Talk Back Tuesday: Advertising -- An emerging era of insidiousness?
While watching a recent television program I noticed something troubling, but not at all unexpected in today's world. In the program a primary character was describing a new automobile, and the dialogue sounded almost like a dealer brochure. My guess is the writers tried (in vain) to mold the brochure-speak into a believable conversation string, but it didn't sit right with me. I told my wife, "Okay, first of all the features mentioned don't actually work particularly well, and second they are a major waste of money in terms of what you pay and what you get." I mentioned all this in an annoyed tone just to clearly establish my suspicions. Less than two minutes after this scene a commercial break began. Anyone wanna guess what the first commercial was advertising?
Now before we all get caught up in exactly which car was being discussed on which show let me clearly state the focus of this blog post: the changing nature of advertising (not the validity of any specific product claims).
Once upon a time the nature of advertising was simple: identify a medium with likely target customers for a product, then insert product messages into the medium in clearly sponsored sections. Maybe it's a commercial between scenes, maybe it's a full-page ad between articles, maybe it's a statement by the show host, preceeded by "We want to thank our sponsors..."
Regardless, most advertising was easy to spot and, quite honestly, easy to ignore. I guess that's why advertisers are demanding more creative delivery of their message, whether it's all the same brand of cars being driven by the main characters (that's actually been going on for decades) or the clearly-displayed manufacturer icons on every computer and article of clothing in a scene. That level of promotional "subtlety" doesn't really bother me, though the chase scenes in The Matrix sequels were a bit over the top, and Bond's specific reference to his "Omega" watch in Casino Royale (he used to wear Rolexes...) were pushing the limit of my tolerance.
But none of the characters in The Matrix Reloaded actually said, "Gosh, I sure appreciate the soft ride in this CTS while dodging virtual bullets!" and Bond never commented on the "Timeless style and European sophistication" of his Omega. But that's essentially what I saw on the previously described TV program, and it was pretty disturbing.
It's funny because members of Generation X and Y (such as myself) are generally seen as a cynical and suspicious set, so going this direction won't exactly diminish their BS detectors. If anything I'd expect scrutiny of -- and intolerance toward -- creative ad messagaging to only grow.
But maybe I'm in the minority here. Maybe most people either don't notice or don't care about the crumbling border between story line and tag line.
What say you? Do you notice the increasing level of ad-driven product placement (and blatant promotion) in formerly sacred zones? Do you even consider these zones sacred? Feel free to offer examples to illustrate your point.
- Posted by
- Karl Brauer February 10, 2009, 6:00 AM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Cars in Entertainment, Talk Back Tuesday
- Technorati Tags:
- Advertising Media Message Product Placement
Get used to it. Advertisers know that with DVR and 150 channels available people arent watching commercials as much anymore. Embedding products into the program are a way around that. American Idol has been doing this for years.
What car and show are you talking about?
I've heard a theory that it is almost impossible to reach the under 24 croud with conventional advertising. With video games and the internet, TV is becoming less popular (all your favorite shows are watchable online - many even free).
I always notice product placement. It doesn't bother me when it is done well, or with a product that fits (e.g. the R8 in Iron Man). All too often however, there is a poorly disguised pitch delivery that slimes its way into a plot. It reminds me of The Truman Show where at the climax of the movie Jim Carrery is sitting in the kitchen, aganozing over what he believes to be a conspiracy against him, and his character's wife looks directly at the camera to promote hot chocolate. "Who you talkin' to!?"
Radio has been losing its integrity for a while also. When big name personalities are hired to add a product into their script, I only hear the 'buy-my-used-car-now hair gel' being applied and the message oozing its way into my listening space.
These ads are insulting even;
"Hey George, they don't even realize it's an ad! They won't be able to resist buying it after CHARACTER X uses it"
"Genius Marve, genius!"
My favorite product placement? The movie Drowning Mona... hands down. You can't get a Yugo anywhere don'chya know.
What bothers me is the fact that I can really be enjoying a show, and poorly place product advertisements within the show will instantly drag me back to reality and totally destroy my suspension of disbelief.
It lowers the quality of the product, which shouldn't be acceptable, but sadly is.
Of course, with things like the writing and acting in big name shows like Heroes or Lost, I really shouldn't be surprised, as there isn't much quality left to begin with.
