During our week on product placement and branding, we discussed whether or not product placement felt intrusive or offensive to our viewing experiences. Most of us agreed that while product placements are never quite discrete, we knowingly acknowledge, accept or "put up" with them because we understand it's a required part of our viewing experience. For instance, on Project Runway they made a point of informing us that the models accessorize with the Bluefly.com wall and get their hair done at a Tresemme hair station; we postmodern consumers realize this is in-our-face product placement, but we watch anyways. On Weeds, every character's drink of choice is Diet Coke, but this hardly turns me off of the show (they never explicitly extol Diet Coke or sell it to us, just show it). We saw that shows like 30 Rock even embrace our cynical acceptance of product placement, using product placement ironically and as a joke (the Snapple episode).
In the past few weeks, though, I've come across several instances when product placement was so painfully obvious, time-consuming and explicit that it hindered my viewing experience and even turned me off of a show, making me wonder -- when does product placement become so intrusive that it compromises the narrative or viewing experience?
The other day, I happened to catch a segment of Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. In the episode, the housewives were flying from LAX to JFK for some kind of event. The show then proceeded to spend 15 or so minutes advertising Virgin America -- showing each housewife at the Virgin America ticket counter, interacting with overly friendly customer service representatives, etc. The show even filmed them inside the airplane, where some overly friendly captains let the housewives tour the cockpit (they even let one of the housewives with a fear of flying sit in the pilot's seat and play with the buttons to ease her butterflies). While I wouldn't expect much more from a Bravo program (especially the reality competition shows), I've watched enough seasons of Real Housewives to know that this extreme level of product placement is unprecedented on this show. Bravo is obviously resorting to more and more explicit product placement in their programming, which is turning me off of the network (it definitely turned me off of the show).
In a similar vein, there was a funny story today on Yahoo! front page titled "'Days of our Lives' gets called out for hilariously obvious product placement." The blog talks about how people on social media sites and blogs have been calling out the soap for its awkward, explicit pitches of products like Cheerios and Chex Mix in which the actor (completely un-ironically) talks about the product in depth, extolling its benefits and showing it in close-up (much like a commercial). It seems that soaps have taken product placement to the next level, foregoing methods of subtle integration into the narrative for far more obvious, commercial-like advertising.
(You can read the blog and watch the painfully hilarious clips here.)
Networks are clearly taking product placement to extremes -- where will they draw the line? At least for me, once a show starts feeling like a commercial, the network completely loses credibility. While product placement may prove financially advantageous for networks in the short-term, the increasing prominence and visibility of brands will inevitably prove damaging to their credibility, and ultimately their viewer shares. Hopefully networks will realize this before all their programs follow the lead of Days of Our Lives and become full-fledged commercials.
2 comments:
I totally got caught up on the Virgin America part too. The segment where every woman had to be shown at the counter and interacting with the ticketing agent was way too long, especially when one of them says that she uses the airlines all the time. It was a clear point to better edit the show by only showing that one woman at the counter instead of all four, one-by-one.
I also loved that the women were saying that usually they fly private and that they were trying to be greener by flying commercial, yet the jet looked immaculate and just like a private jet. Somehow, the message of 'you can be green and enjoy luxury by flying Virgin America' wasn't that subtle, although it is a great niche and I think they pegged it with the right show.
The best product placement is when it is seamlessly integrated with the show and portrayed naturally. I don't think studio execs give their audiences enough credit for their ability to attach meaning to the products used. If you like the show Project Runway, you're more likely to seek out the products they use already. The show could integrate the Tresemme products just by having them sit on the counter and showing the hair dressers using the products as they would naturally. I would just notice that "oh, they're using Tresemme" and believe it. When they force it by repeating the name, showing close-ups of the products, etc., I don't think they actually use the products but are being paid to pretend they are. The Bluefly.com wall is a little different because it’s selling an assortment of products and brand names, so you have to force telling the audience since they can’t tell where that Gucci bag came from when the model walks down the runway.
I think the opposite of product placement, “the blur,” is also extremely annoying. When I’m watching a show and they blur the product’s brand name, it only makes me want to figure out what it is even more. And really? You are so stingy that if the brand didn’t give you money to show people using it naturally that you won’t show it on TV? It’s frustrating to watch and the character’s t-shirt is blurred and the soda he’s drinking, and then you can’t concentrate on what’s happening because half of the image is blurred and yet that’s all you can focus on because you want to know what it is!
I don’t know what’s more distracting: forced product placement or forced anti-product placement.
P.S. that Cheerios placement in Days of Our Lives is astounding – great find!
I just want to say, FOX has got this product placement thing figured out. (Yeah, I still feel used when I spot it, like they want me for my money and not for my warm-and-fuzzy personality, but on the whole I don't mind it too much.) Or maybe it's just it pairs well with my own sensibilities, I'm not sure.
Anyway, in a lot of different FOX shows recently I've noticed a trend (specifically Fringe, House, Bones, and Lie to Me)-- each show essentially picks a product and sticks with it for a several episode arc. For instance, about half a dozen episodes ago in Lie to Me the main character's daughter was learning to drive. So, for four or five episodes they incorporated the Prius into the dialogue and storyline. Yes, it was a bit obvious (it's hard not to miss product placement when the entire rest of the set has been denuded of trademarks and logos)-- BUT, it was also part of a somewhat important story arc. Likewise, recently I noticed in Fringe that characters are video phoning each other with their Spring phones. Format wise, it's a bit jarring, but there's also very little sacrifice of content in the service of marketing. Rather, the two are integrated. I don't know how lucrative it is for the shows or the products they're marketing, but as a spectator I am the least offended by it. Now if only the goal were to keep the viewer happy, and not their wallets skinny...
Post a Comment