Let me fix you some of this new MoCocoa drink...

September 30, 2005 4:02 AM

Branded Entertainment. Where the insinuation of products in to entertainment reaches new levels of taste and decency. Flashbacks to 'The Truman Show' are symptomatic of this phenomena. The cause, as judged by market research, is the misuse and abuse of DVR players to block advertising messages. However, there could be a new artform in this; some consumers would like to see a new kind of advertising to augment Brand and Myths [more inside].
posted by gsb (32 comments total)

David Thomson writes, from that last link:

More than that, the show required commentary. It needed its own talk show, with real-life pundits and senators coming on to discuss President Palmer's situation. It needed a great dash of what Altman tried to do in Tanner, and what Welles was always after the organic confusion of fact and fiction. It needed to bleed over into the rest of television.

Go one step further: the commercials should have been written and directed by the show's talent, and they should have had the show's actors or characters. Thus you cut away from a car chase to have Kiefer Sutherland proposing this or that SUV. In the midst of telephonic deceit, Nina confides to the camera about the "love-affair confidentiality" of her latest Nokia. And so on.

You may say business wouldn't stand for that. But business only wants its ads seen and listened to, and this embedding would surely make attention more likely. In time the ads might have been used to forward the plot a little. And so the ghastly chaos of America now more ominous than anything under Nixon might have become a part of the show. And 24 might have been an event of dazzling, radical novelty, so dangerous and compelling that the war itself got bumped.
posted by gsb at 4:04 AM on September 30, 2005

They've only been doing this since DVRs? Ever watch Seinfeld?
posted by Saddo at 4:43 AM on September 30, 2005

I think the point is that while discreet commercials have always been around, there's more of an impetus to insert product placement into the programs themselves because of DVRs. If there's a way to easily skip over a commercial, advertising companies are going to find another way to get inside your head.

Personally I can't wait until they start projecting into my dreams, then I'll be forced to practice lucid dreaming. Plus we could make a mint with DreamGuards! Tin foil hats for bedtime.
posted by Talanvor at 5:11 AM on September 30, 2005

People talk about this in biological language, and there's nothing wrong with that, except that it makes a lot of eyeballs glaze over. So I sometimes try to think about it in terms of gambling. Jamie Kellner at Turner once opined in a national forum that surfing, fast-forwarding, or even leaving the room during commercials constituted "theft" (his word, not mine). (Sorry, my link on this has gone stale.) We supposedly have an implicit contract with somebody (the advertiser? the broadcaster?) to sit and watch the commercials if we watch the rest of it.

That's wrong, of course. "Free"-TV supported by advertising is only ever a gamble; the real historical question has always been, "who's the house?"

If the advertising is confined to the commercials, we're the house: We can effectively subvert the game. So the other player has a strong incentive to come up with other means to skew the odds in their favor. Strong integration of advertising content with the entertainment content, even with narrative content, is an obvious way to do that. And it's happened before: Back in the "early days" of TV, even into the "near-modern" TV era of the early 70s, I can recall Kaptain Kangaroo (r.i.p.) shilling Slurpees. (I've often wondered how Bob Keeshan felt about that in later years.)

But we became aware of our consumer power, and we came to regard that as an unwelcome intrusion. Well, a generation has passed, techniques have improved, and the television narrative has oozed out of the tube and come to dominate our entire psychic landscape, and so this is all back. We should have been expecting it (and I suppose a lot of us were).

Effectively, we no longer control what messages are presented to us, unless we decide to live in a bubble. Which is more or less possible -- members of the Evangelical Economy do it all the time when they shop at their own bookstores and ingest only their own radtio and TV streams and rent only their own movies. I can think of technical solutions that would empower an average geek to step outside of the image-ecology, at least partially, but that way lies madness (or at least continual escalation).

The point is this: If we accept the terms of the game, we are no longer the "house": We're no longer the ones setting the rules. And if we want to participate in the discussion, we can't really walk away from the table.
posted by lodurr at 5:25 AM on September 30, 2005

Go one step further: the commercials should have been written and directed by the show's talent, and they should have had the show's actors or characters.

I'm a bit confused by this sentence in context, but I'll say that I think integrating commercials into the actual show is overkill when trying to solve the problem of DVR ad skipping.

When watching Grey's Anatomy last season -- set in a hospital, there was a commercial that didn't even match the visual quality of the show, but was set in an operating room, and I noticed it every time I saw it, and stopped fast forwarding quite often, thinking it was the show. So it doesn't take the show's producers to write or execute the commercials -- it truly takes the commercial's producers properly targeting thier message.

