Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
Enjoy a cold, cool Colt 45™ as you point your Powerbook™ to John Hood's analysis of the backlash against product placement, which is almost as incisive as an X-Acto™ brand knife.
Sandy|11.22.05 @ 3:04PM|#
When Peter Parker shot out his webbing and snagged that can
of Dr. Pepper a few years ago in Spider-Man, it seems that
impressionable movie audiences across the country suffered
deleterious consequences
Like the belief that drinking Dr. Pepper will cause a mutant freak
to shoot his excreted temporary limbs at you to steal your drink?
Perhaps that's why I loved the movie but somehow managed to keep
drinking Diet Coke(TM) (or nowadays Coke Zero and Diet Coke with
Splenda).
|11.22.05 @ 3:07PM|#
"The FTC has essentially endorsed the deceptive and
dishonest practices of the product placement industry," said
Consumer Alert executive director Gary Ruskin, "and turned its back
on children who are suffering from an epidemic of marketing-related
diseases like obesity and type 2 diabetes."
Oh for the love of...
By this rationale you might as well ban ALL advertising. Surely an
overt commerical plug has to be far more influencial (and ergo,
more dangerous) than a three second shot of a brand-name candy bar
or mini-van in a movie or tv show.
|11.22.05 @ 3:10PM|#
If we could move to a la carte cable, the next step would be
requiring (yes, by the govt) content providers to offer
non-commercial versions of their content for an appropriate fee. I
think I would prefer this if, as I beleive it will, technology
improves to make implementation fairly simple.
It would have interesting effects though on product placement -
people could be more descriminate with their choices, but the
relative incentive to leverage additioanly revenue would surely
increase.
|11.22.05 @ 3:12PM|#
Coke Zero...
I tried this crap a couple of weeks ago to find out if it really
did taste like Classic Coke as the ads claim. Gag me. I am yet to
find a diet soda that isn't bland going down and doesn't have a
nasty, bitter aftertaste.
Don't even get me started on (Ick!) Diet Coke.
|11.22.05 @ 3:12PM|#
Ah, the old saw, "Corporations spend millions of dollars on
advertising that doesn't have any influence on consumers. Now hands
off, or you'll bankrupt us!"
And, of course, the tired "brought to you from the people who..."
beginning.
Yawn.
|11.22.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Ah, the old saw, "Corporations spend millions of dollars on
advertising that doesn't have any influence on consumers. Now hands
off, or you'll bankrupt us!"...
Versus the old "Consumers are mindless puppets who will dance to
the advertising strings of Evil Inc. who want to cheat and/or kill
their customers for wads of filthy, capitalist profit. Write your
Senator, people learning about products they may want to buy is
bad!"
|11.22.05 @ 3:26PM|#
I am amazed that... Hold on please, I have a thirst that must be
quenched...
Slurp, "mmmmmm, Diet Dr Pepper, how do you taste so good!?""
Now, where was I?
|11.22.05 @ 3:29PM|#
"The public needs to know when they're being advertised to."
Huh? Cuz we're that fucking stupid? More elitist attitude from the
left.
"You can't possibly be smart enough for your own good, so us smart,
educated folks will tell you when and how to think."
Fuck 'em.
|11.22.05 @ 3:32PM|#
Akira,
I've enjoyed Diet Dr Pepper and Diet Vanilla Coke as diets without
the noticeable "diet"ness.
David Nieporent|11.22.05 @ 3:32PM|#
Ah, the old saw, "Corporations spend millions of dollars on
advertising that doesn't have any influence on consumers. Now hands
off, or you'll bankrupt us!"
Ah, the old Joe, "Distort what was said until it says something
completely different."
|11.22.05 @ 3:33PM|#
joe, I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. To
believe that the goal being pursued by the people who want to
regulate product placement is a worthy one, you have to believe
that people are mindless automatons who respond to product
placement in ways several times more Pavlovian than they would ever
respond to actual paid advertisements.
