"Plugs in the City"

August 12, 2002 10:10 PM

"Plugs in the City" My Spock like left eyebrow went up questioningly at the ease with which Charlotte York discreetly ordered her embarrassing book with 1-click® shopping. She was going to buy it at the books store with Miranda, who had just come from a Weight Watchers® meeting and was trying to resist the cravings for Krispy Kreme®. Mmmm... original glazed is my favorite, too. While I enjoy the fact that HBO doesn't have commercials, I thought that is why I paid $20 a month. Some how I prefer real ads to this insidious crap. It was creepy and also destroyed a lot of the immersion of the show for me. The whole episode seemed stilted and odd.
posted by McBain (56 comments total)

Oh, and you forgot that she that Charlotte ordered her book on her new iBook... (All of the computers in Sex & City are Apple)


I love the (made up?) lists on the Amazon site of what the show's characters are "reading." This way you can buy them and emulate the TV show characters that you vicariously live through.

On a side note:
I have both a Replay and an UltimateTV DVR, that we use in our house hold for all our TV watching.. I love them, but I am afraid that this (ad placement) is the future of all TV because of my beloved gadgets.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 10:28 PM on August 12, 2002

I also didn't mention the sweater Charlotte was wearing with the billboard sized Polo logo on it.
posted by McBain at 10:33 PM on August 12, 2002

Yeah, Apple knows all about product placement. And get ready for more. No longer satisfied to just be the hot division at the big agencies, recently a new ad company formed in New York devoted exclusively to product placements.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 10:37 PM on August 12, 2002

A TV show features obnoxious product placement, so you come here and link to the placed products? Somewhere, a marketing bozo is having a hearty laugh.
posted by muckster at 10:38 PM on August 12, 2002

I was trying to be ironic by duplicating the phenomenon.
posted by McBain at 10:41 PM on August 12, 2002

You PVR pricks are going to ruin TV for everyone.
posted by pjdoland at 10:42 PM on August 12, 2002

There is nothing to ruin since TV already sucks.
posted by MaddCutty at 10:43 PM on August 12, 2002

There is an article about this "phenomenon" on Foxnews.com.

I kinda thought this was one of those "Isn't this obvious to everyone?" stories.

I am a NASCAR fan and so maybe I am more immune to being shocked at all of this.

On Sunday, I watched the Discover Countdown to Green, then the Sirius Satellite Radio race. Home Depot won, followed by Alltel, Cingular Wireless, Conseco and Halvoline Motor Oil.

I was upset because the Dupont car didn't win but I was glad the Napa Auto Parts Chevrolet did well.

Product placement is everywhere. Just curious, did you demand your money back after watching Minority Report?
posted by sciatica at 10:48 PM on August 12, 2002

The clincher was that, amidst all the real companies flogged in this episode, one of the central brands of the actual story ("Worldwide Express" or whatever) was not a real company.

I'm guessing the companies behind the roman a clef (FedEx or maybe UPS) wouldn't pony up the dough for their place in the script as presented, so the producers had to go with a fake name. Maybe impromptu fellatio was not regarded as the best metaphor for timely "delivery."
posted by merlinmann at 10:53 PM on August 12, 2002

Product placement is definitely going to be more and more of an occurrence now.

I remember when there was a big hubbub about Blue Velvet's shameless tangent on Heineken being a great beer. Two of the big three newsanchors mentioned it, hearkening some kind of slide into what I can only imagine is today's state plugging that goes on... (of course, when I saw the movie, I couldn't believe no one mentioned the great moment with Frank when he hears Heineken's name)

I saw that episode, and thought that the idea of York's buying the book online, instead of the store was just a little sad, since living in a city where you can find what you want around the corner is supposed to be part of the appeal of paying such high rents, right? (a mantra I repeat to myself, yes...)

But they were in a Barnes & Noble, right? They offer the same day delivery within Manhattan (if you order before 11am), not Amazon.

Also, when she threw the book out the window because she didn't like the recommendations from Amazon, I thought that it was really a great solution. That'll stop the cookies.

I thought the episode lurched around too. I think they've played out their course. It's like when they run out of ideas for something to do, one of the girls will just smile, shrug her shoulders and say "yeah, but it's New York! You just have to love it!!!"

