A follow-up to my review of last night's 30 Rock.Did they go too far with the product placement last night? Several web sites today are talking about it, and some of the commenters here last night mentioned it too. The show didn't just have a McDonald's bag in the foreground while two characters were talking, the fast food chain was prominently featured throughout the show. A scene was set at McDonald's (Jack and Elisa getting back together), the couple actually had a discussion about what makes the McFlurry so great, and there was a commercial for McDonald's during the show too.
Did this go to far over the edge and make it a McDonald's ad with some 30 Rock plot thrown in or are you OK with it? Personally, it didn't really bother me for some reason. I'm usually OK with product placement if the show is good enough.
Hmmm...the singer that Jenna impersonated was Michael...MacDonald!
Gone Too Soon: Invasion
Scrubs season nine -- An early look
The TV Squad Podcast: Vik Sahay of Chuck, Oprah talk, brutal timeslots, and more!
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
2-13-2009 @ 1:44PM
Mikey H said...
I was OK with the 30 Rock product placement, because I thought they scene where they found each other in the McDonald's was kinda funny/cute
I was not OK with Damages Cadillac product placement, where they had a man we've never seen before (even if he showed up later) purchasing a car and the salesman saying they could talk prices and he said "No, I'll pay cash, this car sells itself"
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:13PM
Pinwiz said...
The character had appeared earlier. He was at the roast of the UNR CEO and was the one who talked to him in the bathroom and helped the merger go through.
I hate how people are railing against product placement. It helps raise the budget for the shows. It's a TV tradition since the 50s, and it's become necessary to help raise revenue in the digital age. It was a bit clunky, but it wasn't "out of nowhere".
2-13-2009 @ 6:49PM
ac said...
This show manages to make its product placements at least funny so it gets a pass.
The Damages Escalade placement was just too far. I dont need a whole list of the SUV's features. The close up of Darrell Hammond typing in the coordinates with the Cadillac symbol in clear view would of been enough.
2-20-2009 @ 3:15PM
fwstoss said...
The Mickie-D placement was perfect for the character, the actress and the situation!
In bed:
Jack: These McFlurries are amazing.
Salma Hayek: I know. The soft swirl of vanilla and the hard crunch of candies and cookies. You'd think they would fight each other, but no. They are perfecto. . . .Let a McFlurry be what it is; the world's greatest desert.
"The logo for McDonald’s is the golden arches of the letter M on a red background.
"The M stands for McDonald’s, but the rounded m represents mummy’s mammaries, acccording the design consultant and psychologist Louis Cheskin. In the 1960's McDonald's was prepared to abandon this logo, but Cheskin successfully urged the company to maintain this branding with its Freudian symbolism of a pair of nourishing breasts. " see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1616_fastfood/page6.shtml
several bloggers report that:
"We here at AdAges, for once, actually picked up the phone and made a few calls! As it turns out, the McDonald's inclusion was really part of "30 Rock's" script; McDonald's didn't pay for it, according to Jennifer Lane Landolt, director-entertainment alliances for McDonald's."
2-13-2009 @ 1:45PM
Apotheos said...
Arrested Development invented the product placement! Burger King sure is a quality restaurant!
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 5:57PM
Len said...
It sure is!!
2-13-2009 @ 1:49PM
Cincinnati Mike said...
Cool. I was hoping you'd tackle this. 30 Rock has been at the...well, "forefront" suggests something too positive...of this trend. Wasn't it episode 1 when we were introduced to the GE Tri-vection oven? I thought wow, what a clever satire! And then one minute later was an actual ad for the damn thing. Since then they have managed to at least be clever and funny about their various plugs. But the McFlurry was a plug too far. So clunky that it makes me wonder if they did it on purpose, in protest?
But it's everywhere on NBCU...Earl did the Jane Seymore necklace...Office is a weekly love letter to Staples...and Kath and Kim did the out-of-left field plug for Wynonna Judd. Where does it end?
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 1:55PM
Galley said...
No one did product placement better than "Return of the Killer Tomatoes".
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:07PM
Jen said...
30 Rock has been known for making its product placement obvious. Just think of the Verizon "Can we have our money now" ad.
In any other show, it would have bothered me. But in this one, they made it obvious it was all product placement and tried to incorporate it in the story. So I just ignored it.