Nobody here is claiming that advertising has no effect; they're
claiming that product placement is not exactly a shortcut to the
brain's "Buy me now! NOW!" center.
|11.22.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Sorry Jason. It has been a lingering thought from a related, I
thought, issue. A la carte cable, the idea that you have the
ability to pay of ronly the cable channels that you want is I think
a good idea. A similar concept that has been swimming around in my
head is requiring choice in (television) content: having the
ability to view something for free with advertising, or for an
appropriate price, without advertisements.
Out of curiousity, does anyone know if the iTunes ABC programs for
a dollar retain commercials?
I thought it was related in how it would effect the topic of this
post and a more general rethinking of the realtionship between
content and advertising.
|11.22.05 @ 3:33PM|#
Advertising works! How else to explain my decision to hump the carpet at the DC area gathering a few Saturdays ago?
|11.22.05 @ 3:36PM|#
Sharp writing. As sharp, tangy and delicious as KRAFT Extra
Sharp Cheddar Cheese. Yum! And hey, it's full of calcium!
BTW: Diet Dr. Pepper is the best non-diet-tasting diet soda.
|11.22.05 @ 3:37PM|#
BTW, grylliade's forum has an entire folder devoted to Carpet
Humping Guy!
Including a poll on whether his advertising has affected you.
|11.22.05 @ 3:38PM|#
If advertising becomes only product placement in shows, how will
Tampex or Trojans ever be advertised during prime time?
I shudder to think of the sitcom context for advertising Kaopectate
(sp?) or Preparation H.
R C Dean|11.22.05 @ 3:43PM|#
Ditto on the Diet Dr. Pepper.
Including a poll on whether his advertising has affected
you.
Well, er, yes. Yes it has.
How, you ask? Umm. . .
|11.22.05 @ 3:44PM|#
...you have to believe that people are mindless automatons
who respond to product placement in ways several times more
Pavlovian than they would ever respond to actual paid
advertisements.
Where have we heard similar arguments like this before?
"Playing Grand Theft Auto will turn you into a murderous
carjacker!"
Or...
"Watching pornography will turn you into a rapist or child
molester!"
|11.22.05 @ 3:45PM|#
First, you're all going to get nasty letters for leaving off the
"TM" in your references to federally registered marks. Free speech
is well and good, but we'll have no trademark infringement in this
country, thank you very much.
Second, thanks to commercials and various other types of
advertisement, I estimate than 30% of my memory is crammed full of
slogans, jingles, and the like. That being the case, I intend to
charge rent to all of the companies responsible for this trespass
on my brain. I don't want to know how to tell if a brown towel is
clean, I'm not interested in ancient Chinese secrets, and I would
rather not know anything about ED or feminine hygiene.
MP|11.22.05 @ 3:46PM|#
theCoach,
Why should a la carte cable go hand-in-hand with mandatory ad-free
content? One doesn't follow the other, and I see no legitimate
reason for gov't involvement.
BTW, I'm a big fan of a la carte. I'd love it if there were more a
la carte sports feeds instead of having to pony up for a full NFL
Sunday Ticket subscription. I'd pay the premium for one shot
viewing rights.
|11.22.05 @ 3:48PM|#
BTW, grylliade's forum has an entire folder devoted to
Carpet Humping Guy! Including a poll on whether his advertising has
affected you.
I'd go take that poll, except I can't get my dick unstuck from the
floor.
|11.22.05 @ 3:52PM|#
What I want to know is, if product placement - presumably of food and drink - has made us all fat and diabetic, has it also made us run out and buy American cars? Doesn't seem like it, somehow. So how come the effectiveness only applies to nasty evil things, like tasty food?
|11.22.05 @ 3:53PM|#
Of course marketers seek to influence potential customers.
Influence is not the same as magic mind control powers though.
Further, it is hard to argue that branding isn't part of American
culture that one would naturally expect to show up in television
and movies designed to appeal to Americans.
You shouldn't even be treating crack like crack, for heaven's sake
don't start treating everything else like it, too.
|11.22.05 @ 3:57PM|#
That's exactly right: In a free market, companies must act
over time in the way most likely to maximize their profits, which
tends to discipline them against harming or annoying their own
consumers.
