TiVo Causes Increase in Product Placement

ndansmith writes "Wired has got an article on how TiVo and other 'ad-skipping technologies' have caused an upsurge in product placements on network television shows. The 84% increase in product placements on TV over the last year has drawn protests from both the Writers Guild of America and the Screen Actors Guild. An example from the article: 'In a recent episode of the NBC series Medium, writers had to work the movie Memoirs of a Geisha into the dialogue three times because of a deal the network made with Sony earlier in the season. They even had the characters go on a date to an early screening of the movie and bump into friends who had just viewed Geisha to tell them how good it was.' Readers may also remember a controversial Cisco Systems product placement on Fox's 24."

Comments

And the winner is...

[phpm0nkey]

Shake's 12 minute commercial for Boost Mobile!

OK, so they were taking a shot at product placement in TV shows, but still, damn. I hope everyone at Williams Street got some free phones.

Re:And the winner is...

[GeekyMike]

I like the Axe commercial with the hot girl bathing someone "ooh, you're a dirty boy, how old are you?" "22" "Ooh, yes you are"

I laughed so hard the first time I saw that. I don't think I would commercial skip because I am afraid I will miss some of the better forms of comedy on television (reference the CITI identity theft service commercial series). Then again, I could skip the personal injury lawyer commercials and their darn jingles.

Re:And the winner is...

[lysergic.acid]

i think the ratio of truly funny commercials to complete crap ones is pretty low. wouldn't you rather be watching the actual programming that had you watching that channel in the first place?

it's kinda like, yea, once in a while you might see something entertaining while sitting in traffic, but do you really wanna sit in traffic all day long just so you can catch those rare moments?

Artistic integrity?

[mat catastrophe]

From the article:

"some writers are putting up a fight, demanding more pay in exchange for scripting product plugs into their shows ."

So, in other words, it isn't like they are concerned about becoming shills...only that they aren't paid enough to be whores.

Re:Artistic integrity?

[gstoddart]

So, in other words, it isn't like they are concerned about becoming shills...only that they aren't paid enough to be whores.

As much as everyone likes to bash the writers, it doesn't strike me as that outrageous.

When the network starts collecting money so that the people who write the scripts will say certain things, the writers have to work harder to do their episodes and still meet the networks obligations.

And if the writing is sucky because they were busy working in product placement, they're the ones who get fired; not the guy who got the comission for landing the deal.

I must be soul-sucking enough to write the dreck that is on TV, knowing your bosses are making more money so you can be forced to write even more dreck with product-placement would be too much.

They're effectively now writing ad-copy as well as scripts.

Inevitable

[Twisted64]

I suppose it was inevitable really... they'll always find a way to get to us. Here's hoping we never get quite as bad as depicted in "The Truman Show" though. I almost crapped my pants when I watched "I, Robot" and "The Island" and saw all the stuff they were pushing along with the film.

It seems kind of pathetic to do that.

[Antony-Kyre]

Maybe it's time for television to evolve into something else. How much cheaper is our current cable television due to advertisements? How much would it cost if we stripped the ads out of the shows and just paid more for cable access?

Re:It seems kind of pathetic to do that.

[wyldeone]

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on how this system works. The money that you pay each month to the cable company goes to the cable company in return for offering the service—not to the stations. The stations, meanwhile, make (nearly) all their money on advertising. Thus the amount of ads has nothing to do with your cable bill.

Gone with the product placement

[king-manic]

"Frankly Scarlet I don't give a damn... But get some nike air masters and I just might".

As I sit here reading slashdot...

[Cherita Chen]

As I sit here, drinking a DITE COKE , reading slashdot... I'm asking myself, why don't I have a TIVO And if I did have one, which network would I choose to record... HBO ? Hmmm.........

Re:As I sit here reading slashdot...

[DeafByBeheading]

Benjamin: Wayne! Listen, we need to have a talk about Vanderhoff.
          The fact is he's the sponsor and you signed a contract
          guaranteeing him certain concessions, one of them being
          a spot on the show.
Wayne [holding a Pizza Hut box]: Well that's where I see things just
          a little differently. Contract or no, I will not bow to
          any sponsor.
Benjamin: I'm sorry you feel that way, but basically it's the nature
          of the beast.
Wayne [holding a bag of Doritos]: Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but
          for me, the beast doesn't include selling out. Garth, you
          know what I'm talking about, right?
Garth [wearing head-to-toe Reebok wardrobe]: It's like people only do
          these things because they can get paid. And that's just
          really sad.
Wayne: I can't talk about it anymore; it's giving me a headache.
Garth [Dumps two Nuprin pills into Wayne's hand]: Here, take two of these!
Wayne: Ah, Nuprin. Little. Yellow. Different.
Benjamin: Look, you can stay here in the big leagues and play by the
          rules, or you can go back to the farm club in Aurora. It's
          your choice.
Wayne: [holding a can of Pepsi] Yes, and it's the choice of a new generation.

Re:Good or Bad?

[servognome]

I mean, wouldn't you guys like it if commercials were cut down signifigantly?

