If Your Product Placement Is Obvious And Awkward, You're Doing It Wrong
from the million-different-flavors-in-your-mouth-at-the-same-time dept
As DVRs usage and on-demand program watching increases, commercial breaks are becoming easier to skip. Product placement has long been discussed as a way to combat this trend, with shows like SNL getting into the act. However, if more shows are going to be placing products into their shows, it's important to remember that it's not just a matter of shoehorning a sponsor's product into the plotline. The soap opera, Days of Our Lives painfully illustrates this point with several embarrassingly awful product placements. Sure, the writing on soap operas might not be great to start with, but the product placement in these spots is so incredibly awkward, that it's hard to believe that the sponsors were happy with these ads. Surely writers struggled with trying to fit the term "Wanchai Ferry Chinese Food" into normal dialogue:
But, the phrase sounds painfully out-of-place, even in soap opera land, which, ironically, was created by Procter & Gamble as a platform with which to hawk their wares. Of course, it's not exactly clear if these are paid placements, since there's no active indication on the screen as such. Then again, when a bag of Chex Mix gets an obvious close up:
it certainly feels like a paid placement. These placements almost feel formulaic, when you start to watch them in succession. Product shot, check. Marketing message inserted in dialogue, check. This placement for Cheerios follows this formula perfectly, and ends with a hilariously melodramatic shot of the comely protagonist, with a huge box of Cheerios included inexplicably in the shot:
These placements are so bad that I almost wonder if this is yet another case of anti-product placement designed to muster negative sentiments for a competitors' products.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: ads, days of our lives, product placement, soap operas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm okay with a brand being shown as used by characters with no mention made of it, like we all use things we own or buy or eat or drink or wear. But characters espousing upon a brand for no good reason (as I've seen on Bones regarding a car or two)...as shown in the clips above, that's really, REALLY bad TV.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And the logos are twice the actual size probably ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not terribly on topic, but I recall an episode where character Angela, the art student turned (magically) into a computer graphics wunderkind, made mention of the patents pending on her 'breakthrough' crime/art/3D imaging whatsit programs...which many times seem to operate on mind power alone. ;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another example
You forgot the third product placement for Nature Valley Granola Nut Clusters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg4-3pzzms0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Product Placement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advertising works only when noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising works only when noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advertising works only when noticed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Angry Birds Ad FUBAR
I took the complain often and politely on Twitter stance. They heard. Will the next update have changes? I really have no idea but, I got their attention and they will do whatever they think is going to work best. They need to experiment some; others need to turn down the in your face placement message. Like the clips above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
So much for the fine line between content and advertising. A shame Mike didn't write this, as I'd love to hear his excuse with this one.
The second people view something as an ad, they'll view the entire thing as an ad and will find alternative entertainment.
There is no balance between the two. When Transformers came out, I still remember people calling it a 2 hour commercial for GM (that turned out well, btw).
If there's any business model to be made, perhaps it's time to remove advertising revenues from business models so they're not calling the shots to ruin a perfectly good show.
In those video examples above, the reason the placement is bad is because the money directed, not a person.
@Hephaestus:
This station is the perfect example of where television is headed, and it's worse when one realizes: customers pay to carry this station.
I can't wait to see the ultimate TV show where not only is the product placement 40% of the "content", but it's about a law firm who sued Google for copyright infringement (and won), letting people know a third revenue stream for the same content is available to rights owners.
Ah, Amer - Eat at Joes! - ica, where the dream is now covered by copyright, trademark, and patent (pending)!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
That explains why millions sought out the Old Spice Guy ads.... Oh wait...
That's the point. If you make it *good content* people even seek it out, and don't go search for alternatives.
The point here is that they did NOT make it good content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
Just a FYI: I found the very best Old Spice Guy Parody. It's from "The Sun" newspaper in the UK. It's quite "tongue-in-cheek"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0LGW8urTOs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
Tell me, when does "Old Spice Guy" premiere on ABC?
That's my point. There's no dispute there are good ads and bad shows, but there is a line which separates them. Here, I'll show you:
"...Old Spice Guy ads...."
Even you did it. Why didn't you call it a show, segment, or other word other than ad?
I actually agree with the article, just to note, and was merely using my ego to predict future articles about television stations whining about the loss of viewers because rather than watching "As the world turns", they're watching "Product Placement Theater".
The two can co-exist but it's extraordinarily difficult to balance and please the consumer.
This article just highlighted another bad example. I'm sure there will be more arriving soon.
:)
Oh, and Happy Thanksgiving!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
Flukes such as one ad -- for an already popular product with a favorable view. If it's an entertaining waste of time, fine. But it's not the trend, or normal, or predictable. It was a *fluke*.
Masses of dolts to watch ads without it occurring to them to hit a button and avoid it. A certain number (and it really *is* quite predictable, sadly) will buy products based sheerly on exposure to the name.
So your "proof" is an unrepeatable fluke (if such were subject to analysis, they'd be *frequent*; you should go and advise on what "good content" is, then), and you ignore the everyday bludgeoning of intellect that nearly all other commercials are.
Doesn't strike me as a sustainable model, and isn't it that advertising is losing effectiveness really what's in play here? It's a common joke that ads are often the best part of TV, but I doubt that pouring creativity (if any were to be had) only into commercials will substitute for other stories (though, presumably someone watches those hour-long "info-mercials", the moronic quality of which undermines your notion of "good content"). Advertising is now eroding the myth of "free" television by getting so blatant that even dolts notice; I see the whole system spiraling down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
What "strikes" you and what works, appear to be two totally different things. I tend to rely on the evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
Example:
Dragnet was brought to you by chesterfield cigarettes
X-One by Galaxy Magazine
Suspense (The longest running radio show) brought to you by Auto-light Batteries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I hate to say "I told you so!" but...
