Brought To You By
Some people had trouble with recent "product placement" on 30 Rock. Last week's episode had Alec Baldwin and Salma Hayek talking about how the McFlurry is the perfect dessert, and reuniting as lovers in a McDonalds.
I feel strongly about product placement. There's not enough. The world I live in has brand names everywhere, but on a TV show or movie we're suddenly in generic-land. Seems fake. It was great that Baldwin and Hayek were talking about a real product, not something made up for the show.
PS Product placement usually implies more than just putting a brand name in the shot. It means receiving consideration. I didn't think 30 Rock or NBC were paid for the McFlurry mentions (especially since there's an undercurrent of mockery), and Tina Fey agrees.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:26 AM
2 Comments:
I am all for product placement in TV (and radio) shows if it means less commercials. I'd be for it in movies too, if it brought ticket prices down, but that is not too likely. I'm not sure what the objection is - if someone is going to be subconsciously influenced to buy a McFlurry because Selma Hayek extoled its virtues, how is it any worse that she does so in the body of the show than in a commercial before or after the show?
The main reason people oppose PP, I think, is that it's selling out. Instead of creating art, or entertainment, the show or movie is now concerned with promoting a product.
I'm for product placement, as you can see, because I think it makes the art or entertainment better. (I'm also against trademark laws that make it tricky to show brand names, though a lot of this is frightened producers playing it safe--so bravo for 30 Rock for not caring if McDonald's sues them.)
Post a Comment
<< Home