ads for. When a show starts getting filled up with a bunch of junk for sale or stops being entertaining people stop watching and the show fails. Your new interactive set sends feedback to the producers instantly. Like that new show? Then watch the commercials. Think it's a stinker? Don't watch them. At least you didn't have to sit through 10 minutes of commercials to find out.
If he really thinks we're the Devil, then let's send him to Hell.
"I look forward to the day that product placement is the only advertising"
I think that would skew content in some cases. For a show like "Friends", there would be less of this: they are in a commercial environment. However, car ads present a problem. These New Yorkers just don't drive. They'd have to change the plots to get cars into the show. No such problem with separated car ads.
Here's another example: "Xena" or "Hercules". There's not much you can advertise with product placement here other than fan swords and leather gear.... or you might be able to stretch one in where they can click on a field and get an ADM agrobusiness ad. Gabrielle sneezes so you can get a click location for a Claratin ad?
Realize that a lot of stuff in the commercials just does not fit into the TV show. Do you really want the Aflack duck wandering into Frasier's apartment?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"I wonder if fans of a show are interested in what their favorite character uses for alergies or what music they listen to, etc"
Back to the Frasier example, I'm sure that NBC is going to seek out opera-selling sponsors. Right.... And if Claritin increases the advertising payment, look for the characters dribbling their noses in every scene.
Switching the channel, let's go to CNN and Larry King. Nothing but 2 or 3 talking heads with a Lite-Brite background. I guess once they run out of advertising money from suspender and microphone companies, there will be logo tattoos on Larry King's cheeks changing every few minutes.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
How strong is the accountability of broadcast (non-cable, non-dish) television stations to the community to which it broadcasts?
For example, occasionally on television (if I remember correctly), you see some sort of required announcement about license renewal and how to comment on the stations performance; only at off hours.
That just makes sense, but I somehow doubt it has any teeth.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
Government (the arm of the people), has a legitimate interest in controlling and regulating useage of the spectrum.
If large media companies want the privilege to use the spectrum for their own private profiting, then they will either satisfy the demands that we the people make upon that privileged position, or they will simply not have this privilege; end of story.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
"Government (the arm of the people), has a legitimate interest in controlling and regulating useage of the spectrum."
The arm of the people? Nope. That is one of the most dangerous lies. The people serve the government, not the other way around.
"If large media companies want the privilege to use the spectrum for their own private profiting, then they will either satisfy the demands that we the people make upon that privileged position, or they will simply not have this privilege"
I agree, since the best way to do this is to let the companies show anything they want, and if we don't like it we will turn off or turn away, forcing them to serve us. Works pretty well. Of course, some people are shocked SHOCKED that "Three's Company" serves the people more than opera reruns.
Seinfeld did a WHOLE product placement episode that was absolutely hilarious. Remember the episode where everyone starts eating Snickers bars with forks and if you didn't you just weren't "elite"? That whole episode was one of the best Seinfeld's out there-right up there with the Soup Nazi. They took a product placement skit and just ran with it. They did it right. Though I could see some pretty crappy things turn up if ie: Demolition Man. Taco Bell, Doritos, & Pepsi. God that was a huge market plug and it blew BUT with the proper writers & mad movie skillz one should be able to make it work.
Man stop sounding like this is the next big evil since terrorism.
"Man I would hate to live in your world. Scary shit what people would be allowed to do."
You mean.... speak their mind? I wonder if the world you are in is North Korea.
It is pro-censorship attitudes like this which result in travesties such as the pizza company successfully (and frivolously) sued just for saying that it had better ingredients.
why dont we have the government tell us where to work and what to watch as well? and how much we will work for, etc.. people want the government to control every aspect of their lives, if you want that, move to north korea, freedom comes with responsibility for yourself and your actions. anyways, I really dont notice the product placement at all, never have. now, when we see stuff like the actors stopping in the middle of a fight scene and saying "drink new lime coca cola!" then I think that's when people should STOP WATCHING the show instead of asking the government to control another aspect of their daily lives. however, that isnt possible because most people are lazy and trying to get ahead of the person in the next cubicle over. it's sad, it seems like we're headed for an orwellian society. oh and by the way, if you missed all the bold letters, read each letter, I put product placement in my post.. is some group going to go after me now? I hope so, so then I can laugh at them.
so what, as long as the story is good they can do all the product placement they like.