Pop-ups.
Flashing Banners
Sony's DRM software.
Commercials that are twice as loud as programs.
Have you seen the comments on TIVO by advertisers who insist that
it's our duty to sit and watch commercials?
The 'harming consumers' part of that argument may be true, but the
idea that they don't want to annoy consumers in just silly.
|11.22.05 @ 4:03PM|#
"Ah, the old saw, 'Corporations spend millions of dollars on
advertising that doesn't have any influence on consumers. Now hands
off, or you'll bankrupt us!'"
I think it's common to believe that corporations conduct their
business much more rationally that they actually do. Just because
corporations spend millions of dollars on a particular strategy
doesn't mean they have convincing empirical evidence that works
particularly well or is worth the money that they spend on it. For
example, I'm perfectly happy to accept that liquor manufacturers
might deliberately place an obscure little skull and crossbones in
an icecube in a magazine ad, but that doesn't mean they have
evidence that subliminal advertising works. Same for product
placements.
|11.22.05 @ 4:05PM|#
A la carte cable sounds good, but in reality it would add up to fewer choices. The current system subsidizes channels that have good content but less mass appeal. MTV, FOX News, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, CNN and the like keep The Golf Channel, The Military Channel, The Horror Channel and etc afloat. Granted the world might be better off without Current or MSNBC, but I for one like having as many channels to surf as possible.
|11.22.05 @ 4:09PM|#
MP,
Why should a la carte cable go hand-in-hand with mandatory ad-free content?
They do not necessarily go hand in hand, but they could.
As far as government intervention, it was my understanding that was
the whole point about a la carte ~ the govt would require cable
companies to ofer a la carte, and to ensure that the pricing scheme
was reasonable (not $29.95 for everything, HBO $29.94).
The reaon I think they should go hand in hand is that we are
talking about government mandated options required of content
providers. In the one case you are not being forced to buy things
you do not want, and the other, you are given the option of how you
want to pay for your content (through your attention towards
commercials or in real dollars).
|11.22.05 @ 4:09PM|#
I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea of a la carte cable TV. Between my wife and me, well over half of the cable channels available are in our normal rotation, and, in that circumstance, a la carte would force us to use one of the cable company's converter boxes and remotes. The interface to those boxes sucks big brown donkey dicks. I like having the ability to go up and down in the preferred channel sequence without having to key in each digit of the channel. I like being able to record one channel while watching another channel, or a previously recorded program. I really believe that the amount of channels my family would have available would cost more than my current "one size fits a lot of people" format that I currently use.
|11.22.05 @ 4:17PM|#
Russ D,
"NASCAR's fucked!"
And so is Martha Stewart, who's whole show is an ad for Martha
Stewart.
Still, it would be funny as hell to see every product in every
media be white with black printing on it (think "BEER" and "FOOD"
from Repo Man). I'd laugh my ass off if James Bond had to show up
at a swank Italian villa in a vehicle wrapped in white with "CAR"
written on the side...Hell, I'd pay extra just to see that!
|11.22.05 @ 4:28PM|#
Ala carte cable may or may not be a good idea, but it's a moot point now because were slowly but surely going to more of an "on-demand" model anyway. That won't eliminate the concept of television channels because channel surfing is America's favorite pastime, but customers will probably just opt for the most popular channels and they'll watch "on demand" anything from the channels they don't watch very often. I think that has something to do with OLN grabbing the NHL, otherwise their programming is too niche to get a lot of channel surfers to stop, the fishing and hunting crowd can DVR the shows they really want to watch. The only real question is "how" do those shows' producers let the potential viewer know the shows exist? But there's all kinds of ways to do that - if I were to make a show called "Wisconsin Fishing" I wouldn't have to have it on ANY cbale channel at all, I'd just have to advertise it in Field&Stream and make sure Comcast has it available for people to DVR. And I probably wouldn't even need to do that, you could grab it off my website like a podcast. You can't more ala carte than that.
|11.22.05 @ 4:29PM|#
I think it's common to believe that corporations conduct
their business much more rationally that they actually do. Just
because corporations spend millions of dollars on a particular
strategy doesn't mean they have convincing empirical evidence that
works particularly well or is worth the money that they spend on
it.
