What an interesting and in some ways disturbing discussion of product placement and, more importantly, the inversion of culture by and for commercial purposes. In no particular order, I want to respond to some of the comments.
First, a few endorsed product placement as better than other forms of advertising, such as email spam or circulars stuffing your mailboxes. I agree, but the endorsement supposes an “either or” choice, that by choosing product placement we somehow diminish the effects of the other forms. This, of course, is not true. We will continue to get lots of spam. Our mailboxes will continue to be filled with tree-killing trash. So it’s not a matter of choosing where the ads are going to come from; it’s a creep or march of commercial messages into all areas of our lives.
Several mentioned that product placement isn’t a problem because had we not done this exercise, we likely wouldn’t have even noticed the placements. To me, this sentiment underlines precisely why it is a huge and growing problem. To the extent we don’t notice commercial messages embedded in our culture, in our reading and viewing, we have stopped thinking critically about our world and about the many messages clamoring for our attention. Caitie mentions this when she lamented “people losing the ability to critically analyze the world around them,” which means that perhaps we are “willing to let advertisers . . . inundate us without putting up any sort of fight.” I see little fight in what should be a group that I would expect to be among the most discerning of media watchers — COM majors. Finally, Caitie warns that we risk being indoctrinated, and I fear she is right.
Fears of indoctrination lead to another problem I see in our reactions to the commerce/culture melt, which is sympathy for advertisers and movie makers. Several of us are willing to abide the messages because they “help pay for the movie.” There are lots of ways to pay for a movie. Product placement revenues do not necessarily go toward paying directors, actors, key grips and camera operators. They do go into the coffers of the distributors, who are interested only in profit. Directors, writers, actors — often these individuals are simply creating and expressing. A few of us did see the dangers in limiting this creative process with purely commercial motives (Kate S. and Katie O., for example).
Another common sentiment was that seeing a product makes us feel better about buying and using the product ourselves. Starbucks was the example used. Seeing it in a movie, like You’ve Got Mail, makes us feel better about buying coffee there ourselves. Remember what You’ve Got Mail was about? A soul-less book chain driving out a Mom-and-Pop corner bookstore! I don’t know that we should feel better about giving another soul-less chain our coin when it is driving out smaller, better, more responsible coffee houses more intimately tied to the local economy. My opinion.
And let’s make sure we know what we’re saying here when we say no problem to being bombarded by and with brands. If you see a row of khaki pants, for example, a pair each from Gap, Dockers, Ralph Lauren, Fubu and Duckhead, how are these pairs of pants different? Other than the little logo patch? Style, design, workmanship — all of this is nearly the same. Heck, some of them came out of the VERY SAME FACTORY. These brands don’t make anything. Realize that. They manufacture only an image. Outsourcing and third parties make their stuff. And who is paying for the very expensive image production, the advertising, the product placement? We are. Those costs are passed right along to you and to me.
So a big part of what’s going on is a lie, a deception, a romance that we apparently are all too willing to uncritically accept. In short, to quote Leigh Jackson, “maybe it is a problem that we are so numb to advertisements.” I think it’s a huge problem, and I had no idea how huge until I read these comments. This is not to condemn anyone, not at all. This is a college. We’re in this class together to learn. So this is all written to encourage us to question our answers.
A few more thoughts.
I appreciated Nayu’s concern for our children. If the blur is this dramatic now, what will our children face? If we have this much trouble critically examining cultural and commercial artifacts parading into our lives, what hope do our children have of understanding when they’re being pitched as opposed to merely entertained?
I also appreciated Brittany’s caution that when news and information sources flirt with product placement, they do so at the risk of their own credibility. So there are lines in the sand, it would seem. We just aren’t sure where they are or why.
Finally, I liked Christina’s warning that the commercial impulse might also be a superficial one, that to the extent a piece of culture is commercial, it can only be to that same degree superficial. I think she’s right. And we should think long and hard about this, as well. If a movie is selling, it’s not doing much else. Or, more accurately, when it is selling, it can’t do much of anything else, like inform, inspire, re-imagine.