Yeesh. The first episode of this season had ten of these moments...
posted by Busithoth at 11:04 PM on August 12, 2002

merlinmann- And this is precisely the problem. One could argue, "well, real life is filled with advertisements and people using and wearing brand products". The flip side to that is that these products can also be received negatively, sometimes extremely so, but that reality is never shown. The key difference is that a friend recommends a weight loss plan because it worked for them, not because they got a big pile of money. Nascar is a little different. Tony Stewart and his car are billboards. He isn't shown being fulfilled in life by shit he bought at Home Depot. I can tolerate the "Pepsi 400" or "Target Center" or "The Coors Light Play of the Game". However, dramatizations purporting to be artful entertainment slinging products is over the line in my book. Otherwise the episodes need to comply with FCC standards such as announcing the paid products in the episode at the beginning.
posted by McBain at 11:05 PM on August 12, 2002

TBS showed "The Thomas Crown Affair", and at one point Renee Russo chugs a can of sugar water, and the brand is blurred over, like it was a nipple or something. I wasn't sure if the beverage manufacturer refused to pay for this to be not blurred in the TBS broadcast, or whether the brand had already been killed(I think it might have been one of those clear sodas, or something like that), and the beverage manufacturer paid TBS to not confuse customers by actually showing something no longer available.

Or maybe TBS decided to blur the brand on it's own, as an example of proof of concept to a favored competitor client.

Maybe braodcasters in the future will be paid to replace the brands of products in later replays of movies, with competitors buying the product placement in other markets beside the theaters.

I, of course, will be reading my collectible paperback books from the 70's with ads for Kent cigarettes in the center of the book.
posted by dglynn at 11:22 PM on August 12, 2002

Maybe braodcasters in the future will be paid to replace the brands of products in later replays of movies, with competitors buying the product placement in other markets beside the theaters

With the advent of digital movies, local product placements should be coming soon to a theater near you!
posted by HTuttle at 11:36 PM on August 12, 2002

Bushithoth:

I believe you're referring to Pabst Blue Ribbon (scroll down; you'll find it).
posted by argybarg at 11:45 PM on August 12, 2002

The clincher was that, amidst all the real companies flogged in this episode, one of the central brands of the actual story ("Worldwide Express" or whatever) was not a real company.

Maybe because UPS or FedEx doesn't want people thinking that their employees are getting "hummers" on the job?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:19 AM on August 13, 2002

There are strict rules about product placement on British TV. I think it also applies to foreign programmes shown on British TV. There was an advert by the ITC (Independent Television Commission, which regulates commercial television) not so long which featured a fictional "Kangaroo Beer" being promoted by a fictional stereotypical Aussie soap. I can only assume blatent product placement in Sex and the City would prevent it being shown on British TV. Can any Brits more knowlegeable in these matters confirm this or correct me?
posted by salmacis at 12:44 AM on August 13, 2002

dglynn that's a funny (and terrifying) idea...can you imagine certain old movies that are so in their time period, and then having ads in the background or pasted on shirts and cans and buses, etc. I don't think it could happen to to true classics, but maybe to some pop movies. weird.
posted by chaz at 12:49 AM on August 13, 2002

Hmmmmmmm......
posted by Frasermoo at 1:10 AM on August 13, 2002

I don't know about the legality of product placement on British TV but I do know that Sex and the City continually 'places' Marlboro Lights despite the fact that tobacco advertising is banned - I can't believe there'sn been no fuss about it.
posted by niceness at 3:49 AM on August 13, 2002

Also, when she threw the book out the window because she didn't like the recommendations from Amazon, I thought that it was really a great solution. That'll stop the cookies.

Remember, it's Amazon.com. It's not about cookies. It's about recommendations based on previous purchases. They keep a catalog of everything you've bought from them from day one, plus the stuff you add in yourself, to make their recommendations. All of this data is stored into their central database, and purging it is, um, impossible, i think.

