The owner of the logo may not want their brand associated with the show’s content
The producers don’t want to give away what would essentially be free advertising (and, most likely, the owner of the logo wasn’t willing to pay the producers to have it shown)
The producers or the network have a sponsorship arrangement with a competitor to that brand
It’s copywrited material (particularly in the case of artwork)
One of my earliest memories of product placement is also from Superman. During the Metropolis fight, Superman throws Zod (or maybe Non) into a giant Coca Cola neon sign.
Don’t forget that the shirt or sign might be offensive or obscene.
When it comes to reality shows (like Cops or its descendants), it’s probably just much easier to blur anything out that might involve having to get in contact with the manufacturer or the owner of the copyright. Why waste the time when you can just tell the editor to get rid of it?
Are you suggesting that the logo’s owner has any ability to force this, or that it’s just good manners on the part of the show’s producer to not show it?
I’ve seen this suggested a number of times, but I don’t think there’s any obligation here.
If I’m filmed being an asshole while holding a can of Coke that you can read the label of, the Coca Cola corporation can’t make me blur out the can because they don’t like what I’m doing while holding it.
I think that’s taking worry over something a bit too far. Coca Cola is practically as embedded in society today as water and air. Oh looky! Oxygen is the preferred respiratory chemical of Neo-Nazis! Don’t show them breathing!
My older brother worked in the advertising industry in the 70’s and 80’s as a media buyer. One of the accounts he worked with was STP Oil. He told me at the time that STP paid a large sum of money to have a guy walk through a scene in the movie Airplane! wearing a white coverall with a large STP logo on the back
Google “James Bond product placement”. Watching some James Bond movie on TV has to be my earliest memory of product placement signage, and I pointed it out to my dad, who just spent the rest of the movie pointing out that much more than signage and logos was also product placement.
When one of the relatively recent James Bond films was released (I think Goldeneye) an article I saw said the production cost was recovered solely through the product placement fees.
Only to have it messed up by implying Pepsi Free didn’t have sugar. It did, if Marty wanted it otherwise he should have asked for Diet Pepsi Free. Regular Pepsi Free had no caffeine, not no sugar!
I had the watch he wore in +++++++ ! (movie name blurred out because they haven’t paid me ) My dad bought it in HK and my mother wore it for a while. It wasn’t magnetic, didn’t deflect bullets or help unzip girls…
What about the Reese’s Pieces being used to lure ET? When Mars turned down the offer to have M&Ms in the movie, Spielberg went with Hershey’s, who didn’t even have to pay for the placement. They ended up paying a million dollars afterward, for movie/candy tie-ins.
the film, Burning Man: Beyond Black Rock is a documentary that for the most part covers on the effort it takes to put it on or show up with some art. The opening scene is The Man collapsing in flames then text appears in the corner, The Man Burns in 364 Days. Among other things, three artists are shown planning and executing their piece for the next event. One of them involved the artist making a life cast of a model for his work. The nude woman was fine with the film makers, but the logo on the artist’s polo shirt was blurred.
) My dad bought it in HK and my mother wore it for a while. It wasn’t magnetic, didn’t deflect bullets or help unzip girls… 