Slashdot Mirror
Apple Deemed Top of Movie Product Placement Charts
adeelarshad82 writes "Apple was deemed top of the product placement charts last week after getting its computers, iPads, iPods and other items featured in 30 percent of the top movies at the U.S. box office in 2010. Apple had roles in movies last year ranging from 'Kick Ass' to 'The Other Guys' and 'Toy Story 3.' The strategy is obviously not a new one for Apple; they've had successful product placements in a number of TV Shows and movies over the last three decades like 'Star Trek IV,' 'Batman & Robin' and 'Dexter.'"
Really. Take your stuff for the lesser-brain-evolved people from my screen. If I want to watch a commercial for an overpriced product that will make sure I'm in a vendorlock I go to youtube and watch that commercial. Funny enough, I never had the wish to do so. So take your shitty commercials for your shitty products out of my great movies. *wow that feels good, I guess it was bothering me.*
Lol... Apple is lying.
And yet they're the top of the product placement charts. Products don't accidentally wind up on film very often, if at all. There's entire departments dedicated to making sure that no products are in a film without the permission of the trademark owner. It's gotten absurd, but at this point you can't make a film and assume that because a product logo is out of focus and not recognizable that it's going to be OK to include the prop.
Consequently, they might deny it, but I wouldn't trust them, they're not that ignorant as to not notice how many of their products are being used in these films.
It's nice to see Dexter mentioned here. Season five was awesome and I hope they keep the pacing similar for season six. Lumen was one of the better leading ladies for Dexter... I hope she sticks around.
What any of this has to do with Apple doesn't matter. Good companies will continue to do product placement and stop doing commercials that suck, focus on commercials that are awesome, but not too strong for repeated play.
The good thing about Apple's placement in Dexter is it's so basic and it's a part of his routine. I think it adds to Apple's target market because Dexter isn't a nerdy hipster... he's nerdy but he's a fucking serial killer that doesn't care too much about fashion or stupid musical groups, or his state of social presentation. He's fucking cool and he doesn't really give a shit about that stuff. I think that helps Apple to connect with a new audience.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
More correctly he was sued for not sharing his profit with studio while working for them
They beat Cisco and all their phone placement?
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Im getting a Pear
At first i thought it was a clever little play on tech, because the studio execs wanted to avoid trademark infringement, but theres actually marketing for Pear
Before clicking on the link I suspected the parent post was total nonsense, but yes slashdot, to save your blushes I went and checked it out anyway.
I said "a fiver says this is either a rick roll or a goatse, the story comment just reeks of a teenage urban legend and he has a 7 digit UID that starts with a 2, there is no way this is legit"
So, if you like huge assholes or are a fan of prolapsed rectums, by all means click on the disguised link.
I'm pretty sure you don't need permission to show someone's product in your film. Films are considered works of art, and I'm pretty sure are covered under the artistic license clause of fair use.
The Office is a good example - they accept paid product placement dollars, but also just put brand names in where it makes sense. They show them drinking a local Pennsylvania soda, for instance. And, in a Christmas episode, an iPod was a white elephant gift. Neither company paid for the advertising.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Apple's product placement has gotten out of hand in recent years. Everywhere in coffee shops, airports, college campuses, and libraries you see the glowing Apple logo. The shareholders should really ask tough questions why Apple is wasting so much money paying these people to use their products.
The worst example of product placement is probably at the malls. They have this giant space allocated for the sole purpose of flaunting the shining logo filled to the brim with Apple-only computer gear. Yes, the Apple store is the mother of all product placements. And these stores are full of people who are paid by the company to stand there and fiddle with MacBooks and iPads.
Dell, Gateway and HP would never do something like this. They're ethical when it comes to clean competition.
DOJ needs to investigate.
Nobody in Hollywood is going to give you free commercial time in their big productions. And especially not in 30% of all movies! Hell, nobody in Hollywood will give you anything free for that matter. These adds costs millions. And they cost millions because they know who the audience of a certain movie/show will be. A great way to get your product to the people that would buy it.