We might, then, be even talking about democracy itself. Commercial messages have the potential to turn consumption into a substitute for democracy. By thinking, “Hey, I can choose what to buy, what to eat, what to watch, I’m free! This is democracy!” No, it’s not. It’s capitalism. Having significant and varied political choices, a say in how we are governed, a look at how government is going about its business, at how it’s spending my money — that’s democracy. Commerce and capitalism potentially mask or divert us from all that is undemocratic in society, like the incredibly unfair taxation and wealth distribution systems in this country. Do not fall into the trap of replacing “citizens” with “consumers.”
To underline my point, think about how much we learn from and about our political candidates from their advertising and from entirely staged, produced, manufactured, managed events? Nearly all of it. There is almost nothing authentic or spontaneous; it is all visual and symbolic. So the advertising ethic has become the dominant method of communicating even political messages. Wow.
So I beg you to re-think these questions. I beg you to shake off the anti-biotic-like resistance to the corrosive power of commercial messages. To wonder how much of creative expression fulfills or has a commercial goal, and to wonder if perhaps it is too much.
This blog post was brought to you by Citizens for a Better Culture, where culture is worth preserving! Give today!
October 7, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
One addendum to this post. Earlier in the semester I wrote this quote on the board:
“Every culture has its graven images. What do ours say about us?”
What I didn’t write, but thought, was: What happens when those graven images are of the synthetic, the staged, the mass produced, the material? What happens when an entire culture is aimed at its participants as consumers? When the image is more important than the object (to refer back to the khaki pants example)? How do we know then what is real, what is true? Remember, wherever there is a commercial message, it is there to persuade, to appeal, to tempt, to lure and to influence. Every time. Always.
October 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm |
I would like to address perhaps a larger issue that affects how I feel about product placement and the blurring of culture and advertisements. For me, the issue is not if it is right or wrong to have such advertisements embedded in mediated productions. I honestly attribute my apathy to “information overload.” Our brains can only handle so much and deal with a certain amount of issues each day. To be honest, these advertisements are not infringing upon my life or interrupting my daily activities enough to cause me to respond actively. Do I think they are wrong and deceptive? Sure, at times I think product placements raise serious ethical concerns. However, they have not bothered me to the point that I have felt motivated to do something about them. It’s not that I desire or don’t desire them; it’s simply that they are not in my immediate sphere of things that I am motivated enough to act on today. They are not a big enough distraction or hindrance to my daily life to attend to right now.
October 9, 2008 at 2:14 pm |
I would argue that your larger issue — rightness or wrongness — is a rabbit hole. It leads nowhere. I’m not arguing at all that it is a question of right or wrong, ethical or unethical. We get the culture we deserve, I think. Product placement will continue, whether we give a crap about it or not.
No, the question I’m asking is what the culture we deserve says about us, and a confession of apathy says a great deal indeed.
A caution against another misinterpretation: I’m not asking anyone to storm Capitol Hill, to lobby Hollywood, or even to change their consumer buying or movie viewing habits. You can continue your unhindered daily life. I’m just imploring us to think a little. It costs nothing.
If the larger issue is “information overload,” then isn’t the challenge to be able to discern meaning? To filter out the unmeaningful? And wouldn’t this return us to the central questions here: “What happens to culture when it is diluted of its meaning by commercial impulses?” I’m arguing we are left with less meaning.
October 13, 2008 at 10:55 am |
I would still like to be able to discern where culture and commercial messages begin and end. Does our culture determine the messages that we see or do commercials determine culture? Or is it all a big conundrum?
October 13, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
I think that culture changes when it is diluted by commercial impulses. We can examine our past and see how our culture has changed since the 1940s. Let’s analyze music for a second. Each decade during the 20th century had a particular type of music that it was known for. The 1940s was jazz or swing. The 1960s gave us Rock ‘n’ Roll. The point is that our culture changed because of the music.
The attire that people wore during each decade was different. The 1980s had big hair and the mullet, but before that was the 1970s with the hippies and their unique clothing. However, what caused music to change our culture? It very well could have been the commercial impulses. Why did each decade have such a significant type of music? It had to be because of promotion.