Given the consistent visual themes among modern shows, the targeting could be somewhat broad -- hospital setting, dark mystery setting, suburbia setting... Just enough visual similarity to raise doubt in the viewer and cause a "Play" press. The truth is that with TiVo's overshooting and the slight delays relating to the fast forward button on the Motorola DVRs, viewers only have one or two opportunities to start and stop commercial skipping. It needs a tweak, not a redefinition.
posted by VulcanMike at 5:28 AM on September 30, 2005

Fast forward 10 years when product placement is customized to viewer "cookies".

For my kids, the era's Madonna will take a side trip in the plot line to plug her new album. But if it's me who's logged in, my viewer "cookies" will give Madonna a plotline opportunity to take her clothes off and offer a resounding testimonial for the effectiveness of new Super Viagra.

And let's not kid ourselves. These plotline detours will be inescapable on DVD's or whatever media delivery system is in place then either.
posted by surplus at 5:34 AM on September 30, 2005

"Insinuation" doesn't mean what you think it means...
posted by clevershark at 5:35 AM on September 30, 2005

Wait, you mean that a media research group found a way for the networks, who, in a marketplace of increased content (not necessarily better content), find that their viewership is down (and therefore the cost they can charge for commecial content should drop), have suggested a new way to create a revenue stream?

The whole "the misuse and abuse" part of this post, was likely meant to represent the market researcher's opinions and not gsbs...

But I love the delta faucet addition in CSI...
"But there is a potential downside. The Delta Faucet Company was thrilled that one of its shower fittings was to be featured on CSI: Miami. It was not so thrilled when it saw the episode: a character slips and dies after hitting her head on a Delta showerhead."
posted by filmgeek at 5:42 AM on September 30, 2005

tailoring ads to specific shows is a vastly more costly method of advertising.

I keep waiting for an updated, outside-the-Neilsen-box method of tracking ads' efficacy. If companies could trace the numbers a la scrutiny of web advertising, the profitability of TV ads would plummet. Obviously, I believe they're overrated right now.
posted by Busithoth at 5:43 AM on September 30, 2005

" tailoring ads to specific shows is a vastly more costly method of advertising.

I keep waiting for an updated, outside-the-Neilsen-box method of tracking ads' efficacy. "

As the line between internet and TV blurs, it will be no big deal to track the efficacy of ads. Your "TV" remote will allow you to pause and visit the advertisers website and your cookies will reflect which ads got your attention. DISH network already tracks when viewers hit the "Select" button on DISH interactive ads which show up during network and "cable" programming.
posted by surplus at 5:52 AM on September 30, 2005

What -- you mean, it can't mean "To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means"? </a.
posted by lodurr at 5:54 AM on September 30, 2005

Anyone see Will & Grace last night? "Mmm, Subway Chicken Parm... The only thing that would make this better is if I were eating it on your grave." I may have thought it was totally lame but it certainly insinuated itself into my memory...
posted by amro at 6:09 AM on September 30, 2005

filmgeek writes "But I love the delta faucet addition in CSI..."

Ever noticed that every CSI seems to drive a GM SUV?
posted by clevershark at 6:10 AM on September 30, 2005

NO AUTHOR FOUND NO BACKLINK FOUND "What -- you mean, it can't mean 'To introduce or insert (oneself) by subtle and artful means'?"

I've never noticed it used outside of the context of either trying to "work in" an insult through artful means (directed at someone one would be talking to, for example), or spreading malicious gossip... but you're right, the definition does leave the door open. I stand (or, really, sit) corrected.
posted by clevershark at 6:13 AM on September 30, 2005

Actually if you've ever watched European or Australian football matches on TV you'll notice that there are some ads on the field where it would seem physically impossible to place them -- and indeed it would be; those ads are inserted by the broadcaster who is presenting the match.

In fact if you watch a lot of Aussie football you probably have an unconscious, unrealizable desire to buy a Toyota Hilux (unrealizable, that is, if you live in North America). If you're a French football fan you probably wonder what's showing on Canal+.
posted by clevershark at 6:17 AM on September 30, 2005

There is no art in advertising, period. Introduce the sale into art and you become a pusher. It's the same problem with mainstream media. Once a corporation gets involved in the process how do I know the difference between the objective view of the journalist and the subjective view of the corporation. You must have full disclosure. I believe that everytime NBC does a story on the war they need to disclose that their parent company, GE, has billions of dollars in contracts with the Federal government selling them engines that will be used in the war. I pay for movies that I want to watch, as far as I can tell the people making those movies make a pretty decent living doing it, why then do I need to watch commercials during that movie?
posted by any major dude at 6:17 AM on September 30, 2005

any major dude writes "Once a corporation gets involved in the process how do I know the difference between the objective view of the journalist and the subjective view of the corporation."

You seem to assume that a journalist, as a human being, can be purely objective, and I think that's bunk. So when you watch broadcast news you not only get the spin that the news corp wants to put on things, but the spin the journalist wants to put on things, for whatever reasons.