Bond has always contained advertising, though its mostly been to do with his 'choice' of cars I suppose. I'm not sure I ever recall a Rolex comment in the movies, though it definitely talks about them in the books. Bond has been wearing an Omega Seamaster, drinking Smirnoff vodka, and talking into a Sony Erikkson phone since the start of the Pierce Brosnan era, though the direct product identification was mostly kept off screen. Casino Royal's "Omega" moment was pretty blatant.
I'm going to guess you were watching Chuck, the episode aired around late November early December, where he was describing all the useful features of the Toyota Matrix to his fugitive ex-girlfriend (such as navigation and all-wheel-drive!). I love that show but that one hurt. Badly.
For once I agree with 1487 - we're all going to have to get used to it. The more people have DVRs, the more blatant the product placement will get.
Karl,
You have to be talking about "Desperate Housewives." Before I take a beating on watching this ridiculous show, I have to defend myself by saying that it is a deal with my wife after the kids go to bed. She makes me watch that I watch 24 on Mondays.
The "conversation" regarding the Lexis LS was pathetic. I have never heard a discussion during a TV show so frankly advertizing a product. References are one thing, this was a full on 30 second commercial. The refrigerator, the Hybrid aspect, the parking itself, bla bla bla.
I agree with 1487 though, get used to it. I didn't even see the commercial immediately following that segment because I ......
Skipped over it with my DVR.
Desperate Housewives has been peddling cars from the beginning, especially Nissans. They worked a lacrosse into the storyline once and that was blatant.
The older radio and TV shows were very clear when they presented an advertisement within the program body. Indeed, the show stars often cracked jokes, some gently spoofing the product itself, while this in-show commercial was running.
Today's goal seems to make product placement omnipresent and inescapable in movies and TV shows.
And since a major purpose of entertainment is to provide "escape" from reality, watching disguised commercials of reality is no fun.
Fortunately there remains a wealth of entertainment outside Hollywierd's usual channels that is not yet contaminated.
The product placement in movies/tv shows/etc has gone over the top. The chase scene with all the Cadillac vehicles was hard to believe. The new Terminator TV show always have the characters driving new and shiny Chrysler corp vehicles (Dodge or Jeep, typically). American Idol has those "group song things" where they're driving some crappy Ford product. The second Fast & The Furious movie had all those Dodge Ram trucks show up at once. The plausibility of all this actually hurts the perception of reality and makes it seem fake, to the point of "I don't want to watch that". It's cheesy.
To me the appearance of vehicles driven by ad dollars isn't overly destructive to the entertainment/story value (though it can get close, like in The Matrix Reloaded where EVERY vehicle on the eight-lane freeway is a GM product).
What kills it for me is when the sponsorship makes its way into the words being said or even the specific plot lines. Like if the swivel-and-go seats in a Chrysler minivan were used to show how a criminal gang can more effectively plan their upcoming bank assault while driving down the road (this hasn't happened as far as I know, I'm just throwing it out as an example).
Little note to the oh-so-creative writers in Hollywood: You're not fooling anyone. We're seeing through it and it's severly disrupting the experience.
"Little note to the oh-so-creative writers in Hollywood: You're not fooling anyone. We're seeing through it and it's severly disrupting the experience."
Exactly my point! My dad uses the phrase "willful suspension of disbelief". It's starting to get to the point where you have to do that for product placement.
shaddai:
If I understand you correctly you only have a problem with product placement when "crappy" American products are featured.
"To me the appearance of vehicles driven by ad dollars isn't overly destructive to the entertainment/story value (though it can get close, like in The Matrix Reloaded where EVERY vehicle on the eight-lane freeway is a GM product). "
Most people watching the movie would not have known that or cared. Only car fans would know most of the vehicles on the freeway were from GM.
Holy crap, I'm agreeing with 1487 again. Only car guys know or care that all the cars in that scene came from GM. EVERYONE, on the other hand, is annoyed when the main characters of their favorite show take time out to tell you about the great features of their all-new Canyonero.
The Matrix Reloaded placement didn't bother me, but the Transformers ones sure do.
GM makes lots of great vehicles, but do all the Autobots really need to be from one brand? lol. I understand its a budget thing, but still, parts of the movie were like a big GM ad! And I would be saying the same thing if they were all MINI, BMW, Honda, you name it. Diversity would have been more realistic in this case....
And yes I know I'm talking about realism in a movie about alien transforming car robots.
