Sometimes you see a commercial that has a rival product in it with the message being “We’re better than so-and-so.” An aspirin commercial comes to mind where the rival brands are pictured with the small print at the bottom of the screen reading something like “Baer is a registered trademark of Baer Corporation.”
Let’s say I’m marketing Blammo detergent, and I use a box of Tide in my commercial, and state that my product can whip Tide’s ass. Do I have to pay royalties to Tide for my use of their logo? Can Tide refuse to allow their product to be shown in my commercial? Can Tide sue me for saying something like “Blammo beat Tide four to one in getting out unsightly stains!”
Sometimes in commercials you see what is obviously a brand name product with the colors of the box etc., but the name of the product is not shown. You can recognise from the packaging colors what product it is supposed to represent, so I’m assuming that the color scheme of a product’s packaging is not protected under copyright. Is this a way of avoiding paying royalties, or whatever?
You see this in televison shows, as well. The character will be drinking what is obviously a can of Coke, but the logo is carefully turned away from the camera. Jerry Seinfeld’s cereal boxes always had logo-side turned to the wall. MTV usually blurs out logos on singer’s clothing. This doesn’t really make sense. Seems like to me that the manufacturers of the product would WANT you to see their logo. I can’t immagine that the television series would have to pay royalties to display a logo, so why all of the avoidance?
Regarding the Tide (labeled vs. non-labeled) issue, I do remember from my marketing communications class that confusion is a big problem in advertising, and people often can’t remember what the ad they saw was for beyond the simple fact that it was a detergent. Worse yet, many may actually think that your ad was FOR Tide, and your ads may actually help the competitors. I specifically remember an example given to us in advertising for SUVs where different models were compared. The end result was that no one could remember which vehicle the ad was for, and if one mentioned a certain vehicle as the ‘leading brand’ even if shown in a negative light, it was still the one people picked.
As far as the ‘obvious’ colors of a given brand go (where you don’t show the name), I think it could be two things: 1) You want smart people to recognize it’s Tide, but the dumb people not to be able to pick up on the competitor 2) You may not be able to actually back up your claim and in fact, may be slandering the other product (i.e. maybe your product actually SUCKS compared to Tide in independent tests, but by not showing the name, you don’t open yourself up to a lawsuit. I certainly don’t think you have to pay royalties)
As far as the MTV blurred labels and brand names turned the wrong way, my theory there is that the TV show producers probably approach a number of companies asking them if they want their products used as product placements, and if so…pay up! If the advertiser says no, then perhaps they use the product anyway, but turn the label. You may be able to still tell it’s a Coke the TV characters are drinking, but that’s probably more a function of the fact that they want you to see he’s just drinking a generic drink. If the character was drinking from a non-descript silver can with no label, it would actually stick out more and draw attention away from whatever the TV show was about, which you don’t want either. In other words, it’s a convenient way for TV producers to extort money from advertisers that, if it doesn’t work out, all they have to do is make a few minor changes by hiding the brand names.
Yarster has it pretty much right. Product placement is a big thing in the owrld of marketing.
Just remember – the TV show or movie doesn’t pay the manufacturer, the manufacturer pays them. Not all TV shows do it, that’s why every once in awhile you’ll see a beer labeled “BEER” or a box of cereal with a made-up name. And the deal may go so far as to stipulate that they don’t show a competitor.
Regarding the product ad comparisons, they often wind up being argued in front of an organization called the Television Advertising Bureau. But the process takes so long that the commercials are usually off the air by the time a ruling is made.
I understand all the words, they just don’t make sense together like that.
Is the Bureau some kind of advertising court? Let’s say Tide calls up the Television Advertising Bureau and says “Blammo’s commercial says that Tide sucks!!” Is there a kind of trial? What can the Bureau really do about it? Can Blammo be fined, and if so, who gets paid the money that they’re fined? Tide? The Bureau itself? Can Blammo be sued in civil court if the Bureau sees it Tide’s way? Is there any history of one company suing another for false advertisement claims?
Sometimes the comparisons are just tricky language. You can, for instance, often say your product is the best, since if all products are similar, they are all considered best. That’s why you so often hear the construction “nothing works better than OurBrand.” Translated, this means “it works about the same as everything else.”
However, if you say “OurBrand is better than TheirBrand,” then you’d better have some facts to back it up.
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” – Strother Martin, anticipating the Internet.
An interesting us of “product placement” is the tobacco co’s paying film co’s to show characters smoking. Not smoking a particular brand, now, they agreed to stop that, but just smoking cigs. Of course, sometimes it is used to show someone is nervous, or addictive, or “bad”, but if there ssems to be no reason to showing a char smoking, there IS --$$$$
Have you seen the new ‘digital product placement’? For instance, in the original movie, there are some generic videotape boxes sitting on the coffeetable during a scene, but when it goes to video, they are Blockbuster boxes… but not just ANY Blockbuster boxes, Blockbuster boxes that glow brighter than their surroundings! With simple technology, placement deals can now be renegotiated at every stage of release from the trailers to the release to cable to video to network to syndication…
truly evil.
The use of the word Blockbuster in the preceding story was not compensated.
As for MTV bluring products out in videos… The above stated reason is probably the real reason, but IIRC, their actual stated reason for starting that a few years ago goes something like this…
Every now and then, you hear about someone (usually a kid) getting killed or badly injured so that someone else (also usually a kid) could steal their <insert popular name brand> shoes, jacket, or hat. Well… MTV thinks that seeing these name brand products used by video stars makes said products popular among the viewers. MTV’s theory is that if they stop showing any name brand products being used by people the viewers look up to, that will help prevent people getting hurt or killed for their <insert popular name brand> shoes, jacket, or hat.
Good ol’ socially responsible MTV.
Hmmmm… I wonder if they would refuse playing a paid commercial in which a video star explicitly endorsed a product such as <insert popular name brand> shoes, jackets, or hats? Nah… of course not… they’d merely blur out the product.
Things are random only insofar as we don’t understand them.
This technology is also being used in sitcoms and TV shows that are sponsored by a particular company. The company’s logos are seen in the original broadcast (and presumably the mid-season reruns), but changes the product placements for syndication.
Now, given the fact that in the middle of entertainment, our time is being used to ‘encourage’ us to purchase the same product that our favourite characters are using, I feel like I should be billing the advertisers for my time watching their product being used.
[rant]
Movies are a different matter. With the 10-15 minutes of commercials at the beginning and the product placements (usually blatant), I am considering creating an invoice to hand to the theatre manager for my time spent being advertised to. I am paying for the entertainment, not for someone to be in my face selling me stuff.
(see pit for telemarketers thread…)
[/rant]
Oh, and there are also the virtual ads in Baseball games and, if I recall correctly, at Wimbledon and/or other events where ads visible in the field of play would be too garish or commericial for the ticket-holders, but not so for the TV audience. They use the same “10 yard line” technology to “place” the batters in front of the ads digitally painted over the backstop, etc.