That's very true. There is a classic quote attributed to a
CEO.
"50% of my ad budget is a waste. I just don't know which
50%."
Take it from someone in the ad biz. Most marketing executives are
frighteningly fucking clueless. If they have a successful brand it
often has a lot more to do with their distribution, pricing or
quality than any slick marketing trick. And even when they are
doing something that works they aren'�t always smart enough to
stick with it. Dr Pepper has been spent untold millions developing
new tag lines over the past two decades. Meanwhile the one everyone
remembers, even those who weren�t born yet, is "�Be a
Pepper"�.
MP|11.22.05 @ 4:30PM|#
the govt would require cable companies to ofer a la
carte
well, that leads me to point out that FCC = Federal Crock of Crap,
and thus further commentary from me would no longer contribute
anything new to this thread. I'm out!
|11.22.05 @ 4:48PM|#
ralphus, you get weird characters for certain ASCII symbols and characters. For instance, if you paste in � (e with an accent) from Word, you get crap. But if you use the HTML for that character, you get é.
|11.22.05 @ 4:55PM|#
This phrase made me slap my own forehead with my palm hard
enough to make my eyes giggle:
"marketing-related diseases"
Dear god, marketing spreads disease! So, if the bird flu mutates
and infects humans, then spreads to the U.S., will avian flu be a
"marketing-related disease" caused by Purdue chicken
commercials?
If the moron that said this is really so worried about the fate of
mankind, shouldn't he be out there raising money for malaria
research or something? I wish people like this would catch a
"marketing-related disease" and drop dead.
|11.22.05 @ 5:00PM|#
Thanks Pro Liberate. That sort of explains it. Still not sure how I got those symbols. Didn't type anything stranger than quotes and apostrophes.
|11.22.05 @ 5:03PM|#
"What I want to know is, if product placement - presumably of
food and drink - has made us all fat and diabetic, has it also made
us run out and buy American cars? Doesn't seem like it, somehow. So
how come the effectiveness only applies to nasty evil things, like
tasty food?"
I guess the argument is that nobody is going to go out and rush to
buy a car after seeing it on the tube for a number of reasons. Cars
are more expensive and you actually have to sit and think seriously
about it before you make your purchase. Whereas you could argue
that people could rush to grab a can of coke or a big mac with
relative ease and with little cash. You'll dwell on the purchase of
a car for quite a while and eventually come to your senses if you
really don't need one. I guess the same would not go for the
purchase of a pop or a big mac.
|11.22.05 @ 5:04PM|#
ralphus, do you type your comments in Word or anywhere else before pasting them into this form? That's a good idea for spell-checking, but it can screw up the formatting when you post here. Smart quotes in Word might have caused your problem, I suppose, assuming you're using Word or, perhaps, Outlook.
|11.22.05 @ 5:06PM|#
Am I the only one who suspects that what Mr Ruskin and his ilk
really mean when they say "marketing-related diseases" is
"market-related disease"? In other words, capitalism itself?
I've often suspected that what many lefties and statists truly
dislike about capitalism is that it is, in their opinions,
aesthetically displeasing. Advertising is an easy target for
aesthetics-based criticism.
|11.22.05 @ 5:16PM|#
>You'll dwell on the purchase of a car for quite a while and
eventually come to your senses if you really don't need one
Whoah. That doesn't explain the behavior of my next-door neighbors,
who buy a new model car every two years and sometimes sooner. Nor
does it explain the behavior of an acquaintance of mine, a
unemployed GI fresh from doing his 4-year tour of duty and a father
of 3, went out a bought a Toyota Spyder at around 30 grand when his
entire family was living with his in-laws and his wife was working
as a waitress at a low-priced restaurant.
|11.22.05 @ 5:17PM|#
An example of good use of product placement is the American
version of the Office. Chili's has popped up in a couple of
episodes as that but of a joke, but it's obvious Chili's is on
board because they have shot scenes there. It proves that not all
placements have to be gung-ho endorsements to work.
