TiVo Community Forums Archives - Nader Sues Networks over Product Placement

TiVoCommunity.com
(c)opyright 1995-2005 All rights reserved
indexcheckTC
This area is a static history of posts in the TiVo Community Forum Archive.
This archive history was made for the simple indexing of search sites like Google.

Pages:1

Nader Sues Networks over Product Placement
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Dajad

Networks are turning to in-show product placement to counter TiVo ... now a Nadar group is taking them on for this practice:

http://www.adage.com/news.cms?newsId=38849

Quite amusing!

...Dale

Posted by: stevel

Who is "Nadar"? "Radar"'s brother? :D

Posted by: Dajad

Ralph Nader! [original typo corrected]

Posted by: trainman

The networks: "Sure, Mr. Nader! We'll start listing product placement in shows' closing credits!"

And, of course, we all know how easy it is to read the information contained in shows' closing credits these days. :D

Posted by: danielobvt

Well, this has about a snowballs chance. Content is not free, unless we pay for it we really have no right to complain. I would rather product placement over more commercials anyday. To be honest, in some ways it makes the stories more realistic, as we are surrounded by products, and this way they are not making up fake stuff (which really subtracts, it draws my attention away from the show).

Posted by: SuperRob

Honestly, product placement is SMART advertising, compared to most of the garbage they call commercials. I'd be more likely to buy a product if Gil Grissom or Sydney Bristow were using it.

As long as the placement isn't so obvious as to make me say "Oh, give me a BREAK!", then I'm fine with it. From what I've seen, it's rarely that bad, the worst example being the Budwiser ad after musical guests on Saturday Night Live.

Posted by: Kenny Banyan

quote:
Originally posted by SuperRob
Honestly, product placement is SMART advertising, compared to most of the garbage they call commercials. I'd be more likely to buy a product if Gil Grissom or Sydney Bristow were using it.

As long as the placement isn't so obvious as to make me say "Oh, give me a BREAK!", then I'm fine with it. From what I've seen, it's rarely that bad, the worst example being the Budwiser ad after musical guests on Saturday Night Live.

Then you must own a Nokia cell phone and drive a Ford Focus.

'Alias' Recaptures Support From Nokia, Ford

If you really watch Alias then I hope you haven't missed these blatant placements. I mean every chase sequence last year seemed like a commercial for the Ford Focus SVT.

Posted by: Dajad

Survivor uses the most product placements ... and they ALWAYS prominantly mention the product name! It doesn't bother me too much in survivor.

You can also tell when products are placed in movies and shows when the labels are facing the camera or when the character uses/drinks the product in an ackward way in order to ensure the label is facing the camera.

Otherwise, as long as it's not in your face and appropriate to the show I don't mind it a bit.

...Dale

Posted by: T-Wolves

Actually, the article says: "Ralph-Nader backed group....filed a complaint..."

Not Ralph himself, one of the many consumer groups he helped start. And not a lawsuit.

Posted by: Dajad

PRT940 -- you are quite correct ... I should have been more exact ... the Nader-founded group has filed a complaint that the FCC/FTC may, if they choose, use as a basis for bringing an action against Hollywood.

My bet is the FTC/FCC will toss them out on their ear ... this is ridiculous!

...Dale

Posted by: Frylock

quote:
Originally posted by Dajad
Survivor uses the most product placements ... and they ALWAYS prominantly mention the product name! It doesn't bother me too much in survivor.

You can also tell when products are placed in movies and shows when the labels are facing the camera or when the character uses/drinks the product in an ackward way in order to ensure the label is facing the camera.

Otherwise, as long as it's not in your face and appropriate to the show I don't mind it a bit.

...Dale

This is a great point. I'd rather Jeff say "and you are playing for a case of Snickers and Coke" rather than "and you are playing for a case of candy bars and cola beverages". As more and more product placement happens, it will be less noticeable I think because we will be so used to it.

Posted by: mitchb2

quote:
Originally posted by Dajad
Survivor uses the most product placements ...

Me neither...there's nothing wrong with it in that context.

The funniest was "The Restaurant," which was supposed to be a reality show. Yet "normal" guys would say things like "Wait til I get a few Coors Lights in me."

That's a definite "Give me a break" moment. :-)

Posted by: MighTiVo

quote:
Originally posted by mitchb2
Me neither...there's nothing wrong with it in that context.

The funniest was "The Restaurant," which was supposed to be a reality show. Yet "normal" guys would say things like "Wait til I get a few Coors Lights in me."

That's a definite "Give me a break" moment. :-)

And the moment that they were short on cash when the owner said to go to the AmEx Open Network website to get more cash.
I also liked to close ups of every guest paying with AmEx. With TiVo you could pause and see the card was the same fake name no number card everytime.

