Tue, November 23, 2004

Ahhh, vacation. The time when, once or twice a year, I'm away for home for long enough that I think, "Without work to bog me down, I'll really get some writing done!" and then I discover: writing is work. A vacation from my avocation – what a world!

In the meantime, I've been soaking up the rays (Florida's a balmy 80-something even in late November) and catching up on some other activities that go hand-in-hand with writing: reading and thinking. Those muscles have indeed atrophied a bit, so I'm starting slow: so far, I've gotten through another chapter of America The Book and the first 50-odd pages of Sammy's Hill by Kristin Gore, who may just be my new crush of the moment. Plus, I picked up a recent "Newsweek" and read a few of the shorter pieces.

One thing "Newsweek" covered – in its relatively new and utterly despicable "Enterprise" section, which I only read because it had a snazzy picture – was the concept of product placement. (This is the practice of featuring products and brands in movies and TV shows for compensation, as opposed to advertising, which places products and brands around movies and TV shows for compensation.) This is a subject that's near and dear to my heart because it's central to the TiVo vs. Hollywood dilemma. (The theory being: if product placement can generate enough awareness to keep Madison Ave. happy, then maybe content providers won't be so picky about the fact that TiVo allows viewers to fast-forward through commercials.)

The "Newsweek" article outlines some of the more successful advances in product placement in recent years – most of which have occurred in reality TV, spurred by Mark Burnett's innovative approach to the practice on Survivor, and later (more overtly) on The Apprentice. It also covers groups which currently oppose product placement and seek to legislate it out of existence. As a film purist, it may be surprising that I come down on the side of product placement here. (Although I suppose it's somewhat predictable that I'd sacrifice anything to protect TiVo.) In a way, I feel it's precisely because I'm a film purist that I like it so much. To me, Cast Away is a lot better with all the FedEx logos than it would have been with some sort of fakey "WorldShip" thing, concocted just for the movie. And what would E.T. be without Reese's Pieces? I think, as long as product placement is done in a subtle and believable way, it adds to the realism rather than detracting from the story. (For an example of unsubtle and unbelievable, see I, Robot. Actually, spare yourself from seeing it, but it's a good example anyway.) And on reality TV, I have no problem with it whatsoever, which is good because they're really unsubtle about it. The companies on The Apprentice, the rewards on Survivor, the "Centrino wireless laptops" on Dream Job – it's all right out there for you to see. But why not have sponsorship in reality TV? Nobody balks at the product placement on The Price Is Right.

So, while I don't think product placement should be some rampant thing that gets in the way of the story (nothing should do that: not stars, not CG effects, not directors – Quentin Tarantino, this means you), I think a little of it is healthy, and it might even be the right fix to keep pencil-pushing studio executives at bay while screenwriters and directors make more creative choices. For the foreseeable future, we'll continue operating under today's "art as commerce" movie model – if the bean counters can feel satisfied that the commerce side of that is being fulfilled with sweetheart product placement deals, then maybe that can grant the art side a little breathing room. And, while I wouldn't support the legislative banning of product placement (such a thing would be impossible anyway), I do like the idea that producers should be required to disclose the product placement when it's happening. Think of Geritol sponsoring Twenty-One or the list of brands who have "furnished prizes or promotional consideration" at the end of The Price Is Right. It makes sense to run something at the end of the credits, disclosing which companies have purchased product placement deals. It's polite to show your audience that things are on the up and up, plus it provides one more opportunity for those companies to get their names on the screen – and, in advertising, every impression counts!

Which is an interesting thing. You always hear the old saying, "Half my advertising doesn't work, I just don't know which half." It's still kind of up in the air whether product placement has an appreciable effect on brand awareness or sales. But, in my view, even if it does have an effect, that's not the disaster that the sky-is-falling product placement opponents say it is. As a consumer, if I'm made aware of a product or service that might be a good fit for me, and that leads to me trying or liking that product or service, then I'm happy. I've improved my life. If I'm made more aware of a product or service that obviously doesn't appeal to me (Vagisil, to take an extreme example), then I'm not bothered by it as long as I don't feel like my time is being wasted (again, don't see I, Robot). Somebody walking by with a product is fine, whether I care about that product or not. Somebody using it in a scene where something like it would've been used anyway is fine. Somebody stopping the story to spotlight the product is a problem. I like the James Bond model. Maybe they're not the pioneers of product placement, but they've certainly been at it a long time, ever since Sean Connery slipped into that first sexy Aston Martin. And Michael G. Wilson, the current shepherd of the franchise, since the passing of his stepdad (or possibly step-uncle) "Cubby" Broccoli, mentioned that when they inked a deal with Smirnoff for Tomorrow Never Dies they specifically agreed that the label on the bottle would not be turned to face the camera. (In the film, half the label is turned away.) I know this sounds like a small, dumb thing, but to me it strikes the perfect balance between placing the products in the film and bending the film to fit the products – whacking the audience over the head with them.

Mad Ave is all atwitter about product placement, so I'm sure we'll see plenty of new attempts at it over the next few years. Some will go too far, but audiences will reject that. So, I'm betting we'll eventually see some happy medium established, where companies feel comfortable about getting their product in front of an audience, and audiences feel comfortable watching their movies and TV shows. Fine with me, just as long as TiVo survives.

POLL:

Product Placement

Product Placement? (The subtle, believable kind. Let's say, Product Placement In General.)

	Dumb
	Awesome

© onebee · all rights reserved