Blatant product placement in TV/ movies...

[momrek06]

You're absolutely correct!

I knew it!!!


Thanks, Robin!!!

 

[kaytieeldr]

And I heard that Mars lost out because those were supposed to be M&Ms (instead of the Hershey Reese's Pieces).

agnes!

M&M/Mars "lost out" because they didn't want to be connected with the movie if it flopped

 

[agnes!]

M&M/Mars "lost out" because they didn't want to be connected with the movie if it flopped

The Mars family does have a certain reputation of being 'quirky'...

agnes!

 

[bicker]

I know that product placement has been around for ages, but I've noticed that it's really getting rediculous lately!

Here's one reason why:

Advertisers have been worried for years that their message is actually not getting through to the folks who they thought they were having their message presented to, and it is becoming inescapably obvious that commercial avoidance of all forms (not just fast-forwarding over commercials using a DVR) is a significant factor.

 

[bicker]

Not everyone owns a DVR.

True, but a lot of people do, and more are switching to DVRs every day. TiVo has recently provided advertisers with new, highly-reliable measures for commercial skipping (fast-forwarding). That's prompted a lot of this concern.

And those old stand-by's, trips to the bathroom, trips to the kitchen, and channel surfing, also still have their impact, and what's happening now is that advertisers are both becoming more attuned to what the possible impact of even these long-standing commercial avoidance measures could be, and more sensitive to whether they're getting a good value for their money.

My feeling is that, even putting aside the impact of the DVRs, advertisers have been scammed by the system for years. There are surely exceptions, but I think by-and-large, television advertising has been overpriced for the value delivered, for a number of decades, actually, and the situation is not only getting worse, but getting worse fast. Going back to before the economic down-turn, network television saw a 2.5% drop in advertising revenues. [Nielsen Media; data for 2007] Of course, the drop was even worse during the economic down-turn, but will it recover now that the economy is recovering? Well "recovering" back to a 2.5% drop per year wouldn't really be good news anyway, but there is nothing that would lead us to even such an optimistic prediction. Chances are that advertising revenues (attributable to commercials) are actually in a free-fall without much regard to the economy.

Product placement helps replace some of that revenue, but only a portion. And product placement has some substantial limitations: Richard Cypher, lead character on the syndicated Legend of the Seeker, cannot be seen sucking down a Coca-cola, or buying a new horse from the local Toyota dealership. (I could make a joke about Kahlan Amnell and Victoria's Secret, but it's probably not a good fit for this forum. ) So we're actually going to see a lot of other things happen in addition to more product placement: The networks have already given up on Saturday nights, and of the Big 4 only CBS is really putting a lot of effort into Friday night. There was an article a few days ago about "the networks trying to recover Friday night" but that was a bit of yellow journalism -- the headline was a pipe dream. The article basically underscored all the reasons why even CBS may abandon Friday night soon.

We've also seen a network toy with the idea of abandoning 10PM. Keep in mind that one of the Big 4 has never even attempted to program 10PM on a regular basis. NBC's attempt to "have their cake and eat it too" failed, but a lot of folks celebrating that fail to realize that NBC would have no problem if they simply elected to turn that hour over to their affiliates, just like Fox does. The substantive (i.e., meaningful) objections to The Jay Leno Show at 10PM were from NBC's affiliates, who would love nothing more than to run the late local news at 10PM Eastern followed the Tonight Show at 10:35PM. The viewer whining was essentially just noise, and of no consequence.

We've also seen the ascendancy of unscripted television. For over a decade, curmudgeons have been pompously declaring that the time of reality television is over. Yeah, right. It grows stronger, over time, not weaker.

 

[RadioFanatic]

For some reason, I don't mind it so much in Reality shows, but I was REALLY ticked off the other night when I was watching "Bones". Two girls were driving in a Toyota mini-van (yes they named it), neither of whom would EVER be caught dead in one in real life. One asked the other why she had one. The driver said because she needs the room because she is "an artist sweetie" and also because she is horrible parallel parker and the video camera "is the best invention EVER!" I was so annoyed I almost turned off the show.

