Blanking out brand names on non-fiction TV shows

[Chronos]

A big part of the reason for this is Diet Coke and Mentos are necessary ingredients to get the geyser. They determined the chemical composition of Diet Coke is ideal, whereas other sodas would create an inferior explosion. The nucleation sites on Mentos were necessary as well, not just any candy would do (although I’m sure there ARE other candies that can work just as well)

Except that the fact that it was Coke was essential for the previous show, too: Most of the things Coke did were a result of its acidity, which is greater than for any other common beverage.

[Rayne_Man]

Years ago the BBC would not allow any advertising, so you would have the ridiculous situation of a corn-flakes packet in a sitcom with the name covered by black tape, “Steinway” covered over on the side of a piano and “Rum and Coca Cola” by the Andrew Sisters being banned completely.

[gaffa]

@Kimmy_Gibbler

I rather think this has to do with avoiding litigation rather than M-B having a viable claim for infringement or dilution. It’s almost certainly the case that there would be no consumer confusion (the key element of infringement). As to dilution, I think it would be hard to show that you are applying the M-B to an unlike product (which for non-famous marks is permissible; M-B, of course, is easily a famous mark however). That is, the filmmakers are not saying “This is a Mercedes-Benz movie,” they are instead depicting the famous mark along with the product for which it stands. As to tarnishment, I think plaintiffs alleging that portraying Mercedes-Benzes being driven in the slums of Mumbai hardly rises to the level of commercial interference that would justify abridging a filmmaker’s artistic freedoms.

I can see how Mercedes-Benz would want to avoid being associated with any disreputable characters.

[Mangetout]

The long-running BBC children’s programme Blue Peter is/was always making odd items of dubious giftware out of assorted empty product packaging and they always obscured the brand names with paint or coloured tape, or abraded them off (in the case of printed plastic detergent bottles, etc).

In this particular case, I think it was because the BBC is not ad-funded and they didn’t want it to appear in any way similar to commercial TV on ‘the other side’

[Driver8]

@Yookeroo

People complain about product placement, but obviously fake products really take me out of the movie/TV show more than obvious product placement.

Probably more appropriate for Cafe Society, but I notice this as well. Fake products are very distracting, and a big reminder that the movie is not real. Cast Away was a much more effective movie with “FedEx” rather than a lame-o and distracting “AcmeExpress” style thing. I think FedEx deserves some credit for going along with it, given that it involves a crash of one of their planes (not to mention the resulting non-delivery of items).

[commasense]

@Driver8

Probably more appropriate for Cafe Society, but I notice this as well. Fake products are very distracting, and a big reminder that the movie is not real. Cast Away was a much more effective movie with “FedEx” rather than a lame-o and distracting “AcmeExpress” style thing. I think FedEx deserves some credit for going along with it, given that it involves a crash of one of their planes (not to mention the resulting non-delivery of items).

I feel exactly the opposite: I hated the constant presence of the FedEx logo in the movie, and found it very distracting, because I HATE advertising in every form.