Life is product placement.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Minority Report, I mean.
"'"'"'""'Ironically,'"'"'""'" the production design of Minority Report--the entire look of the movie, its props, and its filmic effects--is, itself, a "meta" product placement (for the Nokia Communicator--the 9210 model, specifically). The movie pretends to criticize p.p. by exaggerating it, when, in fact, its purpose--sole purpose--is exaggerated product placement that goes on re-advertizing for so long as our culture-bearers continue to valorize the work of that hack bitch. Sweet deal all around.
Spielberg is Satan (though not as intelligent or honest or fun to drink with) (and just not because of this particular vile stunt, about which PK Dick must be laughin' in his grave (or maybe Heidegger's)) (and let's not even talk about what Schindler's List was really about (Kubrick spoke the truth, and look what it got him)).
[/"'"'"'""'Troll'"'"'""'"]
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
i have seen products being places sometimes in the article discussion (links to books, websites in which the poster has an incentive to increass traffic). also sometimes questions in "ask slashdot" are obvious unacknowledged self-plugs.
The advertising, while annoying, effectively reduces the price you as a consumer pay for those services.
Um, no I wouldn't pay more. They may raise the price, but it will still go unsold. The price is a balance of what the market will bear. Cable came out (many years ago), they advertised as a way to not see the advertisements. It has lost it's vision (blinded by the money). Pay TV is not a requirent for life. It's a disposable income entertainment choice. Cable already priced me out of the market. I dropped it when the rate went up 15 years ago (almost doubled), the number of basic channels with content went down, and NONE of them were commercial free (except PBS which I get off an antenna). Many useless channels of computer graphic static pages, channels of nothing but advertising (QVC HSN etc.), and the overbearing Time Life/Sports Ilustrated advertising was too much cost for too little low value content. The commercial free stuff is either PPV or premium. You have to pay for the junk (basic) to get the premium. No thanks! Ask how much your provider will charge just for the Disney channel, HBO, Discovery, and the digital music... Betcha they will tell you you also have to have basic to get it. They won't sell you just HBO for $6/month. See what you can get for $20/month. It's either just what you can get over the air, or NOTHING.
The truth shall set you free!
Paul Harvey did this on his radio broadcast for years. One minute you're listening to him chat about this or that, and the next minute he's seamlessly transitioned to telling you about this amazing Bose Wave radio he heard the other day.
The local (formerly know as micro) brewery, Sierra Nevada does no conventional advertising. They only do product placement. Their beer has appeared on Friends and some other shows and movies. It seems to be working for them. Product placement and word of mouth have made them the ninth largest brewery.
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Basically, I don't care whether the hero reaches for a Dasani or an Aquafina as long as it's unobtrusive, realistic for the character, non-distracting, and so on. If the audience consciously notices the item as being plugged, the advertising was too conspicuous.
I agree. The best example I can mention is the movie ET. The alien is enticed with small candies. The script called for a diffrent product vendor than the one used in the film. The Mars company wouldn't pay for the placement so Reeces company got the placement instead. (somehow the irony of aliens and Mars not getting the placement hit me as funny)
The truth shall set you free!
Free speech is not "manipulation."
Disingenuous at best. It's obvious that "free speech" isn't "manipulation" -- those concepts are apples and oranges. To wit: if a con artist manipulates you, does free speech indemnify him?
The issue of whether or not someone manipulates you is orthogonal to whether or not the means was "speech" (and subsequently whether or not unlimited speech is a right).
Free trade is not "Exploitation."
Once again, "free trade" and "exploitation" are not equivalent concepts. Exploitation may be the outcome of "free" trade, just as manipulation might be the outcome of "free" speech.
If by "free trade" you mean the sort that's being discussed at the WTO ministerials and in negotiations over the FTAA (a very restrictive sort of trade, indeed), well, free trade almost certainly means the exploitation of a great many people, including -- probably -- you.
