Product Placement

davyjose

just saw castaway on the box tonight. Great film, great acting, tearjerker, etc.... but OH MY GOD, has there ever been a film with such shameless Product placement? Firstly its based around Fed Ex. There is a 'character' whose name is basically a brand. Imagine, 'Adidas, come back Adidas.' Even litle touches like on the plane Journey home he's offered a can and the guy says 'Dr. Pepper?'
It's worse than that scene in Wayne's World, which was a p1ss take.

MrJoeSoap

I haven't seen Castaway but the new Bond movie is apparently horrendous for it. Have to say it completely wrecks my head.

lodgepole

I'm in two minds about product placement. Sometimes when it's blatantly just an ad (I hear Casino Royale's bit is awful) I dislike it... But in Castaway, it's a story element. Presumably they could have made up their own Fed-Ex like company, but it adds to the realism to use a genuine one. I personally like seeing genuine brands used on film, as long as they aren't irrelevant to the plot or a character detail.

Royale with Cheese

I don't see the problem with product placement in castaway. If the guy works for a delivery company why not use Fed Ex. It's not saying how great their service is, just that it is a delivery company this guy works for. It's not like you didn't know who Fed Ex were before you saw the film. I'd prefer that to some made up brand.

I'd be fairly certain that Wilson was called Wilson in the original script, before the studios got their hands on the film.

Once again I don't see a problem with him being offered a doctor pepper instead of some made up brand. All they do is aknowledge the fact the product exists, which everyone knows it does. Also it helps show the difference between how he lived on the island drinking coconut milk, while the rest of the world could drink mass produced fizzy drinks like dr. pepper.

The one type of product placement I do hate is that which is used in the Bond films. Just a brand name written across the screen left there for a while. Sony Ericsson doesn't need to be on the top of the screen when he gets his phone out. It serves no purpose other than advertisement.

davyjose

Royale with Cheese wrote:

I don't see the problem with product placement in castaway. If the guy works for a delivery company why not use Fed Ex. It's not saying how great their service is, just that it is a delivery company this guy works for. It's not like you didn't know who Fed Ex were before you saw the film. I'd prefer that to some made up brand.

I'd be fairly certain that Wilson was called Wilson in the original script, before the studios got their hands on the film.

Once again I don't see a problem with him being offered a doctor pepper instead of some made up brand. All they do is aknowledge the fact the product exists, which everyone knows it does. Also it helps show the difference between how he lived on the island drinking coconut milk, while the rest of the world could drink mass produced fizzy drinks like dr. pepper.

The one type of product placement I do hate is that which is used in the Bond films. Just a brand name written across the screen left there for a while. Sony Ericsson doesn't need to be on the top of the screen when he gets his phone out. It serves no purpose other than advertisement.

I don't see how you can make allowances for one film but not the other. I find it very unlikely that the character of the ball happened to be called Wilson without ANY deliberate reference to a Major volleyball producing sportsbrand of the same name. Ok, it so happens that wilson is a perfectly usable name (as opposed to Adidas), but that just gives them license to do it.

As for Fed Ex, your kidding me, this is the movies - its fantasy. There is no reason to keep the name Fed Ex. So many other films have done it. And its not as if Fed Ex have ever shied away from Product placement (National Lampoons Vacation was on tonight with ANOTHER reference to Fed Ex).

But at the very least if you can make such allowances for that you can expect Sony Ericsson to be left written on a phone (what else can they do).

Don't get me wrong - I'm not against product placement per se because its lends an air of reality to a storyline, but the Wilson and Fed Ex thing are two of the most extreme examples of persistent, ceaseless promotion, and their both IN THE SAME FILM!

Royale with Cheese

davyjose wrote:

I don't see how you can make allowances for one film but not the other

Royale with Cheese wrote:

Sony Ericsson doesn't need to be on the top of the screen when he gets his phone out. It serves no purpose other than advertisement

That's my problem with the James bond stuff. They could have zoomed in further to cut out the top of the phone but it's blatantly obvious they just want to show the brand name sony ericcson for no particular reason ($$$). Fed Ex is there, it shows this guy is a fairly important part of one of worlds biggest companies.