Both could be true. As long as a trademark isn't portrayed in a way that might negatively influence the perception of the product, it's legit to use. I've heard that Apple has a public position that they are very lenient on this, whereas most other computer companies don't. If true, then Apple effectively gets product placement (if measured by number of appearances, as in TFA) without formally negotiating product placement (which is what Apple is claiming). They're just a safe choice for a recognizable computer, and it's a clever strategy.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
More specifically, Apple does not pay to have their products placed. They do, however, provide the hardware free-of-charge. There is a distinction there, but it's probably too subtle for most people here.
Here is the original article by brandchannel in case you are interested in seeing the rest. I thought I would be, but after skimming it I changed my mind.
Exactly. I see a gradient:
Apple isn't lying about anything. They don't pay for product placement. They do however have people who's job it is to lend Apple products as props to film and TV companies. And they are quite open about it.
So, where the plot or set dressing requires computers or phones, they will often be Apples. They look cool and cost the production company nothing. But what you won't see is scenes, plot and dialog specifically created to showcase Apple products, as you do in the GP's example of a "Bing It!" scene in Hawaii Five-0.
It's amazing that despite Apple not paying for product placement, they are still at the top of the product placement charts. But that's just testament to the fact that their products look better than their competitors, and film and TV companies want things that look good.
For the most part I don't care what product placement bollocks they various parties get up to: they get the ability to advertise at me, and I get the right to ignore either the movie or the advert (often the former if the movie is Hollywood drivel). However I do take issue when it becomes intrusive. One of our Aussie TV networks thought it would be good to insert their own advert into a CSI episode. So, they waited for one of the "through the microscope" shots and replaced the entire circular slide image with a Web 2.0 style button advert for some other upcoming show. Rude bastards. Only ever saw it once so I'm guessing I wasn't the only one that complained.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
For someone that never once used the computer in the entire history of the show, Jerry sure had a lot of different Macs pretty. He even had the twentieth anniversary edition.
When he rebooted and I heard the Mac Chime... a part of me laughed at the recognition, and my other part was sort-of annoyed at being distracted from the movie.
The fact that the people making the movies tend to use Macs so they just happen to be laying all over the place probably doesn't have anything to do with it ... does it?
I'm sure they pay for placement, but when most of the crew has a mac to work on, its not surpassing to see them used in the work they produce.
If you were making a movie and you hand your Linux laptop handy, you wouldn't just use it rather than going through a bunch of effort to find something else? Would you put a Dell running Windows in the movie instead?
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It doesn't move products. Why does anyone care?
Frankly I'd be afraid of the IT manager that purchased Oracle kit because it was in Iron Man 2.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
But that's just testament to the fact that their products look better than their competitors, and film and TV companies want things that look good.
Indeed, I've seen a lot of Apple "product placement" where they've placed circular silver stickers over the Apple logo on the back of the screens.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
I don't mind product placement when done well. One of the best examples I can remember is Dell in V for Vendetta. The only way it is placed is that the computers the cops use have Dell logos on them, rather than none. It isn't featured or highlighted in any way, the computers are where you'd expect them to be and they aren't used to call attention to themselves. They just happen to be a real brand of computers. There would be computers in the scene anyhow, probably black ones since it fits the motif, there are just small logos on these as in a real office. It actually makes it seem more realistic.
However more often it is obnoxious. The product is shown off, put in your face, featured in a way it wouldn't otherwise be. A good example is the Converse shoes in I Robot. While the general idea of buying an old product fit with the character, it was clear that scene was specifically written for those shoes. It was to shove them in your face and make people want to go buy them (they were released with the movie). It was annoying, intrusive, advertising.
In the case of Oracle and Iron Man 2 it may not have been product placement in the classic sense. In some cases a director wants a real product, because they feel it is more realistic, and they have the producers work with the company for the rights.
However for consumer gadgets, it absolutely works. The reason Apple does it is they want to create this image that everyone uses Apple. They want it to seem like Apple products are everywhere, and all the cool successful people use them. Well in the real world you don't see this. You see lots of Macbooks in coffee shops but in an office you see Dells or HPs or whatever. So they work it with product placement. You see Macs all over TV and movies, in office environments where they normally are not.
Now you can argue it shouldn't influence people, but it does. They see it and subconsciously feel like it is a product that is everywhere so maybe they should have one.
