Why do people have a problem with Product Placements in movies?

Goodshape

Peteee wrote:

Looking around me I see 3 Dell logos, 2 philips logos, a Microsoft logo and one Sony logo.

The difference is that were any of those companys to pay for their logos to be on screen, they'd probably NOT want to be seen along side compeating brand names. So you'd have a dell logo, a dell logo, a dell logo and.. oh yea, a dell logo.

Were their any other mp3 players in Blade3 aside from iPod?

Were their any other games consoles lurking about in The Island?

Were their any other noticable car logos aside from BMW in the latest bond films?

I think not.

"Do you want Generic Orange flavoured carbonated beverage #1 or Generic Orange flavoured carbonated beverage#2?"
"Do you have the second most popular Cola flavoured drink?"

How about -
"do you want a drink?"
"yea, cheers"
"orange?"
"got any cola?"

sceptre

Goodshape wrote:

"got any cola?"

Nobody ever uses that line IRL.

impr0v

weemcd wrote:

it is a joke tho, 10 minutes of ads before the film, you think thank fúck thats over then sit through a film packed with ads.

I think this is the nub of the issue. Pay over the odds for the ticket, pay well over the odds for the junk food outside, sit through ten minutes of force feeding in front of the wall of advertising and then, in case that didn't work or everyone involved hasn't made enough money out of you already, fill the picture that you've come to see with subliminial and not-so subliminal advertising.

Either leave hard focus product placements out of films or put two or three more in and make the film free to view, since by that stage it will be little more than corporate indoctrination with a plot loosely draped over it, and will pay for itself through the placements and the increased footfall of voluntary ad-viewers.

impr0v

Goodshape wrote:

Were their any other noticable car logos aside from BMW in the latest bond films?

[product placement value for money]surely you mean Aston Martin?[/product placement value for money]

monkeyfudge

sceptre wrote:

Nobody ever uses that line IRL.

I don't think anyone asks for Pepsi in real life either though...

'Can I have a coke?'
'I've only got pepsi'
'Whatever!'

Peteee

Goodshape wrote:

The difference is that were any of those companys to pay for their logos to be on screen, they'd probably NOT want to be seen along side compeating brand names. So you'd have a dell logo, a dell logo, a dell logo and.. oh yea, a dell logo.

Looking around the office I see a dell logo, a dell logo, and... oh yea, a Dell logo.

Standardised equipment tbh

Were their any other mp3 players in Blade3 aside from iPod?

Nope, Thats a terrible piece of product placement. Then again, most people do in fact have ipod mp3 players, I'm sure some think its the only one you can buy.

Were their any other games consoles lurking about in The Island?

I own a PS2, Just cos I own a PS2 dosent mean I ahve to own an Xbox and a gamecube too.

Were their any other noticable car logos aside from BMW in the latest bond films?

I think not.

Aston Martin was the latest bond car, and I believe he was being chased by a Jaguar.

How about -
"do you want a drink?"
"yea, cheers"
"orange?"
"got any cola?"

"Do you want a drink?"
"Yea, cheers"
"Orange?"
"Well we've got orange juice or fizzy orange"
"Fizzy Orange, thanks"

etc etc

Saying fanta or Tango gets across the message immediatly that they are drinking a orange flavoured fizzy drink.

Nobody says 'i'll have a cola' its always 'i'll have a Coke' (or pepsi, if thats what you really want)

I think it makes films more realistic having logos all over the place, as long as they dont shove it in your face. The xbox wasn't shoved in your face, neither was msn search because a big logo is exactly what you see when you do a search.

It was nice to see msn search taking about 5 seconds to return a result...nothings changed in 30 years

Goodshape

oh that's right, they got the aston back..

bah, I don't care. I stand by my winge. Boo to product placement.

ObeyGiant

Peteee wrote:

Looking around the office I see a dell logo, a dell logo, and... oh yea, a Dell logo.

Standardised equipment tbh

But you just told us a few minutes ago about how there were other logos around you, too.

'Standardised' equipment isn't so standard. That's the problem here. Xbox as the game system of choice for malevolent scientists with God complexes? We don't even know if XBox will be around in 5 years, let along 15. They got trounced on the current round of game consoles. MSN Search running an entire city? If I had to put money on a search engine being around long enough to do that kind of thing, it wouldn't be MSN Search.

