To be fair its not spelled wrong in the body of the article, just on the "next page" part.

zeitgeist | October 06, 05:19 CET

Is that a new mispelling? But I get so annoyed when watching any show and suddenly the actors are talking about a product and the camera zooms in on it in such an obvious way. Examples: Alias and the Ford commerical episode and an episode of CSI NY when two of the actors were crossing the street talking about a case and suddenly the phone rings and the other guy starts to fawn over it and they talk ring tones and how to get them for that phone! Blech. Completely took me out of the story.

NYPinTA | October 06, 05:27 CET

Or the Heroes season premiere where the guy said "Guess I should've gone for Sprint."?

zeitgeist | October 06, 05:39 CET

It sounds like Joss doesn't like webisodes, but I thought they were doing them for Dollhouse.

shambleau | October 06, 05:57 CET

That second 30 Rock example made me cringe.

You know, I think I might actually prefer overt product placement to ironic product placement. One of them's an irritating immersion killer. The other's an irritating immersion killer coupled with a really, really, really old, tired, worn-out gag.

There are many good excuses for knowingly putting overt product placement on the screen. There are no good excuses for putting a really, really, really old, tired, worn-out gag on the screen.

[ edited by frostcircus on 2008-10-06 06:00 ]

frostcircus | October 06, 06:00 CET

The worst I've seen was Smallville. A character actually said "Acuvue to the rescue" Then there was the gum factory. Aurgh! What a turnoff.

And don't get me started on the prevalence of characters smoking in the movies. Don't tell me the cigarette companies aren't paying for that!

Xane | October 06, 06:01 CET

Or the Heroes season premiere where the guy said "Guess I should've gone for Sprint."?

Heroes have been advertisers' whores from the very start.

crossoverman | October 06, 06:05 CET

I think Joss is more miffed about forced webisodes and I can't blame him. Just because it's the new thing doesn't mean everyone has to do them. If they are completely natural, integrated well, and contribute to the narrative then great. I really liked the Lost mobisodes. They were great and added a bit to show.

And did anybody else picture Joss playing around with the Mutant Enemy logo for an hour and when he mentioned zombie shows? Hell, I'd watch that.

The Xan Man | October 06, 06:21 CET

I was going to read this article, but then I couldn't find a way to bring it all up on one page, and I don't feel like clicking through seven ad-dominated pages to read it.

The One True b!X | October 06, 06:28 CET

I'm always happy for more Dr. Horrible/Joss advertising, but it seemed pretty weakly connected to the rest of the article. Independently-produced, advertising-free web shows by creators with a large built-in Internet following don't seem like much of an alternative economic model to set up against product placements on network TV.

jcs | October 06, 06:41 CET

Heh, we were talking about this tonight. My friend Lisa's gotten her boyfriend into Buffy and they were at Season 2's "Reptile Boy" tonight, so I watched with 'em. Willow and Xander share a Coke at one point. I dunno if they just randomly used it as a prop, or if it was intentional. Would they still use Coke even if Coke didn't pay for product placement, or would they go for something generic ?

The product placement in Heroes is annoying. I remember it being very obvious in Season 1. Hiro and Ando in Vegas with the car ?

Kris | October 06, 07:08 CET

Gah yes. And HRG and West discussing cars again in S2...

I found it really annoying that VMars got taken over by product placement in S3 - okay, mostly they handled the "ironic" part fairly well, but it still got annoying.

Oh hah - anyone watch Kyle XY? Sourpatch kids... I don't even know what they are, but I know that show likes them.

skittledog | October 06, 08:00 CET

Independently-produced, advertising-free web shows by creators with a large built-in Internet following don't seem like much of an alternative economic model to set up against product placements on network TV.

Not so much an alternative economic model for something as massive as network TV, as an alternative way for artists to get their stuff to their audience on more of a scale of choice?

dreamlogic | October 06, 10:14 CET

Roswell pops out at me for having used Snapple as a recurring item. It even made it into the title of one of the episodes ("Michael, the Guys and the great Snapple Caper").

And yep, Kyle XY famously uses Sourpatch Kids as a recurring product placement motif.

I do remember one scene in BtVS where Willow is drinking a Coke and she turns the can around so you can read the label towards the camera. It was perhaps a bit too obvious.

The Jossverse usually uses fake brands in most of its episodes, though, with references to various things like Sears, Starbucks, Prada, Payless and Manolo Blahniks. The Jossverse was one of the more subtle shows that went out of its way for generic brands and music. Only a handful of songs and artists used were blatantly popular and well-known (and more towards the end of the show--Michelle Branch and Aimee Mann).

NileQT87 | October 06, 10:31 CET

I was going to read this article, but then I couldn't find a way to bring it all up on one page, and I don't feel like clicking through seven ad-dominated pages to read it.

Way down at the bottom theonetruebix, under the comments, there's a "Print" button which opens the whole thing up in one page (not as ironic but there you go ;).

I don't mind the close-ups but the endorsement by characters is sometimes a bit much. The worst i've seen is probably the Toyota Yaris from 'Smallville', seemed like poor old Chloe had to mention how great it was most episodes for a time there.

You do have to wonder a bit about the '30 Rock' approach, great as that show is IMO. In one sense it's a necessary evil that they have to deal with somehow but in another the sugar-coating might just encourage us to completely forget we're being fed a pill at all.

