Does US TV not have Product Placement rules?
- Thread starter Ethros
- Start date
See, I don't understand this... because it sounds to me that these rules are basically dictating creative decisions. If someone wants to make a TV show or movie where they zoom in on everyone's sneakers for 5 minute intervals, crass as it is, why shouldn't they be allowed to do it? Why does that need to be regulated? And how do you objectively discern if product placement is "distracting" or not?
I was just about to come in here and say just this. Product placement often sucks (although it occasionally adds to the realism of a show or movie) but the idea that there should be any rules governing it is ludicrous. Who would be imposing these rules? Surely not the networks who only stand to make money on it.
So that just leaves the government. And why the hell should the government have any business in the creative or editorial content of a fucking TV show?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement
So I just watched the first episode of US TV show Chuck...
At least I think it was supossed to be a TV show, it seemed to me to be more like an hour long commericial for Chuck Taylor Converse All-Star shoes.
Wow, I thought Series 2+ of Doctor Who was bad enough for this, but Jesus, thus show takes the cake
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the shoes, I actually really like them (thanks to Doctor Who actually) and have a couple of pairs myself.
And since I've started wearing them I've noticed in a HELL of a lot of shows and movies charatcers wear them, but in Chuck it's so over the top.
I mean the name of the show pretty much sums it up. There were tonnes of loving closeup shots of his trainers, which make I, Robot's use seem pratically subtle in comparison
As I say I've only seen one episode thus far, and actually I wasn't overly impressed so I don't think I'm gonna continue. It started out okay, and I liked the main charatcer (bit like a poor mans Jim Halpert) but once all the CIA crazy stuff started going on it just became pretty ludicrous IMO.
I thought the Yvonne Strahovsky character was supposed to be a secret agent, not the love child of a Terminator and a Slayer
Anyway, thats my rant.
Thoughts?
I don't think there are product placement rules for US TV, no. Or, if there are, they're probably only for things like cigarettes and alcohol. Certainly there are no rules against product placement for something as innocuous as sneakers.
I believe here in the UK it is OFCOM and the Advertising Standards Agency, I suppose it's similar to the FCC. Until now product placement has been banned on UK TV shows, and The X-Factor got in trouble for repeatedly showing Simon Cowell drinking Coke, and using Nokia phones.
The thing is, we have a lot of strict rules on advertising, such as a ban on junk food advertising during kids shows, and a ban on showing drinking to be something that makes you cool, or a ban on tabacco advertising altogether. Also rules about the placement of ad breaks. So if someone thinks that the ad breaks are in a position where they interupt the action, or at a point where it breaks the flow of the narritive, they can complain, the same if they think the show concentrates heavily on advertising the product, rather than the story.
While I kinda think some of the rules are a bit over the top, I prefer that they are there. The rules also take in to account the type of show, I believe. So if the show is something where it's expected, say a show that's mostly about cars, the fact that you have shots showing off the brand logo and things like that, are to be expected and given a pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement
So I just watched the first episode of US TV show Chuck...
At least I think it was supossed to be a TV show, it seemed to me to be more like an hour long commericial for Chuck Taylor Converse All-Star shoes.
Wow, I thought Series 2+ of Doctor Who was bad enough for this, but Jesus, thus show takes the cake
Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the shoes, I actually really like them (thanks to Doctor Who actually
And since I've started wearing them I've noticed in a HELL of a lot of shows and movies charatcers wear them, but in Chuck it's so over the top.
I mean the name of the show pretty much sums it up. There were tonnes of loving closeup shots of his trainers, which make I, Robot's use seem pratically subtle in comparison
As I say I've only seen one episode thus far, and actually I wasn't overly impressed so I don't think I'm gonna continue. It started out okay, and I liked the main charatcer (bit like a poor mans Jim Halpert) but once all the CIA crazy stuff started going on it just became pretty ludicrous IMO.
I thought the Yvonne Strahovsky character was supposed to be a secret agent, not the love child of a Terminator and a Slayer
Anyway, thats my rant.
Thoughts?
I don't think there are product placement rules for US TV, no. Or, if there are, they're probably only for things like cigarettes and alcohol. Certainly there are no rules against product placement for something as innocuous as sneakers.
They're looser than they were in the 80's (There's still a ban on advertising cigarettes. However, they're loosened the restrictions on hard liquor somewhat -- rum, vodka, etc.)
The only product placement rules that apply are: if the company gives ya money, do it! 
I don't mind product placement to help underwrite the cost of a show. Everyone's lives are so suffused with brand names, it seems only natural that people would drink a Coke and not Generic Brand Soda, etc. Most of the time honestly I don't even notice it happened till someone points it out in a thread. I wish all advertising were equally unobtrusive.