There seems to be a lot of anger being cast towards Apple and other vendors but really, who can blame them? It's the producers and developing of the movies that are creating the advertising opportunities and looking for additional sources of revenue. Of course they are going to pay for an opportunity to get their products on screen and into the hands of the actors. I'm not saying it right but it is perfectly understandable.
I think that was a joke. While I'm sure they worked out a deal with Apple, because they'd have to for licensing reasons, I doubt Apple went looking to put that in there. More likely the director knew it would be funny to people and decided to put it in. Wall-e needed to do something when he rebooted, and given that it was a comedy that thing should be funny. He figured that was just the thing.
Exactly. This just pisses off the haters on Slashdot even more. Apple's products are so good that people want to make use of them in movies and TV shows.
I wouldn't call that "successful". The mouse couldn't accept voice commands, and thus looked out-of-date.
Table-ized A.I.
Metal Gear Solid 4 featured an iPod.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/05/mgs4_ipod1.jpg
-]Phreak Out[-
It would be interesting to really know how much of that is actual product placement. I would have to guess anything that appears in recent movies is undoubtedly product placement. However, Apple products have been in movies for a long time, decades as noted by the OP.
I think many of the glimpses of Apple products we've seen in the past is largely due to the fact that those 'hollywood types' personally use Apple, as well as Apple being prominent in their industrial. In other words, Apple is in the movies because Apple is in that culture.
But I can't Imagine that is the chief reason we see Apple now days. Hollywood knows the value of screen time and they'll charge for it.
Now I've seen Everything
...most creative types make the media we consume, from tv, movies, magazines, newspapers, online videos, pamplets... just about anything.
When producing a piece of media, whenever a "computer" is needed for a prop, the company isn't going to buy a computer to be a prop, they just grab one of the machines in the office, which, in most creative businesses, happens to be a Mac with/without the Apple logo covered/removed in post-production.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Did anyone NOT know this already? Seriously, it seems like every ad, TV show or movie I see, they are using Apple computers or products. Honestly, I realised this quite a while ago. It does frustrate me though, as it seems completely disproportionate to the percentage of people who actually own these products.
I'm a physicist and engineer working not in liberal arts but in *gasp* aerospace engineering. I now worked on two continents and this proportion seems about right in both place, especially since many people switched over to mac laptops in the last 24 months (maybe product placement made is wonders, who knows).
But as I said, I am aware there is not one unique trend in the world and what I leave by no means is or should be representative of what everyone lives. The product acceptance is very uneven geographically. It may just be "luck" that I know so many people who owns mac product.
In the end, my point was that you can't go on saying that what is shown in movies does not represent the real world (ref to the post to which I replied) based on your own personal point of view of that world. What if most people working on films sets, scripting them and writing them are mostly liberal art majors? With 90% of their colleagues using macs? Just a thought.
Hope my point was easier to catch this time...
So is any laptop/desktop/netbook running Windows or Linux - both will do so at about half the cost and if you feel like running up an emulator to play a few retrogames when the movie is done, you can do that also.
So your point is precisely what? That the iPad is a great multimedia device but so locked down you can't always do what you want to do with it, despite its premium price?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
... for example, in a homosexual porn movie where a rich young man is being fisted by a Steve Jobs lookalike, then Apple product placement would be entirely appropriate.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
How can Apple have "stolen" what was never there in the first place?
In the USA, Macs have about 8% of the desktop market, in Europe it's much less - I'm not sure what the Linux penetration is, probably less, but despite using predominantly Linux on my desktops. I don't care anyway. I use what's appropriate for the task I need to do, sometimes even Windows, I don't need approval from my peers or have a desire to ram what I use down everyone else's throats.
Incidentally, before crowing about UNIX, I wonder how many of you Apple people ever venture to the command line and actually embrace the power of the UNIX that you are running? How many of you know how to create powerful custom automisation scripts using Perl, or indeed commands like sed? awk?
Most of you take UNIX to mean "not Windows" just so you have a reason to feel a bit exclusive without having to spend any time learning the power of a UNIX system like those of us who *REALLY* know UNIX do.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Was this the same Apple computer that was capable of dealing with an impossible IP address?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
So, where the plot or set dressing requires computers or phones, they will often be Apples.