That is, if someone says they really like the product(s) of the company they work for, do you assume they really do like the product(s) or do you think that they're views are motivated solely by their income?
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Look at the BBC for an example of how TV should be.
Follow the Money, right? With the BBC, you pay to watch it, not pay to be on it. Stands to reason you get a better standard of programmes, at least from the point of view of the viewer.
Yes, I am bound to blow the trumpet for my own country's TV service. No doubt other countries also have a publicly-owned, advertisment-free television service with up to eight channels {2 on analogue terrestrial, 1 full-time digital, 5 part-time digital of which 2 kids' channels}. See also them.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
it's no surprise, then, that a significant amount of TiVos advertising has been through celebrity endorsements (Howard Stern) and product placement on sitcoms (Friends, Sex & the City).. an especially sly strategy considering that Tivos competition (ReplayTV) can automatically skip (normal) commercials.
I was just watching the Passage to Middle-earth:SCI-FI Channel Special' feature on disk 2 of Fellowship of the Ring. we were suprised to see just about anything that could be considered product placement was blurred out I the first noticable one was Orlando blooms tshirt
Dude, when's the last time you watched infomercials?! Last time I saw, infomercial people were hawking programs that let you 'read' at 25,000 words per minute and other such garbage.
Teach kids the universal truth: Ultimately, trust nobody. Everybody else can tell lies or at the very least put their slant on things.
It's not meant to be cynical, but it's what happens.
Granted, I don't watch that much TV, but I have noticed a trend in recent years of some shows actually "bleeping" product logos on clothing, product packaging, etc. I have seen this on reality TV (yeah, yeah...someone in the household was flipping through channels) and shows involving non-actor video footage (America's [funniest/dumbest/craziest/most dangerous] [videos/police chases/animal bites/stunts]). Your first guess would be (as was mine) that these are offensive slogans/slurs not permitted by the FCC...but they are not!
It really makes me wonder about the reason, as I would expect the stations to want to cram in (and charge accordingly for) every product logo they can. It would not surprise me to find that these censored logos result from failed extortion attempts: when a candidate video for America's Funniest Animal Crotch Bites comes across their desk, and the protagonist is howling in front of the camera in his Nike hat, the studio calls up Nike and says, "For $x, we'll leave this logo in, y'dig?"
Of course, I could also be completely wrong.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
I realize some good programming has come from the BBC, but overall, the BBC is worse than US programming.
That said, the BBC is probably best for their news and voice world service.
But overall, US programming is better, and that's saying a lot, considering shows as awful as "will and grace".
"but people need to realize that watching TV is not a right"
Why does drivel like this pass as "insightful" around here?
Its a non-sequiteur. People need to realize that looking into the mirror contemplating is not a right. People need to realize sitting on their couch is not a right. People need to realize that leather upholstery is not a right. People need to realize that blue jeans are not a right. People need to realize that a QWERTY keyboard is not a right. People need to realize that streetlights are not a right.
I mean, its just utter, random noise. And it gets modded up?
I don't get people's thought process sometimes.
"Read a book."
/. aren't lawyers and don't appreciate good subtlety.
People have got to realize that reading books is not a right.
While the government is limited in what it can do by the freedom of speech (1st amendment), there is no corresponding right that people should be allowed to read stuff.
