Apple And The Boob Tube

Rick Zeman writes "The Washington Post talks about Apple's success in product placement in television shows. While 'Apple said it does not pay for product placement and would not discuss how its products make their way into television and films' television viewers are treated to the view and use of Apple products in such shows as 24, Sex and the City, and this year's biggie, The Office. Also from the article: '"Apple is the brand of people who are creative," said Lucian James, president of Agenda Inc., a brand consulting firm. "Where they are using Apple is sort of suggesting artistic-ness."'"

Comments

Free product

[nacturation]

Sure, maybe not *paying* for product placement but a truckload of notebooks and Cinema displays loaned to the studio for the season could be expected to find their way into scenes now and again?

Computers Used by Movie Editors

[yintercept]

One explanation is that Apple might simply be the computer used by movie editors. If I were making a movie; I would be inclined to use the computer equipment I use in my business life on screen. If I use an Apple computer to edit the films, I would be apt to place an Apple in the film.

Apple could get placement simply by making sure that people in the movie industry have Apples ... either through gifting product and service or extremely low prices.

What?

[ScrewMaster]

Apple is the brand of people who are creative.

Baloney. I'm not knocking Apple products ... but from a marketing perspective Apple is the brand for people that are willing to pay a premium for their personal computers in order to suggest that they, themselves, have some degree of "artistic-ness", or at least style. Yes yes, many Mac users are artists or graphic designers or what-have-you, but people such as that purchased their equipment on its merits and have no need to impress anyone with "hey, look at me I have a Mac so I must be artistic!" For me, a computer is a box that sits on the floor and should remain as inconspicuous as possible, since I'm not trying to make any kind of statement with my choice of computer system. I make that statement with the quality of my work, regardless of the platform I happen to be working on at any given time.

Re:What?

[shmlco]

"Yes yes, many Mac users are artists or graphic designers or what-have-you, but people such as that purchased their equipment on its merits and have no need to impress anyone..."

To quote, "Baloney." Keep in mind that artists and graphic designers happen to be the exact same types who'd appreciate Apple's elegant lines and strong industrial design.

I have an Apple Powerbook, and I bought it not because it makes a statement to others, but because it works, works well, and I enjoy using it. I love solid well crafted tools, and I hate the flimsy creaky cheap plastic crap that other manufacturers pass off as "design".

I work better on my Mac. It's a synergistic effect.

Characterizing Apple owners as mere status-seekers is as simplistic as my characterizing Linux-types as people too cheap to pay for software. Sure, some might qualify as such, but it would be unfair, unwise, and, well... stupid for me to tar all of them with the same brush.

Re:What?

[geniusj]

Could it have anything to do with the fact that it runs a completely different operating system too? Nah..

Re:What?

[Achromatic1978]

I appreciate elegant lines and strong industrial design. I also have no artistic talent. I like a lot of Apple's laptops. But not all. The others, I hate. Those all white models look like "flimsy creaky cheap plastic crap", too, whether they are or not. My laptop, not an Apple, uses dark slate gray /metal/, and is well designed.

You say it's a synergistic effect. What is? "I work better on my Mac because it works well" is /not/ a synergy. If you work because something works, that's not a synergy, that's cause and effect. It's not the bringing together of two things with different abilities to reach a common goal. It's flimsy creaky cheap marketing crap.

Comic strips also

[azpenguin]

I don't know exactly how much Apple actually works to get its products out there on TV. If you want to follow the creative/graphics angle though, look in your newspaper comics. Almost every single time you see a computer it looks like an Apple product. I doubt Apple is pushing this placement; rather, it's just what the artist uses (and most likely prefers.)

Re:Set dressing

[1u3hr]

You don't show brand names unless they're paying for it (and you must hide those brands from all camera angles), but you want to encourage a feeling of familiarity for the viewer, so you end up with stuff like a half-turned Coke(TM) can that has a malformed "ribbon device" to avoid the trademark police.

I'm sure this is a common policy, just to avoid hassle, but it has little basis in law. How on earth could Coca-cola complain about a character drinking a can of coke? The trademark is firmly attached to the actual product they sell. There is no passing off implied. So there is no trademark issue.

Some of the shows with more ballsy management just use whatever real products make sense. For instance, in the Sopranos a couple of years ago, Tony was in a death struggle with a guy and sprayed him in the face with a can of Raid, with the label prominently visible. Then he smashed his head on the floor and dismembered him in the bath. Is there any possibility that the company would have allowed that if they had the power to deny it? And in the movies, consider Supersize Me. McDonalds products and trademarks used in every scene, most certainly without permission. Shows avoid trademarked goods more because they don't want conflict with paid product placement and advertising.