6 ms·
Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer and I
by Aloisius 11y ago
Won't this severely affect movies and television? I imagine a huge number of movies and television shows have at least some piece from a classic designer and I can't imagine Hollywood is going to track down who owns the licensing rights for every set piece, building, article of clothing, etc. ahead of time just to show it in the UK.
- onion2k 11y agoIf you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. That's why films have all Samsung devices or all Apple devices, all Mercedes or all BMW cars, all Armani wardrobes or all some other designer, and so on. Brands pay millions to be seen on screen. Hollywood knows how to tap every imaginable source of money.
- mryan 11y ago> If you see a designed object in a movie the brand owner will have paid to put it there. While paid product placement does exist and is widespread, this statement isn't correct. There are many examples of organic product placement, where the set/costume designer uses a particular product without any financial incentive.
- simonh 11y agoIn fact for example Apple has confirmed repeatedly for many years that they don't pay for product placement.
- MagnumOpus 11y agoThey do pay, but they pay in hardware. They have dedicated staff to promote product placement and according to a Hollywood movie maker, "Apple won’t pay to have their products featured, but they are more than willing to hand out an endless amount of computers, iPads, and iPhones". It is actually a very unethical practice if you think about it in monetary terms. Rather than paying the film company above the table like ethical companies usually do, they outright bribe the prop department staff by giving each of them gifts worth thousands of dollars for preferential product placement.
- mikeash 11y agoThata a bit of a leap to go from "they hand out free hardware" to "they bribe staff with free hardware."
- scotty79 11y agoIf "they" means "for profit entity" those two statements are exactly the same in my ears.
- mikeash 11y agoThe difference is that the former means the free hardware likely goes to the production company and is not available for personal use. It's not a moral quibble, but a question of who owns the stuff and who gets to use it.
- DanBC 11y agoApple gives desirable stuff to the production company. Who gets the stuff when the filming has finished?
- mikeash 11y agoI imagine that the production company would keep it for their next project, or sell it to recover some money. Are you implying that this stuff is typically gifted to the employees instead?
- Thimothy 11y agoI guess it's coincidence then that Beats started appearing all over the place in movies and videoclips right around the time when Apple bought them (I remember searching for them when I became aware of their ubiquity and learning that Apple had just acquired them). Seriously, it's pretty obvious when the technology spot has been bought by whatever means, otherwise they use no-brand completely generic devices.
- tehwebguy 11y agoI've seen a few iMacs with the Apple logo covered in TV shows as well.
- Piskvorrr 11y agoMost likely a case of "so, Apple, you don't want to pay the TV just a little bit of money for product placement? Oh well, out come the stickers." Follow the money.
- tehwebguy 11y agoYeah I guess what I'm saying is that Apple can give people free shit all day but a director & producer will decide what goes in and what doesn't, not the prop department (as mentioned by others here)
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- coldtea 11y agoThat's the case for hollywood blockbusters. Not for the 80% of movies out there, especially pre-00s European and American cinema.
- pravda 11y ago>If you see a designed object in a movie Not just movies! Looks like Samsung bought placement in a music video. https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4 https://youtu.be/lf_wVfwpfp8?t=4