Most audiences get the placement thing. The Dr Pepper placement in
Spiderman was even handled tongue in cheek. The audience I saw it
with met the way Peter Parker situated the can so the logo was
facing out with laughs. It was like Rami was saying we know you're
not stupid. Not as blatant a joke as Wayne�s World, but still
funny.
However I think more companies should take advantage reverse
product placements. David Cross and Bob Odenkirk came up with this.
It's when you pay to have your competitor�s brand denigrated in a
movie or TV show. Example:
Bob: You want a Pepsi?
David: Hell no! Pepsi tastes like warmed over pig semen!
Or if they make a Fatty Arbuckle biopic Absolute could pay to have
him use a Smirnoff bottle.
|11.22.05 @ 5:22PM|#
Anyone want to bet that, if the FCC did create the described
rules, and (a big and?) they did pass the inevitable court
challenges, they would exempt (or forget to enforce) federal
agencies own product placements.
You know: the new-think phrases and discussions included, at the
behest of federal coercion on broadcast production companies, in
side the plot/sub-plot of television shows. When was the last time
you heard a cop on TV tell someone something like "...but marijuana
is a gateway drug..." or (from last night's CSI:Miami)
[paraphrasing] '...they played the ' violent crime spree 'game
until it didn't thrill them, then they decided to play it for
real'.
|11.22.05 @ 5:23PM|#
"Whoah. That doesn't explain the behavior of my next-door
neighbors, who buy a new model car every two years and sometimes
sooner. Nor does it explain the behavior of an acquaintance of
mine, a unemployed GI fresh from doing his 4-year tour of duty and
a father of 3, went out a bought a Toyota Spyder at around 30 grand
when his entire family was living with his in-laws and his wife was
working as a waitress at a low-priced restaurant."
Understood. But in general, I could see how seeing a glass of coke
could make me reach for a can out of the fridge or the closest
7-11. The idea that someone would all of sudden get an urge to buy
a hummer because that person saw it on tv seems rather far fetched.
For that kind of advertising to work I would think it would have to
deal with small ticket items that are pretty inexpensive and easy
to get a hold of fast.
By hummer I meant the jeep.
|11.22.05 @ 5:27PM|#
theCoach:
Re: your iTunes question. I thought I heard, in the iTunes release
news stories, that they will retain their commercials. The next
question becomes: can you fast forwared with an iPod-TV?
|11.22.05 @ 5:30PM|#
ralphus, you're very welcome. Besides, I should thank you for giving me a reason to avoid reading this Federal Reserve opinion sitting in front of me :)
|11.22.05 @ 5:52PM|#
The idea that someone would all of sudden get an urge to buy
a hummer because that person saw it on tv seems rather far
fetched.
That made me wonder what kind of left/right convergence we'll get
it we start seeing product placement in porn. If what BYU
sociologist Jill Manning says is
true, who knows what rash and potentially harmful purchases
someone could make with some timely manipulative marketing slipped
in at the right moment. After all if, as she suggests, one is under
the influence of a masturbatory induced flood of neurotransmitters
and therefore has impaired judgment to the point of being incapable
of "informed consent" they could be easy targets.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.22.05 @ 5:52PM|#
The interesting thing about this to me is that, well, real people actually drink Coke. So seeing a person in a movie drinking a Coke isn't abnormal. Real people, however, don't always drive Lamborghinis so maybe Hood has a point. I remember when I was younger and saw those two hot chicks in the Lambourghini tooling across country chasing Burt Reynolds in Cannonball Run. Went right out and bought one. Couldn't help it. But now I'm more in control of my finances, I could probably resist. The car, anyway.
|11.22.05 @ 5:55PM|#
Ugh, what a mess. That first sentence should be:
That made me wonder what kind of left/right convergence we'll get
IF we start seeing product placement in porn.
|11.22.05 @ 5:58PM|#
I thought I made it especially clear that by hummer I didn't
mean b.j.
