5 ms·

Why should your product be protected from that? Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. If we're not protecting products from neg

Why should your product be protected from that? Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. If we're not protecting products from negative reviews, opinion peices, or satire -- then fictional stories seems to me like a really weird place to draw a line. What if I took your product and made a joke about it having ties to a cult?[0] I don't see any reason to treat fictional movies and games like they're a special medium. I also assume we're not proposing that people should be banned from making fictional stories that feature real events and people. So jumping off of that point, what makes a movie that incorporates a public, trademarked brand different than a movie that incorporates a living public figure? [0]: https://entertainment.theonion.com/new-sesame-street-character-shudders-to-life-as-produ-1840391716 https://entertainment.theonion.com/new-sesame-street-charact...

saagarjha 7y ago
> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. Well, it depends. Generally there is some sort of minimal realism when it comes to objects; you'll never have a sports car lose to a clunker, and when it does, the movie plays it as surprising. If people treat your product in a certain way, even in fiction, consumers might think that they're just missing out on the association they're supposed to know.
- danShumway 7y ago
  The number of car chases I've seen in movies where motorcycles, taxis, and trucks keep pace with fast-moving vehicles makes me skeptical that is a real concern. But let's say that we are concerned about consumers forming an incorrect association. If that was the case, we also would block brands from showing their products succeeding spectacularly in unlikely or impossible situations. If we don't trust consumers to treat fictional stories with caution, then we should also ban depictions of cell phones that have infinite reception in the middle of disasters, cars that allow drivers to walk away unharmed after crashes, or branded laptops that perform computing tasks that are beyond them. Just a few weeks to a month ago, studios were joking about how Apple had a policy of making sure that movie villains never used iPhones. That's a clearly deceptive association Apple is trying to create, lots of evil people in the real world use iPhones. The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality. I would definitely not classify that as strong evidence. I'm not sure I'd classify it as evidence at all. There are many people that benefit considerably from consumers not being immune to psychological tricks in advertising, and they have a lot of money and a lot of incentive to make sure they're allowed to keep using those tricks on people. The small subset of the population that is even aware of the magnitude of the manipulation that the people are subject to has comparatively little incentive to stop it from happening.
    - danShumway 7y ago
      It's strong evidence that our law doesn't consider fictional portrayals of real products to be a problem. More importantly, it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks. If it's not a serious problem that brands are able to pay to portray their products in a positive light, then it also shouldn't be a serious problem that people can portray a brand in a negative light. That's all that I was trying to get at -- that there's no reason for people to be uniquely concerned about negative product references in media if they're not also concerned about positive references.
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
        >it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks. Again I'm not sure how it's evidence of that, but I agree that we should not be uniquely concerned about negative portrayals. I see what you are saying now though, and I agree with you on that point. Of course the people who make a lot of money off of positive advertising generally are the ones who stand to lose a lot of money from negative portrayals, and they also happen to have a lot of money, so it's not surprise that the law does not treat them equally.
- filoleg 7y ago
  Yep. That's why Apple prohibits depictions of their products in media where those are used by villains.
boring_twenties 7y ago
> Consumers are smart enough Counterpoint: the cratering sales of Corona beer in the past month
- catalogia 7y ago
  Has that really been happening? I don't buy much alcohol but the last two sixpacks I've bought have been corona. It seemed somehow appropriate.
  - boring_twenties 7y ago
    Looks like I believed some bullshit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavirus/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavir... (false)
- CDRdude 7y ago
  The search results I see indicate that Corona sales are up (along with all other beers).
  - hyperman1 7y ago
    A belgian shop did a promo recently: Buy 2 Corona, get 1 Morte Subite for free https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/98659/delhaize-pulls-corona-mort-subite-beer-promotion/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/98659/delhai...
kube-system 7y ago
Being smart enough to know something is fake is not enough to be psychologically unaffected by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research
- danShumway 7y ago
  But to follow up, why should we protect brands from negative psychological associations in movies? We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference could negatively impact people's perception of them as well. I still don't see anything that's special about a trademark that means it needs extra protection in this area.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >We still allow people to publicly criticize products. Yes, but you're not allowed to harm people or businesses by knowingly making false statements about the product in your criticism. I would guess that a negative fictional portrayal of the product would run afoul of that. Satire often uses branding that is fake but similar enough to the real thing that it's obvious what it's meant to portray.
    - CM30 7y ago
      Hmm, I swear quite a few ads often attack rival brands by name, and make them out as significantly worse on questionable grounds. Like many console war era ads in the gaming industry, which were very happy to tear rivals to shreds over things that didn't match reality. So it seems there are definitely ads that attack competitors or make false statements about their products, and they don't all get banned/spark lawsuits over it.
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
biggestdecision 7y ago
I don't think consumers are smart enough. Look at what's happening to Corona beer right now.
- danShumway 7y ago
  https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavirus/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavir...
grecy 7y ago
> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional Absolutely 100% no. I was sitting in an embassy in Bamako,Mali watching some crappy TV show where Americans were getting shot at, chased and beaten to death by horrible people. At some point they said "We gotta get to Bamako". It hit me that millions of people watching the show would think that's what Mali is like. I was sitting in Bamako, and had been there for two months, and still had a great impact on me when I walked outside. Consumers have virtually no way of knowing what's real and what's fiction these days.

