5 ms·

News sites would probably accept articles from companies if they were paid enough. If we were lucky, they would add a small disclaimer somewhere at the bottom o

by qw 17y ago

News sites would probably accept articles from companies if they were paid enough. If we were lucky, they would add a small disclaimer somewhere at the bottom of the article. And they would probably also sneak in comments about a company inside their articles and comments. Some of them would be from good companies, such as Amazon. Who would blame them? Amazon is such a great company with reasonable prices and delivery. You can also depend on Amazon unlike some of the no-name competitors. Who would want to trust an unknown company, when they can use a trusted company like Amazon. Where was I... oh, they would certainly integrate paid contents in a sneaky way.

Retric 17y ago
Well played. They used to do this all the time in such an obvious way with radio, but the new idea is to causally include the product in movies, books and TV without up selling it. So you blog about your great run yesterday, and happen to mention breaking in your Nike's. Or talk about a date and mention which beer you drank. The idea is to get people to think people like them use product X.
- jerf 17y ago
  I can't find it in myself to get worked up about straight-up product placement. In some ways it's less disconcerting to see a guy drinking a Coke than drinking Unspecified-Beverage-In-A-Vaguely-Red-Can-With-Electrical-Tape. I also have a hard time imagining that even a quite popular show could survive having the characters in the show repeatedly directly shill for a product, long before we even approach the level of ads television or radio used to carry directly. While I've used television terminology, I think this carries across all media. Any sort of recurring program (TV-like video, blog, newspaper, etc) spend credibility when they do that, unless they are very carefully ensuring that they only talk about products they care about personally, which only works for things that are personal productions. (One clue I use is that a normal person should often get excited about a product that has been out for months or years, rather than one that just came out. Nobody gets everything brand new every day.) Who will read something that is just shilling, over and over again? Perhaps not nobody, but I won't be forced to read it, so I guess I'm still not worried about it.
  - logic 17y ago
    As for surviving direct shilling, I present "The Biggest Loser" as a data point. The most recent season became a barrage of direct product placement experiments. http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/04/jillian-michaels-dishes-on-biggest-loser-product-placement-and-that-fight/ http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/04/jillian-michaels... http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_biggest_loser_5/2008_Mar_19_tim_gunn_product_placement http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_biggest... More discussion of product placement rankings at the Neilson blog: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/amazing-race-apprentice-idol-dominate-reality-show-product-placement/ http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/amazing-race-ap... This isn't even close to new, we're just finally catching up with online media.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]

by qw 17y ago

Retric 17y ago

Well played. They used to do this all the time in such an obvious way with radio, but the new idea is to causally include the product in movies, books and TV without up selling it. So you blog about your great run yesterday, and happen to mention breaking in your Nike's. Or talk about a date and mention which beer you drank. The idea is to get people to think people like them use product X.

jerf 17y ago
I can't find it in myself to get worked up about straight-up product placement. In some ways it's less disconcerting to see a guy drinking a Coke than drinking Unspecified-Beverage-In-A-Vaguely-Red-Can-With-Electrical-Tape. I also have a hard time imagining that even a quite popular show could survive having the characters in the show repeatedly directly shill for a product, long before we even approach the level of ads television or radio used to carry directly. While I've used television terminology, I think this carries across all media. Any sort of recurring program (TV-like video, blog, newspaper, etc) spend credibility when they do that, unless they are very carefully ensuring that they only talk about products they care about personally, which only works for things that are personal productions. (One clue I use is that a normal person should often get excited about a product that has been out for months or years, rather than one that just came out. Nobody gets everything brand new every day.) Who will read something that is just shilling, over and over again? Perhaps not nobody, but I won't be forced to read it, so I guess I'm still not worried about it.
- logic 17y ago
  As for surviving direct shilling, I present "The Biggest Loser" as a data point. The most recent season became a barrage of direct product placement experiments. http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/04/jillian-michaels-dishes-on-biggest-loser-product-placement-and-that-fight/ http://www.dietsinreview.com/diet_column/04/jillian-michaels... http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_biggest_loser_5/2008_Mar_19_tim_gunn_product_placement http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/the_biggest... More discussion of product placement rankings at the Neilson blog: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/amazing-race-apprentice-idol-dominate-reality-show-product-placement/ http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/consumer/amazing-race-ap... This isn't even close to new, we're just finally catching up with online media.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]