What she (keeping in mind it's a fictional character) can do is go to Amazon.com, go to rank purchases, and mark all those self help books as 1, then they won't recommend any more.
posted by benjh at 3:54 AM on August 13, 2002

I doubt that product placement could get more blatant and more irritating than in Mike Myers films. At least Wayne's World made a joke about Myers' willingness to take the corporate shilling, but he's kept with it, and for me it spoilt the most recent Austin Powers film. (Well, spoilt the illusion that it was simply 90 minutes of plot-free toilet gags.) From the Starbucks logo on Robert Wagner's coffee cup to yet another Heineken plug, it was all product, all the time: not forgetting all the Pepsi-corp stuff, right down to Britney's cameo. And I suppose what was most off-pissing was the arbitrariness of it: at least placement-fests such as The Matrix and MI:2 tended to highlight their branded geek toys in situations where it was in some kind of context.
posted by riviera at 4:13 AM on August 13, 2002

Maybe broadcasters in the future will be paid to replace the brands of products in later replays of movies

The potential for retroactive product placement has been around for a little while. Though I don't know if the technology has yet been put to the test.
posted by meech at 4:28 AM on August 13, 2002

Do you think Crispy Creme paid to have the glaze on their glazed donuts compared to Miranda's love juice? If so, what a cool fucking company! I think I'll bring a dozen to work today!
posted by elvissinatra at 5:12 AM on August 13, 2002

Also, when she threw the book out the window because she didn't like the recommendations from Amazon, I thought that it was really a great solution.

Especially since she threw the book from eight floors up without even looking outside. I'm guessing that's probably a bad idea in Manhattan.

I didn't even notice the pervasiveness of the ads in that episode, but in retrospect it was pretty blatant.
posted by rcade at 5:15 AM on August 13, 2002

Product placement happens a lot on this show. Last season, Samantha was shown "using" the product that my company sells and we were notified of that well before the episode aired.

It isn't just HBO either. We were notified before our product made an appearance on Ally McBeal.
posted by donc at 5:53 AM on August 13, 2002

The pathetic thing is that I'm not sure that all the brands paid for these spots. It might have been some weak attempt to be 'real.'

I have to admit that if the future becomes much more consumerist than it is now it will be hard to tell the story of four shallow oversexed hyperconsumer urban women without dedicating entire episodes to brands and their relationships with them.

And if they are getting paid keep in mind that SJ Parker is the executive producer, so she prolly made the call to go this route.
posted by n9 at 5:54 AM on August 13, 2002

As bad as Sex in the City might be for product placements, NBC's "Frasier" is by far the worst sell-out show on television. The most obvious episode ever was when Niles got a Segway and rode it around the Frasier's apartment for half the show, raving how "cool" and "fun" this toy was.
posted by grum@work at 5:58 AM on August 13, 2002

I'm aggravated by product placements as much as the next viewer, but when you stop to think about it, don't brand names come up all too often in many of our day-to-day conversations? New Yorkers do talk about Krispy Kreme and Starbucks, and you hear a lot of strong opinions about Apple, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble. We're getting unpleasantly close to the point where a show purged of all product references (or stocked with fictional products) would seem a little off.
posted by Songdog at 6:16 AM on August 13, 2002

The broadcast networks do have a problem with product placement when they don't see a piece of the action. Usually it is the production company that sets up the placement deals and gets the money. Most have rules where a product logo cannot be shown conspicuously since it would piss off the network's advertisers. Since TNT is so sensitive about loss of advertising revenue, I'm not surprised they edited out the beverage in the Thomas Crowne Affair.
posted by birdherder at 6:33 AM on August 13, 2002

Coors Brewing Co. of Golden, Colo., and Miramax Films announced a deal Thursday making Coors the official sponsor of U.S. theatrical premieres for Miramax (...) The deal also would place Coors products in 15 films over the next three years. Unlike in traditional advertising, directors will be able to show actors drinking a beer, Coors spokeswoman Hilary Martin said.