 

[momrek06]

True, but a lot of people do, and more are switching to DVRs every day. TiVo has recently provided advertisers with new, highly-reliable measures for commercial skipping (fast-forwarding). That's prompted a lot of this concern.

And those old stand-by's, trips to the bathroom, trips to the kitchen, and channel surfing, also still have their impact, and what's happening now is that advertisers are both becoming more attuned to what the possible impact of even these long-standing commercial avoidance measures could be, and more sensitive to whether they're getting a good value for their money.

My feeling is that, even putting aside the impact of the DVRs, advertisers have been scammed by the system for years. There are surely exceptions, but I think by-and-large, television advertising has been overpriced for the value delivered, for a number of decades, actually, and the situation is not only getting worse, but getting worse fast. Going back to before the economic down-turn, network television saw a 2.5% drop in advertising revenues. [Nielsen Media; data for 2007] Of course, the drop was even worse during the economic down-turn, but will it recover now that the economy is recovering? Well "recovering" back to a 2.5% drop per year wouldn't really be good news anyway, but there is nothing that would lead us to even such an optimistic prediction. Chances are that advertising revenues (attributable to commercials) are actually in a free-fall without much regard to the economy.

Product placement helps replace some of that revenue, but only a portion. And product placement has some substantial limitations: Richard Cypher, lead character on the syndicated Legend of the Seeker, cannot be seen sucking down a Coca-cola, or buying a new horse from the local Toyota dealership. (I could make a joke about Kahlan Amnell and Victoria's Secret, but it's probably not a good fit for this forum. ) So we're actually going to see a lot of other things happen in addition to more product placement: The networks have already given up on Saturday nights, and of the Big 4 only CBS is really putting a lot of effort into Friday night. There was an article a few days ago about "the networks trying to recover Friday night" but that was a bit of yellow journalism -- the headline was a pipe dream. The article basically underscored all the reasons why even CBS may abandon Friday night soon.

We've also seen a network toy with the idea of abandoning 10PM. Keep in mind that one of the Big 4 has never even attempted to program 10PM on a regular basis. NBC's attempt to "have their cake and eat it too" failed, but a lot of folks celebrating that fail to realize that NBC would have no problem if they simply elected to turn that hour over to their affiliates, just like Fox does. The substantive (i.e., meaningful) objections to The Jay Leno Show at 10PM were from NBC's affiliates, who would love nothing more than to run the late local news at 10PM Eastern followed the Tonight Show at 10:35PM. The viewer whining was essentially just noise, and of no consequence.

We've also seen the ascendancy of unscripted television. For over a decade, curmudgeons have been pompously declaring that the time of reality television is over. Yeah, right. It grows stronger, over time, not weaker.

Great post, bicker!

For some reason, I don't mind it so much in Reality shows, but I was REALLY ticked off the other night when I was watching "Bones". Two girls were driving in a Toyota mini-van (yes they named it), neither of whom would EVER be caught dead in one in real life. One asked the other why she had one. The driver said because she needs the room because she is "an artist sweetie" and also because she is horrible parallel parker and the video camera "is the best invention EVER!" I was so annoyed I almost turned off the show.

BUT you didn't and hence "product placement" is working!

 

[happygirl]

I think Biggest Loser is the worst by far.

 

[bicker]

For some reason, I don't mind it so much in Reality shows, but I was REALLY ticked off the other night when I was watching "Bones". Two girls were driving in a Toyota mini-van (yes they named it), neither of whom would EVER be caught dead in one in real life. One asked the other why she had one. The driver said because she needs the room because she is "an artist sweetie" and also because she is horrible parallel parker and the video camera "is the best invention EVER!" I was so annoyed I almost turned off the show.