The Jonas Brothers are famous because of the promotion Disney has put into them, and the pre-teen age group likes their sound. It works because Disney targeted the right audience. This audience likes the Jonas Brothers so they desire more of this type of music. So, the commercial impulses do change our culture into what we, the audience, like. Or maybe, it is more of what the majority likes.
October 13, 2008 at 9:31 pm |
I agree with “everything in moderation” (Laura Means) but how can we collectively agree on moderation? What is the number count for one too many product placements and who gets to decide?
It’s all about making more money. Capitalizing. Profiting. And doing so in the cheapest way possible. What a great culture we share.
First off, product placement in movies is just another way to capitalize and is unnecessary for a movie’s survival. Historically based movies (Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, Queen) offer no product placement and still have the ability to be successful and profitable. This tells me that product placement is just another way to make more money and continue furthering our “superficial culture” (as Christina correctly put it), not a way of paying for the movie.
Secondly, the highest office in the land is now even influencing consumers. Not only do our political candidates have “entirely staged, produced, manufactured, managed events,” as Dr. Carroll put it, but they themselves have entered the realm of advertising and consumerism through their apparel. Palin’s carefully selected, designer-name red heels and rimless glasses have sold out across the country and Obama has his image stamped on clothing everywhere. Our ability to buy what “we want” is now being persuaded by the leaders of the democracy itself.
This class has opened my eyes tremendously to the flooding and overbearing amount of commercial images that we consume daily. I wish everyone could be aware of the advertisements and visually persuasive ploys that blind side them repeatedly during the day.
So if we were to say “hey, this is enough,” how would we even go about attempting to solve this problem? There is no obvious, clear cut solution which illustrates the extent of the problem that much more. It has blended and weaved its way into our complex culture tapestry and there’s seems to be no way to ‘rethread.’
October 14, 2008 at 11:38 am |
Now that we have to think deeply, I realize how depressing this situation is. It is like we have been put an “advertisement veil” filter, like those kind of filters you put in your cameras, so wherever we look at we always see advertisement. Going back to Dr Carroll’s example and Brittany’s, it is shocking to see how political candidates and everything they do has become “entirely staged.” To me, this seems like their beliefs and the whole meaning of a political campaign has been put in a second place, and now their priority is too look good, setting up everything so this candidate seems better than the other, etc.
I feel like adverstisement has penetrated into our cultures so deeply that it might be hard or almost impossible to remove it. And I think United States experiences this problem the most. Don’t get me wrong that I am just trying to critize the U.S. because I am not from this country. But, I know this is sad, but the majority of the time the culture image that we get from the U.S. is all just about brands, consumerism. Typical food: fast food (McDonald’s), Typical clothes: nike, abercombie, etc. But now, that I have lived here for almost three years, I know that you guys eat more than just french fries and hamburgers, for example in the south you have grits, boiled peanuts, jambalaya; but we don’t hear about this unless we live in the U.S. for long enough. For us foreigners is sometimes really hard to find U.S. souvenirs to take back as gifts. Most of the time the only stuff I can find are the images of important buildings like the Statue of Liberty and from them what I end up taking back are bath&body lotions, victoria secret’s, ipod, etc. I think this is something we are all experiencing in every culture, each day we are replacing the unique aspects of our culture for mass produced merchandise. In my opinion this is why is important and why we need to pay attention to this whole advertisement issue, because if we don’t do something about it we will lose our identity to it.
October 14, 2008 at 1:07 pm |
Why did each decade have such a significant type of music? It had to be because of promotion.
Logical, but not true. You mention as an example jazz, an art form that as a whole had to survive and thrive by hook and by crook until enough people dug it to make commercially viable. This uniquely American form of culture emerged as counter-culture, much like rap, and survived in spite of music promotion, not because of it. Rap and sampling are two other examples that negate the “promoted” argument. As is Elvis, the King, who chanced on a little air play to launch him, ultimately, into the pop culture stratosphere.
