Mainly because while product placement deals seemed to become what we think of it now in the 90’s the 70’s and 80’s seem to be an absolutely wild west of product placement where things that wouldn’t happen today were constantly happening.
My example being the movie “Cobra” has product placement from all 3 major cola companies. Cobra’s apartment has a giant neon PEPSI sign so every-time there’s an establishing shot of his apartment we see that giant Pepsi sign and Pepsi products pop-up often enough that it seems like they were the main sponsor of the film. However in a later dinner scene we see the main characters drinking Coca-Cola and the cans are clearly oriented towards the camera so we can see their logos which makes it seem deliberately. And further later on during a scene we see the characters in a bar with a giant ROYAL CROWN COLA logo next to a fridge full of RC Cola.
Now today obviously one of those soda manufacturers would have clamped down on them showing off their competitors products in the same movie, but how did it work back then? Did nobody at the Pepsi product placement department realize the movie producers were taking money from everyone? Or was that allowed back then?
The Wikipedia article on product placement offers examples from very early in movie history (including, possibly, in a Lumiere brothers film from 1876). So it’s not a new thing by any means.
This brings to mind a pre-‘90s example that apparently didn’t make the Wiki page: sure, Pepsi paid good money to get Michael J. Fox earnestly declaring for their famous drink in BACK TO THE FUTURE — but they’re not going to not have him ask to buy a Tab, because that’s just too good an opportunity to pass up.
Some of the examples in the Wikipedia article are not paid product placement. The “Life Saver” gag in Horsefeathers was obviously scripted as a joke; the Marx’s also made a joke about Ford cars in The Coconuts and one about Dodge in A Day at the Races. Love Happy, however is an unambiguous example of modern product placement: the movie was short on budget so asked advertisers to pay in exchange for using their trademark.
There were no rules for product placement; it depends on what the trademark owner can negotiate. And the appearance of a trademark is not a sign that the product was placed – the movie doesn’t have to get permission to use a product. Otherwise it would be impossible to shoot on location in a city. Placement is to ensure a prominent display, but the first amendment overrules trademark law. Movies get product placement deals not because they need permission, but because they want the extra money.
And the idea of exclusivity is not as strong as it used to be. There used to be contracts forbidding two competitors to run ads on TV too close together, but now you’ll see two car ads from different manufacturers in a row.
There are at least 5 sleazy injury law firms that advertise on Judge Judy and syndicated episodes of The Goldbergs in my area. Sometimes you’ll see three different firms’ ads in a row. And two of them (run by brothers who used to practice together) frequently make subtle digs at each other.
I was wondering about this just this past weekend. I was watching Jack Lemon and Walter Matthau in the original The Odd Couple on TCM, and there were real products everywhere with no attempts to disguise them at all. Schlitz beer on the table during the poker game, Lays potato chips being thrown around, Pepsi bottles in the kitchen, and many more, including the real sports logo on Oscar Madison’s cap. Did they have to pay for all that? Or did they get paid to have it shown? Or was it just not an issue in the 60s?
I can think of other instances, mostly on 70s TV, where they made efforts to cover or disguise logos or invented fake products with similar sounding names to the real thing.
You were never required to pay to show a product on screen or TV; you still aren’t. Movies get paid for placement because the manufacturers agree to pay. If one doesn’t want to, the show could still use the product, but they usually find someone else who’s willing?
In early TV, a show was paid for by a sponsor, so you would only show their products, but that’s no longer true.
But no trademark holder objects to free exposure of the product.
The earliest example in my own personal memory is the 1978 Superman movie which prominently features a box of Cheerios and has a line in the closing credits (“Cheerios by General Mills”).
Oh, yes I quite liked it myself, I am not complaining about it at all, it was nice to see it done in such an unforced, nonchalant way that kept the products as the window dressing they should be.
At least that’s how I’d like to imagine it was before product placement became so prominent and in-your-face that it spoils the story of what you are watching because it is so painfully obvious a commercial is being crammed into the narrative.
It was, of course, very common for car companies to sponsor TV shows in the 60s and 70s where every car actually being driven by a character was from that manufacturer.
Of course, lots of guys wanted a 1968 Ford Mustang GT Fastback after Bullitt (1968), even though the Dodge Chargers were a lot faster in the real world.
I dunno about the 60s but any time you see something from any of the big four – hat, t-shirt, poster, whatever – nowadays, you’ll see in the end credits something like “Trademarked items used with permission of <MLB/NFL/NBA/NHL>” and I’d bet money went from the producer’s pocket to the league’s. NASCAR, too.
As far a movies go, the most obvious example of car sponsorship to my untrained eye is It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World. Not sure what make & model those cars were, but so many of them were the same that it really sticks out as not being a possible random sample of cars on the road in California in the early 60s.
For TV shows, Bewitched comes to mind. Darren and Samantha had a real thing for muscle cars, and they always got such a nice shot of him or her pulling into the driveway in a shiny new model. I think they were all Cheverolets and Pontiacs. And usually convertibles too, but I know that is just because it makes the action and dialogue easier to shoot.
Smokey and the Bandit. Not content to merely just showcase the Trans Am, they also had Burt Reynolds in a satin Trans Am dealer’s jacket for most of the movie.
That’s interesting. Not being snarky; a real question: why then do shows often blur out T-shirts or cap logos? Do the trademark holders object? If so, why not just change shirts? (I’m sure this has been asked before–it’s too obvious a question.)
I was thinking this too. I recall at the end credits of shows (Bewitched for example), there was the line, “Promotional consideration from these manufacturers,” or something like that. I always thought of that like a barter system. “We’ll provide you with our cars so your characters can get around town, but you have to prominently show they’re our cars.”
In researching topics like copyright and trademark in years past, there’s one thing I learned: it ain’t simple.
I don’t want to buy into the hijack, but it was discussed at my house too. That place was a palace. And it was right near 5th Avenue it seems. I guess New York prices weren’t yet New York prices.
It sold a helluva lot more Trans Ams, Firebirds and Camaros. I am from Georgia, trust me, I know. That movie is practically a documentary of my teen years, right down to Sally Field’s hair.
