Ah, product placement. It's a subject that's come up before. We have an award for it, and even as far back as those care free days of 2005, Karina was writing about the Screen Actors Guild and Writers Guild Of America protesting it. The telling quote from that piece, "Our writers are being told to perform the function of ad copywriter, but to disguise this as storytelling." And isn't that where most of us have always drawn the line in the sand? The placing of products into sets was kind of an understood cost of doing business, but having the writers change scripts to incorporate them was a whole other ball of (Turtle) wax. Unfortunately, those (Foster Farms) chickens have come home to roost.
As you can see in the picture leading off the post, Psych gave Dunkin Donuts a nice featured spot in the latest episode. That's not so bad, until you get to the dialog that accompanied it.
Shawn: You see that?
Gus: Yes. Now I'm in the mood for some coffee.
Shawn: What are you talking about?
Gus: Coffee, Shawn.
Shawn: What are you looking at?
Gus: The same thing you're looking at.
Shawn: It's a Dunkin Donuts patch Gus.
Gus: They have excellent coffee. They have one on my extended route.
Shawn: You know what, dude? You astound me. And now I must have a blueberry crumb. It's totally triggered my donut launch...
Gus: Will you focus Shawn?
Doesn't it make you cringe just a little? "They have excellent coffee." I get that Shawn and Gus often make odd and obscure observations, and it's one of the things I really like about the show, but that one was stretching it a little far for me. If it was for something off beat, and not so obviously a sponsor, okay. Something like Stan Mikita's coffee shop from Wayne's World, or even Canada's Tim Horton's, would have been funny. This was just a little sad for what it represents.
But wait... there's more, and it's worse. The Psych nuttiness is what prompted this post, but our friends in Eureka are what set it in motion. At the end of the big season premiere the new head of Global Dynamics, Eva Thorne, mentions that they need corporate partnership and private capital. She then introduces GD's first sponsor. And it's not quite as subtle as the Dunkin Donuts patch. Have a look.
Full frickin' screen. The topic came up in the comments for the season premiere post. I had let it go without comment, because I'd already heard about what was yet to come and figured there would be plenty of time to tackle the issue once the other shoe dropped. That shoe, as explained on the Eureka Unscripted tumblr (July 22nd entry), comes in the form of Degree being written into an episode, to the extent that it saves the day. Yikes. That's not crossing the line. That's kind of racing across it, tires spinning, as you grab another gear.
It's easy to look at that and say, "Oh, hell no." But there is another unfortunate side of that coin. As creator Jaime Paglia puts it in the tumblr post, "We don't just have to show the product. Now we have to actually integrate these things into our stories." Just as they feared back in 2005. He goes on to explain the reasoning behind it, "...the reason we're doing this particular story, incorporating our generous sponsor, is that without their participation, you wouldn't be getting nearly as much Eureka this season. It's a cold hard fact."
And that puts the viewer in a quandary. If the creators of the shows we love are having their hands tied by the bean counters, do you blame them for going along? Do you blame the studio for even making it an option? Or do you blame the sponsors for insisting on this level of inclusion? These are murky waters that the new world of television is swimming in.
Personally, I'm somewhat on the fence about it. Sure, given a choice, I would like to keep a giant wall between the sponsors and the writers. If we can't have that, I'll trust in the writers of my favorite shows to do right by their viewers. I suspect that as much as I loathe the idea of Degree saving the day, the Eureka team will do it in a fun way. Call it a guarded optimism I guess. Still, I can't help but think that these are the early steps down a road that's better left untraveled.
Sound off in the Circuit City comments, and don't forget to tally your vote in the Home Depot poll.
TV Squad previews NBC's new shows (part 1)
TV 101: How ESPN controls the world and what the other networks can learn from it
TV Squad previews CBS's new shows
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
8-05-2008 @ 9:15AM
Wulf said...
if product placement cuts the amount of commercial time, I'm not going to argue about it.
