Comments on: Brands on TV (a.k.a. farts at a tea party)

By: Dustin

Dustin — Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:11:53 +0000

I was always under the impression that, prior to the big early-90s Branding Rapture — that is, before the corporations realized there was big money to be had by getting Columbo to drink Coke — that rather than the corp. paying media producers for showing their product, the producers had to pay the corps for using their trademark. Old TV is loaded with unbranded objects — I bet there’s a TV prop museum somewhere with cases of cans like the one you saw in Columbo. Remember all those old detergent commercials, where the “leading brand” was represented by a vaguely-Tide-looking abstract art piece?

The reason it looked out of place was not because the producers ignored the brand saturation that it’s audience lived in, I think, but because they could not predict the brand saturation that *we*, today, live in. Not that there weren’t brands in the Age of Columbo, of course, but they hadn’t yet become the kinds of pseudo-tangible identities they are today. People simply weren’t asking “ah, but what kind of cola is Columbo drinking, there?”

By: Skeptikos

Skeptikos — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:56:45 +0000

I was recently in a discussion group concerning the impact of the DMCA. We were informed by a patent/copyright specialist that you probably cannot use a product in fiction at this time without permission. (there is a minor allowance for parodies, but it is minor-As an example the Book/Movie “The Coca-Cola kid, the only Eric Roberts movie I ever liked). So, it is potentially illegal to allow both a Coca-Cola product and a Pepsi product to be seen in the same production: IF-they do not agree to it (or perhaps it would be better said that it would be allowed IF they did not protest it, but using it without prior approval might result in a lawsuit). The distraction you felt while watching the big C (and I do remember that episode, I watched slavishly as a kid) is probably a programing issue. At the time of production, you probably would have been distracted, now however (and especially with your interests) the programing has been altered (by group dynamic permission, if there is such a thing) and you notice it.

I have noticed the un-natural ways “products” have been treated over the past several years in reference to video arts. However, the placements seem entirely driven by the intricacy of modern Copyright/Patent/Trademark laws, rather than the market.

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:03:11 +0000

” I am sure the producers thought a branded cola would be distracting, but I have to say an unbranded one was more distracting. It ruined the whole scene for me.”

Grant, honey, you need to get out more.

(Giggle)

By: jill

jill — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:24:53 +0000

Please, with all due respect, don’t be making suggestions to Alice. She’s perfect just as she is.

By: Independent George

Independent George — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 13:24:22 +0000

What really bothers me is the way computers are used on TV and in the movies. You rarely see anything even remotely resembling a realistic user interface. It’s almost as if the bigshots in Hollywood have never used computers in their lives, and that it’s the assistants who do all the real work…

Apple is, unsurprisingly, very good at this game. As my Mac-using friends always point out, you can always tell who the hero/villain is based on what OS they use. The bad guys always use Windows, and the good guys always use Apple.

I think Seinfeld merits some special praise for its ability to integrate its rather shameless product placements in the most thoroughly enjoyable manner possible (Junior Mints, anyone?).