Okay a few corrections/clarifications. First, I don't see any reason why Brennan wouldn't be "caught dead" driving the minivan in "real" life. She's very practical, and having a place where you can carry your canvases, easels, and such (or, in Brennan's case, digging implements and such) makes rational sense. (I agree with you that Montenegro, the actual owner of the minivan, would likely not be "caught dead" driving it in "real" life.) Second, the quote is, "... because I'm an artist (comma) sweetie." The "sweetie" is the way Montenegro regularly refers to Brennan -- someone not familiar with the show would not know that and would get a completely different message from that quote than you perhaps intended. Third, it was obvious that it was product placement, but I don't think it was that distracting. It surely was a bit distracting but just enough for the placement to register as an advertisement so that you'd be prompted to think about your own needs for a minivan, etc. If product placement is too subtle, then it won't have enough impact.

 

[ead79]

I agree that product placement can be pretty irritating. I also think it can be done well and in a way that's not bothersome, but lately it seems more "in your face" than it used to.

Bicker, as an aside, can I ask you what you think of the new TiVo? We're having a couple of problems with our TiVo HD, so if DH can't troubleshoot it sufficiently, we're thinking of getting the new one. Do you know if it can act as an amp?

 

[surfergirl602]

Biggest loser is the worst. LOL

 

[bicker]

The new TiVo Premiere is not really that much different in function than the old TiVo HD. The menus are in HD and there are several other technical and performance improvements, but it isn't a substantially different device.

Most notably (and the reason why I don't have one), it doesn't support tru2way.

 

[bambii]

the first show that acually showed a real product before that is was a fake name they showed a cerriors box..

i dont mind product placement i cannot stand the commericals being three times as loud as the tv shows..

 

[goofy!]

Not everyone owns a DVR.

I actually read an article about this not too long ago. While not everybody has a DVR, enough people do and it is starting to significantly impact commercials.

So, at least according to the article I read, the PP is absolutely correct. The increase in product placement in shows is in part directly related to the popularity of DVRs.

It is also due to the fact that studies have shown there is more product awareness during an interesting program than during commercials. 43% more people remembered a product placement than a commercial.

The article said that we would see more and more of the product placements in the near future.

 

[nashville_minnie]

the first show that acually showed a real product before that is was a fake name they showed a cerriors box..

i dont mind product placement i cannot stand the commericals being three times as loud as the tv shows..

i totally agree with the volume on the commercials!! this is one of the main reasons why we got a DVR & now record everything before we watch it, so we can fast forward through the annoyingly loud commercials!!

and yes, Biggest Loser is hugely obvious with all of its product placements - especially Extra sugar free gum! Oh yes, who would eat cookies or ice cream when there is a beautifully enticing bowl of Extra Sugar Free gum out on the counter??? mmmmhmmmmm.

 

[PlainJane]

For some reason, I don't mind it so much in Reality shows, but I was REALLY ticked off the other night when I was watching "Bones". Two girls were driving in a Toyota mini-van (yes they named it), neither of whom would EVER be caught dead in one in real life. One asked the other why she had one. The driver said because she needs the room because she is "an artist sweetie" and also because she is horrible parallel parker and the video camera "is the best invention EVER!" I was so annoyed I almost turned off the show.

I was going to mention "Bones." They do that a lot, and it's always obvious. A season or so ago they had Camille commenting on how "roomy" Angela's Toyota Matrix was. I know they've mentioned the car Booth drives too.

 

[OK!]

This reminds me of the movie "...And God Spoke," the scene where Soupy Sales is playing Moses delivering the Ten Commandments.

"What...? What is that? CUT! ...What the hell is wrong with this guy? Why is he carrying a six-pack?"
"Some of the support I got was from Coca-Cola, with the agreement that we'd put some of the product in the film."
"No way! You can't be serious! Moses cannot come down off the plateau after having a conversation with the Almighty and be carrying a six-pack of Coke!"