In the old days, back when television was new, it was expected to incorporate the sponsor's product into the show,and there were fewer commercial breaks because of it. That means more show less mindless loud interruptions in the program I am watching.
You do realize the reason this is happening right? With the dawn of DVR and fast forward, most of us tape the show first then watch with our finger on the fast forward button to avoid those nasty commercials. If the product is embedded into the program, we're forced to watch and if we fast forward we miss what's going on in the show. It will come down to people deciding whether or not to watch a show based on how they feel about particular sponsors. The "moral majority" will simply convince their constituents to boycott programs that incorporate product placement of companies that promote "unsavory" ideas. Peta will convince their followers to boycott any shows that incorporate anything that has to do with animals etc... the end result will be propagandized product placement. won't that be fun?!
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 9:22AM
automagV said...
If they integrated products into the show in a natural manner then it would just reflect reality. But, specifically in this Psych episode, it was so jarring and transparent that it made me groan. It was as if the writers were not made part of it. It seemed like a last minute addition. In cases like this I despise product placement. Try a little harder next time to shill a product ok?
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 11:57AM
Leota said...
Maybe they purposely did it so bad because they were angry at being forced to do it. Reminds me of the Larry Sanders episode with the Garden Weasel.
8-05-2008 @ 9:24AM
Galley said...
No one did product placement better than the film "Return of the Killer Tomatoes".
Reply
8-06-2008 @ 1:11AM
DanGarion said...
The movie Josie and the Pussycats has the best product placements of all time.
8-05-2008 @ 9:30AM
fred said...
Well, as much as I hate ("poorly used") product placement, the Psych dialog didn't bother me at all, because I felt this was about exactly the kind of discussion they'd be having anyways, whether it was about actual products or made-up ones just for the sake of it...
IOW it didn't feel forced, at least I didn't saw it that way. It's not like say how Heroes or Smallville tried to sell us cars or gum, now that's another story.
I think that I feel product placement could work just fine, if people take the script and look at what product is needed/used, it's when it's done the other way around that things start to fall apart... It's when you go the NBC way, asking advertisers what they want to sell, and them ask the creative team to come up with a series/episode to sell those products.
Clearly that's how it happened with Eureka, and while it may be the case for Psych as well, I think it was more using the "opportunity" to sell product placement than having it forced down their throats...
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 9:36AM
Tim said...
I'd prefer the method you mention "people take the script and look at what product is needed/used" but it will never work that way. These product placements are setup well in advance of a script being written which is unfortunate.
With the case of Psych, I think the writers were able to make the best use of an undesireable situation. I am willing to bet that it was forced on them to put Dunkin Donuts into the show, but they are really talented and were able to due it to less detriment than Eureka did.
Smallville's gum episode was pitiful though. I really disliked that ad.
8-05-2008 @ 9:31AM
Tim said...
This is just getting silly. I love both Psych and Eureka but when I saw these instances you mentioned, I was pulled out of the reality bubble and it took me a bit to get back into it.
I hope this sort of advertising doesn't push its way into all of my favorite shows - it can stay in Reality TV. I don't watch that.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 10:09AM
Eric H said...
this type of advertising is definitely here to stay and eventually it will most likely be the only kind.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 10:45AM
Edd said...
They will lose me as a viewer. Nuff said.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 10:52AM
dt3 said...
stop whiiining!
make a decision right NOW... either give me your tivo's or accept that product placement is here to stay (and is not nearly as obnoxious as some other "real" commercials).
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 11:12AM
betsyw said...
We've done this to ourselves, I'm afraid. I'm the first to admit that I'll do almost anything to avoid watching a commercial. If an advertiser wants me to see their product, they almost have to imbed it in the story. Like it or not, it's a business... sigh.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 11:13AM
Carissa said...
It doesn't bother me at all. I don't consider the Psych bit a drag at all. I love when TV shows can mimic real life in such a way. Tell me you haven't heard a stupid buzz word from a commercial that made you think of a product and drove you nuts. I thought it was hilarious to think that they would be thinking of coffee and donuts because I would have been too!
