Yesterday, we asked you what you thought of the McDonald's product placement on 30 Rock in Thursday's episode. Last night, we found out that it wasn't product placement at all.Tina Fey herself released a statement explaining all of the McDonald's talk in the episode (and reveals that the Tina Fey on Twitter isn't her):
"It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the references to McDonald's in last night's episode of 30 Rock were in no way product placement. (Nor were they an attempt at product placement that fell through.) We received no money from the McDonald's Corporation. We were actually a little worried they might sue us. That's just the kind of revenue-generating masterminds we are.
"Also, the upcoming storyline where Liz Lemon starts dating Grimace is just based on a recurring dream I have. Seriously, though, it's not product placement."
I have to say this makes me happy. I mean, I wasn't really bothered with it in the first place, but it's good she came out and explained it, and in her usual humorous way. It's too bad that the Fey on Twitter isn't the real thing, but I guessed that a long time ago. Tina, you really need to get on Twitter.















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2-14-2009 @ 11:48AM
Clayton said...
I don't think I believe her. They may not have received money for it THIS time, but...
Producers always have a plan. You don't put a product like McDonalds, and say the things you said about it, without them knowing first.
Consider this. McDonalds is doing very well right now in our current economic situation here in America. They are looking for new ways to expand and get the word out. Television networks, on the other hand, are not doing too well. They are looking for ways to bring in additional cash.
How do you do that? Offer some free advertising to entice them into purchasing more in the future.
I think we're going to start seeing more McDonalds advertising on NBC, especially during 30 Rock, in the very near future.
And Tina Fey was lying through her teeth.
http://makeasitcom.com
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 11:49AM
Jason said...
If that's not product placement, then I'm satisfied. I'm going to get in my new Nissan Altima Hybrid and drive away, because now that I feel a sense of relief, my Altima Hybrid will give me that extra sense of comfort in knowing that not only is my conscience clean, my emissions are too. Nissan. It's more than a car.
-This was not intended to be an endorsement for Nissan, or the new Altima Hybrid.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 12:09PM
JennieO said...
I read this while daintily sipping my Snapple, McFlurry in the freezer waiting for me (I'll nuke it 30 seconds in my GE microwave if necessary), and going "hmmmm...."
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 1:01PM
Danny said...
Either way, it was funny and I didn't have a problem with it.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 1:17PM
bruce said...
Hold on a sec. You don't get to say nice things about a real-life product in a TV show and then declare "it was not product placement." Getting paid to "place" the product in the show is usually the essence of the quid pro quo. But just because McDonalds did not pay NBC to have its McFlurries spoken of highly by the beloved 30 Rock characters does not mean it was not product placement.
Saying "it wasn't product placement" does not settle the matter.
Maybe Tina Fey, or others at NBC, own large quantities of McDonald's Corp. stock. Free primetime advertisements of McDonald's products embedded in a popular, hip TV show is enough to have some impact on McDonald's stock. There could be many reasons why McDonald's did not pay. Or maybe McDonald's DID pay - Tina Fey merely says "We received no money from McDonald's Corporation." Who is "we"? Her and the cast of 30 Rock? NBC? Viacom? Westinghouse? Sheinhardt Wig Corporation?
Raving over McDonad's McFlurries and how delicious they are is product placement. A product was placed into the TV show and shown in the best possible light to the audience. That's product placement. There could have been some other quid pro quo if McD's did not directly pay NBC for what was a blatant advertisement of its product.
She thought McDonalds might have sued them over a free primetime McFlurry advertisement? I'd like to see Tina Fey say that with a straight face.
When it comes to advertising/marketing/product placement, it's impossible to be too cynical.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 10:41PM
Andrew said...
That's just semantics. The point of her post was that it wasn't a paid product placement.
2-14-2009 @ 1:35PM
Corey Atad said...