Are you trying to claim that Old Spice was a popular product with a favorable view? Because as far as I'm aware, before the ads in question, Old Spice was "grandpa's deoderant" and was quickly losing out to "fresher" competition, like Axe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Colbert Report makes heavy use of obvious placements without making them awkward.
That's not a problem. If you can pull it off, it makes for excellent advertising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Inscky6EyQ8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Product placement ...
They are trying to write the commercial into the show and it didn't work. Instead they should try to be more natural about it. I know it's a soap opera, but you have to do better.
Jim: "Hey Bob, can you grab me a Pepsi out of the fridge?"
Bob: "Pepsi, huh?"
Jim: "Ah, now thats good."
Not too difficult there is it?
Head and Shoulders recently had a campaign that I heard on Mike & Mike (ESPN Radio) every morning. They were having a best hair contest featuring their spokesperson Troy Palamalo (sp?) of the Steelers. It was a cheesy 8 person contest where fans voted on the best hair, and the winner was pitted against Troy in the finals. It wasn't a commercial, it was the hosts discussing the contest and informing listeners where to go to vote. It was advertising, but it was interesting. If you want me to pay attention to your ad, you have to make it interesting. The examples above were anything but interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Product placement ...
Product placement is not a bad thing. Horribly done product placements are. I would change the channel in a heartbeat the moment any of those product placements hit. They were so Truman show.
They are trying to write the commercial into the show and it didn't work. Instead they should try to be more natural about it. I know it's a soap opera, but you have to do better.
Jim: "Hey Bob, can you grab me a Pepsi out of the fridge?"
[show Bob getting a Pepsi out of the 12 pack]
[Bob looks at can as he hands it to Jim]
Bob: "Pepsi, huh?"
[Jim opens Pepsi and takes a sip]
Jim: "Ah, now thats good."
Not too difficult there is it?
Head and Shoulders recently had a campaign that I heard on Mike & Mike (ESPN Radio) every morning. They were having a best hair contest featuring their spokesperson Troy Palamalo (sp?) of the Steelers. It was a cheesy 8 person contest where fans voted on the best hair, and the winner was pitted against Troy in the finals. It wasn't a commercial, it was the hosts discussing the contest and informing listeners where to go to vote. It was advertising, but it was interesting. If you want me to pay attention to your ad, you have to make it interesting. The examples above were anything but interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Product placement ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The product placement folks need to learn how to do it right, or buh-bye audience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIo61VyRyRo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Days of Our Lives ad.. Have you seen this one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2CuhtuwV2o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Rock
An episode from last season had TinaFey/Liz Lemon looking into the camera, nervously (desperately?) smiling as she welcomed the prospect of their new Kabletown overlords.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't mind product placement
And while the Ford Sync placement on White Collar earlier this year made me cringe, in real life I've had more than a few friends just openly bring up how cool they think sync is in regular conversation. But then I guess what we want to see on shows isn't always deemed regular conversation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.. That's All I Can Say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remembered it was Dawn, though, so good job guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dont sing it - - BING IT..
To get you in - use bing.
Need to win, then use BING.
When google gags - Bing sings
Dont wing it, bing it.
When in doubt - whip you're bing out
In bing we trust
Bing there done that !
Bing Is Not Google (BING)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dont sing it - - BING IT..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't mind it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do like when 30 Rock does product placement though, it always makes me laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How things change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How things change
Don't studios scour their films for identifiable products they *don't* have permission to use? I could be misthinking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a Soap opera, sponsored by soap companies, for advertising
Do any of you know why they are called 'SOAP OPERA'S' ??
From the very minute soap opera's were created, started, or whatever, is to sell products to people at home during the day.
they were called 'soap' opera'a because they were sponsored by soap companies, for their advertising..
They have only been around for well over 40 years, and it has taken mike this long to work out they are designed, and presented just for that purpose, BY DESIGN.
So say it is a 'new' model is joke, its a very old model, that has beeen successful for probably a lot longer than you have been alive, and will be successsfull a lot longer after you are dead.,
But to work it out now, after all this time that Soap opera's are about promotion..
Then you must not have a clue about the real world,, you guy's really need to read a bit further than techdirt..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Soap opera, sponsored by soap companies, for advertising
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Its a Soap opera, sponsored by soap companies, for advertising
Apparently Darryl doesn't even read the posts he's responding to. Funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I predict that eventually the actual image of the show will only take up 3/4 of the screen. They'll use a border down the side of the screen to run banner ads for sponsors and a bar across the bottom to advertise other shows on the same network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haet!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, but those are temporary, in that they disappear eventually. I'm talking about having the image permanently shrunk and permanent borders on the side and bottom.
It sounds crazy now, but it'll happen eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm a hockey fan in Philly, where Comcast carries the games. I noticed that there were ads across the glass barriers at each end of the hockey rink (for home games only, I think). At first I was livid - how can the people in seats behind the ads see the game?! Are they invisible from the seats? What the heck?!
Then I realized they were placed there by some TV trickery, since they aren't visible in camera views from ice level (and they move weirdly if you watch closely).
Comcast owns the Flyers. Comcast advertising is all over the Wells Fargo Center in Philly. The games are carried on Comcast or Versus, which Comcast owns. What's a recurring ad on those rink ends? Comcast, of course! It's ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not in the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyright maximiality shoots product placement
The first two (I didn't look at any others) have at least half of the hits blocked because of a copyright claim.
So now, even though they paid to place the ad, they don't want you to watch it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]