So it looks like Subway saved Chuck. According to this New York Times story, the series essentially got renewed for a third season because the sandwich artists brokered an intense deal that will let them prominently insert their brand into most episodes. I’d count on a scene where a footlong turkey club possesses healing properties.
I’m simultaneously exhausted by and resigned to this kind of advertising. If embedded product placement keeps good shows on the air by offsetting their costs, then I at least can rejoice that I get another season of 30 Rock or that a scripted series like Chuck is being presented instead of yet another half hour of Jay Leno’s stupid ass.
But on the other hand… I have never, ever seen product integration that doesn’t completely disrupt a show.
Sure, some evils are more extreme—like that ridiculous episode of Ugly Betty where Amanda’s entire subplot is about eating Healthy Choice frozen dinners—but even less pronounced pimp-outs—like the 30 Rock where Liz keeps showing everyone a picture of her boyfriend, and it just happens to be on her iPhone—are jarring.
It’s disruptive because I never forget that the shows I’m watching are fake, so I know that no product appears “naturally” in the course of an episode. If I see someone using an iPhone in my actual office, then I might think, “Hmm… interesting. I need to learn more.” But if I see Liz Lemon using one in hers, I think, “Apple paid for this scene.” And then I’m pulled out of the artistic experience and forced to consider how the inevitability of commerce has once again intruded on a narrative.
And look… I know ads are necessary to keep non-PBS programming afloat, and I know that DVR makes it so easy to glide past commercials that companies need to stick a Coke in Michael Scott’s hand in order to make me see it.
But that doesn’t mean I like it.
I’m especially troubled by the thought that I might get used to this type of marketing… so used to it that a Subway sandwich in a Chuck episode won’t register, and I’ll just ignore it like I do so much advertising in the world. Then what will happen? What will companies do to grab my attention after that? Will they make sitcom stars tattoo brand names on their foreheads, so that every close-up is a commercial?
How do you guys feel about all this?
19 responses so far ↓
1 Shelia // May 19, 2009 at 2:37 pm
I’m reminded of the caricature of product placement on “The Truman Show,” which in that case was funny. On these shows, though, I wouldn’t have a problem if it were something like Dr. House asking someone to get him a Dr. Pepper out of the fridge in a blending-it-into-their-lives sort of way, rather than carrying the can around and showing it to everyone.
2 jlf // May 19, 2009 at 2:45 pm
I am sort of hoping that they can have Sarah “work” in a Subway so that we get our story plus the necessary integration without it smacking us too much in the face. Although, I am just happy to see Chuck survive.
3 Anonymous // May 19, 2009 at 2:52 pm
“Eureka” had the most egregious example of this last season when Degree sponsored the season. Degree antiperspirant actually ended up literally saving the world.
It’s not the products usually that jar me… it’s the awkward, deliberate beauty shots of the product that disrupt the rhythm of the scene and the look of the show.
4 Rae // May 19, 2009 at 3:13 pm
It doesn’t bother me the way it obviously bothers you. I dislike it when it’s as horribly done as your Amanda/UB example but I can appreciate a well-done product placement like the Subway stuff on Chuck.
I understand your point about how you know it’s a fake world so it’s obvious it’s a product placement but I also don’t have a better alternative for how to get advertising dollars. So if it’s going to be done I want it to be subtle and well-done and not something that makes the whole show feel like a commercial. (The online web series, Novel Adventures, done by CBS and Saturn was horribly anvilicious with their Saturn placement and I shiver at the idea of TV shows eventually having to go that far.)
Two tangently related things… 1) Why is it that product placement in TV is so much more noticable than product placement in movies? 2) On Mother’s Day I was watching a golf tournament with my parents and it was laughable how some of the players literally use any “free” space to put a logo for one of their sponsors. One golfer, no joke, had a logo on each sleeve, on each side of his collar, on each side of his hat, etc. I laughed at it while watching but scary to think that’s where TV could go too.
5 heatherkay // May 19, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I find the placement less distracting than when people sit down at a bar and order a “beer” or eat “Clownie Cakes” instead of Twinkies. That just seems inherently fake and I think “nobody wanted to pay for that placement.”
6 KarenG // May 19, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Heatherkay has a totally right on point. They do this on iCarly (hey, I have a kid!) and it makes me bananas. Right down to the computers on the show, which are Pears as opposed to… Exactly. With full disclosure that my husband’s job is uber dependent on ad spending, I don’t have a problem with product placement.