Most other shows would have stuck with them just eating the McFlurrys, instead of singing its praises.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:10PM
elcazavampiros said...
I think that product placement is okay if it allows a good, yet low-performing, show stay on the air.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 3:04PM
Mike McNamara said...
No, they didn't. I figured it was product placement, but it didn't feel like it normally does because
(a) even though they were promoting the greatness that is the McFlurry, they were also mocking it and McDonald's -- the McEmu? really?; I wouldn't have been surprised to find out that it WASN'T product placement.
(b) The cultural difference between Jack and his girlfriend and their ideas of the "perfect" dessert were illustrated in the place he wanted to go for Valentine's Day and the McFlurry -- and it was much better than if they had used a fake restaurant to make the same point -- like if they'd ended up at Krusty Burger or something.
(c) it was hilarious
(d) McFlurry's are AWESOME.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:16PM
Paul K said...
I think we are going to have to get used to this. I realize I am part of the problem, using my DVR to skip through the commercials, but I'm afraid I can't go back. As long as the product placement is part of the show, I am more than happy to deal with it. If it starts becoming the show, though, or feels forced in, it will be a problem.
But these guys are smart. I am sure they'll figure out ways to add advertising into the shows to pay for them without becoming a 30-minute or 1-hour love letter to products. My DVR is great enough where i can deal with advertising inside the shows.
Reply
2-15-2009 @ 2:44AM
kramertron said...
Easily the worst/most blatant/laziest product placement I've ever seen. I'm really taken aback with NBC/30 Rock
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:23PM
EbonyDad said...
Just think... this is how it was when TV first started. They had companies as full blown sponsors of TV shows. TV programs had full integration of their products in the TV shows.
As long as I don't have to deal with Spam being the sponsor of The Office or Kotex being the sponsor of Battlestar Galatica, I can hang.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:36PM
Clayton said...
I don't see what the problem is. I mean, it is a fact that the McFlurry is the world's greatest dessert.
It is also a fact that a McDonalds is a great place to shoot a scene. There's plenty of space for the lighting, crew, and equipment! Don't forget lunch is right there, and it's affordable!
McDonalds is the perfect place for everything!
http://makeasitcom.com
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 2:39PM
Hollywood Ron said...
The Dairy Queen Blizzard > The McFlurry
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 3:07PM
JennieO said...
I was totally fine with 30 Rock's Mickey D product placement. The writers are smart enough to incorporate it into the story in a funny way, and it actually made me want a McFlurry (which I've never had), so it worked!
Iconic products like MacDonald's, Coke and Pepsi, etc. work well as product placements because they are part of many peoples' lives. Look at Seinfeld -- they probably sold more Snapple and cereal than anyone else. I'll take a well written product placement over a commercial interruption any time.
I agree with the first poster about how intrusive Cadillac's sponsorship of Damages has become. Between the ridiculous "off-the-cuff" listing of features, and the close-ups of the Cadillac grill logo on every car driven by every character, it has become really annoying. Not well done at all.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 3:05PM
Don-Don said...
If you make product placement work as part of the show, all the better. If you blatantly place it in where it serves no purpose, you'll just make people angry.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 3:06PM
clinton said...
TV shows were INVENTED to selll product, not to be incredible thought provoking art. If a show can't find advertisers it won't exist. I'm not some cow that will follow the herd aimlessly simply because a product is shown. I personally think paid advertising doesn't even work with adult any more.
In early years the sponsors were a part of the show title many times. Colgate Theatre I think was one of them.
It keeps government out of tv show making because they aren't paying for it and they don't have a say in in. Even PBS has given in on project when the NEA didn't think something was worthy of government money.
If product placement keeps good tv shows on tv let them do it.
The alternative would be for everyone to have to pay a fee yearly for each tv in their home and have that money fund tv shows.
Reply
2-13-2009 @ 3:08PM
Pingles said...
I have absolutely no problem with Product Placement but not ALONG WITH commercial breaks!
It's one or the other.
The worst are the ones on the Biggest Loser. While the health benefits of products tie well into the show we DO NOT need these non-actor contestants trying to ad-lib about how delicious and ONLY 20 CALORIES that Turkey meat is.
I wish a show would go product-placement only. I'd sign up.
Reply