The ball is called Wilson because it's a wilson brand ball. It's a joke at first, but then the ball becomes his best friend. Do you think Spalding paid to have their name mentioned as well? Or was there name mentioned because it was part of another joke?

I'm not saying Fed Ex or Wilson didn't pay to have their names mentioned, I have no idea. But they're well written into the story and mentioning their name has a purpose other than pure advertisement.

I'm against blatant product placement but using brand names is useful to create a realistic atmosphere. If you're not against product placement what would be a reasonable use of it in your opinion?

davyjose

First off, I don't think I'm going to agree with you. The film was obviously about a delivery company, but because it was such a large part of the movie, I feel they should have made a fake company name (as with, say recently, The Devil wears Prada). Or at least been subtler about it. The opening scene after he is rescued shows him sitting on a plane, and it scans to his feet, and there on the carpet - on the carpet!! it says Fed Ex.

But back to your question. Anything where the product doesn't take centre stage. If there's a love story, and someone's sitting in a diner and they get handed a bottle of coke, fair enough. But if that love story somehow revolves around that bottle of coke, you have to ask questions, i feel.

BTW i remember texting my brother to tell him 'James Bond has the same phone as you' Ha ha. This advertising lark works.

monkeyfudge

Actually Castaway is a bad example here.

FedEx didn't didn't pay a penny to be featured in the film. Also while I was double checking on that I found out that the Dr. Pepper scene is apparently a reference to a scene in Forest Gump.

doubledown

If you want to see the ultimate example of product placement in a movie, check out Michael Bay's The Island.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/

I, Robot - product placement galore

monkeyfudge

Deleted User wrote:

I, Robot - product placement galore

Yep... That was horrible. Not only was the main character wearing a specific brand of runners but other characters complimented him on his choice of footware. No hetrosexual man would ever comment on another mans shoes so it has no baring on reality.

Even though its a joke im surprised nobody has mentioned tagadella nights

ObeyGiant

I personally feel like the issue of product placement becomes somewhat of a non-argument when it makes sense within the context of the story. So the examples given above: "Castaway" - makes sense ('FedEx' being shorthand for 'express delivery company' - what's a director going to do, waste valuable screen time giving us boring exposition explaining what fictitious "DeliverCo" does instead?) "I, Robot" doesn't.

I agree wtih DoubleDown - The Island was probably the worst I've seen. If you'll excuse the shameless self-promotion, I wrote about the product placement in the Island shortly after I saw it in the cinema: http://www.lowbrowculture.com/2005/08/21/product-placement-in-the-island/

monkeyfudge

Clark Kent drinking a Budweiser or whatever it was in Superman Returns was also horrible product placement as it was completely out of character.

Obey, in your blog you missed out on the blatant Ben & Jerrys icecream scene in the Island.

johnny_ultimate

Minority Report - but "apparantly" that was all part of the story.
Sure it was Steven, sure it was.

mike65

Product placement? eh?

Mike.

lostexpectation

the constant use of mobile phones in bond was sort of believable in a way in the old bond films it would have been british telecom handsets that they would be taping wouldn't it, the drive up the coast in the ford? that was the most gratutiuos as in the Bond movie, way too long.

and the worst recently the people carrier with tvs! in the seats on the bridge in X-men 3.

BlitzKrieg

there 3 types of product placement


1. The most common one is the screen grab placement. This is where the brand is shoved into the film at some specific point (depending on $$$?) with no reference to it in the film, nor any relevence on the film's plot.

Example: Carlsberg truck: Spiderman, Sony products: Casino Royale.

Response to this type is varied, some people hate it, especially when done poorly because it is clear the camera is focusing on the brand rather then moving on with the plot. It can be intrusive and aggrevating. Other times, it passes by the screen with little recognition or the film frames the image so that both product placement and story move along together.


2. The narrative tie in. This one is the rarest of product placements, but tends to be the most successful, this is product placement where the brand or product can tie directly into the narrative, with both filmmaker and studio perfering a identifible product for their plot rather then *ACME* product.