Oh, and Mark, I TOTES recommend an iCarly viewing! I admit to liking it, and they have a pretty cool web component.
7 Mark Blankenship // May 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm
@heatherkay — That’s so interesting, and I really appreciate hearing you say that (or seeing you type that.) Thinking about it that way, I guess I HAVE noticed when people order Clownie Cakes and thought, “That’s awkward!” But for me personally, it’s less jarring to see an entirely fictionalized set of products than overtly placed real ones.
That’s also because I tend to assume that advertisers are trying to get one over on me by referencing Dr. Pepper or whatever, and I tend to feel insulted… which is entirely my thing, I’ll admit.
@Rae — Yes! Why is it so much less jarring in movies? Is it because we’ve been seeing it in movies for so long?
8 Jason // May 19, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Mark:
Great to see you talking about advertising…it’s about time.
As a digital media planner I am constantly in the fish bowl that claims TV advertising is dying. Considering DVR penetration is nearing approx 25% it’s easy to argue that the ads are even less impactful.
However, let’s face it, TV is successful because of the content and consumers are addicted to American Idol (Go Adam) and LOST. Well folks there’s no such thing as a free ride, and as such there’s going to be a constant need to subsidize our addiction through advertisers…..drum roll please….PRODUCT PLACEMENT
I’m actually looking forward to the day when cable/satelite boxes are seamless integrated with the internet and when a brand is integrated into a show there will be functionality that will allow the viewer to click the remote and go to a website to view more information or buy the product. How cool would it be if Apple launched a new iphone in 24 and I could click to buy right through my TV…now that would be amazing.
The net result is the 30 second spot is dead (Thanks Joseph Jaffee) but TV advertising is not. Brands will need to connect in a meaningful but not be over the top/in your face way. the way it’s done now….we all see right through it anyways.
9 Mark Blankenship // May 19, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Hey Jason! So yeah… I totally accept that advertising is necessary, and sometimes it’s actually cool. (Hence my recent discussion of the Kia-Hamster commercial.)
It seems like being able to buy a product you see on a show just by pushing a button on your remote could go one of two ways… either products will be everywhere, just like in The Truman Show (as Sheila mentioned), or they’ll be even more subtle, since viewers will learn to assume that everything they see is for sale. In other words, no need to overdo the presence of Sun Chips, since even a quick glimpse of a Sun Chips logo will remind me I can buy them right now.
Ultimately, of course, you’re right… TV is nothing without content, and advertisers know that. So for now, I’ll take the optimistic road and assume that a more seamless integration is on the way. Something that lets me watch my cake and buy it, too.
10 Madge // May 19, 2009 at 3:53 pm
I don’t mind as long as it’s either done well, or is a send-up of itself. I cracked up at the 30 Rock Snapple episode, where everyone was for no reason talking lovingly about Snapple, and it ended with a guy in a Snapple mascot outfit leaving the elevator. Okay, I’d get irritated if EVERY product-placement did this, but it was funny at the time.
But if a character just happens to order a beer or use a phone, I’m with heatherkay – I notice it more if it’s a weird fake brand, rather than an actual product.
11 KarenG // May 19, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Look at that Extreme Home Makeover show or whatever it’s called on ABC. That’s all product placement, mainly from Sears. To me, their product placement does not feel integrated into the show at all (with the big old Sears logo plastered everywhere and the endless refs to Sears). But then I think about how Sears has donated all this expensive house crap to this family who has gone thru all sorts of awful hard-ships, and I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I think of Sears. Which is exactly how they want you to feel about the brand. So in this case, they won me over, even though I spent part of the episode rolling my eyes the obvious product placement.
12 Mark Blankenship // May 19, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Karen, that makes me think about “Project Runway.” I love the content of the show, so I keep watching, even though I think it’s ridiculously lame everytime Tim Gunn has to talk about the BlueFly.com accessory wall.
And yet… now I know that BlueFly.com is a place to buy accessories. But personally, I would prefer it if they didn’t mention it every time. Project Runway’s last season was kind of in danger of feeling like “ads first, content later,” what with the constant references to the accessory wall, porno shots of Vogue magazine, etc.