Peteee wrote:

Nope, Thats a terrible piece of product placement. Then again, most people do in fact have ipod mp3 players, I'm sure some think its the only one you can buy.

Well, that's the interesting part of this, because it gives us a chicken-or-egg conundrum. Do people think that it's the only mp3 player you can buy because it's the only one that's ever included in product placements?

Peteee wrote:

Aston Martin was the latest bond car, and I believe he was being chased by a Jaguar.

In the new movie, James Bond will drive a Fiat Panda. So let's think about this for a minute - they haven't decided on who will play James Bond in the new movie, but they've already decided on what product placement will be involved (Does this terrify anyone else?).

Peteee wrote:

I think it makes films more realistic having logos all over the place, as long as they dont shove it in your face. The xbox wasn't shoved in your face

Ahem.
The Xbox logo was shoved in your face. There were often cut-aways to the 'scoreboard', but this was perfunctory, because there was absolutely no consistency to the scoring (watch the movie again and see the score go up, and down, and around) - so the only reason this was put in the movie was to throw an Xbox logo right in your face.

There was one bit in the movie that was so laugh-out-loud ridiculous that it made me want to download the movie just to get a screengrab.


In the movie, it looks even *more* like an ad. It provides the only colour in that scene, and the camera pans around it in some awed orbit.

Ridiculous.

Kingp35

impr0v wrote:

Either leave hard focus product placements out of films or put two or three more in and make the film free to view, since by that stage it will be little more than corporate indoctrination with a plot loosely draped over it, and will pay for itself through the placements and the increased footfall of voluntary ad-viewers.

And how exactly would the cinema thats showing you the movie make its money then?!! They get very little money as it is. Very little of your ticket price actually goes to the cinema.

Peteee

ObeyGiant wrote:

But you just told us a few minutes ago about how there were other logos around you, too.

'Standardised' equipment isn't so standard. That's the problem here. Xbox as the game system of choice for malevolent scientists with God complexes? We don't even know if XBox will be around in 5 years, let along 15. They got trounced on the current round of game consoles. MSN Search running an entire city? If I had to put money on a search engine being around long enough to do that kind of thing, it wouldn't be MSN Search.

I was talking about the fact that all the computers in the office are dell's, just like in the Island they were all apples.

Would the product placement have been better if it were Google?

Well, that's the interesting part of this, because it gives us a chicken-or-egg conundrum. Do people think that it's the only mp3 player you can buy because it's the only one that's ever included in product placements?

Interesting point. Maybe it is.

In the new movie, James Bond will drive a Fiat Panda. So let's think about this for a minute - they haven't decided on who will play James Bond in the new movie, but they've already decided on what product placement will be involved (Does this terrify anyone else?).

Aside from the totally bizzare choice, no it dosent bother me that its been picked out already.

Ahem.
The Xbox logo was shoved in your face. There were often cut-aways to the 'scoreboard', but this was perfunctory, because there was absolutely no consistency to the scoring (watch the movie again and see the score go up, and down, and around) - so the only reason this was put in the movie was to throw an Xbox logo right in your face.

There was one bit in the movie that was so laugh-out-loud ridiculous that it made me want to download the movie just to get a screengrab.


In the movie, it looks even *more* like an ad. It provides the only colour in that scene, and the camera pans around it in some awed orbit.

Ridiculous.

The scoring was to show who won? I didn't notice the inconsistencies in the score tbh.

I cant even see what that brand of drink is, although 'panning teh camera around it' is stupid.

Maybe it does go overboard, but you seem to be against any type of placement, wheras I think that certain product placement, so long as its done subtly (Which to be fair to you, isn't all that well achieved in The Island, but I still dont think its so bad) is a good thing because it makes teh environment more beliveable, with people drinking 'bud' instead of 'beer' and using 'msn search' instead of 'Search teh intarweb!!111eleven'

weemcd

jesus christ a fiat panda?

I take it all back, big sponsorship is much better!!!!!

Vanquish > fiat panda

ObeyGiant

Peteee wrote:

I was talking about the fact that all the computers in the office are dell's, just like in the Island they were all apples.

Were they all apples?

Peteee wrote:

Would the product placement have been better if it were Google?

Perhaps. If it was were Google, it certainly would have taken away some of the stench of "HALF OF THIS MOVIE PAID FOR BY MICROSOFT" and would have been a nice nod to the technological world (a la 'nmap' in the Matrix Revolutions).