The Jonas Bros. are problematic as culture, true. This marginally talented, entirely managed, completely synthetic musical and cultural “product” succeeds because of the Disney promotion machine, as you point out. But it’s bubblegum. We’ll chew it until the juice is gone, then spit it out on the pavement. They will be here and gone without scarcely a meaningful trace of an impact on culture. More importantly, with so much attention drawn to this piece of culture, what is being ignored? So promotion does work, but as a singular explanation for what endures as culture, exposure is only part of the explanation. Look at MySpace and the springboard it has become for bands without much exposure, with no one promoting them.
October 14, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
Although I wasn’t a fan of the money exchange and the manipulation behind product placement, I saw its use in the enhancement of plot and characters in the film itself. This was after watching Dodgeball—a movie dripping in product placement.
I recently saw Lars and the Real Girl, and have changed my mind about product placement. Except for one shot of a bottle of Lubriderm hand lotion by the kitchen sink, there is no product placement in Lars and the Real Girl. The characters were perfectly developed and the plot was seamlessly acted out without the use of embedded advertisement.
I was wrong in saying product placement can improve a movie. I believe that if Dodgeball had been completely without product placement, it would have succeeded just as much in making the viewers relate to the characters. Viewers are more intelligent than needing brands thrown at them in order to understand a movie.
October 14, 2008 at 7:15 pm |
At fisrt glance I like to think that product placement can’t affect us all that much, that what we do recognize as product placement in movies, TV shows…whatever it may be, quickly rolls off our back and we don’t think twice about it. But when you consider this on a different level, the more disturbing issue is how much we see but don’t recognize as bombardment upon us. I wonder how much we truly are influenced by those discreet shots of brands portrayed as part of every day life (for example, starbucks, to reinforce their image as “the norm”) and how that, perhaps not entirely consciously, does influence us as far as brand recognition. Sometimes we don’t even consider other brands in the decision making process. Back to the Starbucks example, when I am craving a coffee drink, I first consider whether there is a Starbucks around. I believe this is because of our repeated exposure to these big name brands, who reinforce their product in order to get it on top of our mental recall list.
So, back to the bigger issues at hand, I think we do have a responsibility. A responsibility to care, in the very least. But more importantly, to ask ourselves how IS this affecting our society? To wonder how much of our culture is shaped based on advertisements that are really promoting much more than their product with their images. In a sense, they are promoting a standard of living, a “norm,” and that in itself is enough to stunt the creative process and free thinking.
October 14, 2008 at 7:21 pm |
I think this is a bigger issue than I originally thought about. It has been only in the past several decades that we have been able to see the effects of the move from a culture based on printed material to a culture based more on images. This shift in technology I think brings us to our discussion here. Societies “numbness” to product placement or our culture being “diluted of its meaning by commercial impulses” are a problem and through our blog posts and discussion in class I can see its effects.
Do we prefer appearance to reality? Referring back to your comment about the brands, I can definitely see this. We have become so accustomed to seeing these visual images and creating positive and negative associations with them that we are blinded by these “truths” and we risk forgetting how to analyze, or taking the time and patience that might be required to understand the true meanings behind these images we are bombarded with.
This shift from print to image is not bad, but I think if it stunts our ability to understand what is desirable and questionable in an advertisement or when looking at product placements, this is a much more serious issue.
October 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm |
I think that the thing which bothers me the most about product placement is the TV series that Dr. Carroll mentioned in class which was pitched to be entirely product drive. So many viewers won’t even notice and if they do notice something is wrong they won’t know quite what it is. I’m not even entirely sure I understand the point unless it’s supposed to carry some sort of irony factor in pointing out how ludicrous this product placement business is getting. Honestly, if the point is nothing more than to center a multi-seasonal plotline around a family of products, then what’s the incentive? How is that a creative exercise instead of product and talent whoring? How many decisions are made in a season of an an average series as a direct result of product placement concerns?
Why is our culture actively rearranging itself to accommodate product advertisements when it should rightly be the other way around?
October 14, 2008 at 9:34 pm |
What Christina mentioned in her first post has really struck a chord in me. Thinking about America the way that other countries and cultures see it disturbs me a little bit. Consider the French and how strict the government is about letting in American “culture” to mix with their own. The things they are trying to keep out are things like McDonald’s and Starbucks that have made their way onto their streets, as well as our (usually trashy) television shows. It is really difficult to think of a commercial icon or message that would represent the French culture. Their culture puts out incredible food (none of which are commercialized like our fast food chains) and films without product placement. Like Katie O’Kelley said, this commercialization of our culture does not improve it. It simply makes our culture superficial, especially when compared to cultures that are far from being commercialized.