Since this clearly has to happen (for now, at least), I’ll feel better about brands that don’t insist on forcing themselves on me with quite so much force.
13 ferretrick // May 19, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Right now I’m just in the “anything that saves Chuck” camp…but that could change if the Subway placement becomes too obnoxious. It would be great if its Sarah’s new workplace…that would be pretty seamless, and the Orange place is getting tired anyway. Frankly, right now I’m so grateful to them that I’m patronizing Subway for dinner. I’m also assuming Best Buy wasn’t interested in product placement…heh.
Something else the article made me think about…I’m pretty sure I’ve never missed an Ugly Betty and I have no recollection of the Amanda/Healthy Choice episode. Does that reflect on the success of that product placement, or does that just mean I have a short memory?
14 Kristen // May 20, 2009 at 7:22 am
I personally don’t have a problem with product placement as long as it’s not too heavy handed. In real life, I’m much more likely to say “Can I have a Coke?” than “Can I have a soda?” so why can’t TV characters do that? It is more obvious and jarring to me when they use made up products when it’s obvious that its supposed to stand in for a real product. But when characters get to talking about how much they love a product that’s too much.
I think the Chuck/Subway promos have been done pretty well and I love Chuck so I’m glad it’s on.
15 InfoMofo // May 20, 2009 at 9:34 am
@Mark but when Tim talks about the Bluefly accessory wall, he sells it! You get the feeling that he knows it’s beneath him, but he still delivers it with aplomb. Man I love Tim.
Bleh, as for Chuck… I work in IT so everyone and their mother was trying to get me to watch this show. I probably would have given it a shot but then I saw their ridiculous super bowl commercial in which they explained that the opposite of 3-D was 1-D. That’s when I realized that the show would probably just piss me off like that week after week.
And Liz Lemon gets to do whatever she wants. She could do the entire show in a Dr. Zizmor sandwich board and it would probably fit into the narrative nicely.
16 Linda // May 20, 2009 at 9:39 am
I think that in some ways, this is a matter of luck — you’re either unlucky, in that your particular brain experiences an annoying little catch every time this happens, or you’re lucky, like I am, and you often don’t notice even obvious product placement until somebody points it out to you.
I remember somebody being like, “That Staples product placement on ‘The Office’ was so blatant,” and I just thought, “Ohhhhh, right, I’m sure.” Because it never occurred to me. It’s the same thing with makes of cars. Holy God, would I never notice the make of car someone is driving and be like, “Ooh, that car company totally placed that car there!” Nev-er.
If it’s done with any skill at all, I honestly don’t notice it. I mean, I notice beauty shots of food or whatever, sometimes, but the fact that somebody in a scene is drinking a Diet Coke never even hits me until later.
17 Dan // May 20, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Product placement can be done extremely well. Fox forced Burger King product placement upon the writers of Arrested Development.
They spent a large part of an episode deriding product placement and making fun of Burger King. The aspiring “actor” Tobias was in talks to take part in a show entirely set within a Burger King.
I had no idea that Burger King actually paid money for this until I read it on Wikipedia, to me it seemed more like a swipe at product placement and the franchise than an endorsement of their product (the narrator and the characters mockingly talk about how great a restaurant Burger King is).
18 Rube Goldberg // May 22, 2009 at 7:21 pm
They had an interesting story on this evening’s edition of Marketplace on this very subject. Here’s the link.
19 Kerri Allen // May 23, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Loving this discussion, even though I’m late to it! (Sorry, Mark. I still love you.)
I agree with Jason. As a TV viewer, you’re not paying for the content, so you’re getting free entertainment. “FREE?!?” You ask. “Not for $79.99 a month!” But yes. Your cable or satellite bill basically pays Time Warner or Comcast for the service, you don’t pay into the production costs of House or Ugly Betty. An average TV episode costs $3 million to produce, so you need big advertisers to offset those costs.
If your innocent sensitivities don’t allow a sandwich chain to interrupt the finely-crafted lyricism of Chuck, then you should probably opt for a book from the library. It’s free, it’s entertaining, and I promise that Dickens never wrote any subplots sponsored by Watt Steam Engines Inc.
But if you want 800 channels with shows of extraordinarily high quality on-demand in 5 languages with commercials that you can speed through…you might have to swallow some Snapple product integration.
Leave a Comment