Also, besides the Xbox and MSN Search scenes, there's also a point where a giant building carrying what is unmistakably the Microsoft logo. I don't know if this is a real building or not, but it's definitely not in there by mistake:

Peteee wrote:

The scoring was to show who won? I didn't notice the inconsistencies in the score tbh.

Well, no. As I said, the score was perfunctory - we know who won because Jordan floored Lincoln. Bay gives us a bunch of typically fast-cut shots of the scoreboard which, unburdened by such notions as 'continuity', jumps all over the place throughout the match and serves no purpose other than to give us all a good look at the (antiquated) xbox logo.

Peteee wrote:

I cant even see what that brand of drink is

And that's what makes it even more sinister - it's actually Michelob Light in an aluminium bottle - a product that Michelob are launching/have launched recently and are clearly desperate for screen-time. It's ugly and tacky and cheapens a movie that really can't afford to be cheapened any more.

Peteee wrote:

Maybe it does go overboard, but you seem to be against any type of placement, wheras I think that certain product placement, so long as its done subtly

Erm.

Perhaps it's time you went back over my posts in this thread. "I don't generally have any problem with product placement in movies, when they make sense within context. Done well, they can heighten the sense of believability" "if the filmmakers are smart about it, they can get away with [product placement]" "We've already established that product placement works best when the filmmakers don't draw focus from where the action is just so they can unnecessarily include some logo or product.". I thought it was clear that I'm not against any type of product placement. Just the dumb, crass kind.

Bri

ObeyGiant wrote:

There was one bit in the movie that was so laugh-out-loud ridiculous that it made me want to download the movie just to get a screengrab.

Agreed. This is the scene that I mentioned earlier. I dunno how people like Peteee can say that kind of PP in the Island isn't "so bad". Really, I mean it's the prime example of PP that serves no beneficial purpose (to us); the negatively of this is something plenty of the posters seem to agree on. If it's "not so bad" what IS?

Peteee

Right fair enough, maybe I just got caught up in the whole thing (I was having an argument on MSN about the same thing! Musta got mixed up) Apologies!

So long as it's not too in your face then it's fine (That MS building obviously isn't real, altough it's fairly discreet all the same) It is pretty clear that 'the island' is pretty bad when it comes to in your face pp, but I still think the msn search placement is perfectly legitimate (As was the cadillac placement.... or was it Chrysler!)

I didn't notice that bottle of michelob whatever in the movie either. They should have changed the xbox logo, to make it fit into context (and maybe called it the xbox 2120 or 720 or something!).

Having Google sponsor the search engine would be entirely beside the point (Google did the search engine in 'Hitch'...about the only non-sony branded thing in the movie!) and frankly who care's if half the thing was sponsored by Microsoft (They obviously didn't get consulted on the apple computers bit )

So they had a xbox logo and MSN search logo inserted....big deal, They could ahve been replaced with any other brand to similar effect. The xbox the movie could have done without easily, but to say that replacing the msn search with google would have made it 'alright' is absurd.

If they had used firefox browsers it wouldnt get half the stick it gets cos 'firefox is cool'

impr0v

Kingp35 wrote:

And how exactly would the cinema thats showing you the movie make its money then?!! They get very little money as it is. Very little of your ticket price actually goes to the cinema.

From the ads before the performance and the 20000%* markup on the pocorn and pick'n'sick.


*approximate figure

Zaph

monkeyfudge wrote:

I don't think anyone asks for Pepsi in real life either though...

'Can I have a coke?'
'I've only got pepsi'
'Whatever!'

Actually, that should read:

'Can I have a coke?'
'I've only got pepsi'
'Water's fine!'

Blisterman

Pepsi's far nicer than coke.

Cabaal

If anybody saw the movie Hitch with (aw hell naw) Will Smith, google gets maybe 5-6 mentions such as
"did you google his name?"
also its on computer screens anytime they seem to cut to office scenes

Nah in the case of google I "suppose" you could argue that its a term/word thats come more into common usage, where google means to search...but it could be just PP.

