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.
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!
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
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?
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.
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.)
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
Remember, shows are "filler". They don't make money off the shows. They make money off the commercials. Now on the other hand, if a show's star says "wow, this XYZ potion got rid of all my wrinkles", then I would agree with the poster, that the FCC/FTC/DEA should be involved.
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.
You should watch Montel.
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
reading is fundamental...
Culture Jam
Adcult USA
Affluenza
No Logo
Amusing Ourselves to Death
Endangered Minds
Selling Out America's Children
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.
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.
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
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
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
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)
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)
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...
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'.
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.
(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
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.
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
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.
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!
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?
...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.
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?
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!
You are barking up the wrong tree. The problem with most of TV today is that there is no information there. It is primarily "product placement", a form of product propoganda, as this article indicates. Why watch that? Ok, in my original post I forgot to mention: Read a book! There... satisfied now?
--
The early bird catches the worm. The worm that sleeps late lives to see another day.
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??
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?
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.
without Ron Popiel! Thats how you can tell.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
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?
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. As well it defines what points "free speech" can be limited based on how it's used and motive.
Advertisement is no more free speech than is signing a check for your favorite candidate. Free interchange of ideas and/or goods does not require that advertisements be without control or common sense. Otherwise we'd still have snake oil salesmen wondering around promising the moon and stars if you drink their remedies. It's bad enough that we have these drug companies floating false studies as a means to back up their exagerated claims. Think of what it would be like if we allowed them to say just whatever the hell they wanted to - how would that promote "free speech" or "free interchange". It wouldn't. Free speech isn't a license to lie, it's not a permit to exagerate or warp the truth, it's a mechanism of law given to the PEOPLE so that they can freely and openly criticise their government and when necessary companies and others that abuse their very powerful positions.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
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.
Au contraire. I said NOTHING about the government being good for everything. You have engaged in the age-old logical flaw of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 (1965) Says that the Government may have a right to protect the lives of future citizens of Connecticut, but that our right to privacy trumps the Government's right to stop us from using contraceptives.
Generally speaking, the government has a pretty poor record when it comes to consensual sex laws - but the public health folks have done a good job of keeping most STD's in check.
Your big mistake is assuming that you could accuse me of something I didn't say.
RTFC Anonymous Coward!
"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.
Taxation isn't that high:
...government control of health care...
...most of the economy...
10% low rate
22% mid-rate
40% high rate
Although I'll acknowledge that "high rate" is a bit of a misnomer these days.
Compare that to France or Germany's 50-60% tax rate, though...
you can't get around that BBC is big government-controlled media
No its not. In fact, government interference with the BBC is specifically prohibited by law. That's why the BBC routinely turns out to be the government's biggest thorn. See the recent situation in the UK with the BBC and the government battling it out as an example.
Only in America is free health care "left wing", despite the fact that it's universally available in every other western nation.
Name me a government owned company...
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.
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
There is no free lunch, and there is no "free" health care. There is simply the ability to shift the cost from those receiving the care to others (leaving out the argument of the debatable quality of government managed health care). If mandating that someone else pay for your health-care, your minimum-wage, your rent-assistance, your food-stamps, your unemployment, etc. isn't "left-wing", then what is - if people had the option of contributing to health insurance for the uninsured, unemployment assistance to the unemployed, etc, potentially including themselves, and chose on their own to do so, then bravo for all involved. But to legislate that one person will pay for someone else's problems is as left-wing and nanny-state as it gets.
For that matter, the United States is more left-wing than France, since we spend in taxes FAR more per capita than France or Britain on health care and social insurance. There is a huge misconception that the United States does not have socialized medicine. We have the most well-funded social health system in the world. We also have the most backwards, ill-designed, ineffective system whereby the government forces providers to provide the most costly emergency services, yet allows them to deny less expensive preventive services, centralizes funding, then decentralizes distribution through the states, which then dole out to both public and private providers adding a beyond byzantine amount of administrative overhead and consumer confusion. Canadians and Britons pay far less in taxes, yet have universal coverage that is more effective and costs them far less.
Don't start harping about how they all die in the hallways -- that is FAR more of an American problem where over 40% of people get their medical service in the Emergency Room when the condition has become life-threatening, thus costing you the taxpayer tens to hundreds of times more than it should have and causing trauma centers to pile up with patients.