And re: banners at the bottom of the screen, is that during the show ? Cos "NO THANKS !" with a capital fuck off, there's already too much on the screen that seems almost deliberately crafted to pull you out of the moment and remind you that this is, indeed, just a way to sell you stuff (at least with advert breaks the writer can structure their script around it so that dramatic moments are highlighted rather than being crushed beneath the weight of a third of a screen advert for frikkin' "Ghost Hunters").

Saje | October 06, 10:37 CET

"The Jossverse was one of the more subtle shows that went out of its way for generic brands..."

Erm, Apple laptops anyone?

Luckily for me these placements go straight under my radar (except for Willow's Mac, obviously) which maybe does make the 30 Rock approach the right approach for the advertisers.

moley75 | October 06, 11:31 CET

The only brand I remember from Buffy was the box of Jonnie-Os. I was quite upset when I discovered it was fictional.

(side note: to confirm that I read the box properly, I googled for 'Jonathan Levinson Cereal;' the greatest book Richard Bach never wrote.)

frostcircus | October 06, 11:37 CET

What's worse though? Product placement? Rolling ads at the bottom? Or the software now being tested in the UK and US which will automatically insert logos into large empty parts of the screen as the action unfolds.

That last one horrorfies me.

Andy Dufresne | October 06, 11:49 CET

I don't have a problem with brands featuring in shows, in fact it would clearly be impossible to make a show without brands. Chloe in Smallville has to drive some sort of car, why not get paid to use a certain brand.
But when the brand dictated starts dictating, and jarring with, the script then there's a problem. The first time I saw Chloe in the Yaris I thought "She used to have a Beetle convertable, why is she driving that cheap Toyota?" (No offence, Yaris owners). The downgrade in car wasn't addressed in the script. I know if a friend of mine suddenly turned up in a cheaper car I'd ask about it, so this example took me out of the story.

Hiro and Ando arguing about the car in Heroes? I can accept that. It was consistent with Hiro's character that he would obsess about a car. But what if the script then demanded that they break down? Would Toyota have allowed that?

It's like trying to explain the difference between art and porn. You can't really define the difference but you know it when you see it. If a product is something that a character would use, or talk about, then fine. People IRL do talk about products. How many iPhone users go on and on about how great their phones are?
But when scripts start having to be re-written to force products and dialogue in, then there's a problem.
And I think it's in the advertises own interest to avoid these clumsy, jarring, placements. I've driven a Yaris, it's a nice little car. But the way it was featured in Smallville made me laugh at it, not want to buy one.

This post bought to you by Coca Cola. Mmmm... That's tasty!

[ edited by zz9 on 2008-10-06 12:08 ]

zz9 | October 06, 12:06 CET

Imagine Willow saying that she was so good at the computer stuff because she used a Mac ... or something like that. *shudders*

I can see the point of showrunners saying: Let's praise Snapple (or whatever) for a minute if it buys us several more episodes of the show, but it is a deal with the (proverbial) devil anyway, IMO.

Ariane | October 06, 12:08 CET

But the way it was featured in Smallville made me laugh at it, not want to buy one.

Yeah, exactly zz9. It was presented on that show as a sort of hip getaway vehicle, always screeching around like some nippy little sports car and, frankly, it isn't. Advertising like that always makes me laugh anyway, y'know the whole "This tampon will change your life" sort of thing, like they're selling a "lifestyle choice" instead of a frikkin' toaster.

(not saying it doesn't work on us all BTW, it must or they wouldn't keep making them, it's just so absurd as a concept that it makes me smile. "Life in the shitter ? No Problem, we here at Gillette have just what you need to turn everything around" ;)

Or the software now being tested in the UK and US which will automatically insert logos into large empty parts of the screen as the action unfolds.

That last one horrorfies me.

Well if it's just "BANG" there then yeah Andy Dufresne, that'd be naff but if they include e.g. green screen "signs" in the background while filming and these are then just pasted over with locale specific adverts then I don't see too much wrong with that (depending on how it's done). It already happens for sports for instance, where the railing banner ads we see during a football match may not actually be there in real-life, they're super-imposed by post-processing software in real-time.

(and one upside might be that shows could be available worldwide since the ads could be tailored for each region ahead of time)

Saje | October 06, 12:23 CET

I quite liked the Sprint line in Heroes, because it worked well as a gag on its own.

mjwilson | October 06, 12:38 CET

I think the only show that's starting to bother me about product placement is TSCC. Them driving that damn Dodge around is getting to be way too obvious. And hell, if they have to go out of their way to show the big shiny truck, at least let it be a decent brand (sorry, I have a pathological hate of all things Dodge, stemming from childhood when my mom had this piece of crap Dodge Shadow).

deepgirl187 | October 06, 13:20 CET

Shows have to use things of the quotidian. Those things have labels. So... But I hate it when is obvious. Like in Heroes, the car that Hiro rented. Please!

Rikardo | October 06, 13:29 CET

The most disturbing product placement I ever seen was when a priest and a rabbi on the Gilmore Girls started talking about going to eat at 'Red Lobster'. I'm all for people making a buck, but oy vey that was annoying.

(For anyone with a passing interest in the psychology of advertising, I highly recommend popping over to the Gruen Transfer website
It's got past episodes of a very funny and entertaining Aussie show that dissects and debates ads and sales practices.)

missb | October 06, 13:45 CET