See here.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 6:38 AM on August 13, 2002

Whats so new and blue about Product Placement? Everyone knows that Seinfeld took home over 200 mil by the time he called it quits on his show. Everyone thinks he made his money on ratings and syndication. In fact, the show was fat with product placement, but at a time when the viewing public was not yet alert to the advertising technique.
I think its more a matter of people now knowing what it looks like.
For me, its kind of fun to spot them, especially if they are subtle, sort of like picking off foreshadows in the plot of a film.
posted by Fupped Duck at 6:54 AM on August 13, 2002

And Carrie uses AOL! So do the Sopranos! AHHHH!!!! Why can't HBO construct a fictional world with fictional corporations to go along with their fictional characters!!! Maybe HBO should plug competitors instead of partners!!! /sarcasm /exclamations
posted by uftheory at 7:01 AM on August 13, 2002

isnt the american way of life the biggest product

placement of them all ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 7:03 AM on August 13, 2002

Forgot: One of my favorite movies when it comes to extraordinary bad product placement is Dykaren. Examples? One guy just happens to switch on the radio just in time for some commercials. giant billboards appear in the middle of a forest. A fight scene takes place in front of another giant billboard. And so on.
Roll credits.
Whose names appear right after the actors? That's right, the sponsors. And after the sponsors? The persons in charge of the placed products. Then we get to the camera crews, etc.
All that and a terrible movie. What a waste of 19:- (US$ 1.50). I'll never rent that video again.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 7:08 AM on August 13, 2002

It was creepy and also destroyed a lot of the immersion of the show for me. The whole episode seemed stilted and odd.

It seemed 'stilted and odd' that the show was more realistic? I don't know about it, but I have branded goods in my home too!

Unless the character KEEPS going on about.. 'Wow! This iBook is really swell!' or 'I'm in the Coca Cola generation'.. then what's the big deal? People DO drink Coca Cola in real life. I get more annoyed when they go out of their way to hide brands.. as that is awfully unrealistic and staged.
posted by wackybrit at 7:16 AM on August 13, 2002

Right on wackybrit.
krispy Kreme is a synonym for doughnut among my friends. I have on abercrombie right now with ralph lauren glasses, both with noticeable logo's. To see the girls of Sex and the City drinking a soda called "POP" or calling a doughnut a crispy dream would be more disturbing to me.
posted by bmxGirl at 7:39 AM on August 13, 2002

As bad as Sex in the City might be for product placements, NBC's "Frasier" is by far the worst sell-out show on television.

Remember when Bill Gates made a cameo? The same week that Windows XP was coming out?
posted by Fofer at 7:39 AM on August 13, 2002

Forgot: Josie & The Pussycats, anyone?
posted by soundofsuburbia at 7:51 AM on August 13, 2002

I have just recently started watching Sex and the City on DVD. So far the product placements seem natural(yes, even the aol). But the minute I notice one of the girls wearing Abercrombie, I'm boycotting!
posted by deathofme at 8:11 AM on August 13, 2002

I don't have cable TV. Just curious, how much do you folks pay per month for all this extra advertising?

I also refuse to buy clothing that has prominant logos on it. It is *very* hard to find good stuff these days without logos.
posted by bondcliff at 8:21 AM on August 13, 2002

hummers and love juice?! now to find twenty dollars a month...
posted by folktrash at 8:24 AM on August 13, 2002

It seemed 'stilted and odd' that the show was more realistic? I don't know about it, but I have branded goods in my home too!

Yeah, but in your home you can say "Krispy Kreme donuts suck." What are the odds that will ever happen on Sex and the City?
posted by rcade at 8:54 AM on August 13, 2002

So far the product placements seem natural(yes, even the aol).

I don't think Charlotte's one-click shopping experience on Amazon was very natural. It reminded me of the scenes in Wayne's World where they were popping Advil and ordering a Pizza Hut pizza.
posted by rcade at 8:55 AM on August 13, 2002

Samantha was shown "using" the product that my company sells ... our product made an appearance on Ally McBeal.

I was going to ask if your company made some sort of "Anti-psychotic for neurotic whores in mid-life crises" drug, but then I read your profile. :)

I'm getting a kick out of all this. This made my morning.
posted by nath at 9:00 AM on August 13, 2002

My favorite piece of NON-product placement on TV recently was on The Mole, in which, near the end of the several-week competition's tour of locations in Switzerland and Italy, the surviving contestants were treated to an American fast-food dinner: burgers and fries. The host told the group the meal was "courtesy of Mickey D's", but there wasn't a McDonaldsâ?¢ logo anywhere in sight (no wrappers, no fry bags... very strange...).
It turned out, that was no product plug, that was a clue to the identity of the Mole, whose last name was McDaniel.

