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.'"
I don't know in which world you live, but in the world here, I see Apple products quite often (especially ipods and iphones, but lots of laptops as well). I'd have almost go as far as to say the "product placement" rate of Apple products in movies and TV-series is not that far of of reality. In my world, about half the people I know that have laptops, have Apple Laptops... in films, about half the laptops are Dell and the other half Apple. Sounds right (at least for the Apple part).
Of course, my world is probably different than yours because of the type of work we do, because our social circles are different, because, because, because...
But most importantly, in my world, no one cares enough about this to be distracted of a good (or bad) movie or TV-series because someone is using a mac instead of a PC or is drinking Pepsi instead of water.
Especially if the thing in question is mostly used as a prop... who care. Some times, they really rub it in and put totally awkward angles in just to place a product. There, I would agree that the placement is killing the art. But most of the time, it flows in... so why care?
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.
You will feel better to know that even if a movie makes millions they somehow end up breaking even or posting a loss due to creative accounting, and thus they are rarely taxed as much as they should be.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
While I hate to dilute your evaluation of my intelligence, or to contradict your quaint belief that anyone who disagrees with you must be a member of the peanut gallery (fucking people, how dare they have a different take on something), perhaps I can clarify my point for you.
The whole point of a market is that a willing buyer purchases a good or a service from a willing seller. Neither party uses force or deception.
When I am the buyer, I do not wish to pay for the privilege of watching an advertisement. I am unconcerned with whether you agree with that, approve of it, think it's a great idea, etc. You are free to spend your money that you earn as you see fit and you won't hear a word about that from me. It is yours.
Regarding the money that I earned, the money that is mine, I do not wish to purchase a movie with advertisements. It is only by a failure to disclose what I am actually buying, which is a form of deception, that anyone could get me to pay money for a movie that has advertisements. Had I known more about the movie I would not have purchased it. Again, this is about the freedom to decide not to patronize a business with which you disagree.
As a customer, I have every right to choose not to purchase something for any reason or for no reason at all, with or without explanation. I really don't care if you would make the same decision because you did not work to earn my money. It is the lack of disclosure that is at issue here.
If product placements are such a legitimate, good, useful, value-added practice, why are the marketers ashamed to disclose them up-front? If they have other sources of revenue from the movie, why do they charge the same full price as other movies that do not have the additional sources of revenue? They are double-dipping and as a customer I don't wish to reward this practice. If you do, that is your prerogative. It would never occur to me to insult your intelligence for having a different take on this matter, but then, I don't have the type of insecurity that makes me feel threatened by those who disagree with me. I don't know how to make it any simpler.
You think I regard this as an Apple issue? Oh, I get it. You took it upon yourself to automatically assume that I have a big problem with Apple's product placements but that I have no problem with say, Coke or Pepsi or Microsoft. I certainly never made such a claim. Your assumption is faulty. I don't care to pay full price for any movie that contains any form of real-world advertising. My position would remain the same no matter who topped the product-placement charts. That's because my position is based on principle, not on my feelings about a particular company.
For someone who is so quick to call others stupid, you certainly have no problem making unfounded assumptions.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I understand the desire to use movies to advertise products via product placement, but the MacBook Air sitting on the desk in The King's Speech was going a bit far.
But that's just my opinion.
You are welcome on my lawn.