October 14, 2008 at 9:44 pm |
The more I read through our postings, the more I’m beginning to wonder-is there actually an “American” culture? Can we actually say that we as Americans have a culture? America prides itself on the melting pot that it has become and inherently in this idea of a melting pot are a multitude of cultures. Nayu’s post planted this seed in my head when she said when looking for souvenirs, “Most of the time all I can find are images of important buildings like the Statue of Liberty…” If I’m from another country and that is all I can find to represent American culture, what is that telling me? Perhaps Americans have a culture of architecture? Or perhaps there is no distinct American culture? When I think of American culture, nothing comes to mind. Perhaps that’s because this is the only country I really know, but I think that’s sad. Maybe the biggest issue here is that we need to define American culture, otherwise, how can one distinguish advertising and product placement from who and what we are as a society? Perhaps the even bigger issue is that we are allowing advertising to define American culture, and that’s not OK with me.
October 14, 2008 at 10:08 pm |
Wow! After reading through all of these quotes I am amazed that product placement plays such a huge part of really, our everyday life. Every day we are all bombarded with products being throw right in our faces and I think this is a bigger problem then people realize. I think that because of this (us) the viewer and consumers of everything going around us have to be aware of everything that is coming at us. I think like what we were talking about that people look and watch what other people do and that seeing product placement does persuade a person.
I think that American does have a culture and that is to “keep up with the Jones” Everybody wants to be better then the other person so if an actor has a Starbucks coffee then that means people watching the movie could and will be persuade to buy a Starbucks coffee. I think that is a scary thing in American and that people do not realize how they are getting pulled into this trap. Like we talked about many of us would not have notice the product placements and I think that, that is the problem because they just creep in without us even knowing.
I like Ellen’s last sentence and I agree with that. I dont think that advertising (product placement) should define Americans. It looks like it is though because all people care about now is the brand. That is why people are willing to pay a lot of money for name brand items because first product placement has been done with the items and because celebrities are parading these items;making people think that they have to have them.
October 14, 2008 at 10:41 pm |
back to my first post…i think i mean “continuum,” not “conundrum.” (although it could be a conundrum)
after doing some thinking about it, i have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to determine when commercialism ends and culture begins.
it’s interesting to look at how the images–mostly commercial–that define our culture have changed over time and to laura means’ point, how they compare to countries with little or no images. in the 1950s, our culture was defined by shows like “leave it to beaver;” as the 60s and 70s rolled around, the hippie culture was born. the 80s were permeated by mtv; in the 90s, there were new technological advances and excitement about the new millennium. this decade promises to bring even more icons, hopefully less jonases, and it will be interesting to see what future generations think of us. because of commercial images of what those decades were like, i see them as how advertisers portray them and how do i know what was real and true during those decades? what are future generations going to think of us and how are they going to determine what’s real (in our current culture) if all they see are ads from our time? scary thoughts…
October 14, 2008 at 11:03 pm |
i’ve kind of gotten confused in all of this and i’m not really sure what exactly it is that i’m supposed to be posting about, but i’ll give this a try anyway.
i’d be interested to know what role product placement holds in other cultures around the world. until now, i never thought that it was that big of a deal — and perhaps i falsely assumed that finding ways into consumers’ minds was a practice employed by other people besides those of us here in america.
part of me has to disagree with all of this concern about it. maybe i’m just insensitive, but i don’t really think it’s a huge deal. perhaps i’m the only one…
October 14, 2008 at 11:09 pm |
Product placement doesn’t benefit the consumer, but sends out messages in accordance with a company who paid to have their product or service advertised in a certain medium. The product isn’t distinctly chosen in order to satisfy the needs or wants of each individual consumer. That being said, movies, television shows and news services need to be careful in displaying certain products. Their main focus needs to be on producing a quality production that consumers will benefit from. Since products aren’t necessary to the consumer, the producers need to be very careful in determining whether or not an advertisement should be necessary. Product placements should only occur if and only if the movie producers choose to do so out of choice, and not out of payment. A product should be mentioned only if it deserves the praise. It should be considered a rare honor if a movie decides to place a product distinctly within its content.