As for Firefox, it was in a episode of Law & Order: Criminal Intent, s4 ep 20
However you have to realise that the Mozilla foundation is not a big company that can pay TV/Movie companys for PP so its very different from Microsoft/Google etc

:cool:

Bacchus

Peteee, your posts make me want to hurt something the're so pedantic. Uh... I didn't see any "inconsistances in the score".... "They should have changed the xbox logo, to make it fit into context (and maybe called it the xbox 2120 or 720 or something"... ugh. You seem to have missed the point completely. The problem is having these products shoved in our faces just for the sake of shoving them in our faces. You can have product placement and keep it simple, discreet and in the background (such as that Microsoft screenshot ObeyGiant provided).
Anyway, I made my points already and I generally agree with what ObeyGiant has been saying so far. The rest of ye stop being so pedantic. If you go nit-picking at every placement on TV and cinema ye'll reduce this thread to a schoolyard squabble.

On the issue of movies for free. Beside the fact that it will never happen (with the big movies anyway) cinemas would lose sooo much money. Sure the food is expensive but they still make more on ticket sales. Most people general buy nothing or just a drink going in. I'd say it averages out at about €4 per person. Tickets are around €7/8 so if you have free cinema, thar'll be a massive loss of income right there.

K!LL!@N

Just gonna throw in my 2 cents here.

I've just finished watching Night Watch.
I was really enjoying the film.
Getting nicely involved in the plot, which can be tough sometimes when it's subtitled.
Someone goes to make a cup of coffee, cue long shot on NESCAFE jar.
I'm immediately distracted by how lame this is.
It really annoyed me.
There i am thinking this Russian film will be free from product placement or at least if there is any, it'll be in Russian so i won't notice.

After my initial annoyance i think, "Ok, it's a Russian film. They need to get finance from wherever they can. Fair enough.".
Then it happens again.
Woman shopping in the supermarket, cue long shot of her taking down more NESCAFE!
Arrrrggggghhhhhh!

The film is turning into one big ad for NESCAFE.

It completely ruined the atmosphere for me.


I'm not against product placement if it means a good film will get funding.
I'd agree with the comments about Minority Report.
They worked that product placement in really well.
Yes it was obvious, but it was showing how intrusive advertising is likely to get in the future.

The I, Robot thing was ridiculous.

Anyway, yeah.
I don't like product placement.

Killian

ObeyGiant

Peteee wrote:

So long as it's not too in your face then it's fine (That MS building obviously isn't real, altough it's fairly discreet all the same)

I'm not even suggesting the MS building is actually product placement. And yes, it whizzes by very quickly in the actual movie. If I hadn't been keeping my eyes peeled for this kind of thing, I never would have noticed it. And this just makes me wonder about its actual purpose in the movie.

Peteee wrote:

(As was the cadillac placement.... or was it Chrysler!)
I disagree. It was an advertisment for a Cadillac that will be coming out in 2009. I don't see it as any better or worse than the Converse advertisment in I, Robot.

Peteee wrote:

So they had a xbox logo and MSN search logo inserted....big deal, They could ahve been replaced with any other brand to similar effect. The xbox the movie could have done without easily, but to say that replacing the msn search with google would have made it 'alright' is absurd.

Trying very hard not to be rude here but once again, you're completely missing the point. The point isn't that they used Brand X instead of Brand Y. They could have replaced the Xbox stuff with a big, garish Playstation Logo. Or a hideous, crude Nintendo logo. Hell, they could have put in a giant neon "Phantom" logo for all I care. The problem most people are having isn't with the brand being displayed (although a lot of nerds would balk at the MSN Search thing on principle) - the problem is in the way the brands were displayed. In the case of the Island, they were heavy-handed and offensive.

And that's what we're arguing about.

Peteee

Bacchus wrote:

Peteee, your posts make me want to hurt something the're so pedantic. Uh... I didn't see any "inconsistances in the score".... "They should have changed the xbox logo, to make it fit into context (and maybe called it the xbox 2120 or 720 or something"... ugh. You seem to have missed the point completely.

I was trying to point out that i actually didnt see any inconsitencies in the score, to say that, well *I* just didnt notice it. Next time I watch the movie i'll keep a look out for it, and if it does indeed go up and down and all over the place, then it'll be stupid.

Point about the xbox logo is that they didn't make an effort to change it.ObeyGiant pointed out that it would have been more realistic to have a 'xbox 2120' (Or rather I pointed it out, but i think he was getting at the same thing) logo becuase it would ahve fit into context a lot better, you might have even pointed out 'oh look, product placement, and its somewhat clever like the ones in minority report' rather then 'bleugh product placement'

I am being pedantic because i'm deliberatly disagreeing with you to make a point that, frankly, I dont think product placement is that big a deal. Logos are shoved, *prominently* in your face all day and every day. Maybe some movies do go overboard, and they should defietly tone it down.