And this differs from product placement precisely how?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Anyone else absolutely despise movie/TV show product placement?
Even if most movies these days are trash, loading the few potential "classics" down with coca-cola addicted characters and cameras lingering 10 seconds on computers after the actors have left the shot inevitably cheapen the whole experience.
It won't be long before they actually write the advertised items into the plot.
if you are noticing the product placement in a movie one would have to suspect that the movie was not enjoyable.
Really, if product placement stands out then I doubt the movie has a compelling story and is not worth watching in the first place. Its like Mystery Science Theater 3K, they start picking things apart because the movie as a whole is so bad that it becomes a process of anything goes. Now a special exception seems to be cars, people excuse specific cars from showing up; meaning a hot car is permitted regardless.
Product placement is far more rampant during prime time television.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Rumor has it that Star Trek IV was to originally use an Amiga in the transparent aluminum scene, but Commodore would not loan the studio a computer. Apple, however was happy to. As you all know, the Amiga was a superior, less expensive product, just marketed much more poorly. :-)
They don't pay. And thus the plot or look of the show/film isn't compromised for the sake of hidden advertising.
I believe Cisco paid heavily to have their products placed in "24". I wasn't aware of the plot being compromised because there happened to a visible Cisco logo when Jack Bauer was talking on a phone.
You are a fanboi, you are trying to argue semantics where there are none.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
I believe Cisco paid heavily to have their products placed in "24". I wasn't aware of the plot being compromised because there happened to a visible Cisco logo when Jack Bauer was talking on a phone.
Your example of a plot not being compromised in no way provides evidence that other shows are not compromised. Earlier in the thread another poster already gave an example of such a compromised scene.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfHuZ5qrYX4
You are a fanboi, you are trying to argue semantics where there are none.
And if I wanted to be equally lame, I could call you a "h8r". But it would be as pointless as your name calling. What I said is true, if you don't like it that's a shame for you. But it doesn't reflect badly on me.
I suggest that you need to think more carefully about context, rather than trying to desparately grope for some reasoning behind your rabid fanboi-ism.
It is one thing to have sat down and watched an entire episode of "24" and recall that you saw a Cisco phone in it - indeed, I even recall seeing an Apple logo or two on one of their laptops. (Incidentally, had Cisco paid for placement but Apple hadn't, don't you think that would have caused a bit of a stink somewhere along the line?)
However, having your attention drawn to a placement in a YouTube video called "Hawaii Five-0 Product Placement" is not contextually the same thing and therefore an unfair comparison. In other words, had I seen the entire Hawaii Five-O episode and then been asked questions about the intrusiveness of any product placement, it would be fair to expect that I, and many people, would give different responses than watching the actual clip directly.
Don't bother with the name-calling from your end either - it doesn't stick & how it reflects on you is entirely your own business, not mine.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...most creative types make the media we consume, from tv, movies, magazines, newspapers, online videos, pamplets... just about anything.
Don't be an idiot, please! That's about the same as me buying a paintbrush, some paints and an easel and calling myself an artist.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Bear in mind, that sort of intrusive product placement is nothing new; it was done in early radio as well as television. George Burns and Gracie Allen would be having some conversation when a neighbor would wander by and start telling them excitedly about how much whiter her husband's shirts came out since she started using new Spud! laundry detergent or whatever.
Then of course there's the infamous Flintstones cigarette ad...
Ever seen Moonstruck? The champagne was product placement. Pepsi in Back to the Future, Product placement is a huge business with brokers and agents. It's all over and it's been there for a long time. As long as a character doesn't start touting the features of the product like Bones in her Prius, I don't really mind.
Product placement of any kind is aggravating, just like any other kind of advertisement. It poisons the mind and distracts from the movie. Can't you settle for less expensive sets and effects and instead, you know, write better scripts? But no, it wouldn't be a proper movie without at least 3 exploding trucks and 53 car chases, brought to you by Nokia, like in the last Star Trek movie.
In the beautiful words of David Lynch: total fucking bullshit.
But what you won't see is scenes, plot and dialog specifically created to showcase Apple products, as you do in the GP's example of a "Bing It!" scene in Hawaii Five-0.