Oh, I don't care. This usually happens in silly shows that I'm not taking that seriously anyway. As long as it's not sneaked into some "objective" news or documentary type of program, I just ignore the not-so-subtle product placement. Or joke about it with my wife, MST3K style. "This corny action sequence sponsored by Ford!"
Fwiw, Jack Bauer commandeered a Cadillac CTS-V last night (season 7, episode 8) on 24, which Ford seems to supply vehicles for all the protagonists, except for the TV movie 24: Redemption (Hyundai vehicles).
suby,
That was an STS-V on 24 last night.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/best_worst_lists/pay_for_play_the_most_blatant_automotive_product_shills_feature+page-2.html
C&D is talking about the same thing.
vaca,
I dont recall reading comments from you before but I would like to know why you keep acting like its so far fetched that you would agree with some of my logical statements.
Whoops. You're right, 1487.
http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-cts-forum-2008-beyond/161236-jack-bauers-new-ride.html
I usually find your comments almost irrationally pro-GM and Ford or anti-foreign to the point where you seem to think there's an media-wide vendetta against American cars.
1487 - I am not intentionally calling out American products. The Italian Job featured Minis heavily. I didn't think of any other examples off the top of my head. Undoubtedly there are some.
It's kind of funny that I picked on the big three American companies without consciously thinking of it... it was unintentional. My point was more on the saturation of product placement more than bashing the individual brands (shy of the Ford dig).
I agree with Karl that I mostly object to the Truman Show type of dialog that detracts from the story. I also object to unbelievable product placement where the character wouldn't be caught dead in that brand in real life. The exception is something like the reference to the rental Oldsmobile Silhouette as the "Cadillac of minivans" in Get Shorty.
http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_3337-Oldsmobile-Silhouette.html
Curious if any of the cars used in product placement are modified to increase visibility of the car brand? A certain maker of IP phones uses a very large version of the company logo on movie prop phones while the logo is smaller and more subtle on the real product.
"It's funny because members of Generation X and Y (such as myself) are generally seen as a cynical and suspicious set"
I wonder if the generation Z will be the last one. It looks like bad omen but I can believe that. With loss of autoindustry America lost its soul too.
My vote is don't care. sell it. sell it big like Mike Myers did in Wayne's World...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaSLTb7njVE
Tina Fey did something similar last year with Verizon on her show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d36wUmJGzvA
My other vote - write a good story and make me care. Few films or shows in 08 were worth my time.
I think the critical component is the suspension of disbelief. That is one of the keys to a good story. Like good acting vs. bad, good writing vs. bad, good cinematography vs. bad, etc. good integration of sponsorship can make for a good story and the reverse if often true as well (one exception is when breaking the fourth wall, which is usually done for comedic value as cited by blueguy).
I think most fans agree that Bond was a little less enjoyable when driving a BMW instead of an Aston Martin.
The only time I've seen a tasteful execution of product placement was when Happy Gilmore was advertising Subway. Unfortunately, I think that movie opened this entire Pandora's box.
"Tina Fey did something similar last year with Verizon on her show:"
Haha I loved that. I really liked the way they approached it. Tina Fey looks straight at the camera and says, "Can we have our money now?" I seem to also remember a Snapple reference in the same vein on that show.
I don't seem to mind it a whole lot. People talk about brands and use brand names in everyday conversation, so if the writers can make it feel natural or better yet, make a joke out of it, then it's fine with me.
"I usually find your comments almost irrationally pro-GM and Ford or anti-foreign to the point where you seem to think there's an media-wide vendetta against American cars."
I'm pro truth. Just because you may inherently believe in the inferiority of American cars doesnt mean I am "pro American cars". There is a difference. YOu call my positions irrational but I suggest you actually look at the substance I am presenting and leave aside your preconceived notions about how its heresy to question the perfection of imports. To suggest someone is
"biased" or "irrational" is to suggest they are supporting a point of view with no regards for the facts. That aint me. The media's position on American cars is very clear. This is the same media that reported UAW workers make $70/hr which was a blatant lie last fall during the bailout hearings. I actually watched pro-Toyota/Nissan/Hyundai segments on the news where they essentially said "there are no problems in the auto industry and look at these great, friendly, efficient profitable plants run by Asian companies for proof". Within the next couple of weeks sales at Honda, Nissan and Toyota began to free fall and the profit warnings started. This after the MSM told us for weeks that if you just dump those lazy, overpaid union workers and build "quality" products you wouldnt have any financial issues. No bias there.