3 ms·

I imagine the change in things would be that brands would stop paying so much for product placement. Which would wind up with a much more natural movie, instead

by bisby 10y ago

I imagine the change in things would be that brands would stop paying so much for product placement. Which would wind up with a much more natural movie, instead of the forced placement that is usually as glaring and distracting as a #ad on the screen.

criddell 10y ago
I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Daniel Craig is being paid to portray James Bond, but that doesn't need to be pointed out, right? I suspect if movies had to put #ad on screen whenever a product is placed, it would be like the California cancer warnings. They would soon become meaningless and invisible.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Can you elaborate on why this makes a difference? On the theory that people buy "sponsored" products because they wish to feel or display an affinity with the sponsor, James Bond, the fictional chracter, is a much more effective sponsor than is Daniel Craig, the actor. I wish that I could be James Bond with dry martinis, cars, and blondes, a PPK, and sharp things to say when I'm about to get it on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56
  - criddell 10y ago
    No, I can't really articulate it. Maybe it comes down to feeling that the cost of #ad in the corner of the movie is much higher than the value of doing so. How about when ESPN televises a NASCAR race. Ever car is covered in ads, do they have to have #ad on screen for the entire broadcast? Although, if a disclosure rule that would lead to broadcasters removing their bug watermark in the corner came along, I would be all for that.
- bisby 10y ago
  Daniel Craig isn't the person at stake here. Neither is James Bond. The point is that the product is on screen because someone made a monetary deal for it to happen. Call it "placement", but companies wouldnt be forking over money to place their products if it wasn't valuable. Thats what an advertisement is, paying for exposure. The #ad on screen would be because the producers received money for the ad, not the actor speaking the lines that someone else wrote for him. If James Bond went on a 5 minute spiel about how Smirnoff is the only good Vodka, instead of subliminal product placement, would that be considered an ad? How much of the movie has to be about Smirnoff before it's legally just a 90 minute Smirnoff commercial. Medicine commercials on TV already have to announce that someone is a paid actor, it's not completely unheard of.

by bisby 10y ago

criddell 10y ago

I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Daniel Craig is being paid to portray James Bond, but that doesn't need to be pointed out, right? I suspect if movies had to put #ad on screen whenever a product is placed, it would be like the California cancer warnings. They would soon become meaningless and invisible.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> I think I know why it's different: James Bond is a fictional character and if he likes Smirnoff vodka that doesn't mean Daniel Craig likes that brand. Can you elaborate on why this makes a difference? On the theory that people buy "sponsored" products because they wish to feel or display an affinity with the sponsor, James Bond, the fictional chracter, is a much more effective sponsor than is Daniel Craig, the actor. I wish that I could be James Bond with dry martinis, cars, and blondes, a PPK, and sharp things to say when I'm about to get it on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IU9cK9d0aWw#t=56
- criddell 10y ago
  No, I can't really articulate it. Maybe it comes down to feeling that the cost of #ad in the corner of the movie is much higher than the value of doing so. How about when ESPN televises a NASCAR race. Ever car is covered in ads, do they have to have #ad on screen for the entire broadcast? Although, if a disclosure rule that would lead to broadcasters removing their bug watermark in the corner came along, I would be all for that.
bisby 10y ago
Daniel Craig isn't the person at stake here. Neither is James Bond. The point is that the product is on screen because someone made a monetary deal for it to happen. Call it "placement", but companies wouldnt be forking over money to place their products if it wasn't valuable. Thats what an advertisement is, paying for exposure. The #ad on screen would be because the producers received money for the ad, not the actor speaking the lines that someone else wrote for him. If James Bond went on a 5 minute spiel about how Smirnoff is the only good Vodka, instead of subliminal product placement, would that be considered an ad? How much of the movie has to be about Smirnoff before it's legally just a 90 minute Smirnoff commercial. Medicine commercials on TV already have to announce that someone is a paid actor, it's not completely unheard of.