Not at the price of hurting the actual show. I can buy DVDs and not worry about commercials, or just go get food during commercial breaks. Product placement doesn't give you those options.

The reruns are going to be even worse.

[TheNarrator]

20 years from now the re-runs are going to look really weird. If they started doing this 20 years ago we'd probably be watching Scooby Doo episodes where Shaggy mentions how comfortable his Dead 70s Brand bell bottoms are. Then again, with modern technology they might start editing old tv shows inserting new scenes to do product placement or just dubbing over them with new brand names.

Porn

[Freaky Spook]

Wait till the porn industry starts using product placment, it will soon filter down to mainstream media in a more popular way!

<i>"After giving head nothing gets the taste out of my mouth better then mentos, my mouth is fresh and im ready to do the double penetration shot"</i>

Real Solution

[oGMo]

The real solution is so simple, it may be beyond the grasp of marketers: make advertisements worth watching.

It's simple. Why do I skip commercials? They're annoying, loud, repetitive, gaudy, mindless. I don't want to watch them, and the producer believes I won't be watching them (I wonder why?), so they scream and shout to get my attention.

So make a commercial that's funny, witty, beautiful. And don't play it every commercial break. Make something I want to see again, and instead of skipping it, I'll take advantage of the TiVo and watch it again.

Such a thing is possible: such commercials already exist. They've few and far between, but we've probably all seen at least one or two. It's possible. If the existing ad agencies can't come up with them, find new ones. I bet there are a thousand independent filmmakers out there who could come up with 30 second clips that fit this bill on half the budget they usually spend.

This is the real solution, one that doesn't involve literally forcing us to watch with DRM and legislation. Which is going to alienate people? Making something they desire, or making it illegal to avoid something they don't?

Re:Real Solution

[The Man]

The real solution is so simple, it may be beyond the grasp of marketers: make advertisements worth watching.

You're approaching this from the wrong direction: making advertisements worth watching is an action to be undertaken by the advertisers and their customers. This presumes they are the people with the problem. They aren't; they're making plenty of money already; PVRs and other changes in the market are crimping their ability to make more money, but they're doing fine as it is. Being greedy isn't a "problem" for the greedy individual but rather a never-ending series of opportunities to make more money at your expense. Your comment assumes that finding one way to solidify or increase the revenue stream is sufficient but in fact the media companies are satisfied only when they exhaust all possible such schemes. So in fact the viewer is the one with the problem; without a PVR you have to watch more ads today than ever before, and even with a PVR you get less content than ever before. Either way, you're going to get more product placement as well, because even if the advertisers made "advertisements worth watching" and no one ever edited them out, you can bet that to sustain their revenue growth the advertising agencies and media companies will continue to increase the number of impressions they can sell per 30 minutes of airtime; having more effective advertisements just allows them to charge more, which is great, but they aren't getting their money's worth until every possible second of airtime is sold somehow to someone. The content is the worm, the ads are the hook, and you are the fish. No fisherman cares how good the worm is as long as it covers the hook well enough to tempt the fish. Fish seem willing to overlook a giant, flaming-orange hook so long as it contains the tiniest fragment of long-dead worm or worm substitute, and TV viewers, who live longer than fish and seem to develop a tolerance to "hooks", are no different. The media companies know this and that, as a fish, er, viewer, sucks.

So there are actually two solutions, one which is realistic and one which is not. The unrealistic solution calls for a contract made between viewers and content producers for a certain amount of ad-free content in exchange for a certain amount of money - the way cable TV was originally set up, in fact. This is unrealistic because, as happened with cable TV, the media companies, never satisfied with merely making a tidy profit, realised that you'll pay just as much for TV with ads as without, so they can actually make money both ways. So much for that. We're left with the REAL SOLUTION that actually works and is guaranteed not to require watching any kind of TV ad, ever, and as a side bonus penalises the greedy bastards who are forcing the issue: DON'T WATCH TELEVISION AT ALL. There's no law (yet) requiring you to consume what the media companies produce. The worm fragments are small, not especially tasty nor healthy, and in virtually all cases unattainable without being hooked anyway. You'll find after a few weeks of altered evening routine that you don't even miss them, and you'll do a boon for your own mind, the economy, and our civilisation's collective future just by not doing something. Why wait? You can solve your problem right now, without any help from anyone, and all you have to do is not do something that seems to be causing you a lot of grief anyway. It's easy, it's free, and it takes no time at all. What better solution could you seek?

Good AND bad.

[khasim]

Good - Victorias Secret product placement.

Bad - Hemorroid cream product placement.

Re:Good AND bad.

[Hamster Of Death]

Worse - It's the same commercial

Re:Good AND bad.

[StyxRiver]

There's nothing wrong with correctly placing hemorrhoid products.

I've heard it's quite relieving.

Re:Good AND bad.

[Sarisar]

Bill Engvall had a thing about that - I ate this whole tube of preperation H and I still got them hem'roids. My mouth's so small I can't even eat a peanut. But I can whistle real good.