I like the show "Bones". Yeah, I have to close my eyes and plug my ears any time they do anything with computers, but it's still a fun show to watch.
But they have the most annoying product placement anywhere. For example, Angela and Tempe are driving down a road. Angela is distracted by their conversation and the car drifts into the oncoming lane. It beeps loudly at her.
Thanks for un-suspending my disbelief.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Just sounds like gibberish to me. I think what you are trying to say is something like "Mac users don't care about specs".
The whole "Mac users don't understand technology" meme is absurd and annoying.
There are lots of Mac users out there that know more about computers than you do. Visualize those people the next time you are tempted to write something silly like "they don't know how to upgrade".
Business ventures should not be taxed. Taxes are about accounting, letting people know the cost of government services so they know whether or not they're getting what they pay for. You don't want people to think they're getting a free ride when they're not. Businesses aren't really people, and they don't have feelings, and even if they did, they can't vote. It makes no sense to tax businesses unless your intention is to hide the cost of government services from the people who are ultimately paying for them.
Remember that space craft was fully loaded, power windows, nuclear missile, and Mac power adapter.
Fight Spammers!
Wow, this has to be one of the most inane replies I have read in a while. Just wanted to comment on that.
Regarding the debate (can we even call it that?) I am afraid that BasilBrush is doing much better than you, pandrijeczko. Or are you honestly claiming that you hear enough people say "Bing it" on a daily basis that this would not stick out as an odd turn of phrase?
And therein lies the problem with the referenced clip. Hawaii 5-0 is attempting to tell stories set in our modern world. As such, anything that does *not* accurately reflect the current world draws the audience out of the story. This is storytelling 101. This scene would have run much more smoothly if the phrase was "google it," which is actually a common phrase.
So, substituting "bing it" actually does compromise the story from a purely mechanical standpoint. It is poor writing and would never have been written, unless someone is being paid to put it in (and worsen the story).
At any rate, the point here is that the story is compromised by the ad. Pure and simple. It is hard to argue otherwise.
Also, please *please* don't point out that I mentioned "stories" and you were discussing "plot." I am making the leap of faith that you are able to grasp the similarities of these two points.
To add to your point number 3, it is also common for colleges in the US to mess with their schedules and only offer certain classes during certain semesters. This causes requisite classes to be held during conflicting times, so the student must wait an entire year to take a required class just because of timing. Since taking the time off from studies will affect student loans, financial aid, and their degree plan, they end up wasting time taking classes that aren't needed.
My point is that just because it took 6 years to finish a degree, doesn't necessarily mean that the student is stupid. It could mean that the school they went to decided to screw over their students in order to maximize profits. Not that I'm bitter about it or anything...
I didn't know there even was a new Hawaii 5-0 show out, but I can't help but think how funny and realistic it would be if the person told to "Bing it!" would reply something like "What?! Do you mean Google it? Who the heck uses Bing?"
You've met him. Judging from your general attitude, I feel pretty confident saying that I know more about computers than you do. I design them for a living. I probably designed something in the computer you are using right now. I know how it works from the transistor up.
I've owned every kind of mobile device that one can imagine over the last 20 years. I've been tinkering with every kind of computer since I was a kid. I used to love to tinker on all my devices. Now I work for a living--debugging deeply technical issues all day long. My phone, I want it to work. My laptop--I want it to work. I've developed an appreciation for good hardware and software design through years of doing both--Apple puts a lot of effort into both.
I can understand someone wanting something to tinker with--I have a box full of robot parts for whenever the mood strikes. I hack in several different languages on my Linux box and I find that stimulating. But what I don't do is look down my nose at people who don't want to do that, or at least don't want to do that 24 hours a day.
your rabid fanboi-ism.... Don't bother with the name-calling from your end either
You've lost this exchange on so many levels.
Not always . Just need to look closely
Usually the Mac computer is the one they thrust in your face , but the pc is the one doing the work.
eg on Houses desk (against the wall) , thats a pc , they never show you its screen ,(well very rarely) it just sits there brooding darkly when the bright apple with logo glowing is thrust repetitively in your face. (this is sometimes used on the desk facing the door)
Sounds like apples are penis enlargers (a la ferrari)