It has nothing to do with running "a nanny state" and everything to do with basic concepts of public health like preventing epidemics. Like it or not, it IS in YOUR interest to ensure that your seemingly unwashed, irresponsible neighbors have health care so they won't accidentally kill you when they sneeze.
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 take it you never saw Spider-Man in theatres, or else you would remember the can-twist scene in Parker's bedroom.
There's uses for products, and there's scenes used to only glorify the product.
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!
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!
If the street outside your house needs resurfacing, who pays for that? That's your problem, not mine - but I still pay.
What about when your car is stolen? That's your problem, not mine - but I still pay for the police investigation.
What about when your house catches fire? That's your problem, not mine - but I still pay for the fire services.
What about when you are diagnosed with cancer? That's your problem, not mine...
Actually, all the above aren't just your problem - and that's the point. In all the above cases, not dealing with the problem costs a great deal for society later on. In the case of the cancer sufferer, you deny preventative treatment and let the disease spread until they need ER treatment. At this point they remain in IC at much greater cost. (Unless you intend all uninsured people requiring ER treatment to be left to die - which is the taking your belief to its logical conclusion)
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!
(UK) Taxation isn't that high
No, taxation here's really quite reasonable.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
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.
Name me a government owned company...
The NHS is meant to be Britain's largest employer. The government does have control over a reasonable proportion of the commercial market. The public sector in the UK is, if I recall correctly, something like 30% to 40% of the total. The NHS, Police, Fire, local council funded projects like leisure centres etc. It all adds up.
That said, I agree with you about everything else. The UK always struck me as having middling politics, perhaps a little to the left but not really left wing or socialist by any measure. But I suppose it depends on where you are sitting. The US looks very right wing from here.
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.
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!
I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not. I'll lean on "not."
You have the right to express your opinion in a publc forum. You do NOT have the right to have people listen. This is the crux of the argument AGAINST telemarketing. The telemarketers insist that they have free speech rights - the problem is that if an individual did what they are doing, it would be considered harrassment and would possibly warrant a restraining order.
"Corporate Speech" is anything that advertises a product or service. If you are giving an unbiased (read: unfunded) opinion, you're back into the realm of Free Speech.
So if Nike is paying you to say that Nike shoes are great, that is NOT protected speech. If, however, you write a review for a magazine saying that you've found that Nike shoes are the most comfortable that you've ever owned, without coercion, that IS protected speech.
This signature does not exist. It has never existed. It is all a figment of your imagination.
Under the first prong of the test as originally formulated, certain commercial speech is not entitled to protection; the informational function of advertising is the First Amendment concern and if it does not accurately inform the public about lawful activity, it can be suppressed.18
d me nt01/17.html
Second, if the speech is protected, the interest of the government in regulating and limiting it must be assessed. The State must assert a substantial interest to be achieved by restrictions on commercial speech.19
Third, the restriction cannot be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the asserted purpose.20 Instead, the regulation must ''directly advance'' the governmental interest. The Court resolves this issue with reference to aggregate effects, and does not limit its consideration to effects on the challenging litigant.Supp.31
Fourth, if the governmental interest could be served as well by a more limited restriction on commercial speech, the excessive restriction cannot survive.21 The Court has rejected the idea that a ''least restrictive means'' test is required. Instead, what is now required is a ''reasonable fit'' between means and ends, with the means ''narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective.''22
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amen
I'd say that sums up my point.
The Supreme Court is designated the interpreter of the Constitution as relates to law, so this "works."
Note that Non-profit organizations and political organizations are not covered under this because they are not "advertising." They have no commercial interest (ostensibly).
This signature does not exist. It has never existed. It is all a figment of your imagination.
Bob Rosses painting show IMO was a great bit of public television. sol he sold some art supplies in stores and videos of the show.
Norm Abrams while having a workshop with tons of stuff I will never be able to afford is a craftsman who does IMO a good job actually showing you what you need to do to make stuff.
I dont think many public networks did Nova better. Now a days with discovery and whatnot they can come close, but I have caught these so called educational channels out in fabrications from time to time.
To me it looks like you dont actually watch PBS, or have mixed PBS up with your local access cable.
Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.