I don't understand what the problem is. I was laughing my ass off at the ridiculousness of the product placement. It was like when Burger king did placement on Arrested Development and the writers so overpraised the product it became obvious and hilarious.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 1:41PM
bruce said...
What do you mean, "if it's not product placement"? Look at it. Watch it again. How can that possibly be anything other than product placement? And if Tina Fey says it's not product placement, you'll believe her despite the fact that it was blatant, unequivocal product placement? Don't let her trick you with who did/did not get paid what... that's irrelevant.
I'd love to hear her elaborate on what she thought McDonald's would sue over. What cause of action did she think McD's could have had? I'm a lawyer, and as far as I'm aware, you cannot be sued for publicly complementing someone else's product. Maybe Fey knows better than I do - I'd love to hear her elaborate.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 1:57PM
Pingles said...
I think perhaps a few of us may be using different terminology.
I see "Product Placement" as PAID Product Placement. Otherwise any recognizable object in a show/movie is product placement.
If they didn't receive compensation for it it's not "Product Placement" to me. It's just a joke with a brand name.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 3:17PM
Malfoy Roark said...
This person gets it. If they aren't being paid, it isn't product placement in the normal sense. It might be fanboyism, but it isn't product placement.
2-14-2009 @ 8:00PM
DaveD said...
No, this person does NOT get it.
So in any show where someone hands another a kleenex - er, sorry, tissue - this action is the same as spending dialog about the quality of a McFlurry?
Sure. And some woman just swam the Atlantic Ocean. With what computes to be an average speed much greater than any Olympic medal winner.
(Oh wait. She didn't claim that. She merely let the untruthful claims slip by without comment. Almost like, well, this.)
If if smells like sh&t and looks like sh&t, it probably IS sh&t.
2-14-2009 @ 2:07PM
Mike McNamara said...
Me
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 2:11PM
Mike McNamara said...
Me yesterday:
"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."
God, I hate to say I told you so, but I kinda did.
They were MOCKING McDonald's and the McFlurry. Sure they said they were yummy (because they are) but they were also mocking the idea that a GE Exec would be so obsessive about such a ghetto item.
Or am I the only one who read it that way? It's like when they make fun of the KFC Everything-We-Make-Mixed-Together-In-A-Bowl as the disgusting thiing that it is.... even though I love, love, love them
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 10:07PM
Tracey said...
Bingo Mike.
Now that DaveD guy is a complete moron. Relax, it's a freaking TV show. It was making fun of it, how is that misunderstood?
2-14-2009 @ 3:11PM
Evocatus said...
What Tina Fey did is no different than what you guys do when you recommend a good book/movie/tv show to a friend. It is that simple, Tina Fey and crew just really love McFlurries and wanted the world to know
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 3:34PM
Steven said...
NBC needs to make money just like every other struggling business at this time. Why in the world is it a shock? Since when is there morals and standards when it comes to a tv comedy? This isnt exactly PBS here.
------------------
http://www.tigerdroppings.com/blog/index.asp?b=9
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 5:08PM
Gill said...
Hey look at that, the difference between intentional and unintentional had absolutely no effect on the story itself now that the facts our out.
It's almost like this was a stupidly contrarian reason to feign anger at an entertainment program.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 8:03PM
Monkeydog said...
You know, I was just watching Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and ended up watching the episode where Shake pimps out Boost Mobile. It is so obviously satire there, and I think it is the same for this episode of 30 Rock. They were making fun of product placement and McDonalds, they weren't doing it to really gain anything, but it was meant more as a satire...not all praise McDonalds. Colbert does it occasionally too.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 8:24PM
Adam said...
How is this really any different than the Arby's thing when Isabella Rossalini guest starred? Talking about Beef and Cheddar? Seems about the same to me. Didn't hear any uproar about that.
Reply
2-14-2009 @ 9:10PM
StillBash said...
No product placement at all
(this message brought to you by Verizon Wireless - please don't sue, send me my free phone to the following PO box...)
Reply