saagarjha 7y ago

> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional. Well, it depends. Generally there is some sort of minimal realism when it comes to objects; you'll never have a sports car lose to a clunker, and when it does, the movie plays it as surprising. If people treat your product in a certain way, even in fiction, consumers might think that they're just missing out on the association they're supposed to know.

danShumway 7y ago
The number of car chases I've seen in movies where motorcycles, taxis, and trucks keep pace with fast-moving vehicles makes me skeptical that is a real concern. But let's say that we are concerned about consumers forming an incorrect association. If that was the case, we also would block brands from showing their products succeeding spectacularly in unlikely or impossible situations. If we don't trust consumers to treat fictional stories with caution, then we should also ban depictions of cell phones that have infinite reception in the middle of disasters, cars that allow drivers to walk away unharmed after crashes, or branded laptops that perform computing tasks that are beyond them. Just a few weeks to a month ago, studios were joking about how Apple had a policy of making sure that movie villains never used iPhones. That's a clearly deceptive association Apple is trying to create, lots of evil people in the real world use iPhones. The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >The fact that we don't ban deceptively positive depictions of branded products is strong evidence that we do trust consumers to know the difference between fiction and reality. I would definitely not classify that as strong evidence. I'm not sure I'd classify it as evidence at all. There are many people that benefit considerably from consumers not being immune to psychological tricks in advertising, and they have a lot of money and a lot of incentive to make sure they're allowed to keep using those tricks on people. The small subset of the population that is even aware of the magnitude of the manipulation that the people are subject to has comparatively little incentive to stop it from happening.
  - danShumway 7y ago
    It's strong evidence that our law doesn't consider fictional portrayals of real products to be a problem. More importantly, it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks. If it's not a serious problem that brands are able to pay to portray their products in a positive light, then it also shouldn't be a serious problem that people can portray a brand in a negative light. That's all that I was trying to get at -- that there's no reason for people to be uniquely concerned about negative product references in media if they're not also concerned about positive references.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >it's strong evidence that we shouldn't be uniquely concerned over negative portrayals of trademarks. Again I'm not sure how it's evidence of that, but I agree that we should not be uniquely concerned about negative portrayals. I see what you are saying now though, and I agree with you on that point. Of course the people who make a lot of money off of positive advertising generally are the ones who stand to lose a lot of money from negative portrayals, and they also happen to have a lot of money, so it's not surprise that the law does not treat them equally.
filoleg 7y ago
Yep. That's why Apple prohibits depictions of their products in media where those are used by villains.

boring_twenties 7y ago

> Consumers are smart enough Counterpoint: the cratering sales of Corona beer in the past month

catalogia 7y ago
Has that really been happening? I don't buy much alcohol but the last two sixpacks I've bought have been corona. It seemed somehow appropriate.
- boring_twenties 7y ago
  Looks like I believed some bullshit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavirus/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavir... (false)
CDRdude 7y ago
The search results I see indicate that Corona sales are up (along with all other beers).
- hyperman1 7y ago
  A belgian shop did a promo recently: Buy 2 Corona, get 1 Morte Subite for free https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/98659/delhaize-pulls-corona-mort-subite-beer-promotion/ https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/business/98659/delhai...

kube-system 7y ago

Being smart enough to know something is fake is not enough to be psychologically unaffected by it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_placement#Research

danShumway 7y ago
But to follow up, why should we protect brands from negative psychological associations in movies? We still allow real products to be used in satires, even though satires could have the same unconscious effects you reference. We still allow people to publicly criticize products. We still allow real public figures and events to be referenced in fictional media, even though the same psychological effects you reference could negatively impact people's perception of them as well. I still don't see anything that's special about a trademark that means it needs extra protection in this area.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >We still allow people to publicly criticize products. Yes, but you're not allowed to harm people or businesses by knowingly making false statements about the product in your criticism. I would guess that a negative fictional portrayal of the product would run afoul of that. Satire often uses branding that is fake but similar enough to the real thing that it's obvious what it's meant to portray.
  - CM30 7y ago
    Hmm, I swear quite a few ads often attack rival brands by name, and make them out as significantly worse on questionable grounds. Like many console war era ads in the gaming industry, which were very happy to tear rivals to shreds over things that didn't match reality. So it seems there are definitely ads that attack competitors or make false statements about their products, and they don't all get banned/spark lawsuits over it.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago

biggestdecision 7y ago

I don't think consumers are smart enough. Look at what's happening to Corona beer right now.

danShumway 7y ago
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavirus/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/corona-beer-fear-coronavir...

grecy 7y ago

> Consumers are smart enough to know that fictional media is fictional Absolutely 100% no. I was sitting in an embassy in Bamako,Mali watching some crappy TV show where Americans were getting shot at, chased and beaten to death by horrible people. At some point they said "We gotta get to Bamako". It hit me that millions of people watching the show would think that's what Mali is like. I was sitting in Bamako, and had been there for two months, and still had a great impact on me when I walked outside. Consumers have virtually no way of knowing what's real and what's fiction these days.