The difference is subtle, but people around
when a candidate video for America's Funniest Animal Crotch Bites comes across their desk, and the protagonist is howling in front of the camera in his Nike hat, the studio calls up Nike and says, "For $x, we'll leave this logo in, y'dig?" You never know, they might be doing exactly that, and it could be that they're asking so much $x that (in this example) Nike tells them to blow it out their ear. ;)
I hate the 22 (!) minutes of commericials in prime time TV. I watch... lets see... NCIS JAG Enterprise Smallville Stargate SG-1 occasional History Channel stuff the worst commercial offenders are the prime time gigs (top 4), Skiffy and History Channel have fewer commercials by comparison (on cable makes a difference), SG-1's format was 45 minutes commercial free (on showtime) for the first 5 seasons and, thusly has only 15 minutes of commercials, that format, IIRC/AFAIK has remained unchanged in seasons 6 and 7 on skiffy (when they show the reruns, they are unedited). Enterprise is 40 minutes (thereabouts), the other treks are 44 (TNG/DS9 and early VOY), while TOS (aired in the 60's) was a whopping 50 minutes long. If we had 50 minute shows these days, i'd be a lot happier. I stick to cable for the most part, longer shows :) (2 minutes translates to 1 extra 30-second spot every break in a 1 hour show)
Logistical Chaos Officer http://www.slagg.org - LAN Gaming in Sarasota FL,USA
If you get rid of commercials and product placement, the alternative is for viewers to pay for content. Frankly my cable bill is high enough as it is, I don't want to have to pay for more crap on TV (I'd do away with it altogether if it wasn't for my wife)
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
Is the purpose of government to protect your rights, or is its purpose to mold and shape everyone else to fit someone's whim? Asking for a "crackdown" on product placement is as though one has a divine right to watch TV shows that present things the way you alone want them presented. We might as well ask government to crackdown on the ads between show segments so we can get from the major networks copies of the fine quality sitcom comedies and game shows we see on PBS. We need less "Fear Factor" and more "Antiques Road Show".
If you don't like it then go read a book. I highly recommend "1984", "Brave New World", and "Fountainhead". There's no product placement in those!
"The State is that great fiction by which everyone lives at the expense of everyone else." -Frederic Bastiat.
I think you are right about the reason.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth also. But I guess the advertisers who paid would demand this, or the scheme wouldn't work. (Why should we have to pay and they don't?)
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.
The last time someone gave out a real number in a movie, people actually called it! They'd better stay with the 555's.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
"when a candidate video for America's Funniest Animal Crotch Bites comes across their desk, and the protagonist is howling in front of the camera in his Nike hat, the studio calls up Nike and says, "For $x, we'll leave this logo in, y'dig?""
I think part of the answer to that question is that the brand owner doesn't want their brand associated with a man getting his crotch bitten. Even though it is not implied that the brand caused the crotch bite, it may negatively impact the consumers mental associations with the brand.
The brands are trademarked and the broadcaster has no right to show it without authorization. The appearance of a brand in a show may seem to the consumer like an endorsement of the show by the brand.
and maybe makes a remark to the effect of how well it works?
There was a prominent product placement on Gilmore Girls last week for Excedrin PM. Rather than being cheeky, though, there was a whole backstory about low Loralai had massive jet lag, was trying to recover, took two Excedrin PM's before bed, then, in a 'Marilyn Moment' popped another one during the middle of the night, and as a result could barely get herself moving though the day. Good delivery and physical comedy made the scene funny, not obnoxious.
And guess what? When I was at Wal-Mart I looked and Excedrin PM uses a different salt of diphenhydramine than the rest of the 'PM' products. If I ever need such a product I'll remember that (the rest are just higher priced packaging on 'allergy medicine').
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"The rise of commercial-skipping Tivo has resulted in greater reliance on 'product placement'."
Yeah, I'm sure that fraction of a fraction of a percent of TV viewers with a Tivo is really bending advertisers' bottom line.
And Napster is why CDs still aren't selling, right?
It's clear now that Tivo has become the TV Networks' Napsteresque scapegoat. Look out below.
currently, that is a whole untapped void for product placement awareness, you use it, you read it, you flush it. how simple and your TIVO box is not needed. (works just as well with paper towels by the way)
Hurling is a sport? What kind of placements do you see for that? Toilet manufacturers (When you're seriously going to hurl, hurl in a Dimerican Standard toilet.), bowl cleaners (So clean you can see what you ate last night in the reflection), deodorizers (When you don't want to smell the last time...)?
What kind of a sport is that? Oh yah, Bill is frothing in blue and pink, watch it go! Whatdya think he ate to make that color? What a classic chowblower!
"The most popular show in the world in Baywatch. So I don't think we can use popularity as any measure of quality."
Sure you can. All this means is that (if your claim is true) more people think that Baywatch is the highest quality show on.
"But I suppose it depends on where you are sitting. The US looks very right wing from here."