I hate commercial breaks. As long as the product placements don't become like the ones in the past where they stop, hold up the product and mention it to the camera (most recently seen in The Truman Show), then I'm all for them using actual dialog, such as between Shaun and Gus, to sell instead. It is a hell of a lot more entertaining than sitting through an actual commercial.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 11:31AM
Elf said...
DT3 has is exactly right. Integrated product placement is the only kind of commercial you can't skip with a DVR.
Just to add a note of irony: Gus must have one hell of an extended route on his pharmaceutical job. There are no Dunkin Donuts outlets in Santa Barbara, CA. However, Psych can get away with being ironic in their product mentions in the same way Tina Fey can look directly into the camera and ask for her money after plugging a product on 30 Rock.
I think the placement on Eureka was rather lame and will only get worse. If GD needed to make money they could simply just patent and license some of the advanced technology they create. Take a task force of four or five of the geniuses on staff and give them the task and figuring out which of their inventions could be best leveraged for profit and use that to fund GD's continued operations. No way is a deordorant company going to pony up enough money to keep GD solvent. A better idea would have been having food product placement at Cafe Diem. It could be subtle stuff like the proprietor/owner (I forgot his name) saying he invented the McRib or some other popular food of questionable origin. Hell, it could just be HP computers on all of their workstations like another certain show set in Scranton, PA.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 11:37AM
ryan said...
I strongly prefer these in-show product placements over the traditional 30 second advertisements. And I thought the Psych exchange was legitimately funny too, so I'm not really sure what the problem is.
If they could pull off enough of these that they could go commercial free, that would be totally awesome... of course if they jammed more of these down our throats at the cost of less time in the plot itself, that would suck.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 11:58AM
Chris said...
Most people seem to be complaining about how forced and unnatural the product placement in Eureka was as compared to the spot in Psych. I think this does not bode well for any future shows set in an alternate sci-fi or fantasy universe. Shows set in the real world always have the potential for using brand name products, characters in the office can use HP computers, go out to Chilis for lunch and drink Budweiser at happy hour. Shows that are set in alternate realities will have a much harder time incorporating these products without sounding phony. A character eating an Oreo on a starbase orbiting Zaxxon would be derided by fanboys/girls on every message board. The problem is even worse for a show set in an ancient fantasy world or a particular historic time period. Because of the proliferation of DVRs and on demand programming product placement is only going to increase and is the only way sponsors will pay reasonable amounts of money that are required to make these shows. The only shows without product placement will be on premium channels which can sponsor the shows through subscription fees. Perhaps in the future the sci-fi channel will have to become a premium channel to support the type of programming people want.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 12:37PM
Hank said...
I suspect that as time goes on, these things will be more natural. Lie instead of 'Let's get some coffee' it will be 'Let's stop at (brand name coffee shop) for some coffee, Shawn. I don't want coffee, I want (other beverage served at brand name coffee shop).' They enter the shop, get their items, move the plot along, and the manager eventually orders them out for taking up space and not ordering (beverage or food item at shop) for the last 45 minutes.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 1:14PM
StillBash said...
Watch the season premiere of "Burn Notice" again. A container. Favorable lighting. A car. A camera swooping elegantly up the front grill over the car company logo...
But then again this wasn't as sickening as the BMW Z3 promo in "Argmageddon". *yuck* Or the BS they pull on the "Fantastic Four" every time.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 2:08PM
bamberluvr said...
These "integrations" just don't feel natural. I am taken out of the story completely and then so pissed off that I can't focus the rest of the show. if this is the future of TV, I'll just read a book.
Reply
8-05-2008 @ 2:24PM
Nathaniel said...
Did anyone see the My Boys where one of the gang gets all excited that he just bought a round of SoCo and Lime shots? Yeah... especially since a commercial had aired the previous break, that seemed a little too obvious.
Reply