You did.
|11.22.05 @ 6:03PM|#
The 'harming consumers' part of that argument may be true,
but the idea that they don't want to annoy consumers in just
silly.
Yeah, and it's a pretty fine line that they've just about crossed
in my case. What's a "60" minute program down to now? About 40
actual minutes? 35? And they need to stuff advertisements into the
ending credits, too? And cut off the intro to make room for, yup,
more advertisements? A 2-hour movie that used to fit into 2.5 tv
hours now needs 3 hours? When is enough enough? Product placement
on top of the already massive barrage of advertisement is just
fucking abusive.
|11.22.05 @ 6:04PM|#
This looks like as good a place as any to wish all H&R folks
a happy Thanksgiving holiday with your Butterball(TM) turkeys and
Stouffer's Stove-Top Stuffing(TM), etc.
I'll be away from the Internet until Monday. See you later. Be
careful and safe; don't drink and/or regulate any interstate
commerce and drive; but have fun. Vayas con Dios.
|11.22.05 @ 6:12PM|#
"joe, I think you're missing the forest for the trees
here"
Because he's a useless troll and always has been. For people
complaining about how the government thinks you're stupid, you sure
do seem to want to provide evidence in support of their
assumption.
Every single time, "joe" sticks his greasy little finger in the
air, sees which way the wind blows and tilts mercilessly against it
for his own troll enjoyment.
That people continue to engage this automaton in rational discourse
highlights the fact that some people just want to argue about
stuff.
"Marketing related diseases?" Jeebus christ, how could anyone but a
delusional greenie Naderite actually believe such an absurdity. Joe
sure as hell doesn't, but since what he actually thinks is a
secondary consideration to getting a rise out of you people, he's
free to argue otherwise.
|11.22.05 @ 6:27PM|#
I remember seeing a study recently (and by "see" I mean heard about it on marginal revolution(tm)) that showed the best branded products also spent the most on advertising. But it wasn't a direct causation, the advertising was there because you were going to buy a soda anyway, and Coke just wanted to make sure the last thing you saw before buying that soda was a coke. The damage is already done, your drinking a soda, why do they care so much that the brands are fighting to get you to buy their soda?
|11.22.05 @ 7:16PM|#
Greatest product placement in the history of man -- Ford Motor
co. products on Hawaii Five-O.
How fucking cool was Steve jumping out of that big ass Mercury?
That Mach I burning out down the road?
Runner up: Uber oompa loompa Frank Cannon rolling out of his Mark
IV to plant a .38 slug between the eyes of some kidnapping murderer
at an LA construction site. Sold more Lincolns to fat guys than
undercoating and curb-feelers combined.
|11.22.05 @ 7:26PM|#
"Greatest product placement in the history of man -- Ford Motor
co. products on Hawaii Five-O."
I don't know, that may not even be the best car placement. Dodge,
Dukes, 'nuff said.
|11.22.05 @ 7:50PM|#
The damage is already done, your drinking a soda, why do
they care so much that the brands are fighting to get you to buy
their soda?
Bingo! It's all about market share. You drink beer - we want you to
drink our beer. That's all.
Advertising can't make you do something you don't want to do.
Camel's great advertising didn't make me want to smoke. Camel's
great advertising made me want to smoke Camels.
Besides, we all know that it was Hollywood that made me want
smoke.
|11.22.05 @ 8:18PM|#
I welcome our advertising overlords. By the way, did you ever notice that Joe Camel's nose looks like a cock? I need a cigarette.
|11.22.05 @ 9:39PM|#
Sphynx, theCoach --
TV shows sold on iTunes do not have ads, but they are still kind of
a rip-off at $2 a pop. $0.50 would be closer to the mark, but
that's not bloody likely...
On the topic, I enjoy Arrested Development's product placements.
Carl Weathers discussing Burger King product placements in his new
television show in a Burger King was great. "It is a fine
restaurant!" (That was partly David Cross's doing, as well.) Their
Hiptop cellphone placement was also tastefully done, brandless and
well-integrated with the plot. And it made me want to buy
one.