Of course that's a bit of an academic point of view, because the only way to escape these things is to see events happening for yourself -- and then you'll be submitted to the spin that the participants themselves put on events. For example, covert operations can make a war appear to be the absence of war.

It doesn't even have to be war. It doesn't even have to be anything serious in the grand scheme of things. If you've ever known two friends of yours to date and break up, you're already well aware that both sides will have their own story which, more likely than not, is incompatible with the other.

The net is rife with sites offering you optical illusions, showing you that you can't even trust your own eyes in the first place!

So, unless you want to drive yourself mad, you have to accept that at some point there has already been layers upon layers of spin added to everything you know -- including your own spin, which may be unconscious. That's just the way things are.
posted by clevershark at 6:53 AM on September 30, 2005

I pay for movies that I want to watch, as far as I can tell the people making those movies make a pretty decent living doing it, why then do I need to watch commercials during that movie? - any major dude

Not to point out the obvious, but films have a production cost that generally has to be paid up front. Not always, but most of the time. Advertisers are investors in the project. They inject real money into the project at a time when most films are living on borrowed money.

Think of it as free money for the project. The advertiser gets it's product showcased in the film, and the project gets cash that it doesn't have to "Owe" back to someone after the release.

I'm sure you already knew this, but I figured I'd point out the obvious.
posted by DuffStone at 7:05 AM on September 30, 2005

So, unless you want to drive yourself mad, you have to accept that at some point there has already been layers upon layers of spin added to everything you know -- including your own spin, which may be unconscious. That's just the way things are. - clevershark

Again, I suggest the obvious just because it was specifically omitted.

Transcripts are your friend. A great example is that of elected officials, debates, and speeches. Networks / Media can spin the production "Quality" of their broadcast to reflect (subtly) the positive / negative characteristics of it's victim.

Reading a transcript of the ordeal is a way to cut through all the rhetoric and see what was really said. It's how I do the majority of my political research before voting.

It's not always 100%, and context can get lost. But generally speaking, MOST publishers refrain from jacking with transcripts (altering text and such), to maintain some sense of credibility. Like I said, not 100%, but much better than TV / Radio.
posted by DuffStone at 7:14 AM on September 30, 2005

Misuse and abuse!?!?!? Many of these shows are on the major broadcast networks. Cable might be a different story, but please explain how media companies use PUBLIC airwaves to show their ads/shows, charge their advertisers a mint to beam their drivel at viewers, and then call it misuse and abuse when the consumer decides he doesn't want to watch the crap?
posted by krash2fast at 7:19 AM on September 30, 2005

Clevershark - we obviously will never have true objectivity in our news media but at least I will know this journalist's history. If someone is being paid to say something they are always suspect in my eyes but being paid to report on something by a corporation that has a stake in how that situation is perceived seems a tad more devious than one single person's ideological slant. One person can be matched against many other reporters and the outlier can be found. When a corporation is involved they can use their might to drown out the honest voices and make them the outlier.

Duffstone wrote:

Think of it as free money for the project. The advertiser gets it's product showcased in the film, and the project gets cash that it doesn't have to "Owe" back to someone after the release.

Ok, but I'm sure Coca Cola will want to review the script to insure their product is placed in the most positive light and there is always the chance they might just ask them to write out the pivotal rape scene because it doesn't coincide with the "image" Coke wants to portray. If this isn't happening now I'm sure it's on it's way. This is the main reason studio movies suck these days. Too much testing and corporate money being pumped in. Studios less willing to take chances and gravitating toward big stars, sequels and movies with "built in" audiences from television shows or just remade classics. It's supposed to be art and art comes from vision, not testing or marketing. The best movies these days are made on shoestring budgets mainly because there aren't executives to mess around with the creative process.
posted by any major dude at 7:59 AM on September 30, 2005

You know, if Hormel, Oscar Mayer, and others had been more creative back in the 50s, people would be watching meat operas on daytime television today?
posted by GhostintheMachine at 8:46 AM on September 30, 2005

This almost suggests that DVDs of television shows should be given away free as promotional items for products. Hmm...



filmgeek writes "But I love the delta faucet addition in CSI..."

clevershark writes "Ever noticed that every CSI seems to drive a GM SUV?"

Does anyone remember the La Perla bra episode? For a member of the "Buy her something nice at Victoria's Secret" crowd, the placement introduced me to a new, high end brand for the next gift giving season.
posted by VulcanMike at 8:49 AM on September 30, 2005

Your "TV" remote will allow you to pause and visit the advertisers website and your cookies will reflect which ads got your attention.

They're gonna find out ALL ads get my negative attention. I've been hitting the mute button with fair accuracy from the moment I first aquired one. I consider zapping commercials a basic mental hygiene practice and important life skill.