Examples: Minority Report, Castaway, Coming to America.

Response: Generally the most accepted form of product placement by viewers because it adds an extra level of irony or humour in some aspects of the film, other benefits is the ease in knowing that the audience does not need to have certain aspects of the films backplot explained as a vast majority of people know what FedEx is or Mcdonalds.

BUT this is the most difficult one to pull off because it needs both sides approval, and many companies do not like associating their product with narratives which demonise them. For example, someone mentioned the Devil wears Prada (first of all I think thats based on a book) it could be that none of the major fashion magazines wanted to have their name associated with their management being such *aggressive* people, not to mention the film takes jabs at the fashion industry as a whole (I think.)


3. The third and worse form of Product Placement, The Intrusive Narrative. This is when product placement is written into a script without any *tact* its blunt, painful and so badly managed that its painfully obvious. Overall the worse kind of placement, but also the most financial gaining, alot of money goes to have a character not only use or see a specific product, but to also actually name it on screen so studios jump at the notion. Thankfully despite its financial benefits, it is also not the very common, even Hollywood can sometimes spot when a product cant be sold in a film's narrative.

Examples: I Robot, The Island.


Response: The most hated form of product placement, it has all the awful qualities of the other two combined and is easily spotted, it not only has the potential to damage scenes in a film, but the entire film's plausability. Most notable being I Robot, which was completely decimated in the first 20 minutes when every single piece of *retro* the main character owned all came from 2004.




Comments, there has been cases where the product placement is there purely for the humour, obviously this is self mockery and doesnt really count as a fourth catagory (they fit into 2.) Waynes World and Taghalla Nights are good examples.

DublinEvents

Well, whether or not you like it, the film makers can do whatever they want with their movies. Coz good movies will still sell no matter how much advertising they have.

johnny_ultimate

The thing that annoys me about it is that we have already paid upwards of a tenner into the cinema, been bombarded with 20-30 mins of adverts and previews anyway. It's hardly like the companies need the extra couple of thousand they get from placing a couple of film ruining adverts in the film.

Just remembered "Mac & Me" too. Shudder.

BlitzKrieg

could have something to do with idiots more likely to buy something if they see james bond using it rather then having some prententious advert telling you its cool.

Peteee

lostexpectation wrote:

that was the most gratutiuos as in the Bond movie, way too long.

Nope, Die Another Day had a horrible scene where he is shaving.

From Wikipedia:

One product tie-in meant that there are two versions of the film. Bond shaves in the USA prints with a Norelco Spectra shaver and prints outside the USA with a Philishave Sensotec shaver.

They filmed it twice so as to have two different brands of shaving...yeuck!

Personally I didn't mind the 'advertising' in Casino Royale. Look at your phone right now, it has the manufacturers logo above it. Big deal, its there in the films aswell.

And tbh, are they expected to make up a ficticious car just so he can drive from place to place? Is the Aston not a form of product placement?

The FedEx/Wilson stuff in Castaway is fine too. It helps the plot along (Everyone knows what FedEx does, no need for explanation)

BopNiblets

doubledown wrote:

If you want to see the ultimate example of product placement in a movie, check out Michael Bay's The Island.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399201/

Also a contender for worst director placement... OH SNAP! *high fives everyone*

And headache-inducing chase-scenes placement...

I'm on a roll!

Necronomicon

I Robot, Blade: Trinity and The Island immediately spring to mind. When it's right in your face it really bugs me, absolutely shameless.

davyjose

monkeyfudge wrote:

Actually Castaway is a bad example here.

FedEx didn't didn't pay a penny to be featured in the film. Also while I was double checking on that I found out that the Dr. Pepper scene is apparently a reference to a scene in Forest Gump.