Since you are referring mostly to matters of government control of the economy, it would be more accurate to say that the US is much more libertarian, as it leaves more of the economic decisions to the people than the UK does.
If the US were more "right wing", it would have a ludicrously high government control of the economy (like the 40% you mention) just for power's sake (while not bothering with the left-wing lie that the power grab is for the people's sake.... the main difference between the left-wing fascists and right-wing fascists).
"In fact, government interference with the BBC is specifically prohibited by law"
Except when the government doesn'r like the law. Case in point: the ban on IRA/terrorism reporting that existed for many years.
"Only in America is free health care "left wing","
Who was talking about free health care? I was talking about government control of health care (which is very high priced). Of course it is left-wing (fascist): it is government meddling in private affairs.
"despite the fact that it's universally available in every other western nation."
More like universally inferior. I have friends who have to come to the United States from Canada because the Canadian hellcare system denies care to handicapped children.
I can name two here in the good old Socialist Republic of Amerika: Amtrak and the US Postal Service. Here in Amerika, the government doesn't seize the means of production. Rather, the means of production are "owned" by the private sector, and their use dictated by government regulation.
It's called fascism, by the way. Read some von Mises, or Milton Friedman.
"Rather, the means of production are "owned" by the private sector, and their use dictated by government regulation."
There are countless other examples. Government-mandated monopolies would surely count:
A good example of this is my local cable company. They are a government-mandated monopoly: competitors are banned from providing services. This includes satellite companies, which are banned by government from providing the full coverage of networks that "my" cable company provides.
Yes, it is called fascism. Having the government take over health care means a lot more fascism.
Your .sig implies that Democrats know something about economics. Hmmm.... Jimmy Carter comes to mind. What happened during the Carter era? What happened after he left office?
.dotcom boom/bust. Is that something to be proud of? Encouraging a false economy.
Bush-Cheney have done more for the economy than Bl*wj*b Bill and Al "I invented the internet" Gore ever could have. Slick Willy was only interested in getting laid. Bill did nothing but get drunk with his buddies, and hang out with the movers-shakers in the
Thankfully, the democrats aren't in office. They sure can play the media game. I really thought it was funny when Daschle started whining about talk-radio. Hmmm... maybe it's the last bastion of "free" media.
The liberals only know how to take credit for success and tax everything to death and point fingers when there's a failure. Look at Hillary. She can only point fingers. Nothing of any substance from her. She's a waste of time.
Sure, we could elect Howard Dean. It'd actually be quite funny... Within days, the NY Times would have a story about all of the "hope" that homeless people had. It's amazing how Bill did nothing for homeless people, but homelessness was never a cover story on the NY Times.
If Dean were elected, taxes would be increased... to pay for lazy people to sit on their dead butts smoking crack, eating Doritos, and getting welfare checks. When they get caught smoking crack, they scream about being unemployed and undereducated, and that all of these tragedies happened when Bush was president. Whiners. Lazy whiners.
"You have the right to express your opinion in a publc forum. You do NOT have the right to have people listen"
That's my AC you are responding to. I totally agree with the above line (even though much of the rest of your response is way out of line). However, I think one of these blocking judges had a point that this telecom bill is flawed in that it nails commercial telemarketers, but not "charitable" and political telemarketers. As one who mostly gets calls of the latter two types, I think the "Don't Call" law should be fixed so ALL of them are subject to the list. This new bill is weak and gutless because it leaves these awful violators off of it.
"So if Nike is paying you to say that Nike shoes are great, that is NOT protected speech"
Here we go again. The Bill of Rights contradicts what you are saying. I oppose all censorship. All of it. All speech is "protected".
"If you are giving an unbiased (read: unfunded) opinion, you're back into the realm of Free Speech."
How very ignorant of basic rights. The Founding Fathers certainly did not limit free speech rights only when what was being said was "unbiased".
The telemarketing problem is easily solved not through censorship, but through the constitutional ideals of being secure in your own home and possessions. If you hang a "do not disturb" on your door (or phone line), it should NOT be violated.
Outside of the home, regardless of why you are saying Nike is good, anything you say about them is protected speech.