What I hate is those stupid little ads that run along the bottom of a show (usually for another show on the same network). Those definitely must die!
I agree. But I think I'll start watching Chuck in the fall in any case. I like the interpersonal chemistry between Zach Levi and Adam Baldwin.
I don't mind product placement to help underwrite the cost of a show. Everyone's lives are so suffused with brand names, it seems only natural that people would drink a Coke and not Generic Brand Soda, etc. Most of the time honestly I don't even notice it happened till someone points it out in a thread. I wish all advertising were equally unobtrusive.
What I hate is those stupid little ads that run along the bottom of a show (usually for another show on the same network). Those definitely must die!
I agree. But I think I'll start watching Chuck in the fall in any case. I like the interpersonal chemistry between Zach Levi and Adam Baldwin.
That new Knight Rider pilot I believe was nothing more than a two hour commercial.
Yeah that was over the top in its obviousness!
But even then, I would have overlooked it if the pilot hadn't sucked so entirely I couldn't suffer thru more than the first hour. Moral of the story: product placements are a lot more endurable that atrocious writing and worse acting.Yep, it's all our fault. We shouldn't complain.
Other than the justification of the FCC - that the airwaves are limited and therefore should be regulated for the public good - I'd say the government should stay the hell out. And as we all know, the limitation of "airwaves" is history now. If product placement offends the audience, they can respond by changing the channel. Let the market decide.
At least the original Knight Rider, as cheesy as it was, didn't have Pontiac advertisements between every commercial break
I believe the requirements were along the lines of:They did it with the new Knight Rider TV-movie too (Hey, NBC ... there ARE other car companies besides Ford out there!)
1) A US make.
2) "Muscle car"
3) Cost effective models/parts available
4) Company support of vehicles
Other companies were approached, but Ford was the company that put the most support behind supplying parts and vehicles to the production effort, and thus they got to be the face of the new KITT.
That wasn't through Pontiac's higher moral ground. After the first season, Pontiac deliberately distanced themselves from the show (down to not wanting the car referred to as a Trans Am on the show) because so many people were going into their showrooms *asking* for a "Knight Rider car" that they didn't have. Of course, in a way they shot themselves in the foot since they did associate KR with the Trans Am in the beginning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyoT-mfszzw
In general, I have no problem with product placement. I may be in the minority, but even as a kid whenever I saw a movie or show with a product I knew was meant to be something "real", say, Coke and it wound up being called "Fizzy Cola" instead, it always distracted me and took me "out" of the film for a moment. I think part of this may have been due to seeing "Blade Runner" at such a young age, where this nightmarish world still had banners for things like Coke and Atari. It added a layer of realism to the setting that made it more unsettling than if the spinners had flown past a "Fizzy Cola" sign.
...They did it with the new Knight Rider TV-movie too (Hey, NBC ... there ARE other car companies besides Ford out there!
Other companies were approached, but Ford was the company that put the most support behind supplying parts and vehicles to the production effort, and thus they got to be the face of the new KITT.
I think what LizFL probably meant was that just about all the cars seen in the movie were Fords. Which actually isn't uncommon; generally in the end credits of a show you'll see "Automobiles supplied by XXX Motor Company," and it's usually just one company. It's been a subtle form of product placement for decades; it's just grown more overt lately.
Who can forget the "you can borrow my Yaris" line from Smallville? They might as well have broken the fourth wall and have Welling walk towards the camera saying "Hi, I'm Tom Welling from TV's Smallville. When I'm not zipping around at super speed saving Metropolis and Smallville, I like nothing better than to zip around town in my new Toyota Yaris...".
Chuck - hilarious show! Love the mix of action and humour. As for the product placement -- really? Never even noticed it! But be thankful that they do use a fake store "Buy More", but which is quite obviously Best Buy in disguise!! Imagine the outcry if it really was Best Buy being heavily featured in the show?
jeez, you people musta HATED Transformers what with Nokia phones, Chevy cars, Burger King, Mountain Dew and the X-Box 360...
not to mention eBay...
several of the British commercial channels have 'sponsers' for programmes. PC World sponsors drama on Virgin 1 so before T:SCC you get a PCW ad, then one at the start and end of each break and at the end before The Unit.
Enterprise S2 was sponsored by Call of Duty 2 and Destroy All Monsters IIRC.
not to mention eBay...
several of the British commercial channels have 'sponsers' for programmes. PC World sponsors drama on Virgin 1 so before T:SCC you get a PCW ad, then one at the start and end of each break and at the end before The Unit.
Enterprise S2 was sponsored by Call of Duty 2 and Destroy All Monsters IIRC.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
I read somewhere recently that it had, indeed, been renewed.
I only saw a few episodes of it, but it was so incredible.. in terms of product placement. It was horrible.