I think their latest episode included a Hummer placement: "George
Sr. had two choices for his escape vehicle--a military Hummer, or
the Popemobile. He decided to take the bulletproof one." Can't get
much more tongue-in-cheek than that.
|11.22.05 @ 10:13PM|#
I don't know, that may not even be the best car placement.
Dodge, Dukes, 'nuff said.
Steve McQueen would like a word on line 1 over the Dodge
placements.
The award for simultaneous most blatant and least effective car
placement goes to John DeLorean.
|11.22.05 @ 10:38PM|#
Least effective? I don't know anyone who saw Back to the Future
who doesn't want a DeLorean. (With the leather kit and flux
capacitor, natch.)
Or were you talking about the FBI/Flynt cocaine video? That
probably didn't sell many cars--almost sold some coke,
though...
|11.22.05 @ 10:49PM|#
Yes, indeed! This thread has been brought to you by
Carpet
Humping Thoreau
guaranteed free from MRDs since 2005!
|11.23.05 @ 8:36AM|#
The public needs to know when they're being advertised
to.
Really? Why?
The FTC has essentially endorsed the deceptive and dishonest
practices of the product placement industry.
Why is it that people think that calling something an "industry"
makes their argument against it stronger? "It's not just bad, it's
an industry!" I see the tactic all over the political spectrum,
even in reason magazine.
Where does one begin to dissect this nonsense? John Hood makes a
really good start.
I enjoy Arrested Development's product placements.
Me too. I (generally) welcome product placements, for a simple
reason: they actually tend to make a show seem more real. We live
amidst various products all day long. I am typing this post on a
Dell computer; there's a Lipton Peach Iced Tea on my desk; and on
my shelf there's a box of Tic Tacs. (Sorry about the deceptive and
abusive product placement occuring in this post.)
Ed|11.23.05 @ 9:35AM|#
I recall a Charlie's Angels episode wherein the babes, driving a Pinto, were being chased and repeatedly rear-ended by thugs in a Lincoln Continental bent on their demise. Lo and behold! The Pinto did not explode! No firey death for the Angels! Fords are safe!
|11.23.05 @ 11:18AM|#
"The award for simultaneous most blatant and least effective car
placement goes to John DeLorean."
I have to agree with that. How long after that movie did DeLorean
go out of business?
|11.23.05 @ 1:04PM|#
The public needs to know when they're being advertised
to.
That's right. We do! I mean, ok, every time I see a car driving
down the road, and I look at the back end of it, it has these big
emblems. SUBARU!, they say. FORD! PONTIAC! HONDA!
It confuses me, oh so much! I'm not sure if the car manufacturer
put that on there so that the owners wouldn't forget what type of
car they had, or whether it was a sneaky advertising ploy. Those
evil bastards!
I hereby call for automobiles with car names/logos on them to be
required to also have a large-type disclaimer written across the
back and sides of the car - alerting unsuspecting observers that,
by putting the name of their car on their car, they are, in fact,
engaging in an advertising tactic.
Next, the FTC should address the pressing issue of consumer items
in grocery stores. Isn't it unfair to consumers to put a yummy
picture of their product on the box? Oh, man, look at that picture
of those Chips Ahoys! Who can tell when they're being advertised
to? Manufacturers should all be forced to put their products in
universally standard white containers, and list the name of their
product in universally standard black type. They shouldn't be
allowed to print enticing product descriptions or pictures, either.
All product advertising should be quarantined to
specially-designated "Advertising Zones".
It's about time that the government defined the line between
"information
|11.23.05 @ 1:05PM|#
"I have to agree with that. How long after that movie did
DeLorean go out of business?"
Wasn't the DeLorean guy arrested for drug-dealing?
|11.24.05 @ 8:53PM|#
Advertising works! How else to explain my decision to hump
the carpet at the DC area gathering a few Saturdays ago?
Your wife wasn't there, and the carpet was asking for it. It was a
damned sexy piece of floor covering, that carpet was.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245