So many messages are already entering and affecting peoples’ minds. With so many product placements, consumers’ minds will be clouded and not regularly able to consume the main message of the movie, television show, or news station.
October 14, 2008 at 11:16 pm |
Thanks to the last blog topic and this class in general, everytime I watch a movie, TV or something online, all I do is watch for product placement ads and how they are used to get the everyday consumer (a.k.a. citizen) to buy their product(s).
I spent my entire break in NYC meeting a few very influential men, mostly in advertising and marketing. These men lived off of the ads sold to their magazines or the commercials they createdfor their company. The main goal of placing a product anywhere is to catch an eye and a credit card at the same time. This propaganda of having to have what someone else has has become such an issue for so many Americans. Our cultue is already noted for having to have the biggest, best and newest thing on the market.
Now I’m not saying that this is bad, but when consumers take off to the store to buy a pair of cut-off jeans they say Paris Hilton wearing in whatever show she has been apart of lately, then it is time to evaluate how far is too far.
I feel the media has an amazing lead in the political realm. I picked up a copy of The New Yorker and it literally screamed for everyone reading this magazine to vote for Obama. I’m not sure how this particular magazine works meaning if they’ll slam Obama next week while putting McCain on a pedistle, but this type of opinion-pushing is definitely spoon feeding our culture what to believe is the truth because these people are the gatekeepers to our media/news.
October 14, 2008 at 11:27 pm |
I can’t believe how numb I was to prouduct placement. It completely surprises me how much these lines have blurred. Its fascinating how much product placement has blurred even our sense of reality. I never thought there was a problem with American Idol being featured on Fox 5 until Dr. Carroll pointed out in class that in some sense that is cross promotion of Fox stuff.
This whole idea of product placement, to me, displays how fixated Americans are on wealth even at the sacrifice of something possibly better. Who says that in order to have a great film you have to have it sponsored by “fill in the blank.” Would Remember the Titans be as good a film if say Nike did not sponsor it?(Not saying it did, but just for example)
I like what Chad said about culture changing with decades, but the more I think about it the more I think about how those decades themselves are in their own regard “products.” Ex. The Roaring 20s. “Culture” if there is such indeed has changed.
The way that product placement inundates our life displays this perception of what our life could be like. Its almost like, as Kate said, we have lost our sense of reality and prefer appearances. Our generation has become totally numb to product placement due to the fact that most of us have been consuming media since we were born. Due to this numbification of product placement we don’t notice product placement hardly at all.
October 14, 2008 at 11:55 pm |
Product placement doesn’t necessarily have to be a physical product. It can be a location, such as Rome, Italy in “Gladiator” or London in “The Queen” or even a state of mind or idea, such as erasing memories (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) and time travel (The Time Machine) to raise interest in other fields of science or anthropology.
It should be a concern for American citizens so we won’t mindlessly consume ads. However, these products play an important part in our lives, so seeing them used in commercials and in film downplays overt advertising. Responding to the “Every culture has its graven images. What do ours say about us?” quote, I believe that the primary objective of capitalism and winning at any cost among Americans shows that our priorities rest in gaining wealth. The ad images we process everyday in commercials, tv shows, news and films reinforce that need to gain, retain and flaunt money, so we are provided with various ways of doing so.
Personally, I see product placements, but the messages were so engraved in brain that it seemed subliminal and I remained unaware. The more important question to our responses is how do we enlighten the public about the use and abuse of product placements. Wouldn’t making a commercial or ad about it seem contradictory and be a form of product placement itself once it reaches mainstream?
October 15, 2008 at 12:09 am |
First off, I would like to say I found it ironic that Adam pointed out The New Yorker for spoon feeding because it is a magazine known for commentary on popular culture, as well as fiction and political discussion.
Secondly, I would like to delve a little deeper into what I think many people have touched on, as well as being the topic the original post raises that resonated with me the most.