OK probably badly paraphrased, but it's funny when he says it

Cisco's products on "24" were part of the story

[SpecialAgentXXX]

I didn't mind Cisco's ads on last season's 24. I would rather see the characters using real products like Cisco's IP Phones than some propmaster's incorrect vision of what an IP phone should look like. Ford also sponsors the show and they drive big Ford trucks. Toyota sponsored the DVD preview of Season 5 and you see Jack driving a Toyota. Last season on Smallville, Clark used the red Old Spice deodorant - it was in his locker and on the big banner over the football field.

Product placement is only bad when it's inappropriate and doesn't flow with the show. I sure wouldn't want to see Jack Bauer and Chloe O'Brien discussing Kotex Tampons or Vagisil cream as he's about to waste some terrorists. Or President Palmer plugging Uncle Ben's rice at a press conference. But if they are looking for a USB flash card containing Top Secret information, I don't mind them mentioning SanDisk.

Pay per re-run?

[ChrisKnight]

With a regular television show the commercials are inserted by the local affiliate as the show is being broadcast. In this way the commercials can be localized for the viewing audience. So, if you watch a five year old television show the commercials are current and not frozen in time from five years back. Now the 'commercials' are a fixed part of the content, and it will not be possible to extract them later.

But, this begs me to wonder... Advertisers pay for each time a commercial is run. With this new model will they find themselves having to pay a small fee every time a show is aired as a re-run?

-Chris

Re:Good or Bad?

[strider44]

In my humble opinion, there's bad product placement (see I Robot) but there's also good product placement as well (see Blade Runner). I hate it when advertisers force writers to write their product in the script then portrey it as part of the story, but I don't mind at all having a writer think "OK we have a futuristic setting where I want ads here" and then cutting a deal with the corperations for product placement there.

Even having a car in there where it doesn't matter which car it is, I don't mind them giving the car to the highest bidder, but having the actors say "nothing drives like a Ford!" while they're driving it makes me cringe. Basically as long as it's at the writers convenience it's good, but when it's at the advertisers convenience it's bad.

Re:Quite frankly,

[symbolic]

This might not be their biggest problem (TiVO). Networks seem to have tapped into this mentality that tries the patience of its viewers every step of the way. It's not just the commercials any more. Now it's having to endure visual clutter like the station ID logo, and these rediculous sliders that zip in and out at the bottom of the screen just after we've already been subject to four or more commercials.

I've found this so annoying in fact, that I've started to look at alternative forms of distraction. Podcasts have grown to fill that niche. They're great- they are personal, it's easy to connect with the producers, and they are/can be eductional and/or informative. Best of all, there are few if any commercials, and NO ANNOYING LOGOS OR SLIDERS. That's gets my vote hands down.

Re:Quite frankly,

[h4rm0ny]

When I lived in the USA (British native for reference), I found your TV unbearable. Adverts popped up at random timings and without any kind of warning. Here in the UK, you can actually plan aroud the commercial breaks - it's a half-hour program, you get a few minutes after quarter of an hour. Just right to nip to the loo or make some tea.

I'm hoping that it doesn't spread like trailers on DVDs is starting to. I bought a DVD recently and up came trailers for other DVDs the company marketing people thought I might like. Will definitely be keeping an eye out for which company releases the next film I might be tempted to buy. Same applies to the two-minute piracy warning - I paid for the DVD. I am NOT their target audience.

Re:Quite frankly,

[ComaVN]

I'm hoping that it doesn't spread like trailers on DVDs is starting to. I bought a DVD recently and up came trailers for other DVDs the company marketing people thought I might like. Will definitely be keeping an eye out for which company releases the next film I might be tempted to buy. Same applies to the two-minute piracy warning - I paid for the DVD. I am NOT their target audience.

That pisses me off, too. I think it's part of a secret plot to make pirated dvds actually more attractive (ignoring the price) than the real thing. I'm not sure how the movie industry expects to profit from this though.

Where's the value added?

[Kadin2048]

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean.

Last season I started to watch the Shield on FX, after having watched the previous season on my computer by bittorrenting the episodes a day or two after they were released, and I found that the downloaded episodes made for a 1000% better TV-watching experience. No sliders, no moving graphics in the bottom of the screen, no station ID logos, and higher quality than my analog TV.

Someone should clue the local TV stations into a phrase: "value added." They have none. Right now they exist only because they have a monopoly on content (at least at the level of effort that most non-technical users are willing to expend). But as that monopoly breaks down and viewers start to get flooded with content from other places, they're going to be in real trouble.

I still watch a few TV shows, mostly as a social thing with friends, but if it weren't for the fact that we just enjoy getting together once a week and ordering pizza, I'd probably just cancel everything but my basic cable subscription and watch tv shows when they hit NetFlix.

Re:Quite frankly,

[flyingsquid]

Yeah, product placement really galls me. After a long day at work, I come home and just want to unwind with a sitcom and a cold Budweiser, king of beers. But then I'm subjected to a bunch of product placement. I swear, it's enough to make me need an Advil, which is recommended by four out of five doctors. So instead of watching a sitcom, I go for a long ride in my Lexus, with its roomy interior, six-way adjustable seating, and powerful V6 engine.