And, oh yes, one of the losing contestants was seen frequently flashing a can labeled "Mole Killer", packaged circa 1890 (no longer on the market, dang it).
The Mole's the only "reality" show with even a hint of intelligence or sense of humor. Not a chance in development hell it'll be back next seasonâ?¦
posted by wendell at 9:06 AM on August 13, 2002

Especially since [Charlotte] threw the book from eight floors up without even looking outside. I'm guessing that's probably a bad idea in Manhattan.

"Outside" from any POV in Manhattan is a sterile Saul Steinberg desert (scroll down) stretching to the nearest ocean. There's no reason to look. There's nothing important out there :-)

I'm so used to the characters being extremely brand-conscious toward clothing and accessories (e.g. Samantha's Hermes handbag holy-grail in "Coulda Woulda Shoulda") that this week's product placements didn't stand out. And I'm usually anal about that sort of thing. Hmmmmmm.
posted by kurumi at 9:14 AM on August 13, 2002

product placement is as old as the hills. diamond engagement rings were never a tradition until the de beers company paid silent film producers to include scenes where the man drops to one knee and whips out a ring.
posted by centrs at 10:05 AM on August 13, 2002

I like the way product placement was handled in this movie.
posted by trondant at 10:11 AM on August 13, 2002

You can learn step by step, exactly how to get your product in a film through this company.
posted by trixare4kids at 11:34 AM on August 13, 2002

rcade: Yeah, but in your home you can say "Krispy Kreme donuts suck."

I tried, but my stomach and small intestine leapt up through my esophagus and threatened my brain with rebellion if I lied like that......
posted by dwivian at 11:47 AM on August 13, 2002

The whole episode seemed stilted and odd.

Par for the course, yah?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:49 AM on August 13, 2002

I don't get the $20 for HBO comments. ATT Broadband charges me $12.95 and for that I get nine channels. Not just S&TC but Sopranos, 6FU, Oz, The Wire, Band of Brothers too. You can have that stoopid Larry David show and Mind of a Married Man crap, though.

Further, complaining about product placement on S&TC is about four years late. This is the show that focuses on Carrie's obsession with Prada bags and Mahnolo whoever's shoes. I've seen every episode so you can see just how well it's working too.
posted by billsaysthis at 12:18 PM on August 13, 2002

argybarg: In Blue Velvet, Jeffrey says "Heineken" 3 times, "Pabst Blue Ribbon" is said once, by Frank Booth. [src]

So Heineken is good and Pabst Blue Ribbon is associated with evil. So there you go.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:30 PM on August 13, 2002

I'm aggravated by product placements as much as the next viewer, but when you stop to think about it, don't brand names come up all too often in many of our day-to-day conversations? New Yorkers do talk about Krispy Kreme and Starbucks, and you hear a lot of strong opinions about Apple, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble

It seemed 'stilted and odd' that the show was more realistic? I don't know about it, but I have branded goods in my home too!

Uh, I think I addressed that in one of my first comments.
posted by McBain at 1:48 PM on August 13, 2002

I don't get the $20 for HBO comments. ATT Broadband charges me $12.95 and for that I get nine channels. Not just S&TC but Sopranos, 6FU, Oz, The Wire, Band of Brothers too.

It's even better in the UK. Sex and the City, Sopranos, and Band of Brothers are on free to view channels ;-) I don't think we get the other shows.
posted by wackybrit at 10:38 PM on August 13, 2002

When the episode ended with the photo shoot, I decided that all the product placement had been an arch exercise in profitable irony. Nobody's even mentioned the closer yet: an episode titled "Cover Girl" ends with two distinctive white-background, face-framing shots identical to the cosmetics company's TV spots since time immemorial. When I happened to see the S&TC tie-in on the main page of Amazon the next day I was tickled.

I'll be substantially less tickled if hyperactive product placement keeps up through more of the season.
posted by bumppo at 8:35 PM on August 14, 2002