Maybe I just prefer seeing 'msn search' (as crap as it is in real life) rather then 'Search Engine®' because its more realistic.

I'm sure MS paid a good few million to get prominent placement in the movie, if that helped pay scarlett johanssens fee, then the money was well worth it!

On the issue of movies for free. Beside the fact that it will never happen (with the big movies anyway) cinemas would lose sooo much money. Sure the food is expensive but they still make more on ticket sales. Most people general buy nothing or just a drink going in. I'd say it averages out at about €4 per person. Tickets are around €7/8 so if you have free cinema, thar'll be a massive loss of income right there.

Most of the ticket price goes back to the distributor (90% in the first week) and cinemas make most of thier money on food and drink. The movie is just to get you in the door so you'll spend more money.

I know its not about brand x or brand y. Someone pointed out some Mozilla Suite 'product placement'. They obviously didnt pay for this, and it was a nod to the geek community who'd notice this thing.

If microsoft *paid* to get IE displayed, and mozilla just happened to get displayed for the same amount of time, would people be complaining 'OMG firefox product placement, how disgusting!!!!11eleven11' ??? (I realise this is a completely different argument, and its *not* what your getting at)

Necronomicon

After seeing I, Robot for the first time tonight, I figured that this thread would have to be revived. I haven't looked back through the five pages, I'm assuming someone's already mentioned it, but it is ridiculous!
Will Smith's character wears converse for the whole film...nothing wrong with that, he has to wear something, but when his grandmother says something like:
"What are those on your feet?"
To which he replies:
"Vintage: 2004!"
............I didn't know whether to laugh, or cry, or cry with laughter.

Then, he is having a beer with his boss at a bar. Smith's character is upset that he is the only one who suspects anything untoward about the robots, so much so that everyone thinks he is turning into a paranoid maniac. After a couple of heated words, Will Smith gets up and leaves. His boss tells him to wait....when Smith turns back around, his boss simply says: "Nice shoes."
There's another scene where he has an unpleasant encounter with a bunch of robots, and is left dusting himself off on the ground. During this there is a good five-second shot of him checking out his shoes to make sure they are okay. Shameless! (Not to mention the plugging of Audi and JVC).

projectmayhem

the problem with product placement is not that it's there (it funds a lot of good movies), but the director is often given freedom to show a product somewhere, as long as it's seen. that's why most of it is billboards and stuff... because directors don't want to think too much about that stuff.

the matrix reloaded had a very sleek shot of agent smith driving up in an audi. very sexy shot indeed. you don't even realise that there's a huge audi sign smack bang in the middle of the shot until afterwards.

spiderman has an awful case of it. big chase sequence, and spidey jumps on a carlsberg truck - pauses for no reason - then jumps off. spiderman 2, swings his way between the front and trailer part of a bud truck... lol

Wacker

Did any of you guys read the review of the 10 year anniversary Toy Story DVD in Empire last month? The writer argued that one of the main reasons for the lasting appeal of Toy Story is the product placement; the Mr Potato Head, Etch-A-Sketch, the Trolls, the Slinky-Dog, etc. I see his point, as all these products made sense in the context of the film, as they were exactly the sorts of toys you'd expect Andy to own. Here, while product placement was used, it was used to make the film feel more real, as opposed to being covert advertising.

Capt'n Midnight

Wacker wrote:

Did any of you guys read the review of the 10 year anniversary Toy Story DVD in Empire last month? The writer argued that one of the main reasons for the lasting appeal of Toy Story is the product placement; the Mr Potato Head, Etch-A-Sketch, the Trolls, the Slinky-Dog, etc. I see his point, as all these products made sense in the context of the film, as they were exactly the sorts of toys you'd expect Andy to own. Here, while product placement was used, it was used to make the film feel more real, as opposed to being covert advertising.

Agree, but note that they are generic products at this stage with many copies made by others.

I'd expect a serious discount on my ticket with the level of placement in some films. The Island might be quaint in years to come, but I'd doubt it.

most people don't like ad breaks - and you get some of that feeling in The Island which does detract from it. maybe they will use CGI to remove the ads in future OR maybe they will update them