That's as may be, but it still is a very blatant form of advertising. And nobody will dissacociate the two. You think Castaway and Fed Ex springs to mind and vice versa.
With regards to the DR. Pepper reference, that is funny, and I too find that form of PP funny (I loved Greg Kinnears superhero in Mystery Men his outfit decked out like a racing driver's). But it is very effective. I can still remember some of the stuff advertised in the p1ss-take in Wayne's World: Pizza hut and Reebok, right? And i haven't seen it in years.

lodgepole

When it comes down to it though, it's only advertising... It's not like they're molesting children... If it's not intrusive (and generally it's not) then forget about it...

Pigman II

Yep, Casino Royale really takes the biscuit for this one

Even in the sequence where Bond and Vesper are sussing each other out it decends into an advert for Rolex and Omega watches.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

One of my main issues with product placement, is that it movies be made on the cheap, and as such they have more or less guaranteed profit margins provided they hype the launch.

The movie quality as such deteriorates, as thereis no real incentive to make a really good movie to actually attract viewers, they just hype it up, launch it, stick it on DVD within a month and then forget about it, going straight onto making another movie. It's the Hollywood equivelant of a pump'n'dump scam

Ghost Train

I liked seeing my phone at the start of the bond movie, but i really got bored with the amount of logos thru the whole film. The vaio laptops really stood out. Definitely took from the movie.

I didn't have a problem with fedex in castaway. I think it worked there and having some made up brand would not have worked

norrie rugger

Royale with Cheese wrote:

I don't see the problem with product placement in castaway. If the guy works for a delivery company why not use Fed Ex. It's not saying how great their service is, just that it is a delivery company this guy works for. It's not like you didn't know who Fed Ex were before you saw the film. I'd prefer that to some made up brand.

I'd be fairly certain that Wilson was called Wilson in the original script, before the studios got their hands on the film.

Once again I don't see a problem with him being offered a doctor pepper instead of some made up brand. All they do is aknowledge the fact the product exists, which everyone knows it does. Also it helps show the difference between how he lived on the island drinking coconut milk, while the rest of the world could drink mass produced fizzy drinks like dr. pepper.

The one type of product placement I do hate is that which is used in the Bond films. Just a brand name written across the screen left there for a while. Sony Ericsson doesn't need to be on the top of the screen when he gets his phone out. It serves no purpose other than advertisement.

seeing as sony made the film, they were hardly going to use another brand of computer of phone.
now admittedly they were very lingering shots on the brand names but better than having a Sunny Erica phone like

hmmm

This really ruined Casino Royale for me. The Omega watch thing, the Vaio, the car ad just struck me as manufactured scenes with no bearing on the plot and insults my time and money.

Castaway on the other hand I thought was fine - it was meant to be ironic (I presume!) and Hanks being the type of person who was fastidious about delivering his parcel safety was a central element of understanding the type of character he was.

Kinetic^

How much you reckon they get paid for it?

Running Bing

Peteee wrote:

They filmed it twice so as to have two different brands of shaving...yeuck!

You see this is what Im talking about. Real brands in films are fine, no problem. Its when they compromise the film by distracting from it thats disgusting. Every shot in a film is intentional and when a giant logo is plastered in the middle of the screen or in a prominent position in the screen its not by accident and for me it really distracts. Bond using a sony phone is fine. But if you watch the film again look at how the phone is placed within the shot and how everytime the brand takes precedence over daniel craig. I know it doesnt bother some people but it does bother a lot of people and when you pay good money for the experience and its ruined by this its a disgrace. I think thats the main issue with pp.


The thing that astonishes me is that the director and pierce brosnan went ahead with that. Do they have no respect for what they do? Its not like if they refuse the studio isnt gonna make a bond movie. If I was brosnan I would have been ashamed to pimp myself out like that. He's making a movie not an advert.

marie_85

Product placement is unfortunately an element of movie making now.

Was watching the first Superman movie the other day. A scene in the Kent's kitchen shows a box of Cheerio's on the counter. Outside the house, another box of Cheerio's can be seen through the window. It's annoying for me because I tend to get distracted by what they're advertising no matter how subtle it is and stop concentrating on the plot. In a similar way that continuity errors destroy films for me. They take away from the 'reality' of the film and bring me back to the real world.