Jamie Kellner at Turner once opined in a national forum that surfing, fast-forwarding, or even leaving the room during commercials constituted "theft"

What color is the sky in your world Jamie? Listen up: there's no way you're gonna win this one working from childish ideas like the illegality of not paying attention to your commericals. People will always find ways to avoid ingesting commercials when they don't want to. It has to be voluntary. That's life in a free country. Get used to the concept. You put stuff on the air and folks have a right to watch, not watch, and yes: selectively watch what your doing. If your viewer decides to get up and head for the washroom, right in the middle of one of your commericals, hey they get to do that - they're allowed. Yup, this has always lowered the value of your time and it will be lowered further by technological changes but guess what, nobody cares. Not your customers (they'll just let the marketplace sort itself out and pay whatever they think your medium is worth, no problem), not the creative types (if they're truly creative they'll happily and effectively work with any budget you got), and duh, not your viewers.
posted by scheptech at 8:53 AM on September 30, 2005

if Hormel, Oscar Mayer, and others had been more creative back in the 50s, people would be watching meat operas on daytime television today?

Meat operas. It aint over till the fat lady sees the beefcake in bed.
posted by surplus at 9:13 AM on September 30, 2005

Ever noticed that every CSI seems to drive a GM SUV?

They could simply be making the best choice. The GMC Yukon, for example, was rated “the most dependable full-sized sport utility vehicle” in the JD Power and associates 2005 vehicle dependability study. With a cargo capacity of 104.6 cubic feet, a seating capacity of up to nine adults, and a towing capability of 7,700 pounds, the Yukon is a quality choice. And you can even build your own Yukon. Want to know more?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:13 AM on September 30, 2005

This is the main reason studio movies suck these days. Too much testing and corporate money being pumped in. - any major dude

Completely agree. I have friends in the CGI end of the industry and most of the "Grunts" prefer working on Independents. Even for free. Working with the big studios evidently blows goats, and stifles a lot of creativity and such. some of the (cgi) shot's I've seen, that were subsequently dropped by the the big studios, are beyond words kewl. Yet the suits didn't like'em.

*shrug*

I think my main point, was that a lot of the independent film makers could use an influx of cash from a sponsor. Further, most of that genre are flexible enough, and loose enough to work around product placements of that type in very interesting and creative ways. True artists can / will use it as another device to further their concepts.

That's not always the case in big studio environment. Also, Most of this info is 2nd hand at best. I only know a few people in L.A. doing this stuff, but they'd agree with me. That's by no means a consensus however.
posted by DuffStone at 10:16 AM on September 30, 2005

Every commentary I watch on any dvd includes at least a small lament from the director to the effect of "if we had a little more money or time" when it comes down to it the creative workarounds the director uses in lieu of money are the things that add to the edge of the movie and probably add to the energy of the project. I think people get lazy when they are not forced to be creative. As far as accepting the money for product placement? I think it's like getting a little pregnant. Anyone who puts up money for a movie is going to want a say - eventually. Maybe a filmmaker has a good first experience where he accepts the money and does something with the movie he could have never done with the original budget but once he starts depending on it he's already gone past the point of no return and he's doing Beverly Hillbillies Part III.
posted by any major dude at 10:36 AM on September 30, 2005

Jamie Kellner at Turner once opined in a national forum that surfing, fast-forwarding, or even leaving the room during commercials constituted "theft" (his word, not mine).

I'd go further. If you don't actively support the sponsors of your favorite TV programs, you're stealing. It's no different than downloading music, in my opinion. Someone else is footing the bill for your entertainment. Color me deranged.

It has to be voluntary. That's life in a free country.

Funny. That's how I feel about compensating musicians.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:23 AM on September 30, 2005

My feeling on art is that the people that make it that really matter are going to do it no matter how much money they make. Most are tickled to be making a living doing it and many more are tickled to do it and not make a living. Those that need millions to create for the masses are usually not worth much and the world would be much better off if they never lifted their mediocre fingers toward their cameras, instruments or pens. All I have to do is watch one episode of cribs to know that they charge waaaay too much for cds.
posted by any major dude at 1:09 PM on September 30, 2005

it will be no big deal to track the efficacy of ads

Surplus, I don't agree. Lots of really effective ads are subtle and targetted at the long term. For instance cigarette ads are usually about associating a particular image with a brand - this can be effective (and increase sales) without the user clicking and buying cigarettes over the web immediately upon viewing of the ad.
posted by aubilenon at 3:28 PM on September 30, 2005

Also -- article published today --

Words below by Columnrite®
The days of conventional ads are over. Now the advertising industry is swimming in murky waters
[Times Online | September 30, 2005]

With a discussion of product placement and ethically questionable ethics by companies such as BzzAgent (previously discussed here and here).
posted by ericb at 3:38 PM on September 30, 2005