Posted by: allan

I don't mind appropriate product placement, but if one of James Bond's women uses Tampex, I'm outta there!

Posted by: TiVoMonkey

quote:
Originally posted by danielobvt
To be honest, in some ways it makes the stories more realistic, as we are surrounded by products, and this way they are not making up fake stuff (which really subtracts, it draws my attention away from the show).

I can agree with this, I was watching the movie Training Day the other day, when Denzel Washington walks up to a house with a box with a boombox in it, and the brand on the box, SUNY, that totally distracted me that it just didn't say SONY.

It was the same font and everything, but with the U. :D

Posted by: Dajad

quote:
Originally posted by allan
I don't mind appropriate product placement, but if one of James Bond's women uses Tampex, I'm outta there!

What would you prefer they use?

:) ... Dale

Posted by: jsmeeker

quote:
Originally posted by mitchb2
Me neither...there's nothing wrong with it in that context.

The funniest was "The Restaurant," which was supposed to be a reality show. Yet "normal" guys would say things like "Wait til I get a few Coors Lights in me."

That's a definite "Give me a break" moment. :-)

Yup.. Very, very blatant.. The only thing any one ever drank was Coors Light. Do people in New York City really drink Coor's Light? And when it was delivery day, they *had* to get a nice long shot of case after case of Coors Light being slid down the ramp into the basement.

Posted by: Kenny Banyan

The Restaurant is a new type of product placement where the sponsors actually paying the cost of the production of the show and the show itself is owned by an advertising agency.

To me this almost crosses the line. When the sponsor pays for the show, it seems like it is only one step removed from an infomercial.

Posted by: samkuhn

quote:
content is not free, unless we pay for it we really have no right to complain.

We *do* pay for this content though. There is a finite amount of bandwidth for over-the-air television broadcasts. In the United States we gave this bandwidth FOR FREE to the Networks. This bandwidth has value (just ask the cell phone companies!). The Networks owe us, not the otherway around. We have the right to regulate and stipulate how that bandwidth will be used.

With newspapers, magazine, or other information/entertainment sources there can be an infinite variety, thus different rules may apply. In the case of TV, there is a finite delivery route. We should and can regulate who uses that route to better the public, not to enrich megamedia.

Posted by: keepitred

As is the case with newspapers & magazines, advertising designed to appear to be content has to be prominently labeled as advertising. The reasoning behind the law, with regard to print, is readers assume a certain amount of impartiality on the part of the writer. Advertisements that are specifically designed to appear to be a written article must be clearly labeled as an advertisement, and also must visibly differ from the appearance of a typical article (most importantly, the advertisement must be in a different typeface from the publication's standard typeface). The law is designed to prevent the reader into buying something under the false impression that an impartial authority has given merit to a product.

Argueably, television is such a substantially different medium from print that it can be suggested that paid product placements are acceptable in all but a narrow segment of production, specifically nonfiction television (i.e. the news, talk shows, game shows etc). In some cases paid product placement is a required disclosure already (particularily in game shows). Fiction television, i.e. sitcoms & soap operas, generally the bread and butter television networks live off of, are inheriently biased in that they are not based in reality.

Posted by: trainman

quote:
Originally posted by Kenny Banyan
The Restaurant is a new type of product placement where the sponsors actually paying the cost of the production of the show and the show itself is owned by an advertising agency.

You think this is new? That's how most TV shows, including sitcoms and dramas, were done in the 1950s, and even into the early 1960s.

If we could somehow go back to that, where there were maybe three minutes of commercials in a half-hour show, plus some fairly subtle product placement, it would be just fine with me, as long as the sponsor isn't going to try to rig the results of quiz shows like some did in the '50s.

Posted by: Fustanella

I'm for it as long as it keeps Nader so busy he can't screw up another election.

Posted by: Z'Loth

I have some classic Twilight Zone episodes on DVD. In the closing credits, there were product stills for a well-known company's products.

Posted by: SuperRob

The problem with "The Restaurant" was that the product placement was incredibly blatant, and borderline insulting. When all of a sudden you start wondering if the entire "reality" show was staged, you know that the product placement is failing.

Shows like Alias did it a little better. Yes, the chase scenes with the Ford Focus were just a bit out there, but I didn't find the Nokia phones all that distracting. The only thing I really find distracting is when I see people using phones or other devices that I _know_ aren't on the market yet. I become a little green-eyed monster ... ;)

I notice things like cell phones on TV shows more because I notice the phones peoplle are using in real life as well. The fact that I can clearly see that it's a Nokia doesn't bother me.

Posted by: mike3775

Anyone remember the movie Wayne's World?

They did a great parody of ad placements in one scene that had me rolling.