Take a newspaper and give it to a PR firm, allow for a “spin” fallout and what happens? Death to democracy. Considering it is election year, it isn’t that strange for this topic to be the most disturbing to me, as well as one of the more complicated ones. Democracy requires that the public receives the information it needs in order to make fair, balanced decisions. Informed decisions. By replacing or supplementing original, creative content with commercialism, I would argue product placement effectively hinders or corrupts a democratic culture.
When addressing politics specifically, yes, it is horrifying to me that most of the information is planned out and then wrapped with a pretty bow before being presented to the public. Where is the democracy in that? I have two irksome examples. Governor Palin in particular is known for allowing very few interviews and no follow-up questions. Where is the responsibility to the public to present yourself clearly, as well as issues, so that the public can make informed decisions. Senator Obama just bought a half-hour ad. Well, slap me in the face, this is exactly what we’re talking about. What a pre-packaged delight to be sure, and who can say that some movies aren’t two hour long commercials?
Both of those situations make me throw up a little bit in my mouth, but the blame does not rely solely on those with public images to upkeep. The public has accepted this bidding war for our attention with a grain of salt. We just get used to it to the point where these things do not appall us. There is the horror.
October 15, 2008 at 10:37 am |
Product Placement is so brilliant that we should have kicked ourselves for not thinking of it earlier. I really believe all movies need more products to build on reality. The product placement works on us without us even knowing it. We should not shun companies for trying to seduce us into buying all Nike Products or eating KFC or drinking Coke just like your favorite actor does in your favorite movie. I would rather have a realistic setting with real products in it than some ficticious company advertisement in it. This is the 21st century. More people hate commercials than anything so these companies combined there products with something we will never argue about wasting our time or disturbing your favorite show.
October 15, 2008 at 10:40 am |
I couldn’t be more pleased with this second round. We’re really thinking, evaluating, weighing. Delicious stuff here. A few closing thoughts:
“The more disturbing issue is how much we see but don’t recognize as bombardment upon us . . . So, back to the bigger issues at hand, I think we do have a responsibility. A responsibility to care, in the very least.” This is from Candace, and I applaud her eloquent call to concern. Should we not at least be considering the messages crafted to persuade us? Yes, absolutely, for the reasons Christina so powerfully presented. (Christina, you’re ready for graduate school!)
Katie O. noted that a film she’d seen without product placement didn’t seem to suffer. “The characters were perfectly developed and the plot was seamlessly acted out without the use of embedded advertisement.” Good. The argument the product placement actually helps a film is, to me, perhaps the most ridiculous. The greatest film of all time, in my opinion, is Casablanca. I don’t know who made Rick’s white suit. I don’t know the brand of vodka they’re drinking. I don’t even know the airline that carries Ilsa and Victor away from Rick forever. So friggin’ what? That keeps attention where it belongs, on the characters, the plot, the story.
Kate S. rightly notes the role of technology: “The effects of the move from a culture based on printed material to a culture based more on images . . . This shift in technology I think brings us to our discussion here.”
The discussion has left Ellen questioning the substance of American culture in general: “The more I read through our postings, the more I’m beginning to wonder-is there actually an “American” culture?” This is a logical question, particularly if you strip away all “moving images” (TV and cinema). Remove “moving images”from the equation of American culture and what are you left with. Laura M. keys on this by contrasting French culture. We do realize, don’t we, that most cultures, most peoples, most countries do not have their own film or TV industries. Do they hae culture? Of course they do. So, back to Ellen’s logical question: What is culture? Do we have one? Do we have only images?
From Leigh H., “After doing some thinking about it, i have come to the conclusion that it is very difficult to determine when commercialism ends and culture begins.” YES! And here lies the riddle, the problem, the reason we should give a crap.
I applaud Tauna, who suggested the beginnings of an ethics policy to guide these practices.
I’ll close here with Christina’s insightful and possibly prescient observation. I couldn’t come up with a better concluding thought myself:
“By replacing or supplementing original, creative content with commercialism, I would argue product placement effectively hinders or corrupts a democratic culture. … We just get used to it to the point where these things do not appall us. There is the horror.”